meeting_id
stringlengths 27
37
| source
stringlengths 596
386k
| type
stringlengths 4
42
| reference
stringlengths 75
1.1k
| city
stringclasses 6
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
SeattleCityCouncil_08012016_CB 118719 | Speaker 0: All right. A report of the civil rights, utilities and economic development and. Item five I was just testing you your read on. Please read the next report, please.
Speaker 6: Agenda item five Accountable 118 719 Relating to the Municipal Arts Fund amending section 20.30 2.0 50 of the Shadow Minister Code to allow for expenditures related to public art, maintenance and ratifying. Confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 6: Thank you. So this ordinance would specifically address the issues related to the Municipal Arts Fund, specifically the change promoted by the council during the budget process last year. And specifically, this allows expenditures on public arts to come directly from the Municipal Arts Fund rather than the Community Community Reserve Sub Fund.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: So what?
Speaker 1: Councilmember Suarez.
Speaker 2: Baker Burgess Gonzalez I Purple High Johnson whereas O'Brien.
Speaker 4: High.
Speaker 2: President Harrell high nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passes in the chair will sign it. Read item six three together place. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE related to the Municipal Arts Fund; amending Section 20.32.050 of the Seattle Municipal Code to allow for expenditures related to public art maintenance; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07252016_Res 31683 | Speaker 8: Agenda item one Clerk File 314352. Report of the City Clerk on the Certificate of Sufficiency for initiative number 124. Concerning health and safety standards put to check to protect hotel employees in Seattle.
Speaker 0: Okay. So how we'll proceed is I'll sort of describe a narrative of this clerk file. Actually, this is the Clarke file, so I'll do that for the resolution. I think it's on the Clark file, which is basically a report of the Clark file, which is sort of a routine part of it sort of proceeding. I'll just. I think then that's a I think that's just a resolution vote. That's just a hand vote. Right.
Speaker 8: The clerk file has been visually filed now. And if you'd like, I can read the report of the full council for resolution 31683. Yeah.
Speaker 0: So this one sector, I know it's a little scanty on this part, so I think I just called for a vote. I don't have to do a roll call on that. Right.
Speaker 8: I'm a clerk file. Oh, no, no. Okay.
Speaker 0: So on the we'll talk about the resolution in a moment for for the clerk file. Are there any comments on the clerk file? So all those approving the clerk file, 3143584352. I'm sorry, but I. I oppose. No, the ayes have it, and the clerk file is now filed. So read the next report to the full council, which is the resolution that accompanies that, please.
Speaker 8: Agenda item two Resolution 31683. A resolution regarding a voter proposed initiative measure concerning health, labor and safety standards for Seattle Hotel employees. Authorizing the City Clerk and the Executive Director of the Ethics and Elections Commission to take those actions necessary to enable the proposed initiative to appear on the November eight, 2016 ballot. And the voters and the Local Voters pamphlet requesting the King County Elections Director to place the proposed initiative on the November eight two, 2016 election ballot and providing for the publication of such proposed amendment.
Speaker 0: Okay, here we go. So let me do this. Let me describe sort of a narration of where we are. And then at some point my intent is to move for approval of the resolution. But before I describe the narrative, we can certainly have any comments or any questions or any other motions that my colleagues think appropriate. By the way, I wanted to thank all my colleagues for the extended public testimony that was 40 minutes over are a lot of 20 minutes. And thank you for your indulgence, because we certainly do treasure it when people come down to testify. So on July 8th, the King County Elections Department notified our clerk that the initiative Measure 1 to 4 had sufficient valid signatures. And from that point, the clerk had 20 days from that the from the night from the date notified to transmit the initiative together with her report to the council at a regular meeting. And today the clerk city clerk has introduced the report of the certificate of sufficient sufficiency of our initiative. Measure 1 to 4 in clerk file through 14352. That's the action we just took. Now, after the introduction of the initial initiative, the Council has 45 days to decide whether to do one of the following. Number one, the Council can pass the initiative as a bill otherwise referred to as doing that council manically. The Council can send the initiative to the voters. Or three pass an alternative bill and send both the alternative bill and the initiative to the voters. And voters would have a choice at that point. Any measure for the November 8th, 2016 ballot in November ballot must be submitted to the King County elections by August 2nd. So that's next Tuesday. So that's sort of where we are. And I would sort of take the license to say that the process by which we would do that count semantically, certainly we have not had a lot of time to review this this issue. And we've had many discussions in the last week or two about the bill as at in whole. So a little bit about the substance of Initiative 124. Specifically. And you heard some really great testimony as to what it does. But let me just sort of reiterate some parts and introduce some parts that haven't been discussed, disclosed. First, the hotel employers would be required to provide employees who work alone in a guest room, a panic button. And we heard descriptions of how that is offered in other jurisdictions, hotel employers must record accusations that a guest has committed an act of violence against an employee and maintain records for five years. Guest accused of an assault or sexual assault or sexual harassment may not return to the hotel for three years, and each guest room will have a sign advising that the law protects hotel employees from violent assault and sexual harassment, and that employees have panic buttons. And employees reporting an act of violence by a guest will be assigned a different floor or work area and must be given paid time to contact the police and consult a counselor. Second part of it protects the hotel employees from injury. And we we hope that there be a reduction of workplace injuries by limiting an employee to 5000 square feet of guest room cleanings per 8 hours per workday. This initiative provides information on hazardous chemicals and control chemicals to protect employees from hazardous contact or exposure to chemical agents. There's another section of it which is improves access to medical care for low income hotel employees. And I think you heard testimony about how important that is. In order for employees to afford family medical coverage, large and growing employers must pay full time, low wage employees by the 15th of each month in addition to wages or a salary of either $200, or the difference between the monthly premium for the lowest cost. What was described as a goal level policy available on the Washington Health Benefit Exchange and 7.5% of the amount in employees wages that exceeds 100% of the federal poverty level. So this is is this amount is separate from the minimum wage required. There's another part, Section four, that prevents disruptions in the hotel industry. So when a hotel ownership changes, the outgoing employee shall, within 15 days, provide the new owner with employment information on current employees. And the incoming hotel employer will main show maintain a preference of hiring lists of current employees and hire from that list from the date of ownership transfer six months after the hotel is open under the incoming employer and there's another Section five which is enforced enforcing compliance with the law. So retaliation, make it very clear, is clearly prohibited. Employers may not interfere with employees rights under this law or discharge or discriminate against employees asserting their rights. And this includes communications regarding employees citizenship or immigration status. Employers are entitled to preliminary relief and reinstatement. Employees have a private right of action to enforce these rights and are entitled to costs, reasonable attorney's fees and expenses if they prevail. I didn't describe all of what of the components of 124, but I sort of wanted to give the least the public sort of a summary of some of the important components of 124. Before I actually move adoption 431683 of the resolution which has the effect of placing it on the ballot in November with any of my colleagues like to say any words or comments regarding initiative 124. Councilmember Herbert, please.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Private businesses can and do create internal policies to ask customers to leave their businesses from issues ranging from public inebriation, verbal outbursts, property destruction and shoplifting. Businesses can and do regularly ask their customers to leave their businesses. Businesses need to be able to do that in order to protect their business interests. But if hotels had a similar policy regarding sexual harassment to protect its workers, we wouldn't be here today. 53% of hotel workers have experienced harassment. A similar case could be made to the initiative's provisions for panic buttons and maximum workloads. It's precisely because employers don't have policies to protect their workers that workers themselves have had come together to propose a law that they must. Women, immigrants and other people of color are entitled to safe and healthy workplaces. And though it's certainly inspiring that they have, it's unfortunate that these courageous women have had to add to their already heavy workload in order to campaign to pass this law, which in more fair workplaces would already be a workplace policy.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold, Councilmember Brian.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President Harel, I appreciate your overview of this legislation. I will certainly be supporting this resolution. You know, in the course of the work that citizens have done to bring this to our attention, to gather signatures, write the legislation. I've heard a lot of stories from folks who work in this industry and the experience they've had. I've heard those stories in reading media accounts over those stories from public testimony here, heard the stories from the people who work in this industry outside this room, informing me and others about what that experience has been like. And I want to just commend those who've been willing to come forward and tell their stories. And the workers who have done that are a powerful group of people that have showed a lot of courage to speak for the conditions that they're facing today, knowing that they potentially risk retaliation. And their courage means a lot. Well, this is a group of courageous and powerful people. We know that the majority of people working on this are women and women of color. Often folks that are recent immigrants to this country and that population is often at a higher risk of being exploited by employers. Now, I want to believe that the majority of employers would not want to stand for this. But we continue to see incidences and hear stories of this happening. Making this initiative critically important. Nobody in our community or anywhere, frankly, should have to trade off the ability to to earn a living, to support their family with threats of sexual harassment or abuse. Nobody should trade off the ability to support their family with the physical harm of repeated physical stress on their body. And these workers, like all, should have access to a robust health care system and job security. And this initiative, I believe, takes us in the right direction on all those. And I'm proud to vote yes on this resolution.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brian. Councilmember Gonzales.
Speaker 10: You almost said I did.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I.
Speaker 10: Heard the whole. Oh, coming out.
Speaker 1: I heard all of this.
Speaker 10: I'm. So I guess one's a no brainer for me. It's it's obvious that I'll be voting yes on this resolution in support of sending I 124 to the voters in November. And I want to talk a little bit from the heart about why. So I grew up in a low income family in central Washington, an immigrant family. My parents were from Mexico. I grew up in a monolingual, Spanish speaking household. And one of the jobs that I did growing up and to pay for my way through college is working at a hotel. And I got the easy job. I got to check in people at the front. I got to occasionally have to fold towels and fold sheets. And I had to do the occasional off the clock work and go pick up donuts for the guests at 5:00 in the morning. And that was all while I was in college. I got the easy jobs because I spoke English. And because I was born in this country and I recognize that that's a privilege, even within my own oppressed category. And I have since then. After I went to law school, I dedicated my career to representing victims, survivors of sexual assault, sexual violence and sexual harassment. And all of them were women. All of them. Most of them were monolingual Spanish speakers, and most of them were undocumented. And I saw firsthand and heard stories firsthand in our own city, stories from dozens of women who would come to my office completely deflated, shattered, and frankly, without hope, because what happened to them after they had the courage to stand up against that type of awful workplace behavior, was that they were fired. Or they were subjected to even worse harassment. I have no reason to believe that the hotel industry is an outlier as it relates to the pervasiveness of sexual harassment and sexual assault in the workplace that may not be condoned by hotel owners or proprietors, but we need to make sure that hotel owners and proprietors are doing the right thing. And I believe the passage of I 124 is the right thing for our workers and particularly for our women of color who work really, really hard to provide this great service to guests and tourists who spend time in hotels. And, you know, when I walk into a hotel, it's the first thing I think of when I watch these hotel workers in the hallways. I see the pride that they have in their work. But I also see the fact that they are oftentimes by guests in hotels, relegated to feeling like they are third class citizens. And that's wrong. So I am really excited about this particular initiative. I'm excited about supporting this initiative, and I will be proudly casting my vote in favor of this particular resolution.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember. Councilmember. So what?
Speaker 2: Thank you, President Harrell. I would like to thank hotel workers and their union unite here local eight for all their leadership in putting this ballot initiative together. I've done this sort of work myself and I know what an incredible task that is. Aside from the courage and determination that you need, hotel workers are constantly at risk of sexual harassment and assault. And it's precisely because those jobs are invisible jobs. And many of the largest hotels are notorious for failing to protect the housekeepers in order to coddle the continued patronage of wealthy guests no matter the crime they commit. Hotel workers in Unite Here need to be commended for doing all the work to bring forward this ballot initiative to defend themselves against these assaults, particularly attacks against women. They wrote the legislation. They gathered tens of thousands of signatures to put it on the ballot with few resources and without the wealthy donors that are normally needed to pay for signature gatherers. They have shown leadership to accomplish something that the city council and the mayor could have and should have done years ago. I am glad to support the request of the hotel workers to place this on the ballot today. But I would also add that the City Council has lost an opportunity to show the kind of leadership that these hotel workers have shown. Last week, only Councilmember Juarez and I supported amending the introduction and referral calendar to introduce the clerk file. We just voted on a few minutes ago. The result is that today the Council does not have the opportunity to adopt AI 124 directly into law, and our only choice is to put it on the ballot. I am, of course, glad that the City Council is voting today to put it on the ballot, but I personally regret not having the option to vote to adopt this directly into law because I do not think that hotel workers who are already working such hours and are already struggling against such odds should have to now additionally campaign for this from now until November to have these basic protections put into place. However, I have no doubt that they will work hard from now until election day. And you have all my support. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Any other comments from any of my colleagues before I move the legislation are seeing then I will move to adopt resolution 31683. Any further comments? And thank you for all those very inspirational words and stories. Those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The ayes have it and the motion carries. The resolution is adopted. By adopting this resolution to place initiative measure 1 to 4 on the ballot. The report of the report of this certificate of sufficiency is now closed. So thank you very much for your testimony of be on the ballot next report into the to the agenda please. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION regarding a voter-proposed Initiative Measure concerning health, labor, and safety standards for Seattle hotel employees; authorizing the City Clerk and the Executive Director of the Ethics and Elections Commission to take those actions necessary to enable the proposed Initiative to appear on the November 8, 2016 ballot and the local voters' pamphlet; requesting the King County Elections' Director to place the proposed Initiative on the November 8, 2016 election ballot; and providing for the publication of such proposed amendment. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07252016_Res 31678 | Speaker 0: So thank you very much for your testimony of be on the ballot next report into the to the agenda please.
Speaker 8: Report of the full council agenda item three resolution 31678a resolution relating to the City Light Department adopting a 2017 to 2022 strategic plan for the City Lite Department and endorsing a six year rate path required to support the strategic plan we referred to for Council on July 18th, 2016.
Speaker 0: Okay, I'm going to turn to Councilmember, so I want to sort of tee this one up and I believe there might be a minute or two amendment or two, and we'll get to that when we get to that controversial one.
Speaker 2: Thank you, brethren. How this resolution adopt Seattle to the Allied Strategic Plan as amended in the Select Committee. For those who do not know yet, said it. Seattle to Your Light produces a six year strategic plan and updated every two years. The plan looks into the expected cost the utility will incur and recommends a rate increase or decrease to to address those costs. In September, City Light will send us a drafted rate ordinance that actually adopts those rates. And during the budget process, we will pass the up pass the ordinance that actually adopts those budget items, theoretically, both in accordance with the general plan discussed here. The strategic plan anticipates an average rate increase of 4.3% a year over the next three six years, with a rate increase of 5.6% in 2017. But again, those rates are not actually put in place until the council votes on the rate ordinance itself in September. I would like to note also that the Council amended the strategic plan to indicate our intent to address the apprenticeship programs to bring people historically excluded from these jobs, particularly women and people of color, into the field. And as you know, in committee, I again brought forward, as I had done in 2014, an amendment to combine the red clauses to relate uses to differentiate business customers from residential customers into a single rate class. One practical implication of that change would be to relieve regular people, working people of the impact of the rate increase. However, again, that amendment was not you know, I didn't bring it forward for a vote because there wasn't support from council members in. But as I argued then in the context of Washington State having the most regressive tax structure in the country, I do not support increasing the utility rates on regular working class people. I will support the revenue requirements in the strategic plan and will vote in favor of it, of course. But in September I intend to vote against any rate increases if nothing is changed regarding which customers are expected to pay for it. Councilmembers Herbold and Suarez have an amendment. Or rather, Councilmember Herbold had an amendment and Councilmember Waters and has an amendment amendment to the amendment, both of which I fully support. So I suggest we do under discussion over them.
Speaker 0: President Very good. Councilmember Herbold, would you like to introduce your amendment first?
Speaker 10: Yes, thank you. And I can with Councilmember Suarez's permission, I could read the language that she has offered together with that amendment that work.
Speaker 0: For her before you start in your amendment. The word economic is inserted in there correctly.
Speaker 7: That's correct.
Speaker 0: Okay. And it wasn't in councilmember words, but since this caption, yours were good. Okay.
Speaker 7: It's the other way around.
Speaker 0: It's the other way around.
Speaker 7: Yeah, but.
Speaker 10: But we've got it in there now.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 0: Very good.
Speaker 10: On Councilmember words. Is wise counsel.
Speaker 7: To do so? Absolutely.
Speaker 10: So it now read section eight. The council requests that City Light include with its next next strategic plan update a report that identifies the impacts on existing customer rate classes of establishing a single rate class while preserving the existing low income discount program for low income customers. The report should clearly identify any legal, technical or practical issues with establishing such a single class structure, especially as it relates to City Lights franchise agreements with neighboring jurisdictions. The report should include an analysis of the economic impacts to Seattle and the region, and the version that I passed out this after this morning asked that the report come with the next the next ordinance after discussion with council central staff, it was decided that it made more sense for that report to come with the next strategic plan update.
Speaker 0: Very good. So you're you made a formal motion?
Speaker 10: I am. I did not. But I. But I will. Thank you.
Speaker 0: I say as such, all you had to do was say yes, but go ahead.
Speaker 10: I am moving the amendment to the new Section eight to second.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Has been moved in a second to amend resolution 31678, as stated by Councilmember Herbold. Any further comments? All those in favor of Councilmember Herbals amendment say i. I. Polls say no, the ayes have it. We have an amended resolution. Councilmember Suarez. Did you capture hers as well? Okay. Too many papers in front of me. So. So that amendment captured both yours and hers, correct? Mm hmm. Okay. Very good. Any other comments? Now that we have an amended resolution. 31678. CNN. All those in favor of adopting resolution followed by all those opposed Vote No. The most curious or amended resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Thank you very much. Just want to say. Report of the Education, Equity and Governance Committee. Please read the report over Sinosteel.
Speaker 8: Oh, thank you. They're part of the Education, Equity and Governance Committee agenda item for appointment four or five for appointment of Christopher M Gregg Rich as director of the Office of Intergovernmental Relations. The committee recommends the appointment be confirmed. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION relating to the City Light Department; adopting a 2017-2022 Strategic Plan for the City Light Department and endorsing a six-year rate path required to support the Strategic Plan. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07252016_CB 118715 | Speaker 0: I think those are nice rhythm there. Those oppose vote no, the ayes have it and the appointment is confirmed. Next agenda item place.
Speaker 8: The report of the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee. Agenda Item seven Council Bill 118715. Related to increasing the business license, tax certificate fee and amending sections 5.30.060 and 5.55.03 of the Seattle Municipal Code. The committee recommends the bill pass as amended.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Burgess.
Speaker 4: Thank you. This item and the next item are two revenue ordinances related to our city business and occupation tax and the business license fee. And Councilmember, as I put it, each of your positions a table that explains this first ordinance. This first ordinance will adjust how we charge for the business license fee. It shifts to a tiered approach and is phased in in 2017 through 2019. For each of these three years, about 85% of all businesses in Seattle will be held harmless and will pay the same business license fee as they pay today for larger companies. They will pay more as we advance through these three years, and that gives us a better proportional distribution of these fees and the resulting revenue that we can achieve. I want to thank councilmembers Herbold and Johnson for working on this with my office and coming up with this alternative proposal that came out of committee. And I urge its passage today.
Speaker 0: Any other comments or questions by my colleagues? Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 3: Just want to say thank you. Council Member Burgess. We when we walked into this process in my office, wanted to take a closer look at the proposal that the Mayor had laid out. When we first received this proposal. It set forth to fund about two thirds of the proposed increase. We sort of set a policy goal of 80%. So thanks for working with us to get towards that policy goal, which I hope. Knock on wood gives this body a more stable revenue source to stand on when we get into the budget discussions a couple of years down the line. So one of that, thanks for working with us so proactively.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Yes. Echoing Councilmember Johnson's thanks to Councilmember Burgess, the chair of the committee was very adept at recognizing that the members of his committee had different policy objectives and did a great job working with both of us to accomplish ours. Mine in particular, was an interest in holding smaller businesses harmless from the increase, as well as creating a new tier for higher performing businesses. And I think that the rate structure before us today does so.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any other comments?
Speaker 4: One last comment.
Speaker 0: Councilmember.
Speaker 4: Burgess. Thank you. One last comment. After the three year phase in in 17, 18 and 19, this legislation then adopts an automatic inflationary adjustment to these rates going forward based on the CPI.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Hearing no further comments. Please call the role on the passage of the Bill.
Speaker 1: O'Brien by Sergeant Burgess i. Gonzalez Johnson Juarez I. Herbold I President Harrell I Adan favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Will pass and show assignment next. Agenda item, please. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE related to increasing the Business License Tax Certificate Fee and amending Sections 5.30.060 and 5.55.030 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07252016_CB 118726 | Speaker 0: Bill passed and the chair will sign it. Report the Park, Shell Center, Libraries and Waterfront Committee.
Speaker 8: The Report of the Park Seattle Center Libraries and Waterfront Committee Agenda Item nine Council Bill 118726 relating to the Mercer Arena authorizing the director of the Seattle Center Department to execute a Third Amendment to the Mercer Arena, groundless between the City of Seattle and Seattle Opera. And lifting a budget proviso, the committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Suarez.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I actually have three matters. Items nine, ten and 11. And let's just get this done. First of all, I want to thank Council President Harrell, my trustee, vice chair and Councilmember Bagshaw, and thank all the people that provided public comment for the last seven months to all three of these very important items that make our city, our waterfront and our parks so great. The first one approves a proviso limit of 200,000 that will advance a budget allocation of 4.8 million in the 2017 budget. For the development of the new project by the Seattle Opera on the Seattle Center campus, the sale opera will construct a new facility, a just adjacent to McCaw Hall . The new building will operate as a new home to the administration offices and their costume shop. The construction of the space will include development of additional open space for the public and community, space for education and community programs. The city will retain ownership of the new facility and the property underneath. This will add to the portfolio of Active Art Spaces and Seattle Center and open space for the public around Uptown and create more opportunities for involvement in the arts for the underrepresented for underrepresented communities. The committee report recommends that the full council pass council bill. This Council bill.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman words. Are there any comments from any of my colleagues? I'd like to just commend the committee and council members and certainly the community and Robert Dellums for all of this work to sort of make this happen. We are looking at our investments very seriously, and we realize we do have a gem in both the opera and the Mercer Arena. So I think exciting things are on the horizon. So I'm excited about supporting this resolution. Actually this bill and the other comments. Please call a role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: O'Brien.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 1: Sergeant Burgess.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Gonzales. I. Johnson. Whereas I. Herbold President Harrell. I paid in favor and then opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed and the chair will sign it. Next matter place. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Mercer Arena; authorizing the Director of the Seattle Center Department to execute a third amendment to the Mercer Arena Ground Lease between the City of Seattle and Seattle Opera; and lifting a budget proviso. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07252016_CB 118730 | Speaker 0: The bill passed and the chair will sign it. Next matter place.
Speaker 8: Agenda Item ten Council Bill 118730 relating to the Central Waterfront Project authorizing the execution of a memorandum of agreement concerning funding for the Park Central Waterfront Pier's Rehabilitation Project between the City of Seattle and the Friends of the Waterfront. Seattle.
Speaker 0: Councilmember worse.
Speaker 7: Thank you. This allows the Department of Transportation to accept they feel fine. I can never say that word contribution from their friends to the waterfront for the redevelopment of Pier 62 and 63. When this project is done, there will be additional public space on the waterfront for all of Seattle to enjoy. The Friends of the Waterfront have already been working diligently to bring new programs to the waterfront, including their Hot Spot program is bringing free concerts to the waterfront park. This investment in a public asset in public amenity is a great example of how this city can work with local partners to leverage city investments and build what is truly needed and desired for the community and of course, all of Seattle in the Waterfront. The committee recommends that full council pass this bill.
Speaker 0: Any comments from any of my colleagues? Please call the role on the passage of the bill O'Brien.
Speaker 1: So on.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Burgess.
Speaker 4: High.
Speaker 1: Emsa i Johnson whereas I verbal President Harrell I eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed in the show it agenda item number 11, please. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Central Waterfront Project, authorizing the execution of a Memorandum of Agreement concerning funding for the Parks Central Waterfront Piers Rehabilitation project (K732493) between The City of Seattle and the Friends of Waterfront Seattle; authorizing the Director of the Seattle Department of Transportation to accept non-City funds on behalf of the City; amending Ordinance 124927, which adopted the 2016 Budget, including the 2016-2021 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations to the Seattle Department of Transportation and the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation; revising allocations for certain projects in the 2016-2021 CIP; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07252016_CB 118721 | Speaker 0: The bill passed and the chair of the Senate sign it reported the Sustainability and Transportation Committee.
Speaker 8: The Report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee Agenda Item 13 Council Bill 118721 relating to the Seattle Department of Transportation's next generation intelligent transportation system authorizing the Director of the Department of Transportation to acquire, accept and record on behalf of the City of Seattle. A deed for street purposes for a portion of block a City Gardens from Rainier T LLC, a Washington limited liability company. The committee recommends the council bill pass.
Speaker 0: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 4: Thank you. This legislation will authorize the city to purchase a few square feet of property at the corner of a private property along Rainier Avenue for about $2,000. They'll use this property to host a intelligent transportation system. It's an electronic sign that will warn drivers approaching the city on Rainier Avenue, heading north into the city. If there are any traffic incidents they should be aware of or detours that would save them time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Bryant, any comments for any of my colleagues? Please call the role on the passage of the Bill O'Brien.
Speaker 1: Hi, Suzanne Burgess.
Speaker 4: By.
Speaker 1: Gonzales Johnson Suarez Herbold. Hi. President Harrell eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes. The chair will sign it. Which item? Number 14, please. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Department of Transportation’s Next Generation Intelligent Transportation System; authorizing the Director of the Department of Transportation to acquire, accept, and record, on behalf of The City of Seattle, a deed for street purposes for a portion of Block A, City Gardens, from Rainier TT LLC, a Washington limited liability company; laying off, opening, widening, extending, establishing, and designating the property for street purposes; placing the real property conveyed by such deed under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07252016_CB 118723 | Speaker 0: The bill passes. The chair will sign it. Which item? Number 14, please.
Speaker 8: Agenda item 14 Council Bill 118723 relating to the Seattle Department of Transportation jurisdictional property located in lots one, two and three. BLOCK 13 Lakeview addition to the city of Seattle, commonly referred to as 805 Northeast North Lake Place and declaring it a surplus to the city's needs.
Speaker 4: Councilmember O'Brien This is a parcel, as mentioned, at 805 Northeast North Lake Place. It was originally acquired by the city when there was an intent to potentially relocate a street there. That never happened. And this has now been declared surplus by city and other agencies. This Council bill will allow a one year period for the department to negotiate with University of Washington, a fair market purchase of the property. University of Washington has expressed interest in it. At the end of that year, if a deal hasn't been struck, then it will be sold in open market regardless of how it is sold, whether it's university, Washington, anyone else, we will get fair market value for the parcel.
Speaker 0: Think you can send Brian any comments? Please call the role on the passage of the Bill.
Speaker 1: O'Brien.
Speaker 4: AI Salon.
Speaker 1: Burgess Gonzalez, AI Johnson, Juarez AI Herbold, AI President Harrell eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and chair was signing agenda item number 15 and please read the short version of that one. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Department of Transportation jurisdictional property located in Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 13, Lake View Addition to the City of Seattle, commonly referred to as 805 NE Northlake Place (“Property”) and declaring it as surplus to the City’s needs; superseding in part Ordinance 114502 relating to the sale of the Property; authorizing the sale of the Property for fair market value through a negotiated sale to the University of Washington, and if such sale is not completed within one year of being offered for sale then through an open and competitive sales process to be managed by the Department of Finance and Administrative Services; authorizing the Director of Transportation, or his designee, to execute all necessary documents to accomplish the sale of the Property; and designating the proceeds from the sale. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07252016_CB 118724 | Speaker 0: Bill passed and chair was signing agenda item number 15 and please read the short version of that one.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 8: Agenda Item 15 Council Bill 118724 Accepting 22 Limited Purpose Easements for public sidewalk utility, alley turnaround or public access purposes. Placing the real property conveyed by such easements under the jurisdiction of the Seattle Department of Transportation and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
Speaker 0: Cuts from O'Brien.
Speaker 4: Thank you. As as properties get redeveloped or developed for the first time, occasionally they need to provide easements to the public. It may be for right away to have access to parcels. It may be for access for utilities. Each of those easements requires an ordinance on the part of the city. The State Department of Transportation, by practice, has accumulated these until they get about 20 of those and bring them to us collectively. These are the types of bills we've seen before, and with the amount of development, we'll probably see them fairly frequently going forward. Fairly routine. This is a city accepting property that has been deeded to us so that we have access to it and a new development.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any comments? Please call the role on the passage of the Bill O'Brien.
Speaker 1: I So aren't I. Burgess I. Gonzalez Right.
Speaker 3: Johnson I.
Speaker 1: Was I. Herbold II President Harrell Rite Aid in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed and chair will sign it to an item number six, please. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE accepting 22 limited purpose easements for public sidewalk, utility, alley turn-around, or public access purposes; placing the real property conveyed by such easements under the jurisdiction of the Seattle Department of Transportation; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. (This ordinance concerns the following rights-of-way: the alley turn-around in Block 93, D. T. Denny’s First Addition to North Seattle; the sidewalk adjoining Block 7, Pettit’s University Addition to the City of Seattle; the sidewalk adjoining Block 4, Sorenson’s Addition to the City of Seattle; the sidewalks adjoining Block 4, Fairview Homestead Association, for the Benefit of Mechanics and Laborers; the sidewalk adjoining Block 42, Second Addition to the Town of Seattle as laid off by the Heirs of Sarah A. Bell (deceased) (Commonly known as Heirs of Sarah A. Bell’s Second Addition to the City of Seattle); the alley turn-around in Block 33, Boston Co.’s Plat of West Seattle; the sidewalk adjoining Block 33, Boston Co.’s Plat of West Seattle; the sidewalk adjoining Block 60 and Block 61, Woo | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07252016_CB 118734 | Speaker 0: The bill passed and chair will sign it to an item number six, please.
Speaker 8: Agenda item 16 Council Bill 11873 for granting SB Greenwood LLC permission to construct and maintain a public art installation on a portion of First Avenue Northwest southwest of the intersection with Northwest 85th Street. For a ten year term renewable for two successive ten year terms, the committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 4: This was this is a parcel on 85th, just west of Greenwood. It's across the street from the Fred Meyer up in Greenwood. The folks are aware of that. There's a new project being developed. It's a more mixed use development on the south side of 85th as part of that development. That developer of their own accord went out and commissioned some art to be done and that art installation. The intent is that will be installed on the sidewalks when the public right away they came to the council, I believe it was last year to get preliminary approval of the concept and we approve that. Now they are back there, I believe, ready to install that piece of art. This would allow them to essentially rent that space and the public right away, the annual fee. It's a relatively modest footprint that the art will take up and the rent is about $140 a year. This ordinance has a ten year lease and then they can do that renewed twice for two additional ten year periods. I just want to comment that I think it's great to see private developers incorporating public art into their projects. And when someone has thoughtfully decided to do public art, even in public right away, I believe this is an instance that the public will significantly benefit from at no cost to the public. The private developer is bearing the cost of both the art and the lease of this public space.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Bryant, any comments from any colleagues? Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 10: Just a question. So this is not something that was that came out of design review. This is something that they just decided that they want to do themselves.
Speaker 4: I don't believe it was a requirement of the design review process, but it may have been that design review looked at that comprehensively as part of the building. I don't recall that person.
Speaker 10: Do you. Do you know what the art is? Sorry. Do you know what the art is?
Speaker 4: Do I know what it is? Yeah, I can kind of define it. It's like a tripod of three things.
Speaker 8: Art.
Speaker 4: What's that? What is art? Oh, do we have an hour? Because I could really go into this. No, we don't. We do not.
Speaker 3: Have. However, I would say counter to council member, the artist that was commissioned has done one piece, I believe it was in Discovery Park already, and this is sort of a second piece. We had a really good presentation at the committee where we outlined what it looked like, but unfortunately that wasn't attached. But it is a beautiful sort of two story structure that I think I was past there this weekend. I think is going to compliment the area very well and I'd echo your comments. Councilmember Bryant, it's great to see private development taking an interest in more public art.
Speaker 4: Absolutely. I think it has a kind of a tripod footprint, so with the majority installed on top. And so the actual footprint on public property is relatively modest. But it's a you know, it's art. I'm not going to comment on the specifics of the art value to it. I'll let others with more expertize say that.
Speaker 7: I think that description was what I was looking for.
Speaker 0: Thank you for the save. Councilmember Johnson. Although with no further comments, please call the role on the passage of the Bill.
Speaker 1: O'Brien by Sergeant Burgess. By Gonzales Herbold.
Speaker 3: JOHNSON Hi.
Speaker 1: Whereas President Harrell I eight in favor and and opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. So that concludes our agenda items. Is there any further business to come before the council? Councilmember So once.
Speaker 2: President Harrell, I move to be excused from the August eight, 2016 and the August 15, 2016 full council meetings.
Speaker 10: Begin.
Speaker 0: Has been moved and second Councilman Swan be excused for August 8th and August 15th. All those in favor say I, I opposed. The ayes have it. We have it. Any other further business group for the council? Okay. It's been a long day. With that will stand adjourned. Thank you, everybody, and have a great day. Thank you. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE granting SP Greenwood LLC permission to construct and maintain a public art installation on a portion of 1st Avenue Northwest, southwest of the intersection with Northwest 85th Street, for a ten-year term, renewable for two successive ten-year terms; specifying the conditions under which this permit is granted; and providing for the acceptance of the permit and conditions. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06272016_Res 31675 | Speaker 3: Agenda Item nine Resolution 316 75 related to the Seattle Police Department over time usage and progress reports to the Gender Equity, Safe Communities and New Americans Committee on Implementation of City Auditor Recommendations from the April 2016 Overtime Audit. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President Harrell This is a resolution related to the Seattle Police Department overtime usage and progress reports that will be required from the Department to the Gender Equity Safe Communities and Americans Committee on implementation of a set of 30 recommendations from the City Auditor from the April 2016 overtime audit. In essence, as I mentioned this morning, the chief of police, when she first arrived, I think about three or four months after she arrived as our chief of police made we made a request to our city city auditor's office to have the overtime usage and processes and tools at the Seattle Police Department be subject to an audit by the city auditor. As the result of that particular request, there were 30 recommendations that were issued by the city auditor related to some failings in control systems at the Seattle Police Department. And all of those 30 recommendations were accepted by the police department. And this resolution is intended to, in a in a different way, impose upon the Seattle Police Department clear milestones and deadlines and expectations around deliverables in terms of how it is they are complying with the auditor's recommendations. This this resolution, in my mind, is critically important to ensure that we continue to have a police department that is accountable, not just in police misconduct, police accountability, police discipline issues, but also on the operations side. And I think that Councilmember Burgess made a very fine point in committee last week when we heard from the department that they would like to engage in a conversation around whether the overtime budget allocated to the department is accurate. In response to that, Councilmember Burgess indicated that. Why don't we try to figure out how to get this house in order before we throw more money at the house? And so I think that that's an important point. My hope is that this overtime resolution will steer us in that direction so that we are making sure that the money that the Seattle Police Department does have for purposes of overtime is being utilized efficiently and effectively and transparently. Before we dove into these two, which is is the overtime budget set at the appropriate levels, yes or no?
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Gonzales. Any further comments from any of my colleagues for questions? CNN. Those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries, the resolution stopped and then Charles signed it. Please read the next agenda item into the record, please.
Speaker 3: Agenda item ten Resolution 316 76 relating to responsible police gun procurement. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended concerning Gonzales. I will defer to Councilmember Bagshaw, who is the prime sponsor of this resolution. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION related to Seattle Police Department overtime usage and progress reports to the Gender Equity, Safe Communities, and New Americans Committee on implementation of City Auditor recommendations from the April 2016 overtime audit. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06272016_CB 118667 | Speaker 3: The report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee Agenda Item 11 Council Bill 118667 related to transportation funding, assuming the rights, powers, immunities, functions and obligations of the Seattle Transportation Benefit District by the City of Seattle, amending sections 3.1 20.0 20 of the Shadow Code and repealing section 3.1 20.2 or 30.0 40.0 58.0 60. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I believe Councilmember Johnson is pinch hitting for Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Council President Harrell. So for my colleagues who don't serve on the transportation committee, when the state legislature authorized the creation of transportation benefit districts, they did not at that point allow for local jurisdictions like ours to take on the roles and responsibilities and required us to wear a different hat, as it were, a couple of years later, i.e. a couple of years ago, the state legislature changed our law to allow for local jurisdictions like the city of Seattle, to wear both those hats concurrently and did not require the separation between the benefit district and the city. So this legislation would consolidate the Seattle Transportation Benefit District into the city of Seattle, which has some real benefits for us. Simplifies administration and governance. Eliminates the need for a separate board as well as a separate budget in separate legislation. This could save us money should we go back to the ballot by not requiring us to pay for different administrative costs out of different places? If the legislation is approved today, the city would continue to account and budget for the transportation benefit district revenues as special revenue. It doesn't change the amount that we collect or we spend. It doesn't change it. And the commitments or obligations of the benefit district just effectively makes it a little bit easier for us to meet and govern as a body. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions and when asked for my colleagues approval.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Johnson. Any questions or concerns for my colleagues? Sheng Nan, please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: GONZALEZ Hi, Johnson. Suarez I saw the picture. Burgess By President Harrell. I. Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Adoption of other resolutions. Please read the report.
Speaker 3: For introduction and adoption. Agenda Item 12 Resolution 316 79 Providing an honorary designation of East Lake Avenue from court to place two Denny Way as Bill Hobson Way.
Speaker 1: Council Member Burgess.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Bill Hobson's memorial service is this Thursday at 330 here in City Hall downstairs in the birth of Nightline. This room, I think many of us knew Bill well and worked with him over the years. He became the executive director of the Downtown Emergency Services Center in 1988. He actually started working there in 1984. Bill was a real agent of change in our community. He was incredibly compassionate, a man of integrity who worked really hard for the homeless and those living with poverty in our city. What this resolution does is it makes an honorary designation of East Lake Avenue right in front of East 1811, East Lake, which is the award winning Housing First project that's located there. It provides home for up to 75 homeless individuals who have chronic alcohol addiction. I should mention that 1811 East Lake has been studied twice now by researchers from the University of Washington and has proven itself not only in a beneficial way to the residents of 1811 East Lake, but also for the city, the county in the state in saving significant amounts of money, because these individuals, not all of them, but many of them were very high frequent users of other services. The emergency room up at Harborview King County Jail and other services that we have been able to forego because their lives were stabilized and they didn't need to use those services. So it's a it's a great project. And this resolution allows the city to designate East Lake Avenue as Bill Hobson Way. And I really do hope we pass it because the signs have already been prepared and they will be presented on Thursday afternoon to the Hobson family and then installed soon on East Lake Avenue.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Burgess. Any further comments or questions? I will move to adopt Resolution three one. Six.
Speaker 4: Seven, 9/2.
Speaker 1: Been moved in second that this resolution be adopted. Any further comments? Once again those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I those oppose vote no. The motion carries and resolutions adopt and chair will sign it. Is there any further business to come for the council today hearing that we will stand adjourned and we will reconvene very shortly as Parks Board commissioners and I don't have a time for that, but 5 minutes. She hasn't been elected yet. What are we looking at? I think we're. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE related to transportation funding; assuming the rights, powers, immunities, functions, and obligations of the Seattle Transportation Benefit District by The City of Seattle; amending Section 3.120.020 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and repealing Sections 3.120.030, 3.120.040, 3.120.050, and 3.120.060. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06202016_CB 118701 | Speaker 7: The Report of the Full Council Agenda Item one Constable 118701 relating to ethics code many sections for point 16.0 39.0 70 of the code to require City Council members to disclose financial interests in legislative matters under consideration by the City Council prior to participating in those matters and creating a limited exception to the requirement that City Council members disqualify themselves from participating in such matters. The committee recommends the bill pass. The bill was held until June 20th, 2016.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. So I'll say a few words and I'm going to basically make a motion to refer it back to the committee. I want to thank all my colleagues who are sort of following this issue. This is legislation that was presented to us by the Seattle Ethics and Elections Committee to deal with financial interests among council members and how to proceed. And and we had a recommendation that came out of committee, came out of the commission, was passed by the committee. Councilmember Burgess raised some concerns. And many people are following the issue and raised, I think, some concerns that certain warrant more discussion. And so because of that I will move to refer council bill 118701 to the Education, Equity and Governance Committee. Like any other further comments. Councilmember Member Whereas.
Speaker 4: I correct me if I'm wrong here, I didn't vote in favor of this.
Speaker 1: Are you? Well, I will correct you if you're wrong. I thought you. I think you're wrong. No, and that was just a committee vote. Just committee vote, I think. Did you attend the committee?
Speaker 2: I didn't vote yes.
Speaker 1: Okay. So then the minutes of the committee might have been sort of a moot issue now, but will will.
Speaker 2: Today with the way.
Speaker 1: It was committee.
Speaker 4: The when did it get introduced.
Speaker 2: When why are you smiling like that? You know, luckily this is all videotaped. So if you go.
Speaker 7: Back and look at the recording, my recollection, Councilmember Suarez.
Speaker 2: Is that in the in the committee, when we originally considered this bill, it was all three voted in favor of recommending that it move out of committee.
Speaker 1: It was again, there were two pieces of legislation. One had to do with us considering doing the ethics work for the city of Kirkland. It was a renewal of a contract. And the other piece came from the committee. Both came from the commission dealing with what councilmember may do and looking at legislation. Had a good conversation, good discussion, but I thought it came out of committee unanimously. But like I said, it's sort of a moot issue because we're going to send it back to committee, have more discussion from from that point. But we can always go back and look at the committee vote. Any other further discussion has been moved in. Second, those in favor of referring the bill to the Education, Equity and Governance Committee, please vote i. I those opposed vote no. The motion carries the bill is referred. Please read the next matter into the record place. | Council Bill (CB) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Ethics Code; amending Sections 4.16.030 and 4.16.070 of the Seattle Municipal Code to require City Councilmembers to disclose financial interests in legislative matters under consideration by the City Council prior to participating in those matters, and creating a limited exception to the requirement that City Councilmembers disqualify themselves from participating in such matters. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06202016_CB 118706 | Speaker 7: Agenda Item two Constable 118706 Relating to city employment authorizing the execution of a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Dispatchers Guild and ratifying confirming certain prior acts.
Speaker 3: Councilmember Burgess, thank you. This first item, agenda item number two is approval of a collective bargaining agreement between the city and the Seattle Police Officers Dispatchers Guild. This unit represents approximately 100 city employees that work in the 911 communications center. The terms of the agreement call for this contract to last until December of 2018. The wage increases and other benefits are consistent with the parameters that were established by the Council's Labor Relations Committee. And the agreement gives the city the authority to introduce a new Tier two hour employee retirement system for those hired January 1st, 2017 and after.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Burgess. Are there any further questions you're hearing? Then I move to pass Council Bill 118706.
Speaker 3: Second.
Speaker 1: Is moved and seconded to the bill. Pass any further comments? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Burgess by Gonzalez Purple Juarez. Hi, O'Brien. Hi, Sergeant. I make sure there's a hero. I eight and favorite nana post.
Speaker 1: Please read the next agenda item, please. The bill passed and the chair will sign it.
Speaker 7: Agenda item three can 118707 relating to city employment, authorizing the execution of a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Seattle and Teamsters local union number 117 and ratifying confirmed research and prior tax cuts.
Speaker 3: Member Burgess Thank you. This is another collective bargaining agreement between the city and Teamsters Local Union. 117. This union represents approximately ten city employees who work as warehouse employees at the Police Evidence Unit. This agreement also runs through 2018. The wages and benefits are consistent with the parameters set by the Council's Labor Relations Committee, and this agreement also allows for the implementation of a second tier in the city's retirement system for employees hired after January 1st, 2017.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember. Are there any further comments? I move to pass Council Bill 118707.
Speaker 3: Second.
Speaker 1: It's been moved in. Second, the bill pass. Any further discussion? Please call a roll on the passage of the Bill.
Speaker 2: Burgess.
Speaker 3: AI.
Speaker 2: Gonzalez Herbold Suarez O'Brien Swan Bakeshop. President Harrell.
Speaker 1: High.
Speaker 2: Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The bill passes and chair will sign it. Report of the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment; authorizing the execution of a collective bargaining agreement between The City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Dispatchers’ Guild; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06202016_CB 118688 | Speaker 7: The report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee Agenda Item five Constable 118 688 relating to Seattle Public Utilities, excepting easements granted to the city of Seattle for installation, operation and maintenance of water mains in hydrant water facilities, a master meter vault and apparatus necessary for water utility purposes at various locations in Seattle, placing the real property rights and interest conveyed by the easements under the jurisdiction of the Seattle Public Utilities and ratifying confirm research and prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Council Bill 11 8688 authorizes SPU the partial or full acceptance of 12 separate water utility easements. When private property owners develop or improve their property, they are sometimes required to put SPU facilities on their private land and alternately, alternatively, espe may require that existing facilities be moved. These facilities can include storm or sewer lines, easements, easements, establish space rights to operate city facilities on private property and are acquired at no cost to the city.
Speaker 1: Are there any additional comments or concerns? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: BURGESS Gonzalez. HERBOLD Whereas. O'BRIEN So what I think Shire President Harrell.
Speaker 1: High.
Speaker 2: Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The bill passed and the chair will sign it. You could read the next agenda item, but you can shorten the description if you'd like.
Speaker 7: Agenda item six Constable 118 689 relating to Seattle Public Utilities, excepting easements granted to the city of Seattle for installation operation maintenance of storm drainage facilities. The committee recommends the bill pass. Councilmember Herbold The previous bill was an easement or easements for water utilities. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; accepting easements granted to the City of Seattle for installation, operation, and maintenance of watermains, a hydrant, water facilities, a master meter vault, and appurtenances necessary for water utility purposes at various locations in Seattle; placing the real property rights and interests conveyed by the easements under the jurisdiction of Seattle Public Utilities; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06202016_CB 118689 | Speaker 7: Agenda item six Constable 118 689 relating to Seattle Public Utilities, excepting easements granted to the city of Seattle for installation operation maintenance of storm drainage facilities. The committee recommends the bill pass. Councilmember Herbold The previous bill was an easement or easements for water utilities. Council Bill 11 8689 authorizes SPU the partial or full acceptance of 46 drainage and wastewater utility easements. Similarly, these are easements that are required of property owners when they develop or improve their properties and the their requirements of SPU to be able to either move existing facilities or access new facilities. These again are at no cost to the city. And we are batching these ordinances both 1186, 89, 446 separate drainage and wastewater utility easements, as well as the previous ordinance of 12 separate water utility easements. And we're batching these in two separate ordinances in order to save time.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. Any additional questions or concerns? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: BURGESS All right. GONZALEZ Purple Juarez. O'BRIEN So on. I beg your eye. President. Harrell All right. Aden favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Will pass and Cher will sign it. Should you would you want to read counts for her vote? Should we read seven through 13 all at once?
Speaker 7: Let's start with seven and eight.
Speaker 1: First District seven and eight into the agenda place. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; accepting easements granted to the City of Seattle for installation, operation and maintenance of storm drainage facilities, sewer facilities, sanitary sewer facilities, a pedestrian walkway, retaining wall, combined sewer facilities, pedestrian and vehicular access, storm detention drain facilities, stormwater runoff, storm water drainage facilities, outfall discharge pipeline, storm sewer drain facility and appurtenances necessary for drainage and wastewater utility purposes at various locations in Seattle and unincorporated King County, Washington; placing the property rights and interests conveyed by the easements under the jurisdiction of Seattle Public Utilities; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06202016_CB 118699 | Speaker 1: Please read the report.
Speaker 7: The Report of the Park Sales Center Libraries and Waterfront Committee Agenda Item 14 Council Bill 118 699 Relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to execute a five year concession agreement with Gary Leftwich, doing business as point of view telescope to manage, maintain and provide coin operated telescopes at various city owned park facilities. Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Walrus.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Carl. Mr. President, the Department of Parks and Recreation has proposed new concession agreement with point of view telescopes to operate maintain the telescopes around the city. This park amenities is a small scale project that provides great connection to our beautiful city and natural skylines. The committee recommends passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Are there any comments or questions? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Burgess.
Speaker 3: You're. Excuse me. Hi.
Speaker 2: Gonzalez. Gonzalez, I Pearl Suarez. I hope where I am. So on. I beg your pardon? President Harrell high eight in favor and opposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. That concludes our business for the day. Is there any further business to come before the council? I see council member Brian Chan going up.
Speaker 3: I would ask to be excused from the full council meetings on June 27th and July 5th. Second.
Speaker 1: It's been moved in, signaled that Councilmember O'Brien be excused on June 27th and July 25th.
Speaker 3: Fifth.
Speaker 1: 25th.
Speaker 3: July 5th, July 5th.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, July 5th.
Speaker 3: I can be gone on the 25th, if you like that also July.
Speaker 1: Are those in favor? It's been moved in second. And all those in favor say I. I opposed. The ayes have it and we have that recorded. Any other further business coming for the council? If not, we will stand adjourned. I do see your hand, Will. I'll talk to you after lying for we don't. You're not taking comments and I'll stick around to talk to you. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation; authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to execute a five-year concession agreement with Gary Warhaftig, d/b/a Point of View Telescopes, to manage, maintain, and provide coin-operated telescopes at various City-owned park facilities. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06132016_CB 118672 | Speaker 1: The report of the Planning Land Use and Zoning Committee Agenda Item to cancel 118672 relating to land use and zoning amending section 23.40 point zero 60 of Cielo Mazibuko to extend the enrollment period for the Living Building Pilot Programs Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President Herbold. The Living Building Pilot Program encourages deep green buildings here in the city of Seattle. And we heard a little bit about this during public comment today. Probably the most famous living building in the city is the bullet center on Madison Avenue. The city's Deep Green Living Building pilot program allowed a building like that to get some departures from the land use code through a design review. And that was very important because it helps encourage these kinds of buildings that are on the cutting edge, buildings that really reduce their energy usage, water usage, stormwater capture. These are really critically important to meeting our carbon neutrality goals. And the pilot program that we had set up originally here at the city is set to expire at the end of this month. The legislation in front of us would extend that by one year. As we await the Office of Planning and Community Development, who is developing recommendations for a next generation of what the program would look like. So with that, I'll stop and ask if any of my colleagues have any questions, or maybe we'll just get straight to the. I will note that the bill came out of committee on a full day passed recommendation three. Oh, maybe I'm just at this point filibustering until we have counted all that goes back.
Speaker 3: I don't know, maybe.
Speaker 0: Maybe we should do that. That's probably a good call. So I guess I have a couple comments to make sense for filibustering. I just want to make note that since the establishment of this pilot, only two buildings have been produced so far. And I know that in 2015 and I think the spring of 2015, there was a set of recommendations that have come out of the review of this pilot and the Green Building Report and just hoping that the city works to in this next iteration when recommendations are going to be brought forward to the Council. I believe at the end of this year that we can really focus on making sure that the usability of the program is enhanced while not reducing the value of the program to really high standards.
Speaker 5: I wholeheartedly agree.
Speaker 7: Councilmember O'Brien You know, I'll just add that getting the balance right is tricky, but clearly we've only had two buildings come through. I think there's some work to be done. I know that there's a lot of folks in this community that really strive to build amazingly green buildings, and I look forward to the next. Well, I appreciate your work to extend this for a year and look forward to the next iteration of actual legislation that will kind of dictate how we can make that work.
Speaker 3: And what we're filibustering. Talk to me a little bit about the bullet building, how that's going, what they've learned, if, you know, in terms of the amount of energy saved or water not used.
Speaker 2: I don't have individual statistics off the top of my head. Councilmember Bagshaw but what I can tell you is that there are some really innovative things that have happened there, not only after the building was constructed, but in its continued operation. They have some very specific energy usage targets that they've set for their individual tenants that allow for tenants to really understand what their energy usage is in the building. It has resulted in several of their tenants decreasing their individual energy usage as one of their tenants is a very active software development company. They realize they were a huge power user in the building and as a result reconfigured many of their systems to be online through a cloud system and that allowed them to decrease significant their energy usage inside the building. So it's those kinds of examples that I think are really helping the the bullet center lead the way and not just in terms of the building's construction, but also in its operations. Thank you. Thanks for the question. All right.
Speaker 0: Now I think we are ready for a vote. Please call the roll and the passage of the bill.
Speaker 4: Bagshaw, Burgess.
Speaker 1: Gonzalez, Johnson O'Brien, Vice President Herbal. Hi. Six in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read read items four through eight together through. Oh sorry. Skipping.
Speaker 2: That's okay.
Speaker 0: Fourth rate. No, I am three. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending Section 23.40.060 of the Seattle Municipal Code to extend the enrollment period for the Living Building Pilot Program. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06062016_CB 118698 | Speaker 1: Next is report of the full council. Please read the report.
Speaker 5: The report its full council agenda item one council bill 118 698 relating to affordable housing authorizing the director of the Office of Housing to enter into and administer an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement as revised from the form attached to ordinance 124 948 with King County, Pierce County, Snohomish County and cities of Bellevue, Kenmore, Kirkland, Mercer Island, Redmond and Woodinville to create and operate a regional Equitable Development Initiative fund for the Puget Sound region. Introduced May 31st, 2016.
Speaker 1: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 4: Thank you. This is legislation we discussed earlier today at the briefing, and I'll just give a quick overview of it. It relates to the Ready Fund, which is an equitable, tiered fund for transitory in development. This was originally addressed in an ordinance passed in December of 2015. The at the time, we thought that the mesh would bring this fine up to a total of $18 million. In the interim, what we've seen is an additional $3 million came to the came to this fund. And so this legislation would go back and change that amount to acknowledge the additional $3,003 million, bringing the total fund to $21 million. Additionally, this is an agreement this would authorize authorize the department, the director of the Office of Housing to enter into a Interlocal Cooperative Agreement for this fund with King County, Pierce County, Snohomish County, the cities of Bellevue, Issaquah, Kenmore, Kirkland, Mercer Island, Redmond and Woodinville. The portion of this funding that would be dedicated to projects in Seattle will go up from 6.8 million to 7.9 million with this additional size of the fund. The legislation before us today also makes some technical changes that were made by when the when the, you know, local agreement came through King County Council. So this will get us in sync with them in addition to adding the additional funds.
Speaker 1: Great. Thank you. I moved to pass a council bill 1186 98 seconds. Are there any comments? Will the clerk please call the roll?
Speaker 2: O'Brian.
Speaker 6: Hi.
Speaker 2: Sergeant Bagshaw. Burgess Hi. Gonzales, I. Johnson Whereas I. President Herbold I in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Next report is a report of the Parks, Seattle Center, Libraries and Waterfront Committee. Please read the report. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to affordable housing; authorizing the Director of the Office of Housing to enter into and administer an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement, as revised from the form attached to Ordinance 124948, with King County, Pierce County, Snohomish County, and the cities of Bellevue, Issaquah, Kenmore, Kirkland, Mercer Island, Redmond, and Woodinville to create and operate a Regional Equitable Development Initiative Fund (REDI Fund) for the Puget Sound Region. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06062016_Res 31670 | Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Next report is a report of the Parks, Seattle Center, Libraries and Waterfront Committee. Please read the report.
Speaker 5: The report at the Park Seattle Center Libraries and Waterfront Committee Agenda Item two Resolution 316 70 Supporting and Renaming of International Children's Park to Johnny Chan International Children's Park. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Worse Thank you, Madam President. I believe I have three matters before you today, but I'll begin with the Donnie Chin International Children's Park. The renaming of this park for Donnie Chin is a wonderful tribute to a very special man, a community leader. I want to thank the family and friends who are present here today for the celebration of the life and legacy of Donnie Chin. Although the city has a rule that we we typically wait three years before naming the park, after someone who has passed this exception is quite fitting for a man who never hesitated to give back to his community. I'd like to say a few more words about Donnie Chin, and then I would invite my fellow council members if they feel like sharing a few words. Donnie Chan was born in Seattle, Washington, in October 1955 to Don Chin and Myra Chin. Donnie was taught the importance of hard work in community service. In 1968, Donnie formed the International District Emergency Center, the IDC, because he believed the police and fire departments were slow to respond, dialer and first aid and trained others. He listened to the police radios and to be first on the scene. Over the years, he earned the respect of both the Seattle Police Department and Fire Departments. All of his services provided were provided free of charge. IDC depended on donations to survive. Donnie responded to thousands of emergencies, medical and emotional traumas, fires, shootings, assaults, car accidents, break ins, water leaks, power outages dying to all the elders, many with no families to speak of. He looked out for them while they were alive and when they died alone, and he was often there for them. Donnie created a safe place for children to play when both parents worked. He fed them and taught them right from wrong. Many of those children stayed on to become volunteers for IDC. Donnie received countless awards for his service but was embarrassed by the attention and often would only accept an award if IDC. Oh I'm sorry. Or if I if IDC needed the donation. Donnie was the heart and soul of the international district and the city of Seattle. He was a beloved son, brother, nephew, cousin, friend, mentor, surrogate, father and uncle. He will be remembered for his selfless devotion to his community, his humble nature, his sense of humor and generous heart and love of children. I'm proud today as we as a city, we as a city have the opportunity to honor such an amazing man, Mr. Donnie Chin. At this time, I'd like to invite any of my fellow council members who would like to share any thoughts.
Speaker 1: Customer basher.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It's Donny's family here today. Oh, thank you. You're in the back of the very back robe. Thank you for coming. Last week, I know many of the words were saying today is what we said to you last week. But personally, I just want to say thanks and how I remember that man. He took me out in early 2009 and then most recently at midnight, walking through the international district. So I could see what he saw. And what impressed me most is how many people just came up to him, even at that very late hour, thanked him for being there, appreciated so much who he was and what he brought to the community. So I just want to say again to you how much we appreciate him, how much I know the community loved him, and to thank you for being here again and being part of that cosmic.
Speaker 4: BURGESS Thank you. Councilmember Juarez, I think mentioning Donnie's love of kids and some of those children growing up and helping and volunteering with him and others really makes renaming this park after Danny and his memory very fitting. I remember walking the international district with him. We used to tease Danny that, you know, you like doing this so much once you joined the police department and you can do it all the time. And he used to privately tell us, Oh, I'm better than them. So. But a great man who gave his life in service to our city, but especially to the Chinatown International District.
Speaker 1: Neither. Comments. Thank you. Those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries, the resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it.
Speaker 2: Report.
Speaker 1: Report of the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee. Please read the.
Speaker 2: Report.
Speaker 4: Three and three.
Speaker 1: First, I think I skipped one of councilmembers as items. Let's go back.
Speaker 2: To the University Heights Center.
Speaker 1: Yes, yes. I'm jumping far ahead. Item number three.
Speaker 5: Agenda item three, Constable 118 691 relating to Parks and Recreation, authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation Department to execute, accept and record a restrictive covenant easement and contract concerning real property on behalf of the City of Seattle. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION supporting the renaming of “International Children’s Park” to “Donnie Chin International Children’s Park.” | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06062016_CB 118691 | Speaker 5: Agenda item three, Constable 118 691 relating to Parks and Recreation, authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation Department to execute, accept and record a restrictive covenant easement and contract concerning real property on behalf of the City of Seattle. Placing the real property rights and interest conveyed by the easement under the jurisdiction of the Department of Parks Recreation, ratifying, confirm research and prior acts. The Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 2: Cause my voice. Thank you. This regards University Heights Center 2008 Parks and Green Space Levy Opportunity funds were used to make improvements on the South lot. This legislation would put I'm sorry would place a 15 year covenant that restricts the use of the property and require that it be open for public and recreational use, meaning parks, space , open space, recreation, multi-use open space and improvements to make the South a lot more useful to the public. The committee recommends the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Three Comments.
Speaker 2: Please call.
Speaker 1: The role. Passage of the Bill.
Speaker 2: O'Brien and so on. I make sure Burgess Gonzalez Johnson was I president Herbold eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: The bill signs, the bill passes and the chair will sign it. Item number.
Speaker 2: Four. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Parks and Recreation; authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation Department to execute, accept and record a Restrictive Covenant, Easement and Contract Concerning Real Property on behalf of The City of Seattle; placing the property rights and interests conveyed by the easements under the jurisdiction of the Department of Parks and Recreation; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06062016_CB 118700 | Speaker 5: Agenda item four cancel bill 118 700 relating to the 28 Parks and Greenspaces Levy authorizing the acquisition of real property commonly known as 8005 Fremont Avenue North. Authorizing acceptance and recording of the deed for open space park recreation purposes. Increasing appropriations to the Department of Parks and Recreation in the 2016 adopted budget and the 2016 through 2021 Capital Improvement Program. Revising project allocations for certain projects in the 2016 through 2021 Capital Improvement Program and ratifying confirmed research and projects all by 3/1 vote of the City Council. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Wise.
Speaker 2: Thank you again. This. This has to do with two great neighborhoods, Greenwood and Fremont. The original footprint of the Greenwood Park was acquired in the 1990s. Since then, the city has been working to acquire the adjacent properties along Fremont Avenue. There were four properties there and by 2002 the City Department of Parks and Recreation had acquired four of them. This is the last parcel that was outstanding. The park's development property management team has been working with the current owners to ensure a successful transaction. With today's council action, we are completing a park that has been identified as a goal in both the Greenwood Neighborhood Plan and the Greenwood Park Masterplan. Residents from the area offered public comment to our committee, letting us know that they were committed to working with the city to make sure the design meets the needs of their community . Residents who live nearby call this park their yard, where their children learn to ride their bikes, make friends and play, and neighbors from all around gather and build relationships. This acquisition is more than just a piece of land. It's an investment in this community that will have a ripple effects improving the health and wellness of everyone in the area. The committee recommends the passage of this bill.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Any comments? Please call the role on the passage of the Bill O'Brien.
Speaker 2: So what I like from Burgess Gonzalez. Johnson for us president Herbold I eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. So now we will go to the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee report. Please read the report. And Councilmember or Councilman Burgess says that you should only read this second semicolon to save yourself some some words.
Speaker 5: The numbers the report of the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee Agenda Item five Constable 118 678 Relating to tenant protections, establishing regulations and enforcement provisions related to residential rent increases on properties that do not meet basic maintenance standards. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the 2008 Parks and Green Spaces Levy; authorizing the acquisition of real property commonly known as 8805 Fremont Avenue North; authorizing acceptance and recording of the deed for open space, park, and recreation purposes; increasing appropriations to the Department of Parks and Recreation in the 2016 Adopted Budget and the 2016-2021 Capital Improvement Program; revising project allocations for certain projects in the 2016-2021 Capital Improvement Program; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06062016_CB 118678 | Speaker 5: The numbers the report of the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee Agenda Item five Constable 118 678 Relating to tenant protections, establishing regulations and enforcement provisions related to residential rent increases on properties that do not meet basic maintenance standards. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 1: All right. I believe Councilmember Sawant will kick us off. Councilmember Burgess would like to go first.
Speaker 4: Thank you. This is the tenant protection ordinance that we heard substantial testimony about today. This passed unanimously out of committee. And I'm going to defer to Councilmember Sawant, who's the primary sponsor of the legislation.
Speaker 3: And you got to remember, Burgess, many of you will remember last fall when the courageous tenants of 6511 Rainier Avenue, south of whom Sara was yesterday, fought back against their abusive landlord, Carl Haglund. When they called my office, my staff and I immediately visited the property and saw what the then Department of Planning and Development inspectors later found to be 220 code violations. And in these terrible conditions, the tenants rent were being doubled because the tenants were willing to organize and fight back. The then Councilmember, Legarda and I were able to really highlight the abusive behavior of Carl Haglund at this and other properties owned by him. The tenants at 6511 were able to win an immediate victory for themselves and working with the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections and the mayor's office. This legislation is designed to give tenants and the SDC a little more ability to defend tenants rights in the future. It makes rent increases illegal on properties that have unsafe housing code violations until the landlord gets the property up to code. The bill lays out a process to do that, and tenants should call the DCA, you know, the city's department. You can call my office, the tenants union, to get information on how to file a complaint. We need to be clear. This bill, if it becomes law today, will only give tenants a tool to fight with. Dennis will have at their disposal a law to challenge landlords that are treating them unfairly. But it will require tenants to continue organizing. And most importantly of all, this bill will not stem the tide of skyrocketing rents, such as a rent control law might. There is no substitute for tenant organizing. And I would urge all tenants who are watching this to set up tenant union chapters in their buildings, like many tenants have done already. The Tenants Union of Washington State and the Washington Community Action Network are available to help you learn more about how to organize in your building and help us organize tenants throughout the city. There is no law that by itself can guarantee that no landlord will abuse the power over their tenant. But we need laws to cover loopholes. It's also important to state most small landlords are not not gouging their tenants like Carl Hagelin or like some of the corporate property management companies that see rental housing as just another investment for profit making rather than as somebody's home. If you are a landlord and you are already treating your tenants fairly, then this law should not affect you in any way. Thank you to all the tenant activists, Tenants Union, the Washington Community Action Network, the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections, and the Mayor's Office to Jonathan Grand Council member Herbold and former Councilmember Liccardo, all of whom were instrumental in this. I also want to especially mention I talked to Councilmember former Councilmember Liccardo and he asked me to pass on his congratulations to all the tenant activists who fought for this. I also want to take this opportunity to announce that I have a draft of the next bill for the Tenants Bill of Rights right here with me. This is one of the several both that my office will come out with this summer, and this bill will cap moving fees. It limits the nonrefundable fees that can be charged for moving in to those that are explicitly allowed under state law. Most importantly, if it passes, that bill will require landlords to offer a payment plan for the move in fees and with a companion bill. A payment plan for last month's rent to Washington Community Action Network conducted a poll of tenants and found that paying the cost of moving in can be many people's biggest barrier to find housing . After you've paid your first month last month and security, many people find themselves having to pay over $4,000 to move into a new apartment, not counting all the time, effort and the stress of moving itself. This can this can be totally unaffordable. And this bill will address it. We can continue and will continue to fight for a full fledged tenant bill of rights in this city. And we will continue to build a movement of tenants fighting for their rights, because ultimately that is the only way to ensure that these laws are respected. When I debated the Rental Housing Association recently on a televised interview about the call haggling law, they clearly threatened to sue the city over this law. They claim it was rent control. It is not rent control. And if it was, it would actually have helped a large, you know, all the tenants in the city as opposed to only those living with slumlords. But what the Rental Housing Association said basically amounted to their members want to violate housing code. They refused to fix the violations and they want to raise the rents anyway. If they are so brazen as to bring this to court, we will need all of you to back the courtrooms to make it clear to any judge that the people of Seattle will not tolerate any more attacks on tenants rights. But, you know, there is a point in what the rental housing association folks are saying. The point is we need the ban on rent control to be repealed. Housing should be a human right. And in a city as wealthy as Seattle, there is no excuse that there that so many have to struggle so hard just to have a roof over their head. This girl, Hagelin Bill, if it becomes law, will be a small piece of legislation. But it is a part of our movement, and we will use it to organize and fight for a far larger tenants bill of rights. And as was mentioned earlier, five council members have already voted unanimously in committee. I look forward to this passing, and I believe that activists are holding a celebratory rally right after the vote downstairs
Speaker 1: . Thank you. Before opening up to comments to my colleagues, a couple of comments of my own I'd like to make thank you to Councilmember Sawant, as well as all of the folks who have been organizing on this issue this past year and folks who have been organizing for in this community around tenants rights for decades, for generations . One of the things that we've heard from from some folks out in the housing provider community is that they need to raise the rents in order to make the repairs. And I think today this council is going to reject that idea. The reliance on rent increases, the reliance the reliance on rent increases in order to finance basic life safety repairs is completely unfair. And if we do end up one day in an in a dispute in the courtroom that Councilmember Sawant points to as as a place to talk about the legality of this of this law, I think our response needs to be to take this issue even further, less about repealing the ban on rent control, which I support. But there is a part of the law that exists today that says you are entitled to a refund of your rent, not a increase. This this measure that that's before us right now is a very small thing to keep a landlord for raising the rent in the case of of of life safety violations. Tenants already are entitled to a reduction in their rent under the warranty of habitability. And, you know, perhaps we might need to look at having our code enforcement department begin to enforce that in that requirement if if this.
Speaker 2: Is.
Speaker 1: A continued pushback that we are faced with. So that's a couple of the points I want to make. Another issue that I wanted to flag that came up in committee is the way the way that tenants enforce this.
Speaker 2: Law.
Speaker 1: Is when they receive a notice of a rent increase from their landlords, that landlords will now be required to write on the rent increase itself. The fact that they are in exchange for paying the increase in rent, they are entitled to not have a unit that has these housing code violations. I have a concern that that information may need to be translated, and that's something that I'd like to work with our D.C. Department of Constructions and Inspections Department to look at more. What we've found is that a lot of our laws that we have for tenants in Seattle, they are translated into different languages, nine different languages. But those are the notices that we the city. That's the information that we the city provides to tenants that we do not have a standard where notices from landlords to tenants should be offered in appropriate languages. So I think that's something that if if it is indeed true that our ability to enforce these laws are really there self enforced by tenants, then we need to really make sure that tenants are aware of the laws as well, so that if folks have other comments, I'd like to open it up. No other comments. All right. Those in please call the role on the passage of the Bill O'Brien.
Speaker 2: All right. So, Aunt, I beg your.
Speaker 4: Burgess i.
Speaker 2: Gonzalez i. Johnson whereas President Herbold i. Eight in favor and then opposed the bill passage.
Speaker 7: Congratulations. The bill passes and the chair will sign it.
Speaker 2: Report of the.
Speaker 7: I swear, I.
Speaker 1: Item number six.
Speaker 5: Agenda item six Constable 118 696 relating to the 2016 budget amending ordinance 124 927 which adopted the 2016 budget, changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels due to changes in city employment compensation and ratifying confirming certain prior acts all by 3/1 vote of the City Council. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to tenant protections; establishing regulations and enforcement provisions related to residential rent increases on properties that do not meet basic maintenance standards; transferring primary enforcement authority for all sections of Title 22, Subtitle 2 of the Seattle Municipal Code (Housing Code) to the Director of the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections; amending the penalty structure for certain violations of the Housing Code; amending Sections 22.202.010, 22.202.050, 22.204.090, 22.206.180, 22.206.220, 22.206.280, and 22.206.305 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and adding a new Section 22.202.080. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06062016_CB 118696 | Speaker 5: Agenda item six Constable 118 696 relating to the 2016 budget amending ordinance 124 927 which adopted the 2016 budget, changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels due to changes in city employment compensation and ratifying confirming certain prior acts all by 3/1 vote of the City Council. The Committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 1: Council Member Burgess Thank you.
Speaker 4: This legislation is a result of our collective bargaining unit negotiations with the coalition of city unions. It moves money from our reserved accounts to the departments so that the salary increases negotiated with city employees can be paid.
Speaker 1: Are there any comments? Please call the role and the passage of the bill.
Speaker 6: O'BRIEN All right.
Speaker 2: So on I. Bagshaw. Burgess Hi. Gonzales. Hi. Johnson I was I President Herbal I eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Moving on to the report of the Education, Equity and Governance Committee. Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Alleviating plenty of pause.
Speaker 2: Do you need to pause.
Speaker 5: To read it into the record? Yes. Agenda. Agenda item number eight cancel 118702 relating to the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission authorizing the executive director to execute an agreement with the City of Kirkland for renewing an independent ethics program for the City of Kirkland and ratifying confirming certain prior acts. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the 2016 Budget; amending Ordinance 124927, which adopted the 2016 Budget; changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels due to changes in City employment compensation; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06062016_CB 118702 | Speaker 5: To read it into the record? Yes. Agenda. Agenda item number eight cancel 118702 relating to the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission authorizing the executive director to execute an agreement with the City of Kirkland for renewing an independent ethics program for the City of Kirkland and ratifying confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 5: Now it's my turn. Okay. This is Council Bill 118702. It's an ordinance that is submitted to us and proposed to us by the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission. I we discussed this during committee hearing this morning. It is essentially an official authorization for the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission to enter into an hourly based contract with the City of Kirkland on an as needed basis to provide the City of Kirkland with ethics, advice and investigations on ethics complaints. This is a renewal of the contract that was originally instituted in 2011. The legislation as drafted would not require the Senate Ethics and Elections Commission to come back to the Council for approval in the future. And the Education, Equity and Governance Committee recommends that the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Are there any comments? He's called the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: O'Brien so want extra.
Speaker 5: Burgess Gonzalez I.
Speaker 2: Johnson Suarez President Herbold. I hate in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair will sign it.
Speaker 5: Item nine Agenda Item Down Council. Bill 118 694 relating to hearing some filing fees amending section 3.02. 125 Civil Code to add exceptions for cases brought to enforce Chapter 14.07. Chapter 6.500, Chapter 14.19 and Chapter 14.20. The committee recommends the bill passed. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission; authorizing the Executive Director to execute an agreement with the City of Kirkland for renewing an independent ethics program for the City of Kirkland; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05312016_CB 118680 | Speaker 2: To be part of the full council agenda. Item one Constable 1188 680 relating to the Washington Hall authorizing the Director of the Department of Neighborhoods to enter into a memorandum of Understanding with historic Seattle Preservation Development Authority to provide funds for improvements to Washington Hall.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Burgess.
Speaker 6: Thank you. As I explained in a briefing this morning, this legislation was considered in committee. We then found a technical error and so it was reintroduced directly to full council. However, the committee did pass a motion indicating that we would urge passage of this ordinance when it did come before the Council. This legislation relates to Washington Hall, which is located at 14th and East Chesler Way. It is a nonprofit organization run building in the Central District, and it's currently undergoing renovation. The ordinance provides authority for the director of the Department of Neighborhoods to enter into a memorandum of understanding with historic Seattle. The ordinance also changes the scope of work as originally proposed. Originally, it was narrowly scoped as an elevator project. But this ordinance broadens the scope of the renovation authority so that.
Speaker 5: More work can be done.
Speaker 6: With funds that.
Speaker 5: Remain for renovation.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Are there any further comments on this bill? If not, I move to pass Council Bill 118680.
Speaker 5: Second.
Speaker 0: It's been moved in. Second. Will the clerk please call the Raul Juarez I.
Speaker 1: O'BRIEN All right, so on. I beg.
Speaker 6: Burgess, I.
Speaker 1: GONZALEZ Hi. Herbal, I. Johnson President. Herald Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Our part of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee. Please, please read the report. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Washington Hall; authorizing the Director of the Department of Neighborhoods to enter into a memorandum of understanding with Historic Seattle Preservation and Development Authority to provide funds for improvements to Washington Hall. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05312016_CB 118687 | Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Our part of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee. Please, please read the report.
Speaker 2: The report on Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee Agenda Item two Constable 118687 relating to sale of public utilities and many of the title of chapter 21.76 and sections 21.70 6.010.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60. Of the Seattle Municipal Code to clarify eligibility rules for the Utility Dust Discount Program to allow tenants of federally subsidized housing with utility allowances to participate in the program. To clarify the manner of providing rate credits for tenants that pay utility cost indirectly through rent and update and modify certain program provisions, the committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Currently, residents of FHA, Seattle Housing Authority and the King County Housing Authority under Seattle Municipal Code 2140 90400 are expressly ineligible to participate in the utility discount program. The rationale for this long standing exclusion is a concern that if tenants of federally subsidized housing with utility allowances were enrolled in the utility discount program, the housing authorities themselves would benefit through higher rents because the uty p participation, the utility discount program participation would be counted towards income and the recipients would thus be the housing authorities. We have confirmed the FHA.
Speaker 3: Through its.
Speaker 2: Federal guidelines that gives it some flexibility that actually utility participation would utility discount program participation would not be counted under as as income and have clarified that expectation through and a specific memorandum of understanding. And this ordinance both includes the changes necessary in the missile code to allow this, as well as the memorandum of understanding with FHA . The the Seattle Public Utilities is now at liberty to enter into similar agreements with other low income housing providers. In all, we're expecting to be able to see a great increase in the participation in the utility discount program of upwards of 10,000 customers, and that will help us reach our goals here in Seattle to have greater participation . Approaching 30,000 customers. The this particular exclusion in the law has been cited as the second most frequent barrier to to customers in enrolling in the UDP. And the committee recommends that the full council pass with three in favor and unopposed. And I want to also express my thanks to both the mayor's office and Councilmember Sawant for her leadership in this. She will have a companion bill going through her. What has already gone through her committee, I believe, will be coming to full council. For the Seattle.
Speaker 3: City.
Speaker 2: Light portion. My portion is only for Seattle Public Utilities, but Councilmember Swan deserves recognition.
Speaker 3: For her work.
Speaker 2: In prior years in moving this forward and making sure that we were doing the work with the housing authority to get this in place. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you for this legislation. Are there any further comments from any of my colleagues? I do want to say this is great leadership form from you and other members of the council. We have to push and push and push the agencies for these utility discounts for both our aging population, our lower income population. And this is, I think, a result of requiring departments and requiring agencies to think creatively on how to get this done. So thank you again. My pleasure. In voting this. Having said that, please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Whereas I. O'BRIEN All right, so aren't I.
Speaker 3: BAGSHAW Hi.
Speaker 1: Burgess. GONZALEZ Hi. HERBOLD Hi. JOHNSON President. Herald Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee. And I'm sorry. Report of the report of the. And I want to do that one again. Let's do it again. Report of the Energy and Environment Committee.
Speaker 2: The report at the Energy and Environment Committee. Agenda Item three Council Bill 118 690 relating to the satellite department amending Section 21.40 9.0 40 of the state legislature to remove an exemption from eligibility to the utility discount program for tenants of federally subsidized housing with utility allowances, and to update and modify certain program provisions that can be | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; amending the title of Chapter 21.76 and Sections 21.76.010, 21.76.020, 21.76.030, 21.76.040, 21.76.050, and 21.76.060 of the Seattle Municipal Code to clarify eligibility rules for the Utility Discount Program to allow tenants of federally subsidized housing with utility allowances to participate in the program, to clarify the manner of providing rate credits for tenants that pay utility costs indirectly through rent, and to update and modify certain program provisions. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05312016_Res 31667 | Speaker 2: Agenda item for resolution 31667. State in the City of Seattle. Support for clean and safe electricity production and opposition to the use of fossil fuels and new nuclear energy in the generation of electricity. And requiring an ongoing evaluation of existing nuclear power generation on the basis of health, safety, reliability and cost and instructing. The city of Seattle's satellite department reflected this position in its policies and interactions with other utilities, federal and state agencies and organizations, which it is a member or participant. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Swan.
Speaker 7: Thank you. This is a resolution written by environmental activists from the Physicians for Social Responsibility, Hard of America, Northwest and other organizations. And Representative Jody Pollack, thank you all for being here and the public comment, but also for working so diligently on this. As Tom Buchanan said, we've been through many iterations of this and it is a compromise. It reflects a compromise, but it's a really important step forward in taking a stand against nuclear energy, and particularly against the idea of nuclear energy in our state through the Columbia Generating Station, which is Washington state's only nuclear power plant. And even though it's compromise language, I think it is. And just to make sure everybody understands what I mean by compromise, that the resolution itself does not explicitly call for the shutting down of the Columbia generating station, but it is still a very important tool that activists are confident they can use to put pressure on all those who decide the fate of the Columbia generating station. And that includes representatives from Seattle to be light so that we can pressure them to take those steps and replace both fossil fuel and nuclear with clean and safe renewable energy sources. And also as a step against this false narrative that nuclear is somehow a good alternative to fossil fuels. You know, we really have to, you know, clarify that major misunderstanding. And so by passing this resolution, we will give activists that tool and leverage so that they can state the formal support of the city of Seattle. And I'm excited to finally have the opportunity to cast a vote on this. And I also wanted to thank that Walden from my staff, who's worked really closely with all of you in making this happen. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman back shore.
Speaker 4: Quick. Councilmember Swan, thank you for your leadership on this. Can you talk a little bit more about green energy and are we putting forward money at this point or asking others to do that? Clearly, it's something you and have talked about for the last couple of years, but I just would really like to know what are the next steps. So as a city and a region, we're promoting green energy. What does that look like?
Speaker 7: I think the next steps will will be multiple, you know, multifaceted. Obviously, the resolution itself, what it what it gives us is a strong political platform to speak out against nuclear energy. And I think our first battle really is to counter this false idea that nuclear is somehow a safe alternative to fossil fuels. And, you know, there's a consensus among everybody, among all the people we speak to today that fossil fuels are bad. But then there's this idea that, oh, maybe nuclear energy is a safe alternative, but that's the first step we have to counter against. But as far as actual funding for green energy, I think that that's a that's a bigger thing. And we of we all absolutely have to work on it. I would say, in my view, I mean, in my opinion, the one of the four steps we need to take if Seattle is going to show leadership is, then we have to make major efforts to build up mass transit in our city. And obviously, sound transit is a one big step. But I think we have to expand metro service and unfortunately that is a nonstarter unless we talk about progressive taxation. So I think really it points towards that in many ways.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Are there any further comments from any of my colleagues? Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 6: I also want to thank the activists in the community, including Representative Pollard, who have been working so hard on this resolution, but also recognize, as someone did in public comment, that people in the community have been working on this for decades, going back to the seventies when Seattle took that bold step to say no to a chunk of nuclear energy at the time and committed in conservation. And as someone mentioned, every single year we find that we can do more and more on the conservation front. This is a great step forward. I want to thank my colleague, Councilmember Swan, in your office for hard work on this. And I know there's a lot of work to do to make sure we get to not just a clean but a safe energy future in the future. But thank you all for your dedication on this. I appreciate it.
Speaker 0: Any further comments from any of my colleagues? With that, let's see this resolution. So those in favor of adopting the resolution vote I. I also suppose vote no. The motion carries and the resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Thank you again. Thank you again for your advocacy. At this point, we'll consider adoption of other resolutions. We did amend our schedule, so we have resolution 31671. If you'd like to read it into record, please.
Speaker 2: Resolution 316 71 endorsing a public health and public safety model to address the needs of people living in the I-5 East, two Amish Greenbelt and in the adjoining neighbors neighborhoods, devising a person centered and strategic approach that prioritized the offer of services and housing options to individuals based on their needs before the removal of persons or property from the greenbelt, providing safety for police, fire, firefighters and first responders who provide emergency services within and around the greenbelt, and directing the fiscal cleanup of the greenbelt to provide a healthier and safe environment for all.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Bagshaw on Councilman Beck Show When you do get into the amendment that you're considering, there's a little recitation I must read. So I don't know how you want to proceed, but let me know when you're getting to the and.
Speaker 4: I just put the amended version in front of us right now and we made a mistake. Let me just put it just that bluntly. On page four, line six, that line had been taken over into paragraph D and approved by the people that I was working with in the mayor's office. So I just caught it while I was sitting here on the dias. So that's why the amendment is in front of us.
Speaker 0: Okay. Given that fact that there's no objection, Council three, a six will be suspended to allow consideration of this amendment, which basically seems like it's a typo. Right? Hearing no objection, the council rule is suspended and we will proceed with consideration of the amendment.
Speaker 4: Okay, great. And thank you. And I do want to say special thanks to two of my colleagues here, Councilmember Herbold, Councilmember O'Brien, thank you for working with me on this. We have up until like the last minute before this council meeting started, whether or not we were going to go forward with a vote today. But I'd like to put this in front of you and explain why the last number of weeks we have been talking a lot about the greenbelt. It used to be known to us as the jungle, but words matter. And as someone pointed out to me, there are people who are living under there that are not getting the kind of attention that they need and deserve. And so we have in the last week been working very closely with the mayor's office. And I do want to acknowledge Anthony Jamar, who is back here, Scott Lindsay. Hey, Kim and Catherine Lester from the Human Services Department for coming together and working with us. And here is what I am trying to accomplish. We know that in our city that the homelessness crisis that was identified and declared on November of last year, we're not making the kind of progress that we need to make. And we also know that there is a lot of work going on. We're waiting for a study from Barb. Poppy, we have reached out to other cities across the nation to learn about best practices. But I really wanted us to focus on what's going on underneath the greenbelt for the public health and public safety, not just for those people who are living there, but for our police officers, our first responders, our firefighters, and for the neighborhoods where we are seeing a lot more people who are taking their tents and moving into the international district, into Beacon Hill, into Balad, into Magnolia. And as a city, I think we can do much better. We need to really focus on the housing first model, the stable housing, the targeted person centered services that we know other cities have used successfully. And I am encouraged because the mayor's office has agreed to work with us to make sure that not only the cleanup of major health hazards underneath I-5, but also offering the kinds of services and affordable housing units to meet the needs of the people who are living on our streets across the city. We know as a region that we must increase the number of housing and shelter units. We simply don't have enough. The 4505 people that were identified last January across our county who were unsheltered, we are only going to be able to address that if we have a real cooperating, aligned approach with not only our service providers, but with King County. So this resolution, what it is designed to do is to acknowledge that before people can be swept from underneath I-5 and not given the kind of help and services we're asking our mayor's office, working with Human Services Department, we're working with the Union Gospel Mission, who has been identified to be doing the outreach to make sure that every individual who is in the greenbelt receives the kind of personal contact and made offer of appropriate shelter, housing and alternative spaces. Now, I will tell you that I am the first to admit that I do not. Believe that our shelters that are only providing 11 hour shelter is going to do the trick. One of I mean, many of us who have been in and under the I-5 that have spoken to people, including one of my legislative aide today who was there talking with over two dozen people. There's real concerns about the quality of shelter that's available. A number of us up here have now gone and looked at San Francisco. We've seen the 24 seven shelter that's available in the navigation center. We know that that is the kind of meaningful approach, meaningful shelter that we need in the city if we're really going to make progress. So we have asked the mayor's office, working with the advocates, to engage and develop relationships with individuals that are living in the greenbelt now to make that meaningful offer of available shelter. I don't believe that 11 hour shelter is meaningful shelter, but also taking into consideration individual barriers such as criminal backgrounds, eviction records, domestic violence problems, mental health and addiction issues. These need to be seriously taken into consideration on a person by person basis. If we are going to get people in to shelter and provide them the help that they need because it's not going to go away, chasing people from one point to another does not solve the problem. Expecting people on their own who have been living underneath the I-5 for sometimes in the cases of years to find places to go without help isn't going to solve the problem. We also recognize the the need for additional mental health beds. Substance addiction. That's treatment on demand. But that's going to come later. What I have talked about with a number of colleagues, a number of people that are including advocates in our city and county, is that this is just a first step. This particular resolution is sending a message that we are in together. We want to really make a difference for people who are homeless. And it is going to take an additional resolution, an ordinance and budget effort going forward in the next few months. That is going to make the big difference in how we are investing our money. So just in short, I know that this feels like we are moving maybe faster than some would like to have us move. But I really believe that we've got to have a starting point. This is that starting point. I'm going to be calling for pilots for more additional housing and units and ways to get people into housing. I want to recognize and learn from what we are doing in the greenbelt for plans for the future for people around our cities. I'm also going to be asking that like San Francisco, that we provide lockers and containers for belongings as we're going forward and a big investment is going to have to be expanding our shelters to 24 seven. We've also asked the mayor and Department of Human Services to come back to a committee that will either be my committee or jointly with Councilmember Gonzalez, so that we have public safety and public health together, and where we will be expecting regular reports, both from the providers and from our Human Services Department. And then as we make strategic changes, the last paragraph of this ordinance says we're going to reach out and include leaders not only from King County Council and the King County executive, but all home. I want to make sure that our outreach professionals, including REACH and Evergreen Treatment Services through our host of Downtown Emergency Services, our mental health providers, the professionals that are helping us with drug and substance addiction, also our law enforcement and firefighters. I want to make clear that we want to listen to them, make sure that they are providing us with their recommendations. So that's the goal here, is to make sure that it's clear from the council and the mayor that we are in agreement for the next step on ways that we are going to approach people and find additional services and housing underneath I-5. And that will expand to a bigger approach later on this summer in the fall. So with my council's approval, I'm going to recommend that we move forward with this today.
Speaker 0: Okay. Are there any further comments from any of my colleagues, Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 2: So building off of your last comment about Section L, where we are making a commitment to seek advice from leaders in our community, I'm concerned that our action today contradicts this goal that we're setting out in this resolution. I did give you some input this morning on this, and I thank you for including it. But I only just shared this resolution with the leaders in our community who do advocacy around this issue at noon today. And so I'm concerned that we are making a commitment to work collaboratively, not just with the executive department in the mayor's office, but. Also with our community and where they won starting off on a foot that does not honor that collaboration. So, you know, they're both the Defender Association as well as Columbia Legal Services have requested that we hold for one week because they had they have not seen this resolution. They only just saw it at noon today. I think that's a a reasonable request. And I think we've done a lot of good work. But I also think that there are some some issues that we would benefit from clarifying further.
Speaker 0: So forward motion has not been made yet. So let's have a little more discussion issue in a discussion about a possible hold councilman back or Councilmember O'Brien, which like someone first. Either one.
Speaker 6: Councilmember O'Brien comments. But you want to respond?
Speaker 4: I'll go ahead and then.
Speaker 6: I want to I want to start by just recognizing how far we've come in the last couple of weeks when the proposal became public about what was going to happen next. Almost two weeks ago, we had a lot of kind of catching up to do to understand where that was and what it meant. And I think a lot of folks have come together behind Councilmember Baker House leadership, frankly. And it's been great to work with you on this to get to where we are today. And I feel so much better about where we are today as opposed to where I wasn't, the uncertainty I felt two weeks ago. That said, I agree with Councilmember Herbold that there I would like to take a few more days to hear from some community members who haven't had a chance to read this resolution. I think they sent some comments afternoon, but I haven't had a chance to actually even read those comments to make suggestions because I feel better where we are today than two weeks ago. Well, this is still a very urgent issue. I think it would be balancing that with the appropriateness of having a chance to hear a few more comments. I would probably suggest also holding this until next Monday, but I would like to hear from colleagues before I make a formal motion on that, too. Council President Thanks, Mike.
Speaker 0: Appreciate that approach. Any further comments? Councilmember Bagshaw Perhaps you may want to respond. Would you like to? I can fish a little more if you like.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 7: Good fishermen.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Nathan. Great. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Very much.
Speaker 0: Just one after I can speak, okay? Okay.
Speaker 4: Thank you. After. I think that it's clear at least I hope it's clear that Councilmember Herbold, Councilmember O'Brien, I have been working very closely on this. I, I guess I feel that we started with comments from two different organizations, ACLU and the Columbia Legal Services. And I, I concur that not everything that they would have liked to have seen is in this resolution. Nonetheless, we were listening closely to them, working with a number of organizations, likewise, that wanted to make sure we were being conscientious of how we were treating people. That said, what I really appreciate is that the mayor's office was willing to come and work closely with us on this, and I would not want us to get into a situation where we lost the momentum. What we've done right now is to make it clear that we want people to be treated well, get the services that they need, provide the available housing options that they have. I consider that to be a great step in the right direction, and I am absolutely open and willing to work with Columbia Legal Services and ACLU going forward on what that looks like. We're asking HST and our providers to come back in and tell us regularly how and who they are reaching, asking for the kind of information that has so far not been forthcoming. But they have agreed now that it includes the kind of housing, the shelter options the services offered, the number of people who have accepted offers of housing, the shelter options that may be available, how some of our shelter providers are improving their shelters where people went, the known demographics and information that we've gleaned about barriers, all of that without requiring personal identifying information that is so far down the road from where we were just a couple of weeks ago, that I, I regard this as an important step. But again, that said, how we make this go forward, how we in our city and region align our resources and investment is critical. I want to make sure we are all together in this. So I don't regard this as a door shutting. I regard it as as a place that we are saying, you're invited into our house. Let's figure out a way to solve these problems.
Speaker 0: Customers too want.
Speaker 7: Thank you. So, first of all, I wanted to appreciate consumer back shows efforts in bringing this resolution forward. I, I, I agree with Councilmember Bagshaw very strongly, you know, especially on the points that she mentioned. You know, we have talked a lot about this even in, you know, private conversations about how it doesn't make sense to offer people shelter for a few hours in the day. It has to be a place they can actually go to. So I really appreciate how strongly you have been advocating a 24 hour option, a real alternative to homelessness. And that is why that is precisely why I would share the concerns that have been expressed by Councilmembers Herbold and O'Brien that we don't want to pass a resolution that might have consequences that we don't intend. We we wouldn't we would want such a resolution to actually be a step towards making sure that we go away from being a city of sweeps and becoming a city that actually provides humane options to homeless the people who find themselves in homelessness. Just very concretely, I wanted to add one more point, which is that, you know, in addition to ensuring that community advocates like the ACLU and Columbia Legal Services and the Public Defenders Association, in addition to giving you all time to look at this resolution, I would actually say it a little more strongly that you all already have brought a resolution draft forward to us. The ACLU and Columbia Legal Services have already given us a draft. And I think that is that draft is a meaningful step forward. If we were to pass something like that, that would give us a really good starting point. Just to give you an example of what I mean concretely in the resolution that we're discussing today. It's not I mean, it's a good thing. I mean, it's well-intentioned, it says. And neither residents of the greenbelt nor their possessions will be removed from the greenbelt until meaningful offers of appropriate shelter, housing or alternative spaces in authorized encampments and services are made as described in subsection. But I think the details matter. You know what if the people have beds? What if they are a couple and they don't want to be separated? Where are they? Where will they put their meager belongings? Or just to contrast that language to the language that was given as a draft by the ACLU? It says the the city may engage in a clean up of the easily whorish greenbelt, but shall not require residents to vacate the area unless the city offers the displaced residents a 24 hour a day housing option that is accessible to the individual based on the individual's limitations and personal history can accommodate. The resident during the daytime will allow residents to store their belongings, allow couples and families to remain together, and allow individuals to keep their pets. And I think these details matter because we're talking about real people and their lives. And I know that everyone on the council intends the same thing, but let's make sure that we take a step forward in that direction. And in reality, if we take a step in that direction, really what we are saying is we don't want sweeps, we want certain real services and housing options for the city. It's not like you can carry out sweeps in certain conditions. Essentially what I want to say is no sweeps. These are human beings. Let's provide real options. And in closing or another thing that I would add is that in addition to passing a strong resolution, we really have to pass an ordinance against sweeps. I mean, Indianapolis has done it. We should Seattle should not lag behind. We should do it. We should be saying very, you know, true to our law, not just to a resolution, but an ordinance, no sweeps. We want services for the homeless. We want housing for the homeless.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So we've had some comments about a possible hold for one week. We've had a little pushback. I'll just sort of go first and I'll keep the discussion open before we see where the motion is made. I really appreciate Councilmember Herbold point that quite frankly, what's a week? And given the seriousness of the situation and we're trying to move forward and we want to certainly include all of our partners, I guess I'm not inclined to support a hold. Having said that, simply for the fact that I while I value that partnership, I'd like acting with a sense of urgency about our homelessness situation. It truly is a crisis, and it's been my experience with the Chair as a sponsoring councilmember of this legislation that she calls me almost ad nauseum about this legislation for the last two weeks. And I think she's been working around the clock trying to be as collaborative as possible. My sense, having worked with Councilmember Bagshaw for a few years and more recently the last couple of weeks, is that all of the partners that you talked about in the next week, we will continue to examine this. And even if a change needs to be made in. A week or two. I assume you would be amenable to that. But at some point, I think we also send a message to everyone that how serious we are and we are prepared to act on legislation while not perfect and perhaps not as inclusive as we possibly can be. We're moving forward with a sense of urgency. So. So again I almost generally support hold for a week. But in this situation I do want to sense act with a sense of urgency number one. Point number two is I don't I never like being blindsided. And we had the conversation this morning. I tried to be very lenient during the briefings. So I want to hear from everybody about everything in the city. And there was no discussion about a hold. There was no discussion up until 3:00 is the first time I've been told about a hold. And I just think as we continue to work together as colleagues, we are open and transparent when we need to be on this. And I'm not suggesting that there was any negative intent at all, but as a general rule, as the presiding officer, these holds are like having some conversation because we have a dialog and and it's cool to have it here in public as well, but we're trying to get to the same place. And so I think at our Monday morning briefing, that could have been a good time to talk about a possible halt. Again, I know that you had just gotten the document, sent it out. I get that history. So I'm not inclined support it, but I'm certainly inclined to go with the will of the majority here. And if any of my other colleagues. Councilmember Wallis, thank you for raising your hand, because I was going to just keep talking to someone raised.
Speaker 3: I never looked down here as that's what happens. A district representation. We're way up north. I'm just going to be really frank. We have been dealing with this well before I was elected, and I've had an opportunity to work with Councilmember Bagshaw in many drafts. And I have to say that as a former public defender, as a former attorney at Columbia Legal Services and a former board member of the ACLU, I am of the mind that this is an urgent and emergency situation and we need to move forward. I don't see it because the ACLU or Public Defender, Columbia Legal Services, I haven't seen anything from them, a draft of anything. But my understanding from reading this is, is that those organizations are certainly not excluded from participating. Their voices have always been heard. I've sat on three committees now where this whole table has been filled with nothing but people from these organizations, which is fine and one homeless person. But my main concern is we have to pull the trigger and do something now. We have to be humane and start the process now. This is the thing that I find most frustrating about an emergent situation with people sleeping underneath a bridge under inhumane conditions is that we have to do something. Now, I don't I'm not of the proponent of kicking this over again another week. I think we have to start the conversation and do it now. And so with that, I would be supporting this resolution today.
Speaker 0: Thank you, councilman. Were seven, Councilman Burgess and then Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much. This is not a new issue for the council at all. I agree with Councilmember Juarez. We've been considering these matters for several years and we seem to consider and pause and consider and pause. I think we should move past that. As I said in committee last week, there's a real public health and public safety crisis here.
Speaker 5: It's important that we balance our response so that we're.
Speaker 6: Taking care of individuals and providing the kind of housing and shelter and services that they need and deserve.
Speaker 5: But we can't look away from.
Speaker 6: The public health and safety crisis.
Speaker 5: That we have here. Remember, the testimony from Mr. Lillie.
Speaker 6: Last week was his outreach team interrupted a rape in progress in this greenbelt was able to rescue the woman who was the victim and get her to.
Speaker 5: Appropriate.
Speaker 6: Services. I don't think we should be slowing down at all.
Speaker 5: And this resolution actually takes a very balanced approach and.
Speaker 6: Addresses many of the concerns.
Speaker 5: That we heard from.
Speaker 6: Columbia Legal Services and and the ACLU and others. So it's not that we haven't considered their input. We received, as Councilmember Swan pointed out, we received their written suggestions. And this is a balanced approach that I think represents the values of our city.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Caspian Burgess, Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I in terms of the limited issue around whether or not we hold this for another week, I certainly understand the perspectives that are being articulated by council members to want and Herbold and O'Brien. I, I feel a real sense of urgency around this particular issue, and I think it's really important for us to act accordingly with that sense of urgency. I see this resolution and the parameters in this resolution, frankly, as an opener, not as the done deal. There is a lot of work that we all have to continue doing. We have to understand that while it's easy for us sitting here in the comfort of council chambers, that is not the situation for the folks who are sleeping and living and surviving in the greenbelt. And to me, this this resolution is a people centered approach that sets the table for us to continue the momentum forward with the sense of urgency that is needed in collaboration, not just with each other, not just with the mayor, but also with the advocates on making sure that we get this right. And I think that isn't going to be an incredibly difficult challenge. And I want to make sure that we're not acting in a way where perfection becomes the enemy of good. And I think that we suffer a little bit from that in the city of Seattle. And and I don't see that in in the sense to devalue the good advocacy work that is being done within the community. I think there's a lot of value to slowing down. I think we have slowed this process down for that for for two weeks now to try to figure out how to set some real parameters around what the policy expectations are in terms of dealing with with what we, I think all acknowledge is a crisis in the greenbelt area. And I want to I want to thank Councilmember Bagshaw for her leadership in this regard and certainly appreciate all of the hours that you have been spending and that your staff has been spending and that others have been spending to try to put together what I think is a real people centered approach to addressing the public health and public safety concerns that exist in in the greenbelt. And, you know, I just want to make sure that I'm not sure we're going to have an opportunity to make additional comments on the substance of the resolutions. I'm just going to I'm going to make all my remarks now, which is that I think we all know that the I-5 is dormant. Greenbelt has been the subject of much discussion. We've been talking about it now. We've talked about it in the past. In February of 2016, many of us on city council spoke out against certain proposals, initially floated to address the issues in the greenbelt, for example, when a three mile long fence was proposed as a solution. I vocally oppose that proposal and urge that are limited resources at the state, city and county level be used more strategically and thoughtfully in support of people centered strategies that would achieve that common goal of prioritizing both public health and public safety, not only for the residents of the greenbelt, but for the surrounding communities such as the Chinatown International District and the Beacon Hill communities, which would be even more greatly impacted by policies that result in displacement of Greenbelt residents. This, I think we can agree I hope we can agree would be an unacceptable result. The question of how we sustain these outreach efforts is, in my mind, still an open question. Likewise, the question of how we continue to connect people to services and real housing options so that living in the greenbelt is not the option is, in my mind, still an open question, even in spite of this resolution. What will we do today and over the next several months to ensure that the greenbelt does not return to its current form five, ten, 20 or 30 years from now? This resolution, as I've mentioned before, appropriately so, focuses all of our energy on the urgent need of engaging in intensive outreach now to permanently transition as many people as possible out of the greenbelt and into shelter or other stable housing options. On the question of closing off the jungle, I want to thank the mayor and his staff for collaboratively working with me to address my concerns about simply resorting to an impenetrable barrier or fencing as a deterrence strategy, an option that is now off the table. Our officers work together to ultimately agree that the best course of action on this piece was to engage a consultant that would advise the city and more specifically, wash that about people centered approaches that would discourage people from taking up residence underneath the I-5 in the future. So I plan to support this resolution, but I want to urge each of us to remain vigilant about how we sustain these outreach efforts, both in the greenbelt and throughout our vast city, and how we act to ensure that the deplorable conditions in the greenbelt aren't the safest option available in the minds of those. Who choose to reside there now or in the future.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Gonzalez. Very well done. Okay, Councilwoman Johnson.
Speaker 5: Just a quick question, if I may. Sure, please. To Councilmember Bagshaw, one of the things we've heard a lot about today is the idea that this is sort of the beginning of a conversation in Section L of the resolution in front of us. We talk a lot about strategic changes, working with the regional leaders, etc.. If if this is really the beginning of a conversation, I'm wondering how if you could talk about what you're envisioning for that process and.
Speaker 3: If.
Speaker 5: That set of regional leaders and actors were to make changes or or proposed changes from protocols that are outlined in this resolution, how we might go about revising the resolution to be consistent with those challenges that we hear from folks that might be inconsistent with what we've got in front of us.
Speaker 4: Those are excellent questions. First of all, we have a already a group that's pulled together around all home and all home has folks that are there from city and county and almost all the professionals that I've identified in here. So I believe that that particular organization has been underutilized and frankly, doesn't feel the strength and power that it could. Taking an example from Houston, we were on a conference call with Houston. They had a 37 member body. That sounded to me a lot like what all home is doing, plus some professionals around drug addictions. And they made some recommendations that, in effect, they were able to get people into housing, into real housing, and they first focused on veterans and they were able to get 500 veterans into housing with the services that they needed. Then they were able to turn their attention to chronic homelessness. We, I think, have been doing a great job, but we've been having a scattergun approach, so we haven't been able to really make a difference for individuals and for families and for those who are chronically homeless. And we've been investing a lot of money. So I believe that this is our opportunity. And as Councilmember Stewart said, I completely concur. We will pass an ordinance, if need be, to enforce the kind of approaches that we want. We will be able to put money into budgets as our budget unfolds in late September and October to really put money into places where we know best practices has worked as best practices have worked, where we can pilot getting more people into housing and use this as just a starting point. Resolutions can be changed much more easily, as you know, than ordinances, but we can also take the information that we learn over the next few weeks and months. And I really welcome Councilmember Gonzalez's support that we will have a joint committee that is public health and public safety. We can have those set up as special committees at noon or at times that our colleagues can join us, but really learn from this experience and take the data we're getting, take the stories we're getting so that we know that people are being cared for. This is not, in my mind, an exercise at all that is just, you know, counting widgets. These are real people. These are people that have need of homes, have a need for services. But I also want to recognize other neighborhoods. Other neighborhoods have the need to know that we as a city are caring for people who are homeless so that folks are not hanging out in unauthorized encampments in their front yards or dropping garbage or needles and leaving those in places that create more of a public health problem. And by the way, I want to say thank you to those in union gospel mission and others. Right now, they are providing garbage bags, recycling bags and needle receptacles, which really helps promote the public health that we've been calling for. So I guess the answer to your question is we're getting we're moving right away. And if things don't work the way we want them to, I will be the first one to bring more legislation back here.
Speaker 0: Okay. I think everyone has spoken, but Councilman O'Brien wants to get a second bite. Go ahead.
Speaker 6: So I really appreciate all the conversation here. What I hear from my colleagues is an intent to move forward today, and I can certainly support that. I want to clarify just a couple of things that are said. Just because I know a lot of folks in the public haven't had a chance to see this yet. Councilwoman Burgess, you mentioned the kind of awful details of you guys coming across, sexual assault in progress out there. And I want to make sure folks understand that nothing in this resolution nor lack of this resolution prevents that work from continuing to go on. With the resolution, I think is largely about for me at least, is talking about at what point and under what conditions will people who live in the Green Belt be asked to relocate somewhere else? And I think there's a lot of really good language in here around intent and how we do that. I think as folks, others have said, this is a starting point and we're going to continue to work through this. And and the idea my hope is that we will be working collaboratively with the mayor's office and the community advocates who have been doing this work for years to make sure we get that right. I want to highlight one piece of language that touches on this a little bit. Just so the folks haven't seen it, it's on page four under Section E. The last sentence there, it says, Prior to requiring people to leave the greenbelt, the executive will notify council at least three business days in advance and provide information regarding how many people are expected to be present in the relevant area. What offers of shelter and service have been made, and what offers of a sort of shelter and service have been made to that population? The idea is we don't have the exact language of exactly what needs to happen first, but this will require that we get notified when the council is notified, we'll make sure the public is aware of that if there are concerns at that point. We certainly know how to act fast and we will do that. The hope is that by working collaboratively, we'll all be in agreement as we get to these these touch points as they evolve.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thanks for those remarks, Councilmember Brian. Councilmember.
Speaker 2: So given that Councilmember Bagshaw has assured us that this is the start, not the beginning. I feel I'm sorry, not the end. I do feel a little bit reassured at this. This is our first time as a council making policy about the removal of encampments. So my.
Speaker 3: Desire to move forward carefully.
Speaker 2: Is not at all an interest in slowing down any work that's being done with people right now. It's the desire to make sure that we get the policy right. And I hear Councilmember Bagshaw saying today that if we don't get the policy right now and if we have difficulty negotiating in a nimble way with the executive to address some of the issues that have already been raised, that we will look at potentially going back in and passing an ordinance to clarify. And hopefully when when we do that, we definitely will get it right. Just to give some examples of the kinds of things that have been brought to our attention that I don't think are representative of what our goals were. And so I think some of this might just be a matter of being more clear. And Councilmember O'Brien, I think you're right, given that we have that hook, that that that requirement for them to be notified three days in advance of any removal, this, I think, will give us the leverage that we need to make sure that our our words in this ordinance clearly define what our intent is. But, for instance, we talk about the requirement to to offer meaningful offers of appropriate shelter, housing or alternative spaces. But we don't talk about.
Speaker 3: What.
Speaker 2: Will happen if an offer for three days in a motel or an offer of an overnight shelter that will not be available the next night. What it means for in a people centered response for that individual to refuse that offer, that simply doesn't work for them. Similarly, do these offers need to include the person's household, or is it considered appropriate to ask people to stay in shelters without their partners? I think those are really, really important issues that we need to work on moving forward. And if we can commit again to continuing this work as we as we solidify some of the nuts and bolts, I will be happy to support this today.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you for all your comments. We're going have one more common. That'd be Councilmember Swanson and we're going to amend and.
Speaker 7: Vote very quickly to add to what Councilmember Herbold was saying, and also just wanted to echo what she said, that about when you want to do something right doesn't mean you're slowing. As a matter of fact, Seattle has seen far more sweeping changes in the last two and a half years than we've seen in many decades. So I think, you know, if we were being honest, we would we would admit that actually when you have working people and ordinary people and activists and advocates involved, things move faster because it goes against the whole sort of corporate politics that dominates most city halls, including Seattle. And so I think that with the assurances of this being the first step, I think I think the public, members of the public who are here, members of the press, should be holding the city council and the mayor's office accountable to those words. And concretely, that would mean, first of all, as Councilmember Horrible has already said, and I as I said earlier, an ordinance to stop the sweeps like Indianapolis has done. And also, you know, councilmembers here have talked about urgency. And I look forward to seeing that urgency during the budget in November, where proposals will be made for actual funding for homeless services and proposals will be made in this year, in the coming years for affordable housing for tenants. Right. Let's make sure that all council members show urgency on all of those aspects, because then then it would mean that this is the first step.
Speaker 3: I'll stop there.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Before we we vote earlier, I had suspended consistent with council 386 suspending the rules to allow for an amendment. And so I need you to make the describe the amendment, the typo and then make amendment to section.
Speaker 4: On this is on our resolution that's in front of you on page four, line six there the statement was made about measures will be taken to move the individual. And while providing adequate and accessible storage or lockers for the belongings. That wasn't precisely what we were trying to accomplish. Language that had been approved by the mayor's team was included in page 317, and that's there now. It says clear information about the storage and location of belongings will be made to individuals to whom services and housing or shelter options are offered.
Speaker 0: So you're moving to strike the sentence. Measures will be taken to move the individual while providing adequate assistance already. Okay. Is there a second I.
Speaker 6: Was thinking that.
Speaker 0: Okay. I think very much has been moved in second and the amendment has been moved in second on this resolution. All those in favor. Vote I. I opposed. Vote no. Okay. Now we have an amended piece of legislation. And if there are no further comments, I move to adopt resolution 31671 as amended. Second is moved in. Second, the resolution be adopted. All those in favor of voting. The amended resolution vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. And again, thank all of you for this rich conversation and very transparent conversation. Is there any further business going for the council? No. Having said that. Thank you, everyone. Have a great day. We stand adjourned. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION stating The City of Seattle’s support for clean and safe electricity production and opposition to the use of fossil fuels and new nuclear energy in the generation of electricity, and requiring an ongoing evaluation of existing nuclear power generation on the basis of health, safety, reliability, and cost; and instructing that The City of Seattle’s City Light Department reflect this position in its policies and interactions with other utilities, federal and state agencies, and organizations of which it is a member or participant. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05232016_CB 118679 | Speaker 5: The report of the Education, Equity and Governance Committee. Agenda Item two Council Bill 118679 relating to the Seattle Preschool Program amending ordinances 124509 and 124749 by amending the Action Plan and the implementation plan and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. This is a bill that basically amends sort of implementation of our Seattle Preschool Program, Action Plan and the implementation plan. During the committee discussion, I sort of describe this as some of the most important social justice work that will do for our future. Our goal right now is to serve 2003 and four year olds in 100 classrooms by 2018 and after one year. Right now, we have about 256 students enrolled in 15 classrooms. And so, as you may recall, the major focus of this action plan in education is to narrow the opportunity and achievement gap that is clearly present in Seattle's educational system. And we recognize on average that children from low income families and children of color have fewer opportunities to become appropriately prepared for the social and academic academic challenges of our K-through-12 system. So in a nutshell, our department and the executive and our council have sort of looked at this beginning of the program and how we can improve it. And through that discussion, we've made several changes or amendments, and that's what this legislation does. I'll just describe a few. For classrooms. In terms of those that are in the school buildings, we are creating a circuit selection and enrollment priority for children eligible to continue in this in that school for that particular kindergarten . We've created a selection enrollment priority for children whose siblings are enrolled in a school building where an SP classroom is housed. We created an option for classrooms that are offering Head Start or ECP or dual language programs or special education services. Select a percentage determined by deal on an annual basis for children in those classrooms. We are allowing Diehl to begin development of a curriculum waiver process for high quality providers. There are some stipulations on that, for example, that if there's added curricular more than five, it comes back to the Council for authorization. Again, we're trying to make sure that we ensure the high quality standards of this curricula that it is rich for all of our students. We're requiring that DL submit a report to the City Council upon the conclusion of the enrollment process each year to describe the demographic information for children who are enrolled. And we want to be very intentional about the demographics we are trying to reach. And last, there are some pretty strong recitals in the new language where we are being very, again, intentional about the opportunity and achievement gap and how we are trying to address that through this legislation. I want to again thank Councilmember Burgess for his continued work on this area. Certainly has shown incredible leadership in making sure that we improve this pre-kindergarten program. The council, the committee recommends for past passage of this, and I ask for your support. Are there any other comments on this particular bill? Having a concert in rehearsal.
Speaker 6: I have a question of just reading, not looking at the bill itself. Reading at some notes on the bill. I have a description of the amendment that removes the requirement for organizations to provide two or more classrooms. Can you explain that for me? We have obviously, we've all heard about the very dire space needs that are that's created when there are competing needs for school classroom size. And I just want to have a better understanding on how this amendment deals with that.
Speaker 0: Sure. So one of the challenges that we had where some providers had two locations, but they're spread apart in the city, they're not in the same building. And what we found is by requiring each one to have two, there could be someone that just has one that we really want to capture. And so we thought that the imposition that they have two locations by by eliminating that we could actually capture more good providers that are out there as we expand this program. So we thought it was to some extent sort of artificial because again, a provider with two or three locations, they may be all over the city. And the thinking that we wanted them in one location truly turned out to be not necessarily needed. Can I add? So as a means to expand for those providers? Yes. Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 6: If I could just add on to that. So one of the things that we heard from Diehl when they came in and made the presentation around this particular issue, is that it could prohibit that two classrooms minimum requirement could prohibit organizations like the Hosea Marta Daycare Preschool program that's at its center like myself, from participating in our preschool program because they only have one classroom, for example. Right. So I think it's I think there's a couple of different things. I think that there's certainly space restrictions that are in play when we're talking about pre-K classrooms in within the Seattle Public School System Framework. But then there are all the others who aren't part of the who aren't using space at public schools that are being sort of overly restricted by this particular limit that would otherwise be able to participate but aren't able to because they just don't have more than one classroom. So this this amendment isn't designed to address the capacity issues. It's designed to allow for more expansion in those organizations that have the room for an expansion into their facilities. But it it doesn't it it doesn't. It's it's the ID of the the the room within their facilities. Without a look at how many students are going to be actually using the the rooms. It's a capacity sort of a it's it's not based on whether or not there is physical space within a facility. It's just the desire to be able to move into a program that wishes to provide the service. It's not. The amendment itself is not designed to address the issue that I'm flagging.
Speaker 0: So let me tell you, I was almost tracking with you.
Speaker 4: And then I lost.
Speaker 0: Basically, we did require a provider to have two locations and we found that to be somewhat burdensome for some of the providers that are out there that we want. So we're saying one location is acceptable now.
Speaker 6: One classroom.
Speaker 0: One classroom is acceptable. And we think there's some really good providers out there that only have one classroom that we want to capture in our shuttle program. Okay.
Speaker 6: I think and I think to address the capacity issue, to sort of phrase it a different way or try to phrase it a different way, is that in a lot of ways, it does deal with a capacity issue in sort of an indirect way, because what we are doing is we are allowing more more classrooms to be opened up in different locations, but but alleviating the burden of requiring providers to have at least two classrooms. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Yeah, thanks for those questions. I actually enjoyed the discussion and it gives me actually the opportunity to point a few folks at Deal, the Department of Education, Early Learning, Duane Chapelle, Monica Lang, Gary Sid. I was struck with Sid's name. I'll just say Sid Sidora, which Erica Johnson and Elena de la Cruz. This legislation came with quite a bit of discussion and amendments in both Council member Burgess and I put together several amendments, apparently, as well as resulting from a very rich discussion. And again, I think in light of recent data looking at the disparity in education, what communities are adversely affected, look at looking at early brain development. These amendments are addressed to it. Are intended to address it very intentionally, particularly for lower income and kids of color. Having no other comments, please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: You have a comment?
Speaker 0: Oh, I'm sorry. Did I say it's fine? No, I'm sorry. My peripheral vision on my right has to improve. I keep. I'm over here looking at that. The better looking side here should it? Katherine Johnson Are we okay?
Speaker 7: Thank you, counsel. President All I wanted to offer is how regularly I hear from members of the public about their interest in the elements that you have brought forward today and highlighted early on, which is the geographic preference for kids who are going to either be enrolled in the kindergarten on site or whose siblings are already enrolled at the elementary school. That element really makes it a lot easier for families. And I continuity really helps. I think kids transitioning into kindergarten, it makes it a lot easier for them to have spent some time on site in advance as as I get into that with two kindergartners this September, I hear that from a lot of my cohort of folks. And so I wanted to say how much I value those two elements that we're adopting today.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Katherine Johnson. Any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the Bill Johnson.
Speaker 1: Whereas I. O'Brian Berkshire Burgess High. Gonzalez Herbold High President narrow high eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Report of the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Preschool Program; amending Ordinances 124509 and 124749, by amending the action plan and the implementation plan; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05232016_CB 118668 | Speaker 5: The Report of the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee. Agenda Item three Council Bill 118668 Amending Ordinance 124648, which adopted the 2015 budget, changing appropriations to various departments and from various funds in the budget. Revising project allocations for certain projects in the 2015 to 2020 Capital Improvement Program, creating new appropriations and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts all by a three quarter vote of the city council. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Burgess.
Speaker 2: This is the first of four budget related pieces of legislation that we will deal with today. This first item. Item three on our agenda is what we call the 2015 exceptions ordinance. It amends the 2015 adopted budget to address unanticipated costs, realized late in the year that resulted in spending above previously approved levels.
Speaker 0: Are there any further comments on this particular bill? If not, please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Johnson whereas. O'Brian High. Bagshaw High.
Speaker 2: Burgess High.
Speaker 1: Gonzalez I Herbold I President Harrell.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Aden favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passed and the chair will sign it. Next item, please. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 124648, which adopted the 2015 Budget; changing appropriations to various departments and from various funds in the Budget; revising project allocations for certain projects in the 2015-2020 Capital Improvement Program; creating new appropriations; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05232016_CB 118669 | Speaker 5: Agenda item for Council Bill 118669 Amending Ordinance 124927, which adopted the 2016 budget, including the 2016 to 2021 Capital Improvement Program, changing appropriations to various departments and from various funds in the budget and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts all by a three quarter vote of the city council. The committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 0: Councilman Burgess.
Speaker 2: Thank you. This is the 2015 year end carry forward ordinance. It's typically used to reappropriate funds that were previously provided in 2015, but for one reason or another were not expended in 2015. This ordinance involves a total of $16.5 million, but of that total, only 3.5 million is related to the general sub fund.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Are there any further comments regarding this particular bill having seen and please call a role on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Johnson. Whereas I. O'Brien. High Bagshaw Burgess, i. Gonzalez I. Herbold, President Harrell I. Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair of the Senate. Next agenda item, please. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 124927, which adopted the 2016 Budget, including the 2016-2021 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations to various departments and from various funds in the Budget; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05232016_CB 118670 | Speaker 5: Agenda item five Council Bill 118670 authorizing in 2016 acceptance of funding from non city sources authorizing the heads of the Executive Department, Department of Neighborhoods, Department of Parks and Recreation. Human Services Department. Seattle Satellite. Seattle Department of Transportation, Seattle Police Department, Seattle Information Technology Department and Seattle Public Utilities to accept specified grants and private funding and to execute, deliver and perform corresponding agreements and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Bert Burgess, thank you.
Speaker 2: This is the 2016 first quarter grant acceptance ordinance. It involves receiving $7.4 million in grant funding to support a range of city department activities.
Speaker 0: Thank you for any further comments on this bill. Please call the role on the passage of the Bill Johnson.
Speaker 1: Whereas I O'Brien II Burgess.
Speaker 2: II.
Speaker 1: Gonzalez I Herbold II President Harrell II eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes in the chair will sign it next. Agenda item, please. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE authorizing, in 2016, acceptance of funding from non-City sources; authorizing the heads of the Executive Department, Department of Neighborhoods, Department of Parks and Recreation, Human Services Department, Seattle City Light, Seattle Department of Transportation, Seattle Police Department, Seattle Information Technology Department, and Seattle Public Utilities to accept specified grants and private funding and to execute, deliver, and perform corresponding agreements; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05232016_CB 118671 | Speaker 5: Agenda item six Council Bill 118671 Amending Ordinance 124927, which adopted the 2016 budget, including the 2016 2021 Capital Improvement Program, changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels and from various funds in the budget. Creating new appropriations. Creating both exempt and nonexempt positions. Modifying positions, adding new projects, making cash transfers between various city funds. Revising project allocations for certain projects in the 2016 to 2021 CLP lifting a proviso revising project descriptions and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts all by a three quarter vote of the City Council. The committee recommends the bill pass as amended.
Speaker 0: Okay. I'm aware we have some amendments. Councilmember Burgess, go ahead and lead us through, please.
Speaker 2: So this is our first quarter budget supplemental ordinance for 2016. It accepts and authorizes for expenditure. The grants that we just received in the previous ordinance just passed about $8.4 million of this is related to the general sub fund and about 6.1 million of that is backed by grant revenue or other reimbursements. So the impact on the fund general fund is 2.3 million. This ordinance also involves a net increase in authorized employment positions in the city for 27.5 full time equivalent positions through the creation of 25 new positions.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Councilmember O'Brien, I believe you have an amendment to this bill. Would you like to address that now?
Speaker 3: I would. Thank you. On the agenda, there's actually two amendments listed. Amendment number five and number six. I want to just highlight that. Amended number five is not an amendment I'm bringing forward at this time. That was, we found another source for funding that work. So the public's tracking that work will continue, but not funded here. Amendment six on the agenda. I would like to move forward. So I would move to amend Council Bill 118671 Section three table by adding a new item three dot x x for general sub fund in the amount of $45,000, increasing the total for section three and then remembering accordingly that x x will be filled in with a number at some point after we get that to the clerk. And I think Councilmember Johnson has something similar. This would I discussed this a little bit at the council briefing today. This is related to funding for some analysis work of Seattle Municipal Court data. It's part of the bill zero Youth Detention and Citizen's Certificate of restoration work that we funded at the end of last year. What we found is that there's a bunch of useful information we would love to get out of the municipal court system. The data both need some clean up and then we need someone with some expertize to help us with some analysis on that. And this would fund that work between now and the end of the year to help us make some good policy decisions going forward.
Speaker 2: I second the motion.
Speaker 0: Okay. It's been moved in second and which will describe as amendment number six, which is basically amendment and section three of Council Bill 118671 for approximately $45,000, as described by Councilmember O'Brien. Are there any further comments on this particular amendment? All those in favor of the amendment, say I. I opposed. The ayes have it. Councilmember Johnson, I believe you have a minute as well.
Speaker 7: I do. Council President Help. I would like to move. Council bill moved to amend. Council Bill 118671 Section three table by deleting items 3.41 and 3.24 by reducing the amount in item 3.34 from 24266 to 16666. Inserting a new item three dot x x general sub fund in the amount of $150,000, and by adjusting the total for section three and remembering the items accordingly.
Speaker 0: Second. Okay. Another amendment I'll describe is amendment number seven by Councilmember Johnson has been moved in second act which amends council bill 118671 the same section three and the table. Are there any further comments regarding Councilmember Johnson's amendment?
Speaker 7: If if allowed, I'd love to speak to the amendment and just give a little flavor of why I'm bringing that forward. Council President.
Speaker 0: Please do.
Speaker 7: So. One of the things that I've heard very loud and clear from members of the public is I've taken on the responsibilities of planning and land. Is chair this year is the interest in having more commitments and conversations within the neighborhoods about various land use policies moving forward? The Housing Affordability Livability recommendations included reference to a Seattle City Council Resolution 31612, which require the mayor to convene at least one facilitated meeting on a suite of changes on zoning and land use regulations outlined in that resolution and each urban center village. I've heard pretty loud and clear from folks in the community that they're interested in density increases in their neighborhoods, but they'd like to have a voice and a say. So what these resources would do is allow for us as a city council to help a contract with some consulting communities and some community based organizations to do what I'm calling neighborhood based design charrette that would allow for neighborhoods to come together and talk about the growth strategies happening in their neighborhoods that they like and where they'd like to see additional growth targeted. I would have brought this amendment forward at our Wednesday. Affordable housing, neighborhood and Finance Committee meeting. But unfortunately, I was out of town for work, so I'm bringing it forward today. Per council member Burgess's request this identifies appropriate reduction within the general seven that about $92,000 from the Department of Construction Inspections, an Office of Planning and Community Development Funds. They had put in a request in the first quarter supplemental to support development of a legislation coordination application, which I talked to them about. And I think we'll be able to do some better facilitation among those departments using other resources. We have not yet identified the remainder of the 58,000 that would be necessary, but I've got some ideas and plan to bring those ideas forward as we get on to the second and third quarter supplemental budget discussions. So with with that, I will stop and answer questions if my colleagues might have them.
Speaker 0: Just a comment. I want to actually thank both you and councilmember ryan. Councilman brandi, your change really addresses and aligns with our zero use of detention policy in our assistance on reentry from those who are incarcerated. Thank you for doing a deeper dove in finding this. And Councilmember Johnson, again, thank you for really looking through the budget and finding a ways to make this important work accomplished. Thank you for that work. Councilmember Herbold, please.
Speaker 6: I wanted to speak to something that was included in the legislation as a result of the committee discussion and amendments in committee, specifically adding funding for the encampment cleaning functions that the council indicated back in February that it intended to fund in the first quarter supplemental. As we know, there's an ongoing issue with cleaning sites that have campers that have not been identified as priorities for for removal. And those those needs are increasing, as we've seen from the State of emergency homeless report that we get every couple of weeks. I'm very appreciative of folks within the executive, including the mayor's office and several executive departments, HST and SPU, and working with me to help identify some of the lessons that we've learned through our pilot project, so that when we go to scale with this effort, we are applying the use of these resources in a way that creates the the biggest, the biggest impact. And thanks to Council Chair Burgess as well, for allowing the room and his committee to have this discussion.
Speaker 0: Excellent. Any further comments, Councilman Burgess? Did you have any more words of wisdom? No, we.
Speaker 2: Got. Thank you.
Speaker 7: I don't believe we still have to vote on the amendment if that's in good standing.
Speaker 0: I thought I did vote on the amendment. I did not.
Speaker 5: We have voted on one row.
Speaker 0: Sure change. Your amendment has been moved. First of all, was there a second on Councilmember Johnson's? There's been moved on second. And to amend. Sure we didn't. No, sir. I got seven people that are wrong and one that's right. But I'm not going to go there. It's been moved. And second, the amendment has it been moved in second and all those in favor of Councilmember Johnson's amendment say I. I opposed the ayes have it. Okay. We have an amended bill in front of us. 118671. Are there any further comments? Please call the roll on the amended Bill Johnson.
Speaker 1: Whereas I O'Brien, I think. Burgess Gonzalez I Herbold I President Harrell I aid in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Next agenda item, please. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 124927, which adopted the 2016 Budget, including the 2016-2021 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various funds in the Budget; creating new appropriations; creating both exempt and nonexempt positions; modifying positions; adding new projects; making cash transfers between various City funds; revising project allocations for certain projects in the 2016-2021 CIP; lifting a proviso; revising project descriptions; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05232016_CB 118681 | Speaker 5: Please the report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee Agenda Item 18 Council Bill 118681 Relating to Capitol Hill Housing Improvement Program, a public corporation chartered by the City of Seattle authorizing the director of the Department of Transportation to enter into an agreement with AHIP to fund the Capitol Hill housing, low income transportation demand management pilot project and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 0: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 3: Thank you. So this is a small step we take to work with Capitol Hill Housing on a really great program. As I mentioned earlier today, they are working on a new orca pass that would be distributed to all residents of one of their units. It's a new tool that Metro and Auction is working on, similar to what we do for businesses who want to buy houses for all their employees as we go by residential building and capital housing, working with a few of their affordable housing properties. We'll be distributing these passes to everyone within those units. So this would allow the agreement to be signed so that the city could help fund that pilot program. It also relates to transportation demand management pilot project about shared parking that is going to be funded through the county, but it's pass through money that comes through the city to try to figure out if there are creative ways we can better utilize some of the off street parking that's provided in some of these buildings, specifically when residents aren't there during the day because they use their car to commute to work. Can those spots be used for local businesses?
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Councilman Brian. There any further comments on this particular bill? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Johnson or is O'Brien by Bagshaw Burgess i. Gonzales I Herbold I President Harrell. I present serve it in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Excuse me. The bill passed and Cheryl sign it. Adoption of other resolutions. Please read the Jan item number 19 into the record.
Speaker 5: Adoption of other resolutions. Agenda Item 19 Resolution 31668. A resolution relating to sound transit providing recommendations to the Sound Transit Board as to the content of the proposed Sound Transit three ballot measure to be submitted to the voters in November 2016, introduced on May 23rd, 2016.
Speaker 0: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 3: Thank you. So I want to thank everyone, everyone on the dais who's helped so much in shaping this resolution. This is our formal statement to the Sound Transit Board stating what the city of Seattle would like to see in a Sound Transit three package. I also want to thank folks that start in the mayor's office and also at Sound Transit for working collaboratively to getting where we are. There's still plenty of work to be done as the Sound Transit Board moves towards what will hopefully be final approval of a package to go to voters this fall. But great strides have been made. I'm just going to highlight some of the items that we call out under Section one. There's their letter to A through H in no particular order, but it is it calls for infill, a light rail station at South Graham Street, an infill light rail station at Northeast 130th Street. It talks about the alignment from downtown to Ballard, in alignment from downtown to West Seattle, stating that those should be in grade separated alignment for the ballot alignment and asked to consider alignments including the alignment west of 15th Avenue and also asks if cost savings can be or additional resources can be found on either of those routes . That potential tunneling could be considered in Ballard, specifically a tunnel underneath the ship canal and in West Seattle, possibly as it gets closer to the junction and talks about funding equitable, transit oriented development. We want we ask it to fund a robust bike and pedestrian access program. We also ask for to include funding for as an early win for the Madison Street BRT and other enhancements to the Rapid Ride C and D lines. And finally, we ask that the plan include planning money to study the West Seattle Junction to Burian and from Ballard to the University District to help facilitate those phases when they come before voters in the near future.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Councilman Brian, for this very important work for our city and region. Are there any further comments regarding this resolution?
Speaker 7: Councilmember Johnson I say how much I appreciate your leadership on this. Councilmember O'Brien. For members of the public who are tracking along with this, the Sound Transit Board plans to take up the 83 plan at a draft meeting this Thursday. And then following up on that, two meetings in June, one the first week in June, June 2nd. And then following on that, our general board meeting in June, June 24th. So this resolution comes at a very timely fashion and allows me the directive from the City Council to go forth and do everything I can to implement all the items outlined in the resolution today. So thank you for working on this and looking forward to helping deliver on all these things.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilmember Johnson, you are our only hope.
Speaker 1: And a positive note.
Speaker 0: That.
Speaker 4: You are.
Speaker 0: Seeing no further comments or hearing no further comments. I will move to adopt resolution 316687 is a moving section of the resolution to be adopted. Those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I oppose vote no. The motion carries the resolution that is adopted. Then the chair will sign it. Is there any further business to come before the council? Actually, I need to move for an absence for June 6th and June 13th. It's been moved in second that I'd be excused from 606 and 613. All those in favor say I. I feel any opposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: I to write that note how quickly I did a thank you. With that we will stand adjourned. And everyone, have a great afternoon.
Speaker 1: Thank you for once meeting. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Capitol Hill Housing Improvement Program (CHHIP), a public corporation chartered by The City of Seattle; authorizing the Director of the Department of Transportation to enter into an agreement with CHHIP to fund the Capitol Hill Housing Low Income Transportation Demand Management Pilot Project; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05162016_CF 301342 | Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. I like the report of the full council. Please read the report from the agenda.
Speaker 3: Item one Clerk File 3013424 Subdivision Application of Green Water Construction Inc to subdivide nine parcels into 25 parcels of land at 9736. Lindsey Place South Re referred May 16th, 2016.
Speaker 0: Council member JOHNSON.
Speaker 5: Thank you, President Harrell. So we're going to go back in the Wayback Machine for this one. Today the council is considering final plat approval for a subdivision located at 9736 Lindsey Place South in the Rainier Beach neighborhood. It's across Renton Avenue, south from Kubota Gardens just to the east. Subdivision of the site is going to facilitate the development and sale of 22 single family homes. Dedication of land for wetland and community open space. Construction has not yet started, but the Department of Planning and Development ruled on this in 2002 and the hearings examiner ruled on in 2006. We were notified about the final plant application recently and the City Council is required to take action on that within 30 days of notification. The matter includes item one on the agenda, which is the clerk file 301, three, four, two and item two Council Bill 118673. So procedurally, I can talk a little bit about what the city has done, but I think maybe it'd be best for me to just stop there and say that improvements have not been made. And the central staff recommends, as a result of the fact that improvements are not being made, i.e. we haven't built any houses here yet , that we as a city require a substitute version to ask the developer to put forward an $815,000 bond to make sure that we're holding that bond for any infrastructure investments that may need to come along with this improvements. So I'm happy to discuss the substitute bill in more detail, but I'd like to first move. Clark file 301342 for adoption.
Speaker 0: Is there a second?
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 0: Okay. Any further comments? I move. Oh, I'm sorry. Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I just have a procedural question as to why this isn't going to the plus committee.
Speaker 5: The item came to us within a 30 day review as required by state statute, so it was required to be walked on straight to full council. I see. Given the timeline which the final plat was received by the city.
Speaker 2: Okay. And I remember a constituent coming and speaking at. Public testimony last week about a subdivision, and that constituent had some concerns with it, but it was only on the referral calendar at that time. And I'm wondering, is it the same.
Speaker 5: It is the same constituent on the same property that constituents concern was about easement and access to their property. We are working with the private developer and that constituent to make sure that that easement is maintained. But there is no requirement, there is no legal allowance for us to require the developer as a private matter to give another private individual easement access. But that's what the law department has told us. Okay.
Speaker 2: But it is something that we're continuing to work on as a voluntary basis.
Speaker 5: That is correct.
Speaker 2: Councilman Mirabal. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Great questions.
Speaker 0: Okay. And I think this action today we're just filing is placing it on file for today. So it's been moved in. Second, those in favor of filing the file. Please, Lord, I, I those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the file is placed on file. Please read the next matter into the record.
Speaker 3: Agenda Item two Council Bill 118673 Approving and confirming the Plan of Kubota East and the portions of Northeast. One quarter of Northwest, one quarter of Section two Township 23, north range four, east w m in King County, Washington introduced May 3rd, 2016 concerning Johnson. | Clerk File (CF) | Full Subdivision Application of Greenwater Construction Inc. to subdivide nine (9) parcels into twenty-five (25) parcels of land at 9736 Lindsay Place South (SDCI Project No. 3006789; Type III). | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05162016_CF 311936 | Speaker 3: The Report of the Planning Land Use and Zoning Committee Agenda Item three Clerk File 311936. Application of Swedish Health Services to prepare a new major institution master plan for the Swedish hospital Cherry Hill Campus, located at 517th Avenue. The committee recommends the application be granted as condition.
Speaker 0: City Council member Johnson show comes from Johnson. You're up.
Speaker 5: Yes, sir. Council President Harrow. So, as we discussed this morning, the committee heard this item several times and received four major additional conditions to the hearings examiners findings. The first was to reduce the single occupancy vehicle goal from 38% to 32%. The second was to include some stronger language related to the maintenance of green stormwater infrastructure throughout the findings and conclusions and decision that came from the hearings. Examiner. The third was to reduce the mid-block height on the eastern edge of the campus from 15 feet to zero feet, which will provide a better transition to neighboring uses. And that's the parking garage that faces the eastern side. And then finally, it would reduce the maximum height on the western edge from 160 feet to 125 feet. The committee supported all these changes and recommended the granting of the applications as condition by unanimous vote with the four conditions additional that I just mentioned. So happy to answer any questions. Council President.
Speaker 0: Are there any further comments? Councilmember Herbold. Sorry, that's my peripheral vision a little bit.
Speaker 2: I just want to thank the committee members for working with me on addressing some of the height, bulk and scale issues by the proposal. As I think we all know, the intent of a master institution, a major institutions master plan is specifically to balance the needs of major institutions when they're developing facilities, as well as the needs to minimize the impact of major institutions development on surrounding neighborhoods. So I just thank you to the committee members for working with me on a couple of amendments that I think did a better job at balancing those needs.
Speaker 5: And I know that there are some other issues that were identified through the course of this process, Councilmember Herbold, that we are going to continue to look at as part of a general discussion about major institution, master planning and major institutional relations.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. And any further comments? Those in favor of granting the application as conditions please vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries the application is granted as conditioned and the chair will sign the findings, conclusions and the decision of the Council. Please read the next report, please. | Clerk File (CF) | Application of Swedish Health Services to prepare a new Major Institution Master Plan for the Swedish Hospital Cherry Hill Campus, located at 500 17th Avenue (DPD Project No. 3012953, Type IV). | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05092016_Res 31663 | Speaker 2: The report the full council agenda item one Resolution 31663 declaring the City Ucl's intent to conduct a public hearing concerning the assumptions of the rates, powers, functions and obligations of the Seattle Transportation Benefit District by the City of Seattle. Introduced May 2nd, 2016.
Speaker 1: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 4: Council president. Barely, barely. Surprise here.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry.
Speaker 4: That's on me.
Speaker 1: So great job during briefing this morning.
Speaker 4: Thanks. So this is a resolution that will set a hearing date for a public hearing. It'll be on June 7th in the Sustainability Transportation Committee. As I mentioned in the briefing this morning, it's a hearing that's required if we are to move forward on legislation that would consolidate the functions of the Seattle Transportation Benefit District, which is somewhat separate entity into the work we do as the council. As I mentioned before, central staff has convinced me that there's a lot of benefits to doing this, and I haven't heard of any downsides. But I want to make sure folks know that part of this process will be to have a public hearing and the rest of the process in case other people, colleagues or the public have concerns about it. And we will be sure to address those before we make any final decision to move forward.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember O'Brien, are there any further questions or comments? Councilmember Herbold Oh.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, no. Just for clarification, purpose, are you saying that the Transportation Benefit District will no longer meet as a separate entity?
Speaker 4: That's correct.
Speaker 2: On the future legislation.
Speaker 4: Correct. This is just setting a public hearing date. But if if it goes as planned, the work that the transportation benefit district will become the work of the city council.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay. I move to adopt resolution 31663. Those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Report of the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee and Councilmember Herbert, I'll put you on notice after it's read. I don't want to catching one blindsided again. Go ahead, please. In fact, why don't you read item to through for. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION declaring The City of Seattle’s intention to conduct a public hearing concerning the assumption of the rights, powers, functions, and obligations of the Seattle Transportation Benefit District by The City of Seattle. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05092016_CF 314287 | Speaker 2: The Report of the Planning and Zoning Committee Agenda Item six four File 314 287 Application of Kenny Cleary to Rezone Land at ten 711 eighth Avenue Northeast in 95,027 square feet of portion of land from neighborhood commercial three dash 40 to NC three Dash 65. The committee recommends the application be granted as conditioned.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Council President What we have in front of us are two items clerk file as the clerk referred to it 314287 And then following that council bill 118676. These are references to two properties just east of the North K Mall. The properties are within the neighborhood commercial district and the North Gate Urban Center, which has been designated for significant employment and have asked for rezone from a high limit of 40 feet to a high limit of 65 feet. The recommendation was consistent with the hearings, examiner's findings and decision, and was supported by all three members of the Planning Lands and Zoning Committee unanimously. The committee did oppose an additional condition on this rezone. The application of the Military Housing Affordability Commercial Program would apply to any new potential development when it is built on these parcels and would require fees towards affordable housing when the development. Is actually constructed. So we have asked each of the individual property owners to enter into a property use development agreement indicating their compliance with the program, and if they chose not to comply, then the reason would not go into effect. So therefore, before us we have the clerk file, which actually, if approved, would grant the application for the reason. And if that goes according to plan, then we'll have the council bill in front of us next.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Johnson, are there any further comments? I move to grant the application as conditions.
Speaker 5: Second.
Speaker 1: Those in favor of granting the application is conditioned. Vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries the application is granted as condition and the chair will sign the findings, conclusions and the decision of the Council. You should read the next corresponding bill into the record. | Clerk File (CF) | Application of Kevin Cleary to rezone land at 10711 8th Ave NE a 95,027 square feet of portion of land from Neighborhood Commercial 3-40 (NC3-40) to NC3-65 (Project No. 3018442, Type IV). | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05092016_CB 118676 | Speaker 1: Those in favor of granting the application is conditioned. Vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries the application is granted as condition and the chair will sign the findings, conclusions and the decision of the Council. You should read the next corresponding bill into the record.
Speaker 2: Agenda Item seven Council Bill 118 676 Relating to land use and zoning amending Chapter 23.32 The City Code at Page 16 of the Official Land Use Map series on property located at ten 711 eighth Avenue, northeast from neighborhood commercial's three dash 42 Neighborhood Commercial three dash 65 and accepting a property use and development agreement as condition of rezoning approval. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 1: I think Councilmember Johnson adequately described the bill. Are there any further comments, Councilman Johnson, you want to make on the bill?
Speaker 5: All I would say is that this is the official action to amend the land use map and it's all contingent on execution of a properties and development agreement.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Are there any further comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Gonzalez and her bill by Johnson Suarez.
Speaker 4: O'BRIEN All right.
Speaker 2: So what I beg your president.
Speaker 1: Carol, I.
Speaker 2: Ain't in favor.
Speaker 1: And unopposed the bill passes and the chair will sign it, reported the Sustainability and Transportation Committee. Go ahead and read the items eight through 12, please. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending Chapter 23.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code at page 16 of the Official Land Use Map to rezone property located at 10711 8th Avenue NE from Neighborhood Commercial 3-40 (NC3-40) to Neighborhood Commercial 3-65 (NC3-65), and accepting a Property Use and Development Agreement as a condition of rezone approval. (Petition by Kevin Cleary, Baylis Architects, C.F. 314287, DPD Project 3018442) | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05022016_CB 118656 | Speaker 0: Bill passes and chair will sign it. Please read the report of the Select Committee on the 2016 Seattle Housing Levy.
Speaker 2: Three per the Select Committee on the 2016 Seattle Housing Levy Council 4118656 relating to low income housing, requesting that a special election be held concurrent with the August 2nd, 2016 primary election for submission to the qualified electors of the city. Every proposition to lift the limit on regular property taxes under Chapter 84.55 S.W. in order to authorize the city to levy additional taxes for low income housing for up to seven years, providing for interim financing pending tax receipts. Creating a levy oversight committee requiring annual progress reports. Providing for implementation of programs with funds derived from the taxes, authorized and ratifying. Confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: And will you please read the accompanying resolution as well?
Speaker 2: Item 11 Resolution 31664 relating to low income housing, accompanying an ordinance requesting the 2016 housing levy renewal and providing further direction regarding implementation of the program to be funded by such levy introduced May 2nd, 2016.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Burgess.
Speaker 8: Thank you very much. Since 1981, the voters of Seattle have chosen to tax themselves in order to build or maintain affordable housing for our neighbors most in need. The first was passed in 1981. It was the first housing that was a bond measure. The first housing levy was passed in 1986, and we've done that every seven years since Seattle led the nation. We were the first city in the United States to adopt this form of tax to help our most vulnerable residents. Over the years, the Seattle housing levies have created or preserved 13,000 units of affordable housing. The proposal before us today and what we will adopt in this ordinance calls for a $290 million collected over seven years, if approved by the voters in August. It would be the single largest investment in affordable housing that we have ever made as a city. If you own a home in Seattle that has a median assessed value of $480,000, this levy will cost you $122 per year. That's an increase of $61 over the housing levy that will expire at the end of this year. As we learned in our committee, work, property taxes and assessed values in Seattle are in the middle of the pack, if you will, compared to other cities in King County. Here's a quick recap of what this levy will accomplish in the rental production and preservation program. We will produce or preserve 2500 units of affordable housing. In the operating and maintenance program, we will operate support for levy funded buildings and supplement rents for those earning 30% of media in median income or less, including formerly homeless residents and supportive services. If you're a single person, 30% of median income is $19,000 a year. If you're in a family of three, that's just $24,400 a year. The Homeless Prevention and Housing Stability Services that go with this levy will offer rental assistance and homeless prevention services to 4500 households. The home ownership program, which we heard testimony about today, will provide emergency home repair grants. First time homebuyer and foreclosure and foreclosure prevention assistance to 280 households. And the Acquisition and Preservation Fund will dedicate up to $30 million in short term acquisition loans for purchase and preservation of existing affordable buildings. This measure, when it passes in a couple of minutes, will place this measure on the August 2nd primary election ballot. It's a worthy investment. And we also have an accompanying resolution which calls for a variety of policy research work to be completed and presented to the council this fall if the levy is approved as part of the administration and finance plan.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Burgess. Are there any further comments on the bill? Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I just wanted to say a couple words thanking the council for working with myself and Councilmember O'Brien on developing a new anti displacement housing preservation strategy. Housing preservation is important to us because it's important to the community of Seattle. Prior to the Hallow recommendations, focus groups in the South End identified the displacement impacts associated with with development as one of their highest priorities. And you know, the other the other really important thing to think of moving forward is working on the housing lobby is a is a good start to address those those impacts associated with development . But we have other tools that we need to look at moving forward through the ballot process. When we're looking at up zones, we also have to look at the the displacement impacts associated with us up zones. And then finally, I just want to say a word about the fact that this displacement strategy will help renters stay in their homes, but it will also assist organizations like Home Security, Land Trust in identifying potential new home ownership opportunities for potential homeowners. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Herbold. Are there any further comments seen senior Hans Robin? Was it he was drinking? Katherine Johnson. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Councilmember Herbold, you have a nice halo over you, as you said, all those remarks. You know, I just wanted to add my $0.02. And I think the important vote that we're going to take today, I see affordable housing in the city as having a multitude of different resources that we need in order to accomplish our goals. And this is a very critical one to make sure that those folks at the 0 to 30% of area median income have the resources they need to continue to live in the city. There are a lot of other strategies that we really need to pursue, both on the market rate side as well as what we can do to promote workforce housing. Those are big issues that are going to be coming up in front of us over the next year or two that I want to continue to work on. I wanted to highlight a couple of things I'm particularly proud of about this loving. One of the issues that was brought before our committee was around, in some cases increasing the eligibility framework up to 40%. We're seeing some really good data. That's from the $15 minimum wage that's allowing us to really see the benefits of raising our wage and allowing for people to be able to earn more. Yet as a result, that's pricing some of those folks out potentially of the housing that we're trying to build with all of us. I think in this case, in certain instances, approving for higher eligibility framework makes a lot of sense. And then I also want to thank my colleagues for working on the issue around healthy housing, how we find resources to provide mold abatement, asbestos abatement and other sort of unhealthy elements inside single family homes and multi-family homes is critically important to making sure that we've got health in the community and healthy housing for our community members . I know many of my other colleagues are going to talk about other elements of the plan, including family size, housing and a lot of other issues that I think are really critical. But I just want to add my my words of support for the actions we're going to take today.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Johnson, Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I'm I am thrilled to be voting yes for the housing levy. I think it's an amazing it reflects on Seattle's the voters of Seattle's generosity and commitment to providing affordable housing. And no time has it been more evident that we face a housing crisis than we're facing right today and the ability to to double the size of the housing levy, well, certainly not enough to relieve the crisis. And we'll take great steps in the right direction. I want to speak specifically, as Councilmember Herbold did, to the anti displacement work that I'm really excited that we'll be exploring in this housing levy. We talk often about the number of units that are produced, and that is critically important. We also talk about the affordability levels at which those are being produced, also critically important and the doubling this housing levy will show a significant amount of units produced. But in addition to just producing affordable units, it's important to understand the dynamics that are actually happening in our neighborhoods today and what happens when someone is displaced from their housing, in addition to them having a housing challenge that they now need to find new housing. The connections that have existed in that neighborhood and the connections of those people to that neighborhood are broken and often can't be rebuilt. And so by looking at anti displacement, we're going to be working on finding some new tools to keep people who have been in their community, in their neighborhood, in their housing, often for decades, to find tools to allow them to continue to stay there as a community, as the city grows, as it becomes more expensive, there's an opportunity in this levy with using the. The timing of the funds as they come in to help acquire properties, land or properties that might prevent displacement. There's ability, as Councilmember Herbold mentioned, with homeownership, to possibly work with partners to buy existing rental units that aren't protected for income income qualification, to convert that to homeownership and also opportunities, as we've done in the past, to find opportunities where people are living in existing rental units that are not protected and bring those into the fold of a nonprofit provider or others to make those income protected. This is a great step forward. It's great to work with so many folks on the council and in the city who care so passionately about affordable housing. And we look forward to what the next number of years bring forward once this passes.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Brian, any further comments from any of my colleagues? I'll just say briefly that I want to thank the Select Committee for doing this great work. I'm very confident that we're trying to target the right investment strategies for someone that's been in this city a long time. It pains me when my friends say very simply, I can't afford to live in the city anymore, or when their children say, There's no way, I just can't afford to live in the city anymore. And this is a resounding message that we hear repeatedly. So this is an investment to ask the voters to recognize that we want to keep the diversity in this city as much as we can. And so this is a great investment strategy. And so, Councilmember Burgess, I'd like you to close this and take us home.
Speaker 8: Thank you. I just want to point out that each time this levy has been adopted by Seattle voters, we have set specific targets. And those targets for a number of new units constructed or a number of units preserved or a number of families helped. All of those targets have been met in all of the previous levies, and we're on course to meet them. And this levy, which expires at the end of of this year. I want to thank our Office of Housing for the good work that they did on preparing the recommendations. Thank you to our central staff for their help, to Sara Day in my office and to my colleagues who were engaged over the last several months. We had seven meetings in committee and we asked great questions. We made some refinements. We targeted where we wanted this money to go to do the most good. And who knows, maybe in the future the people living in these houses will be able to come down and go to a Sonics game.
Speaker 0: I won't touch that one. Yeah. Okay. Please call the roll. Please call the roll. On the passage of Bill 118656.
Speaker 6: Just.
Speaker 2: Hi, Gonzalez, I herbold. Hi. Johnson. Suarez.
Speaker 4: O'Brien. Sergeant Major.
Speaker 2: President Harrell.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Nine in favor.
Speaker 0: Nine opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. I'd like to move the accompanying resolution 316664. So it's been moved in second. Any more comments on the resolution? Those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Report of the full Council.
Speaker 2: Please report the full council agenda item to Resolution 316 59 revising certain general rules and procedures of the Seattle City Council. Amending Chapter one a Resolution 316 39, Section 11 point D. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to low-income housing; requesting that a special election be held concurrent with the August 2, 2016 primary election for submission to the qualified electors of the City of a proposition to lift the limit on regular property taxes under chapter 84.55 RCW in order to authorize the City to levy additional taxes for low-income housing for up to seven years; providing for interim financing pending tax receipts; creating a levy oversight committee; requiring annual progress reports; providing for implementation of programs with funds derived from the taxes authorized; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05022016_Res 31659 | Speaker 2: Please report the full council agenda item to Resolution 316 59 revising certain general rules and procedures of the Seattle City Council. Amending Chapter one a Resolution 316 39, Section 11 point D.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. And this resolution and I'm going to move to a minute. In a moment, I'll introduce it. First is a resolution to change some fairly simple rules in the city hall in terms of court decorum. They're pretty common sensical. And I'll just sort of walk you through it, as I did this morning for those following the issue. We wanted to make the rules very clear that anyone just attempting to delay the public comment period by absolutely doing nothing but staring at us for blowing their nose or being silent without any discernible message that that is according to the law, can be construed as disruptive. And so that's not an encouraged or acceptable conduct here. We also want to make sure that any individual that or preventing another person from commenting by telling them to get out of their seat or any way intimidating them is also not acceptable according to our rules . We want to make sure that, again, another section that warnings can be given, but based on prior conduct as well, we can give a warning based on the prior conduct and by that we mean earlier in the week or just a pattern of behavior can be the basis for a warning. And then the other change is that we would like if if in fact, first of all, let me back up through the the formal rules allowed for the both the council president or the chair of the committee to give the warning or impose a sanction. This change allows any council member in any capacity participating in that meeting to be able to exercise that same authority. And then if in fact, the person wants to appeal, that they will do that at the next regularly scheduled full council meeting. Again, these have been approved by law and they think we think that it makes sense without offending anyone's right to free speech or constitutional speech and all of the liberties that we want to protect. I want to make a. An amendment to it just because we can do it at the committee. Describe what that amendment amendment is. It's basically the last part that I talked about, the appeal process being to the full council. Central staff pointed out that the prior rules allowed an appeal to the next committee. So there might have been an exclusion of the Parks Committee and the person appeals to the Transportation Committee. So we didn't think that made sense. We wanted to clean that up, and that's what the amendment is about. So first, I would like to move to amend Resolution 31659, which is the resolution just read Section 1d6 by substituting subsection six with a proposed language amended language provided on the agenda. And again, that's the appeal parts. They're second okay. Those in favor of the amendment please vote i. I those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the amendment passes. Another portion I do want to point out to my colleagues is unfortunately and this is the kind of rule that we've initiated or I've initiated that somewhat, one could argue, restricts free speech. To some extent. What we're more interested in is encouraging free speech and encouraging people that don't have the ability to come down here at 2:00 or during our committee. So we're going to do some more work on how we can encourage and get more public comment. These rules are really designed to make sure anyone down here that comes are not intimidated by some of the craziness that you see, some of the hate speech that I see coming down here. That to me is quite disgusting. So we're going to do more work on trying to encourage free speech, and I thank you for their support on this resolution. Are there any further comments? Okay. I move to adopt resolution 31659 as amended their second. Any more comments? Those in favor of adopting the resolution as amended? Vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries the resolutions adopted as amended, and the chair will sign it. Thank you. Report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION revising certain General Rules and Procedures of the Seattle City Council; amending Attachment 1 of Resolution 31639, Section XI.D. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05022016_CF 312905 | Speaker 2: The Report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee Agenda Item 3431295 Petitioner WSC Properties at all to vacate Occidental Avenue South between the north margin of South Holgate Street, any line parallel to and 30 feet south of the central line of South Massachusetts Street. The committee recommends the petition to be granted as condition, with a divided report with council members O'Brien, Johnson, Burgess and Harrell in favor and Councilmember Bagshaw opposed.
Speaker 0: Councilmember O'Brien. And before you start. Good luck.
Speaker 3: Sorry. Say that again. Good luck.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President Harrell. So we have before us the street vacation. It's obviously integral part of a much broader discussion around pro basketball, pro hockey arenas and all sorts of other things. But I wanted to just focus specifically on the the actually action before us today and remind folks that the street vacation policies have a three part test for the public's interest in the right of way about the public trust, land use impacts and also public benefits. We had three different committee meetings on this over the last couple of months. In addition to an evening public hearing here, we've heard a lot of feedback from a lot of folks over the course of this action in multiple previous actions related to this. The President Herald there, I believe, seven of least seven different amendments that were prepared in a timely manner today. And I would suggest taking up those amendments first, and then I would speak to the bill wherever it ends up after that, if that's okay.
Speaker 0: That's a great idea. So I'm going to start with the amendments. And sir, they were presented this morning at council briefing. So, Councilmember Burgess, I believe you have three amendments you'd like to walk us through.
Speaker 8: Yes. Amendment number one relates to scheduling at the city council's urging a couple of weeks ago, some of the key stakeholders involved the Mariners, the Seahawks, the two stadium authorities, the Sounders and Arena Co. Mr. Hansen's group came together to discuss scheduling conflicts, and frankly, they discovered that they had a great deal in common and they were able to work out a language that they all agreed to regarding scheduling should the new arena be constructed? Some of the highlights I'll go through. No major event can be held at the arena between 4:00 and 7:00 on a weekday, with rare exceptions. No major event at the arena can overlap with major events at the other two facilities that are nearby. And events that occur on the same day but do not overlap, will have to be at least 3 hours between the end time of the first event and the scheduled start of the second time or the second event. There's a lot more detail on the scheduling amendment, but colleagues, you you have that. And so I would move the amendment number one on scheduling.
Speaker 0: Second Amendment number one. Councilmember Burgess amendment relative to scheduling has been moved in second. Are there any other further comments? I'm going to ask that you vote by raising your hand and expressing it verbally. All those in favor of amendment number one, raise your hand and say I. I opposed. The ayes have it. Next amendment.
Speaker 8: Amendment number two relates to the access road along the east side of the proposed amendment. And this amendment makes certain that this access access road be available basically 24 seven for access to CenturyLink Field, the CenturyLink Event Center, Safeco Field Sites. It also grants an easement to make sure that that is recorded with the property and is therefore enforceable. I would move amendment number two related to the access road.
Speaker 0: Has been moved in second and the second amendment relative to the access road. All those in favor of the second amendment. Vote I and raise your hand i. I opposed the ayes have it. Amendment number three.
Speaker 8: Amendment number three relates to South Massachusetts Street. This amendment makes certain that Massachusetts Street cannot be completely closed during construction of the proposed arena or during operation of the arena. If built, I would move amendment number three related to South Massachusetts Street.
Speaker 0: Second has been moved in second to Third Amendment relative to South Massachusetts Street. All those in favor say I and raise your hand. I, i opposed the ayes have it key. Now we're going to move to another set of amendments proposed, I believe, by Councilmember Herbold with support from Councilmember Bagshaw. Councilmember Herbold, I'll turn to you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. The first of the three amendments relates to the street vacation not being able to go into effect. Basically, the street cannot be closed to vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles until Arena CO or third party under contract with Arena CO has obtained ownership rights to an NBA franchise. The reason being, as currently drafted, the street vacation legislation would allow Hansen to build an arena, provided he meets the conditions of the street vacation. Under the current conditions, he would not need an NBA team, an NHL team or any team. As long as it's paid for with private funds, it would allow for a sort of build it. And maybe they will come approach in the in other cities. In Kansas City, for instance, the spirit arena was built without any team, but with the hope that it might bring teams. And that's not what we've been discussing. But this legislation would allow it. The issue of the NBA coming back, our Sonics coming back has been the primary public benefit associated with the street vacation. The five year duration of the street vacation under the current legislation is three and a half longer, three and a half years longer than the EMU, which ends in November 2017. And I think without expressing an intent like this, that we do not intend the street vacation to take effect until the Arena Co has an NBA team. We are basically asking for a request to extend the MCU beyond 2017. This may include not only an extension of time, but a renegotiation of the financial terms according to law. As it is written, this amendment would allow for things like core samples to be taken, but not relocating utilities, for example. That's all for me.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, are any further comments on Councilmember Herbold amendment number one.
Speaker 1: Should you second it?
Speaker 6: I'll certainly second it.
Speaker 0: But any further comments, Councilmember O'Brien, please.
Speaker 1: Thank you for bringing this forward. Councilmember Herbold, I was thinking through how this would play out. I think one of the as you mentioned, that the timeline difference between the MCU expiring about a year and a half from now and if the street vacation were to pass, that that authority would be granted for five years. That three and a half. Half year window, as currently anticipated, would not allow for anything to happen with public funds, but it would allow them to build an arena without any public funds in that period. And I actually think that that would be a a good thing if if someone were to build a arena without the use of any of the public financing. And so I'm going to oppose this amendment just because I think that that opportunity is one that would be welcome. I don't know how realistic it is if someone's going to do it. We've been told that that's a fairly high lift, in which case none of this would really matter. But I would love to see an arena built without any public funds at all if that were an option.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I support this proposed amendment in no small part because what we've been talking about is the NBA coming and people are enthused. I as well am enthused about having the NBA come back. But unless and until we actually can get a team, it seems unreasonable to me for us to be proposing and agreeing to have a street vacation at this point. The last amendment that Councilmember Burgess made a week ago said we must be consistent with the M.O. you what this does, in my mind is to highlight the fact that it's an NBA team for which we are building this. If we can get hockey, that's great. But I think it's disingenuous to say we're going to be consistent with the M.O. You are not call out specifically what it is we're trying to accomplish.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Burgess.
Speaker 8: So I'm also going to oppose this amendment. It is not consistent with the M.O. you. The reason we focus so much on the Sonics and the NBA, in addition to wanting our Sonics back, is because as it relates to public financing, the NBA is the most viable option that protects the city in King County. If Mr. Hansen in the three and a half year window after the IMO you expires and there is no public financing available. Wants to build an arena for a hockey team in hopes that he will later get an NBA team. I don't think we should stand in the way of that at all. So I'm going to vote no.
Speaker 0: Any further comments?
Speaker 4: I have a quick question, Councilmember Gonzalez. So I just want make sure that they don't understand the impact of Councilmember Herbold proposed amendment.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Gonzalez, as you answer your question, I want to let everyone know that I do have Councilor Central Staff Dan Etre and Liz Whitson on hold. Or I could suspend the rules if we need their input. If we do, just letting you know. Please proceed.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. My understanding is that on in in the Kirk file which would approve the street vacation condition number one discusses that the vacation is granted solely to allow the petitioner to build a project substantially in conformance with the project described in the Memorandum of understanding approved by Ordinance 124019 and reviewed by the City Council and for no other purpose. So my understanding is that under the existing conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding, the street vacation would not be able to be triggered unless they get an MBA, unless Mr. Hansen gives an MBA team team by November of 2017. Is it is one is my is my understanding accurate based on your reading of the MSU and that particular condition? And then if you could just tell me what your intent is around the public financing piece, because like Councilmember O'Brien, I too would much rather prefer that this not get public money to move forward. So we did check with the law department and found that that language that you're pointing to right now has more to do with the physical the physical form of the of the project and not the other requirements contained in the MRU. And if we indeed wanted to make sure that this street vacation did not go into effect until other terms of the memo you like the acquiring of an NBA team. We would actually have to spell that out within the street vacation as it relates to your second question. For me, it's less to do with whether or not the stadium gets built with public or private money, has more to do with a belief that the that the potential that the street vacation has and in helping the city acquire an NBA team is the main public benefit associated with the street vacation and without it. And this is one of the reasons why I was of the position that we should not be discussing the street vacation before Arena had a team without it. This street vacation does not have the public benefit associated with it that I would like to see.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: Councilmember O'Brien I agree with the clarification that the council member Herbold made. And one thing I believe that language does speak to Councilmember Gonzalez is that this street vacation is only could only be used for an arena. It couldn't be used if the applicant wanted to build commercial office space. Now they can build commercial office space on the property they own, but they couldn't vacate that street to do something like that.
Speaker 0: Any further comments before I'll make a I guess perhaps the last comment and I won't be supporting this amendment. I don't I don't think we could ignore certain political realities that are occurring with the decision that we're making. The fact of the matter is, is I was supportive of a will you which sort of signal to this country that we want a team back here. And I think the net effect of this is sort of suggesting, will you get the team and we'll vacate the the the street. And I'm suggesting that if it's acceptable, then it's acceptable to sort of lay the groundwork for a team. And again, looking at the. Impact on the port and the impact on jobs and not to revisit that entire issue, but having thought of all of that and read an enormous amount of data on that issue, I think that at the end of the day, we are trying to support getting a team back and that what and this particular amendment sort of works against that. So that's where I'll be coming out. Any further comments before we do a roll call, I'm going to ask again for a roll call and a vote. So amendment number, I'm going to start over with one again or sure. I go for I go for one instead of four. Amendment number one proposed by Councilmember Herbold relative to the Accidental Street vacation. All those in favor vote I in raise your hand. I I all those are.
Speaker 6: I actually I'm I'm sorry the brought us up, but I just wanted a clarification. I think it would help everybody on the dais without this amendment made by Councilmember Herbold could really vacation. Maybe tomorrow. More can clarify this. I was just asking him privately without passing this amendment. Is it possible to use this Ali vacation for anything other than an arena?
Speaker 0: And before we answer that question, I'm going to turn to the clerk a little bit that I want to make sure that wasn't a vote, that because I was like 80% in that vote. So, again, okay, I haven't announced the vote, so ignore what you saw or heard. And we're going to, as the kids say, we're going to do a do over. And so Councilmember Swan, is you're asking are you asking the question?
Speaker 1: Councilmember O'Brien And I would I can answer it, but I council president here. I would suggest you suspend the rules and bring in the central staff just so that everyone is clear.
Speaker 0: And yes, why is advice. So I'm going to unless there's objection, suspend the rules and ask central staff Dan Etre and Liz Whitson to come from the audience. And for the viewing audience, please identify yourself. And then Councilmember Swan, would you be so kind as to just repeat the question again? Go ahead and introduce yourself, please.
Speaker 1: Alicia Whitson Council Central Staff.
Speaker 3: Danny Daughter Council Central Staff.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Swan, can you please restate the question?
Speaker 6: Yes. Thank you, Lucian Dan for being here without passing Councilmember Horrible's just stated amendment. Would it be possible for this alleviation work to be voted yes on by the Council? Would it be possible for this allocation to be used for any other development other than an arena?
Speaker 3: The only development that could take advantage of the street vacation.
Speaker 1: That's in front of you is one.
Speaker 3: That is an arena that's consistent with what's been presented to the Sustainability and Transportation Committee. So it can only the street vacation is only applicable for an arena.
Speaker 1: Regardless of the amendment or not.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 0: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 1: So what this amendment would do would say you couldn't vacate that street to build the arena until an NBA team were here. Whereas without it, someone could, without public money, vacate the street and build an arena. Correct. Is that a distinction? Is that fair? Councilmember Herbold, to you? Okay.
Speaker 6: Can I just ask how of just a final clarification? And I think our member, O'Brien spoke to this, but I just want to make sure if this amendment passes, does that preclude somebody using only private money to build an arena? I mean, because that's what seems what you seem to be suggesting.
Speaker 1: That that's I don't believe it precludes that they could get an NBA team and build an arena and choose not to use public financing. But at that point, they would have assuming it's within the 18 months, there's a couple of scenarios there. One is they could get the team within 18 months and choose not to use public financing, and I think that's somewhat unlikely. But maybe that would happen. Or they could get an NBA team three years from now after the end of use expired and then could have the street vacation but would not have public financing because the more you would have expired.
Speaker 6: So if it's not too much trouble, more horrible, can you given all of that, please for me clarify what your amendment would accomplish?
Speaker 4: The amendment would prohibit work being done. The amendment would prohibit work being done for an arena, whether it has public financing or not, that does not have. And a team accompanied with an NBA basketball team. A basketball team.
Speaker 6: Okay. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Let me ask a clarifying question. Just so I understand the net effect of this amendment that hasn't been voted on yet, by the way, isn't. Isn't the net effect that it really does not vacate Occidental Avenue? Because you're saying. You can't do it unless ownership is done. Isn't that the same effect of voting the vacation down today? Isn't the net effect the same?
Speaker 3: I think there is a distinction in that if if a team is acquired, then the vacation would go through. An NBA team is if an NBA team is not acquired, then the vacation would not move forward.
Speaker 0: So if this amendment passed. Today. There's no further legislation, no further process. This the actual avenue is automatically vacated. Based on this vote today, if this amendment passes.
Speaker 3: Well, they need to meet all of the conditions before they can actually gain ownership of the right of way. But, yes, they could start to move forward. With meeting those conditions and constructing a project once they get permits from the Department of Construction and inspections to actually build the project.
Speaker 0: So the last question I have is, is the term obtained ownership rights sufficiently clear to trigger the vacation? I'm not sure. What does that mean, that he's actually owns it or he's negotiating to obtain it? Is there a certain legal trigger that would make that point in time crystal clear?
Speaker 3: That's the term that's used in the memorandum of understanding. So we used consistent terms between both documents. Okay.
Speaker 0: Any further comments from any of my colleagues?
Speaker 6: Let's call for the question.
Speaker 0: Someone says call for the question. Okay. I'll call for the question. So let me describe the amendment. All those in favor of Councilmember Herbold, First Amendment. Vote I in. Raise your hand. All those oppose. Vote nay and raise your hand nay. So the amendment fails. Councilmember Herbold, you have a Second Amendment?
Speaker 4: I do. So I'm going to pass out the proper map and also the excerpts from the piece that describe both the issue, the problem and the suggested mitigation for folks, too. And there's a little pink X that would show where this particular amendment would would affect the project. And specifically, you can also see across the street there's a similar staircase. But in short, Amendment two would require a staircase for the north south cross crossing of Atlantic. That act accidental the is identified to mitigation measures for pedestrian improvements for increased pedestrian safety and connectivity between the arena in transit and parking. One was a pedestrian bridge at Holgate. The second was a staircase on the south side of Atlantic. You can see that from page four for that. Those those recommendations are identified to address two different issues, as not included only the bridge at Holgate. This would add a staircase on the south side of South Atlantic Street again, where you can see the pink X on the map. And to answer a question that came up earlier today, central staff did chair all three of these amendments, including this one with DOT, and she had no comments on this particular amendment.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, are there any further comments on the Second Amendment?
Speaker 1: I'll second this amendment and then I have comments on the Second Amendment. Okay.
Speaker 0: It's been second. Councilmember Bryan.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Herbold. I also had a conversation with Scott, and my understanding is that this is something that they had anticipated to use. This is a little more complex, but as part of a mitigation for a master use permit, this is be one of the next steps after we get to this process, if we get through it, but that it's consistent with what they hope to do. I want to acknowledge and I think your amendment does this, that there are some challenges about right away in fitting a staircase on this side. And so it may be that it's not physically possible to fit something there, in which case I think your amendment also addresses alternative measures, too, which is why I'm supporting it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Comes from Brian. Are there any further comments on councilmember verbal Second Amendment? Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 5: I just want to reiterate that, you know, the I think the public benefit that we saw during the course of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee had a pedestrian bridge to the south side of the arena. And I think the expectation is that if it were to go through today, we'd have a lot of folks going both directions on First Avenue, exiting a game. And to get to Atlantic Grove Martinez Drive, there's some good pedestrian access on the north side of the street as you get into that curlicue to get down to the Soto bus way. And this offers another opportunity. It's not the greatest pedestrian environment going up the hill there with a lot of traffic trying to go quickly to get onto the freeway. But I think it'd be interesting to see if there's some opportunities for us to make it a little bit safer for folks to be able to get down to the important bus way access down there. So I'll be supporting as well.
Speaker 3: Great.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. I'm going to cover the question has been moved on. Second Councilmember Herbold, Second Amendment, all those in favor of the Second Amendment. Vote I and raise your hand. I opposed the ayes have it. Councilman Herbold, you have a Third Amendment.
Speaker 4: I do. Thank you. This is my last minute. And it incorporates language from the MRU, and it is intended to make the Plaza available for public events. Specifically, it would make public access a condition of the street vacation. It's very similar language that we use in other public private agreements with entities that the city will potentially fund for capital improvements in exchange for making those facilities available to the public at for free, free of cost. This applies only to public events that are approved by the city. I think that gets to some of the questions that we had during briefings this meeting this morning. And so that would mean that the onus would be on the city to approve up to 12 events, not on a RICO. And it would also ensure that we don't have scheduling overlap, concerns and difficulties. Implementation would be carried out in a final suite vacation ordinance that the Council would vote on after the arena was built.
Speaker 1: I'd second that.
Speaker 0: Okay. It's been moved in second and Councilmember Herbals, Third Amendment, are there any further comments?
Speaker 1: I, I had some questions at the council briefing this morning and with conversations Councilmember Herbold and others afterwards. I really appreciate you bringing this forward and support it. It's it is consistent, as you mentioned, with other things we do with public these types of facilities to try to make sure that there's public access for these types of events. And so if it goes forward and this is built, I think it would be outstanding to have these types of public events there.
Speaker 0: Okay. So it's been moved in second. And Councilmember Herbold, Third Amendment, all those in favor, vote I and raise your hand. I opposed. Congratulations. Councilmember Herbal. Two thirds is a great batting average. Doing well.
Speaker 3: You'll go.
Speaker 4: Oh, my God. Too many.
Speaker 3: There you go.
Speaker 0: Council member Gonzales, you are on deck. They're just going to keep coming from you.
Speaker 4: And in spite of the subject, I commit to not using a sports analogy. So I have proposed an amendment to the conditions. The first one is consistent with what we have recently done in other street vacations and vacations as it relates to free speech and First Amendment protections. So I have included the same language that we imposed upon or approved for the BLOCK 21 Amazon Alley vacation. It will be a provision in the property use and development agreement that will require that the public plaza be accessible 24 hours a day, with the exception of a few limited circumstances related to private functions or maintenance for safety reasons. It includes describing the plaza as a public benefit. And thanks to Councilmember Bagshaw flagging this for me in the morning, I have included a provision that would also require the public restrooms available in the plaza to be open 24 hours as well, consistent with the availability of the Plaza. An additional amendment that I am proposing today is to make sure that we infuse equity for communities of color and tribal communities into the arts program that is described as one of the public benefits in the conditions. I want to thank Councilmember Juarez for making sure that I included our tribal communities as part of the folks who could either be consulted during the art acquisition process and of course, during the the anchor art project effort as well.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Gonzalez, do.
Speaker 4: I need to move it?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 4: So I, I move for adoption of my amendments to condition 17. Second.
Speaker 0: It's been moved. And second, Councilmember Gonzalez's amendments. Are there any further discussion follows? Sorry. Councilmember Bryant.
Speaker 1: I comment. I think that this has come up before, as you mentioned, in previous free vacations and vacations. And as we're working through revisions to our overall vacation policy, I think the right to free speech in any place it's public or perceived as public, I think is critically important. So I really appreciate you bringing this forward.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I also want to make sure that we're infusing our recent social justice efforts and initiatives when we're talking about our public arts program and what we expect developers to provide us in terms of a commitment to race and social justice equity as it relates to the public art that they intend to install.
Speaker 6: And while we keep interrupting Council President Harrell here, I do appreciate the emphasis on local artist two Excellent.
Speaker 0: Okay. Has been. Councilmember Gonzalez's proposed amendments have been moved in second and all those in favor of vote I in raise your hand. I opposed the ayes have it. Okay. So I think we're ready to move and I'm going to use the term as condition when I talk about this petition as opposed to amendments because they are conditions of the petition, we're ready for signature. Good. So I move to grant the petition as conditions for a second.
Speaker 8: Second.
Speaker 0: Are there any further comments? Are you guys are premature? Any more comments?
Speaker 6: Well, no, I have something to say.
Speaker 3: Okay. I'm not voting for 49. Got a yes vote over here. That was in focus. Okay. As in Councilmember Bagshaw.
Speaker 6: Thank you. No surprise. I still oppose this street vacation, but I wanted to give my colleagues a few comments. I know our positions are solid solidified at this point, but nonetheless, I want to speak one more time on this. My sense is that without the assurance of an NBA team, without the improved transportation conditions, without addressing the impacts on the port, and without a serious look at the viability of key arena, we're losing our leverage. And that means workers, the port and our taxpayers alike have a lot to lose. But I also want to acknowledge all the hard work that has gone in my Sonics friends out here, the people that have been coming day after day as we have had these conversations. What I do know is that there's people of goodwill, and I do know that we have good intentions. And I appreciate the kind words from the nonprofits. But I do want my colleagues, my beloved colleagues, to seriously consider, reconsider reconsidering at this point and voting no. First, this vacation is simply premature. When we negotiated for the MEU four years ago. We all believed, and we're told that the Sacramento Kings were about to be sold to Chris Hansen and that we were going to have an opportunity to get our Sonics back here. We all wanted the Supersonics to return to Seattle, and I shared that, and I shared that enthusiasm. But since then, no NBA team has materialized. And based upon what the NBA commissioner said just ten days ago, Commissioner Adam Silver states, whether or not this arena is shovel ready is not a factor, not a factor that we are considering in terms of whether or not we expand at this point. So it doesn't make sense to me that we're moving ahead, particularly when we have not linked this up with an NBA team coming back. And second, the street vacation does not address the traffic problems that already impact our busses, our cars, our freight downtown. All of you know that I live and work down here. I walk home every night and on any given game night, whether it's the Mariners, whether it's a monday night football game, whatever we have, the freight and the cars and the busses downtown are simply stopped. The traffic conditions are real night right now on first and fourth. And nothing has been done in this particular proposal that will seriously impact this congestion. I believe that this decision is, frankly, an economic justice issue. Why would we put family wage jobs at risk and compromise traffic and freight traffic, the throughput that we need when there's no team and the proposal fails to address the forecasted traffic problems. What we're doing is pitting sports against family wage jobs. It doesn't make sense. And third, we simply have not given key arena a serious look on property that the city owns. And with our recent AECOM study that indicated that we can create an arena that the NBA and the NHL would love to play in. Again, quoting Adam Silver last Thursday, he said he hasn't ruled out anything. For me, it's a fresh start, he said. Nothing is a closed deal. Silver said of the key arena renovation option, especially with what an arena renovation looks like these days. Compared to the old days, it's very different. And so when somebody talks about renovating Key Arena, depending on how much was invested, it could look just like a new arena, frankly. So the devil is in the details. So that's my concern, frankly. We all love our sports teams. We love our partners. We know how much community energy and positive effort has gone in from the Sounders, the Mariners, the storm, the Seahawks, the Huskies, the Falcons and the Red Hawks. And yes, to my friends, we have heard the pleas and the pledges from Sonics rising. But while we're listening to our sports partners, I really wish we would be listening more to our port partners. It's the port that is helping us make our city and region strong and viable. And the port has repeatedly written to us about their efforts to keep our trade. This a trade dependent region that's competitive with both Canada and California and also all of you up here have seen the letter that has been signed by 50 legislators. It knocked me out that we've got 50 legislators that could actually come together and agree on something. But they did agree on this, and they said that the side of the proposed street vacation represents the cross roads. The international trade, manufacturing and transportation interests that together form a key economic engine for our state. We should not be compromising that, and we should not be pitting our jobs and our port good port jobs for a sports stadium or an arena itself. And I do strongly support the goal of bringing the NBA and the NHL back to our region. But I really disagree that it's an either or. This should not be a proposition that is either or. It should be one that is. And and we keep the jobs and we have a competitive port and we bring back a sports arena. And I do want to say one last thing to my buddy, the Garfield Bulldog on my left. Last Saturday, we were we were at Garfield High School. And there was as I went behind the curtain for a moment, there was a big sign that said. Honesty is standing up for what is right, even if you must stand alone. So I may be an eight one vote here, but I really believe that taking care of our port and taking care of our sonics in the future is the right thing to do. So I'll be voting no today.
Speaker 3: Council.
Speaker 6: Councilmember Juarez. Thank you. Oh. Okay. Oh.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilmember Bagshaw. Good afternoon. My name is Deborah Suarez and I represent District five. The Seattle City Council was asked to review and approve Arena Co's application for a street vacation. And with that, we're entrusted with the public trust, the public interest and the public benefit. To make this decision, we looked at state law, to see the municipal code, as well as a resolution passed by council in 2009, which outlines the guidelines for street vacation decisions. In addition, many of us read hundreds of documents, reports, studies, public comment, legal memos, policy memos. We looked at, we talked to stakeholders, unions, businesses, of course, representatives of the applicant and their lobbyists and the mayors. And as a matter of policy, I found some of these tools to be sorely inadequate. Not the public comment or the studies, but basically the 2009 resolution, which is the guideline for district vacations, nor in these policies are there instructions for dealing with the whole holistic impacts of street vacations on the future of our city now and in the past, including the port overlay and its historical uses, basically we are engaged in a flawed value system. For me, this decision weighs a nonexistent NBA franchise against Seattle's 160 year legacy as a maritime powerhouse on the Salish Sea, the Port of Seattle. Somehow we've created a false narrative of fact versus a fiction. The Port of Seattle is a crucial driver of growth in Washington State, the most trade dependent state in the union. If the Seattle Council votes to give up this public right of way in the heart of our maritime industry I'm sorry, the heart of our maritime industry district, we will spur what I would deem an irresistible pattern a civic gentrification as non-industrial users move into the area and economically evict the industrial tenants and related family wage jobs . We already have two arenas, so this is in some ways a tale of two streets. In some sense, it is neither an unused, simple alley or a major powerhouse used as an access road during severe congestion. This is a zoning decision, a decision we must make using tools and a policy that is simplistic, sterile and again ignores a holistic approach of growth, culture and our history as a city. This process sorely lacks a truly public interest and public benefit analysis. At least it does for me. We must protect our public trust, provide for true public benefit, and that protects us from adverse land use effects. And I could go into all the studies and everybody has a point about traffic congestion, pedestrian and what we what we want our city to look like. The value systems said today. And what we have to work with isn't the system that we want want, but it's the one we have. And I believe it is flawed. It doesn't capture or go beyond both the intrinsic value and the inherent value of today, of today and future issues affecting our society like climate change, your income inequality. We need this in order to make decisions that dramatically change our history, our future. To me, the port is real. It has intrinsic value. The street represents a bigger story in our collective, collective narrative. Once we relinquish the street, we take away another piece of our maritime history, the industrial port district. The analogy, of course, is civic gentrification, except a sad or fatal flaw is that we are balancing our choosing a nonexistent commodity that is a third arena with no NBA team in sight against an existent, long time civic resident. The port the port is dense with life, jobs, commerce, history, tradition, and over 160 years of maritime success. So basically I want to share something with you. And this is what we kind of do where I grew up. I want to share with you only in respect to the port, a tale of Two Rivers and why it's important to today's discussion and whether we approve a street vacation for the hope of something bigger or better or more to come. Over 100 years ago, the state of Washington thought it was a good idea to build two dams, one on the lower Elwha River and one on the Kerkovich River. This decision was a value based decision, the kind of decision we're making today. The city of Tacoma and the state of Washington decided that the dam in energy was more and more important. It was more important than the people, the river, the environment. The culture, the history, the legacy. They picked one project over the other. And as we know, let's fast forward. One tribe got their river back and that was the lower Elwha tribe. 100 years later, after all the degradation, loss to the natural environment and including to the Native people and 30 years of litigation and mediation, it was finally determined what our culture wisdom has always known that the river was more important and the dams were taken out. The other river, this Acoma River, almost the same history 100 years ago, they decided to completely de water and take out the north fork of this Acoma River. And again, we had 30 years of litigation in mediation because again, we made a value judgment. Something else was more important than what we deem in front of us right now. In both cases, the river was who the people were, the culture, the tradition, their their livelihood, their history, and their legacy. And you're probably thinking, Oh, my God, what does this have to do with the Sonics and the port? I have a point. Trust me, I'm going to be there. The maritime history is our history. We have over 160 years of being a maritime city. We are the Seattle Mariners. We are people of the Salish Sea. In fact, we had that since the first ship sailed into the bay in 1850. The Hudson Bay. As a native person, trust me when we weren't that excited when they showed up. But they're here. We are water people as well. We are next to the Salish Sea. Our physical location and relationship with our environment defines us as a city. It defines us as a people. It defines us as is our legacy. It's who we are. Just like our neighboring tribes. So my point today is this You can always build an arena. You can build three arenas. You can build five arenas. You can build them everywhere. But you cannot build another deepwater port. You cannot do that. You can never replace history or tradition. So do arena. If we trigger this, the public cost will be well over. I'm sorry. $200 million. The Port of Seattle on Salish Sea.
Speaker 6: Priceless.
Speaker 4: The port is not a symbol. Its value is natural, is its natural state, its use and its legacy. And it's real. And it's here. And for me, that's our history. That's our legacy. And it's us. And so I'll be voting no today.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 7: I was performing.
Speaker 1: I'm going to try to be briefer than my colleagues. But you were both quite eloquent. No, it it was a that was meant as a positive. So the decision before us is one of a discretionary decision that the council makes on any street. Now, a vacation. And I'll be the first to say that every street and alley in the city provides some benefit of some sort to us. And so to pretend that that any street doesn't matter to us is inaccurate. And the question before us is a discretionary one of balance between interests. And in the case of Occidental Street, in this location, I believe that the impacts of removing that street from the grid can largely be mitigated through the agreements in this agreement. I also believe the public benefit that is being provided by Arena CO in the case of this vacation is an excellent public benefit across the board. I know that there are folks that disagree with that, but my discretion in looking at the environmental impact statement, the analysis, the testimony, the presentations we've had here, I believe on the whole that the public benefits by granting the street vacation. And so I will be voting yes. Now, I wanted I want to just say that that those people on both sides of this, as my other colleagues have mentioned, that I have a ton of respect for, and it's a challenging position to be in. We've heard today from the building trades from Unite here and other unions that have said that this is a great project for their workers going forward because of agreements that have already been reached both in building and operating this arena. It'll be providing family wage jobs for those folks. And I believe all of us here support those family wage jobs for you. We've also we've also heard from longshoremen and sailors, Union Pacific saying that they believe that this project will have a negative impact on those family wage jobs. And again, I believe all of us care about those family wage jobs, as do I. I believe that there's a path here through thoughtfulness to date to allow the addition of the family wage jobs to build and operate that arena without impacting the family wage jobs that already exist in the area. But I know there's difference of opinions on that, and I respect folks on both sides of that. I look forward to supporting this in a moment when it comes to a vote and look forward to seeing what happens next in the long saga of pro basketball and hockey in Seattle.
Speaker 0: Cancer Council member.
Speaker 6: So want to thank you, Brendan Harrell. I respect Councilmember O'Brien's points. Deciding how to vote on this item was not easy for me and my staff and I have had to dig deeply on both sides to make up our minds. I have to say, the genuineness and sincerity of basketball in Sonics fans has been impressive. These are thousands of fans who have had their teams stolen out from under them and legitimately want an NBA basketball team back in Seattle. We also have hospitality workers and workers in the building trades who have successfully negotiated important labor agreements, which I, as a member of the labor movement, unreservedly support. And on the other side, there are maritime and industrial workers who have been fighting for decades to defend the industrial core of Seattle and defend our working waterfront. And as a member of the labor movement, please let me share that these jobs are particularly important because the unions that represent these workers have had a history of willing being willing to go on strike and fight back against the attacks of their bosses, preserving some important traditions of the labor movement, fighting traditions that we as workers are going to have to use to reverse this spiral of economic inequality. And as a result of these battles that the labor movement has waged the middle class jobs that we won over the last century. Have been lost over the last several decades through massive deindustrialization and loss of manufacturing. I want to be very clear. I would never make a decision based on the claims of the bureaucracy. That is the Port of Seattle. The Port of Seattle is an institution that former United States attorney Mike McKay described as, quote, a cesspool of corruption, unquote. The Port of Seattle that says that it is against the arena in order to defend jobs, but has disgracefully fought the sea dock workers in their efforts for $15 an hour. And the Port of Seattle that has shockingly allowed the super exploitation of independent truckers, many of them independent workers, and a board of Seattle who, for a quick buck, was willing to sacrifice our planet to bring the shell. Arctic oil drilling rig. But on the other side, there are big developers who want to redevelop the industrial core of Seattle and the Port Workers and their union. The International Longshore and Warehouse Workers Union have been fighting again and again against these forces who are slowly squeezing out our working waterfront. I am in solidarity with not the Port of Seattle, but the port workers and the ILWU who are trying to stand up against these forces of gentrification. I recognize that Sonics fans will not like my no vote on this matter, and I really don't like that vote either. I hate having to be in a position where, as an elected representative of the city, I have to pit sports against jobs, jobs, against jobs. This is not a good way to make public policy. But please always know that I vote with integrity and my vote is never up for sale. I do want to help bring back the Sonics, but I cannot do that on the basis of undermining our working waterfront and good paying industrialized industrial, unionized industrial jobs. Not to say that other jobs are also not of value, especially if they are unionized, living wage and come with benefits. Those who say that this early vacation vote has little to do with closing down the maritime industry may have a little bit of legitimacy. But I think that the ugly vacation boat is also a battle line in an ongoing war by big developers to gentrify Seattle. And I unfortunately cannot vote in favor of doing that. I therefore do not support the building of a new arena in this location. But again, my vote has nothing in common with those elected officials who say they're voting no because they care about jobs, but were also the ones who voted yes for the Amazon alley vacation earlier this year and completely disregarded the major concerns of workers security workers that are contracted by Amazon and have faced massive wage theft and retaliation against them. I was the only no vote against Amazon and today's vote is a similar issue for me. I support bringing back an NBA team to Seattle as long as it's not linked to building a stadium that potentially threatens our working waterfront. I know this is not an immediate alternative at this point, but I want to say I will help in any way I can. For us to demand that NBA commissioners allow for expansion and bring back the Sonics to the key arena and the door to my office will always be open to help genuine efforts to do so . Key Arena has been good enough for the Seattle storm to play in, and it was good enough for the Sonics before the owners decided to screw over Sonics fans. And if it wasn't for the greed of billionaires who controlled pro-sports, it would still have been good enough. I'm voting against this trade vacation because I'm concerned about Seattle's good paying, unionized industrial and maritime jobs. And I don't want to put jobs against jobs. But I also think we have a much broader conversation to have about how the barons who own our professional sports teams are allowed to have monopoly control over entertainment for millions of ordinary working people who are sports fans. Finally, I would like to thank everybody who helped me and my staff members learn the nuances of this issue, particularly all the Sonics fans like Adam Brown and Jason Reed, who made the important corruption exposing documentary film called Sonic Skate and all my sisters and brothers from the labor movement who helped elucidate the history of soda industry. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Councilmember Burgess.
Speaker 8: Thank you very much. I thank the city council since we started this prospect process back in 2012, has very strongly and consistently negotiated for the best outcomes for the city, the city government and the people of Seattle. We did that when we renegotiated the MRU in 2012, and I think we've done that here with this street vacation process as well. I hear when our port commissioners come and testify before us. And Commissioner Feltman is still here. And when they express their fears about what this decision might do. But I want to remind all of us that we have voted consistently to support our maritime and industrial sectors and the ports specifically. Last year we adopted the heavy haul corridor legislation. We have voted dozens of times to protect industrial and manufacturing zones of our city. And I don't think any of us up here would do anything where we knew that we were somehow harming the family wage jobs that come from Seattle's legacy industries, our maritime manufacturing and industrial sector . Some suggest that we should wait and not take action until we're guaranteed an NBA team. But we've never been guaranteed a team. And frankly, the way we know that the NBA works, it's a fantasy to think that we would ever be guaranteed a team. The only alternative which the city and King County together chose to follow in 2012 is to develop a framework that could put us in a place where a team may be made available to Seattle. So rather than tying our chances to a specific team, what mattered is that we made it explicit in the MCU that the public private partnership to build an arena would not move forward unless a team were secured. And we've done that as well in the street vacation. If a team is not secured by November of 2017, public financing of this arena goes away and evaporates. The street vacation is no different. It's conditional on the Arena project, and the Arena Project's public financing is conditioned on securing a team. The street vacation is also conditioned for those who are worried about traffic on strong and detailed language around scheduling agreements agreed to by the other stadiums and sports teams who play in that area. The street vacation is also not a giveaway. If we approve this vacation, the city agrees to sell for a fair market value estimated at between 18 and $20 million. That one block of Occidental, as well as an appropriate level of public benefits estimated to cost Mr. Hansen another 20 to $25 million. I think we've adequately addressed the various issues that we have before us. We've weighed those and measured what impact they would have, and I think that's the reason I'm going to support the street vacation.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Burgess. Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Council president. I just want to talk about a couple of the touch points for me over the course of this discussion that have really helped inform the decision that I'm going to be making today to support the arena vacation. You know, we heard pretty loud and clear from folks around the industrial zoning issues in the SODO area. I want to point out for my colleagues benefit and for those watching along at home that their current site for the proposed arena has no existing industrial zoned land on it. It's a it's an arena. It's a proposed arena site as a proposed stadium district. So I am very committed to the idea of continuing to preserve industrial lands in the city. The location, as proposed today, is not currently zoned for that kind of use. There are no current tenants that are involved in industrial manufacturing jobs. And I think that one of the things that really informed me over the the time that I took to make this decision is some reporting from the Planning Commission that really underlined how important manufacturing and industrial lands have been throughout the city's economic booms and busts as a constant for us in our revenue tools. I stand committed as the Chair of the Planning and Zoning Committee to make sure that the industrial lands that we have zoned as industrial, which again, this is not one of them, stay as industrial lands. We've also spent a lot of time talking about transportation as part of this discussion. I think that there's been a lot of really great public benefits associated with this plan, including a lot of transportation enhancements around pedestrian and bike infrastructure, as well as a contribution to the Landers Street overpass, which many folks have identified as a critical corridor for freight mobility. I want to highlight for my colleagues that what we've been talking about is vacating one block of one street in a city where we've got 30% of our landmass for roadway infrastructure. For me, this issue isn't about that one block. It's about how do we prioritize that 30% of our city's roadways to do a better job for free mobility? And I stand willing to work with the board to make those tough decisions to allow for better freight mobility and connectivity here in the city. But I was not compelled by the arguments that I heard around negative traffic impacts or some of the other issues that I heard around the loss of manufacturing industrial jobs. I was compelled by the testimony that we heard around how important this is going to be for the building and construction trades and for the folks that unite here around creating a 20 sort of a 365 day employment opportunity for those folks who are working in those jobs. And I think for those and several others, not the least of which is being the shortest at six four of one of my cousins and being a lifelong Sonics fan that I'll be voting yesterday to support vacating
Speaker 0: . Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I'm very sympathetic to wanting to get the NBA back in Seattle, so sympathetic that I see having a team as a public benefit that would be worthy of voting for the street vacation. I think that's really one of the things that has got gotten lost in this discussion is that it's not just the nine people up here who determine what a public benefit is. It's it's you guys, too. And I've heard loud and clear that you support having a team in Seattle regardless of what what side of this issue you are you are on. Many of you really see that as the driving public benefit associated with a street vacation. But unfortunately, that's not where we're at right now. Another approach that I had looked at, because I had concerns that we are opening the door for a request for an extension of the street, an extension of the MRU or a change of terms is we looked at seeing if we could vote on a street vacation that had the same duration as the 2012 EMU. But we've been advised against that approach by our law department. I do support the fact that we have a a historic labor peace agreement in the EMU and that there are future new jobs that this project may bring. As it relates to the Labor peace agreement, I believe that is tied to the to the public financing of of this of this project. In either event, I really prefer to air on the side of protecting and protecting industrial and maritime jobs that we have now, not jobs that we may have in the future . We need to maintain our diversified economy. There are nearly 43,000 people who work in SODO, an average wage of $70,000 a year. Also, I've heard a lot of concerns. Definitely a few people in West Seattle who have contacted me in favor of this arena. But I've heard a lot of concerns from my constituents in West Seattle and South Park about their access to downtown, specifically the West. Seattle Transportation Coalition has noted that there's been an a reduction in vehicle lanes over the last decade through SODO. Many in West Seattle feel that they already shoulder the burden for professional sports facilities. District one is separated from downtown by Sodio Sodo and the stadiums. If the transportation mitigation as identified now doesn't work out. It's West Seattle and South Park. That would be the neighborhoods most affected and hindered to access to downtown. Further are business owners in West Seattle have expressed concern about gentrification and losing access to goods and services in Sodo that serve their businesses in West Seattle. One restaurant owner in West Seattle write to the council and tell us that there were 14 unique locations in Sodo that provide goods and services to his business alone. Lastly, the the project before us doesn't include the proposed L.A. live style bars and restaurants in the impacts from them. And so parking and transportation impacts may not even be adequately described for these reasons and and more that I won't go into because many of my colleagues have already. I will be voting no against this reification. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 4: Last but not least, I hope.
Speaker 0: Not last.
Speaker 4: Oh, are you?
Speaker 0: I know.
Speaker 3: You're in fourth.
Speaker 0: Quarter, by the way. Almost in overtime.
Speaker 4: Oh, my word. I'm going to pretend like I didn't hear that. So over the past six months, I have received probably more than a thousand messages. And that doesn't even include the social media posts that I've been getting while sitting on the dais and otherwise about this land use decision. I began to study this issue in late November of 2015, just a few short days after being sworn into office. In the course of the past six months, I've reviewed constituent messages. Petition to vacate the Street Clerk File 312905. Central Staff divided Report and Stats Recommendations for the Street Location Central Staff Transportation Impact Summary Arena Traffic Impact Study the Stadium Overlay District Ordinance Central Staff's Summary of the MSU and the Port of Seattle's Economic Impacts of the proposed Soda Arena reports which were received late on Friday. I also participated in a two hour public hearing and watched committee hearings of the Transportation and Sustainability Committee, in addition to several briefings and presentations from central staff as ODOT, as DCI and the Design Review Commission. And I really sincerely want to thank all of those who have reached out to me to give me your thoughts about whether or not it is in the best interest consistent with the Seattle's and consistent with the Seattle Street Vision policies to now vacate or sell Occidentale Street to Mr. Chris Hansen for the purpose of building an arena. For those of you that know me, you know that I'm generally not the quietest, quietest person in the room. My silence. I hope you will take it as a signal of my profound and deep struggle with a seemingly innocuous land use decision. The voters of Seattle, citywide, have vested in me and my colleagues the great responsibility of sifting through these difficult policy questions that ultimately are distilled to one word A or I. Or no? I have always committed to being thoughtful in my approach to difficult policy issues, but I must also be decisive, and I hope that my vote today will fall in line with my goal to be thoughtful but decisive before being elected to Seattle City Council. I watched this arena issue play out, and with all due respect for Mr. Hansen, I've always been a skeptic of the use of public dollars to finance a private capital venture, and I cannot say that I would have voted in favor of the memorandum of understanding that was approved in 2012 by that City Council. The decision before me today, however, is not a rehashing of the Memorandum of understanding and that City Council's decision to approve it. The decision before me is a land use decision that is governed by three questions. One are the functions of the street right of way to be vacated protected? Two Would there be adverse land use impacts resulting from the vacation? Three Will there be sufficient public benefits to offset the loss of the right of way? Many folks, in my opinion, have erroneously pitted certain union jobs against other union jobs. This is also a false dichotomy and does a disservice to our struggle in the labor movement. Now is the time to show solidarity with each other, not a scarce resource mentality. Nor is this an either or decision about whether you love the Sonics or love the port and maritime industrial jobs. We can and should love both, and I believe that we do. I am wholeheartedly in support of bringing NBA and NHL teams to the city of Seattle, and I hope that we can do so without further compromising the vitality of the port and our rich maritime and industrial history in this city. We currently have a maritime and industrial community that provides us with tens and thousands of jobs, and I believe it's in our city's best interest to protect the jobs we know we currently have, rather than sell the street for hypothetical jobs that are contingent on a hypothetical team. I have really struggled with this decision a lot and I respect people on both sides of the equation on this one. I trust I believe in the building trade. I believe in the Sonics rising folks. And I also am a resident of West Seattle and suffer every day through the traffic that is in Sodo. And I think that we need to make sure that we are committed to a robust traffic traffic mitigation strategy. I don't believe that the traffic issues have been well, well dealt with. And today I am going to vote no on the street vacation.
Speaker 0: Any further comments before we were calling the questions the inappropriate phrase, actually. I will just be very brief because I can count and I will be supporting this for a variety of reasons, but I certainly really respect the work that my colleagues have done. Many of you have talked about the sort of the I don't say agony, but the having to go deep in terms of your values and your mission and your vision of what this city should be about on this decision. And as Councilmember Johnson said, it is one block, but it is a critical block. I do want to remind the public that the taxes that would be used in this are financed from arena generated economic activity. That would be the admissions tax. The property taxes sales tax would be taxed at leasehold excise tax and a parking tax. These are new revenues that we do not have. And at a time when we are trying to create jobs and certainly not take them away, this seem like to be a wise decision. But I must tell you that there are many ways to demonstrate our commitment to longshoreman and to the sailors union of the Pacific and to our maritime and port industry. And I think we will continue to do that, not just in our our our heavy haul corridor, our work, our freight masterplan work or our priority hire legislation . But in every decision that we continue to make, but on this particular street vacation, I see it again consistent with the you. So having said that, I, I think we've all protected our record and I'm ready to move forward with the vote. I'm going to ask that the clerk call out the roll on granting the petition as condition it's already been moved and seconded. So please call the roll on the granting of the petition as a condition to.
Speaker 2: Purchase.
Speaker 3: By.
Speaker 4: Gonzalez. No. Purple, no.
Speaker 5: Johnson High.
Speaker 2: Suarez no O'Brien High, sir. Want no beg Bagshaw? No. President Harrell.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Four in favor. Five opposed.
Speaker 0: The motion fails and the petition is not granted. Okay. We're going to move to our next report, which is going to be the report of the Civil Rights, Utility's Economic Development and Arts Committee. | Clerk File (CF) | Petition of WSA Properties, et al. to vacate Occidental Avenue South between the north margin of South Holgate Street and a line parallel to and 30 feet south of the centerline of South Massachusetts Street. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04252016_CB 118663 | Speaker 2: The report of the full council and Adam one council bill 118663. Related to the operation of open air tour vehicles, creating a new Chapter 15.66 in the Seattle Municipal Code and in many sections 15.90 1.002 and point zero 16 of Seattle Municipal Code.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President before us this afternoon is Council Bill 118663. It is a piece of legislation that went through the Gender Equity Safe Communities Annual Americans Committee, and its purpose was to provide some legal clarity and a law that would prevent open air tour vehicles from both providing narrating while driving from the same person. So we we've had a one meeting, two meetings to discuss the particular policy issues that were proposed in this Council bill. We have several amendments that we have made to the open air tour vehicles, legislation to narrow it in specific ways, to address the specific issues related to distracted driving and dangers related to tour vehicles and guiding us through those various policy amendments and changes will be Council Member Burgess, who I want to thank for his leadership on on crafting the specifics around the policy changes and putting forward amendments that we will be considering in a substitute bill.
Speaker 0: You are there. I'm sorry. Councilmember Burgess.
Speaker 5: Thank you. First, I had a question for the clerk. Do we have the correct ordinance on the agenda, or do I need to move the substitute?
Speaker 0: Okay. There's no need for.
Speaker 5: No, that's okay.
Speaker 4: Just a mirror.
Speaker 5: Okay. So this legislation, the correct version in front of us, modifies what was originally submitted to the council. It narrows the scope of application to open air vehicles. It limits the size of the vehicle to vehicles carrying 16 or more persons, including passenger and the driver or staff members. It broadens the legislation to cover any vehicle that's operating on city streets, whether or not the tour begins or ends in the city. It broadens the definition of the prohibited activities to include tours near narration or entertainment while driving and operating on city streets. It imposes either criminal or civil penalties, including the possibility of the issuance of citations, much like moving traffic citations. And then perhaps very significantly, it shifts the responsibility from the driver to the tour operating company that is penalized if there's a violation as opposed to the driver.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Burgess, are there any further comments about this legislation?
Speaker 4: I just if I could add to that in terms of input that we got from community, we we heard from many different folks who own tour tour vehicles. Many of the operators within the city of Seattle who already operate open air vehicles. Had no objection to this policy direction. They, in fact, are already in many ways following the high safety procedures by having one person do the narration and one person do the driving. And so we we I want to thank those folks who came to both of our public hearings to provide us with public testimony about how this particular piece of legislation, both in its original form and in its amended form, would help increase safety of those who who come into our city and and and buy tickets to go on to these tours.
Speaker 0: Well, I want to thank the two of you and your committee for grappling with this legislation. We know we want it to be inclusive of those small businesses or medium sized businesses that run these. But we've had some tragedies here which really warrants our legislators getting on top of these issues. So thank you for that process and for presenting this legislation at the. Any further comments from my colleagues here? Again, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Thanks. John Burgess. Gonzalez Herbold Johnson. Suarez O'Brien. O'Brien Sewell. President Harrell I. 9 a.m. favorite unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passes and Cher was cited as an item number two. Please please read the report. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE related to the operation of open-air tour vehicles; creating a new Chapter 15.66 in the Seattle Municipal Code; and amending Sections 15.91.002 and 15.91.016 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04252016_CB 118664 | Speaker 0: Bill passes and Cher was cited as an item number two. Please please read the report.
Speaker 2: Agenda item to cancel bill 118664 relating to legislate department staff increase in the number of legislative assistant positions and many audience 118851 and amended the legislative assisted compensation plan administrative guidelines.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much so. This bill amends a 1997 ordinance 118851 that was put in place that really capped the number of employees full time FTE positions for council member to three. And given the fact that we have shifted to a district set up and there or at least a higher level of expectation for I think constituent services and a present in the community. This 1997 cap, it will be lifted, at least it is suggestion in this ordinance. And I think all of you are aware of this. And again, it's more administrative in nature, but we'll list that cap on FTE for each council member there. Any questions or comments from any of my colleagues? Councilmember Burgess.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I think as I've talked with most of you, if not all of you, actually over the last several weeks, I will be opposing this change in the municipal code. Back when the voters of Seattle authorized shifting to a hybrid system where seven members are elected by district and two members elected at large, we asked the city auditor to look at other cities similar to Seattle to see how they handled their hybrid council system. And we did that in collaboration with the initiatives, sponsors and various city departments. We looked at Austin, Boston, Denver, Jacksonville, Oakland and San Francisco. None of these cities have more than three staff members for their council members, and none of these cities provide money for in district offices. I certainly understand my colleagues desire to have an increased level of service to constituents, but I question whether an additional staff member is needed to do that work. My other concern comes from my role as budget chair. This decision is not made in a financial vacuum. There are costs associated with this. The fiscal note attached to this piece of legislation does not include this number, but we will soon, in my committee be asked to act on legislation that authorizes these expenses. And on an annualized basis, we're talking about a half a million dollars. Is this the highest and best use of these funds? And I'm not at all confident that our constituents would answer that question with a yes. So I will be voting against this legislation, with all due respect to my colleagues who hold a different view.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Burgess. Are there any other comments from any of my colleagues? Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 2: Oh, thank you. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Little Herbold And then Councilman Wirth.
Speaker 4: Sorry about that. I just want.
Speaker 2: To speak to this issue from my unique position as a staff.
Speaker 4: Member who last year took on the work of the At-Large council members. And I can now, as a council member.
Speaker 2: Really see.
Speaker 4: How under the district systems, the.
Speaker 2: One might think that there would be a reduced workload. But the fact of the matter is, is that the expectations.
Speaker 4: For constituent responses in particular has greatly increased. In the past, when a.
Speaker 2: Constituent would write to a.
Speaker 4: Council member about an issue that was not.
Speaker 2: In that particular council members committee bailiwick, the council member could refer that constituent inquiry on to the council member who was the chair of that committee.
Speaker 4: We can't do that now.
Speaker 2: So I my staff are now expected to be experts in parks.
Speaker 4: Issues when those parks issues are related.
Speaker 2: To.
Speaker 4: District one. A lot of work in transportation, as you might imagine, as.
Speaker 2: It relates to West Seattle.
Speaker 4: And South Park.
Speaker 2: Transportation issues. So we're really doing.
Speaker 4: Sort of triage to get.
Speaker 2: The public.
Speaker 4: Good answers on many, many more issues than we.
Speaker 2: Previously have.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Herbold, Councilmember Suarez, thank you.
Speaker 2: As you expected, I would have something to say. Thank you. Councilmember Herbold and Burgess, I want to fast forward to 2000. I'm sorry. Go back into time in 2013. This is a proposed charter amendment and it passed 65 to 35%. And there's a reason why over 45,000 people helped put this on the ballot. And why did they do that? Because they believe that the people that should represent you should live with you and should be responsible for you. And those are the people that should elect you because you are representing them as well as all of Seattle. That was the purpose and goal and I am familiar. Thank you, Councilmember Burgess, with the Austin Report. And I did read it. It was dated April 2014. But I'd like to point out that Seattle has well over 630,000 people, people with issues and needs. And now we're in districts we can no longer afford to ignore our communities and critical issues and still expect to get elected. And I think it's fair to point out that in 1975 and 1995, in 2003, it failed when we tried to pass the district system, and it finally passed on the fourth time. Why? Because the people of Seattle felt that they wanted representation, fair share of resources regarding parks, community centers, libraries, public safety, human services, pedestrian improvements and road maintenance. So you needed someone to advocate for the specific needs of your community, but you honor the greater good of the people of Seattle. And I'd like to also thank the people that are elected at large. That would be our mayor, Councilmember Gonzalez, and of major councilmember. For Burgess, they ensure regional and citywide voice. They educate us and I, for one, rely on them and their hard work and insight for the issues that they bring to my committee and helping me be a better councilwoman. I also want to point out that district representation closely what makes us more closely engage with our neighbors, our community, and that we learn to share that knowledge with fellow council members and our communities. I've learned from other council members. I've learned more about their districts. I work more efficiently and collectively with other council members. I can represent and honor the city and the people as a whole in this great city deserves no less. Now, before, I just want to add just a few odds. Being a new councilperson, I should add that 47 of the 50th largest cities in the United States already elect council members in geographic districts. And I think it's important to note that Seattle is a big city with big city problems, and we've also had major successes. The district system works. We just came up on our first 100 days less than two weeks ago. And I can say as a new councilwoman, these are some of the issues that I've been struggling with in dealing with and reading about and learning about and working in relying on my fellow council members. Homelessness. Affordable Housing. Street Vacations. Safe Injection Sites. Education. The Housing Levy. Hala MOU. Seattle Public Safety 83. Of course our transit spine. Mental health, food banks, the consent decree that we're operating under cannabis sale, regulation and licensing, wage theft, labor trafficking, sex trafficking, implementing the race and social justice initiative. Family Pay Leave, gender pay, equity, labor and business issues. Climate issues both local and regional. Those are just 20 issues that we've been dealing with for well over a hundred days. And you cannot tell me that three people can do all of that. You simply can't. And that isn't counting the committee that we're assigned to. So as a woman, as a mother, as a person that has lived in my district in the North End for 30 years, 25 years in my district where I raised my children, where I bought my home, where I rented my house. I didn't live in the North End because I was a Republican or a Democrat. I lived in the North End because I had good schools, had infrastructure and had transit, and I felt that it was time to have the North End represented. And that's why I decided to run. But more importantly, it's because I believe in this great city and I believe in how progressive we are and I believe how humane we are. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, councilmember her. Whereas those words than any of my colleagues else wanted to refute. Councilmember Burgess. Well, I will. Although you have one fan out there and Mr. Finish, I would say that it's very important realize a few things. Number one, if you look back at 2008, the city council members and their staff, we were at 36 employees in 2014. We full time employees in 2014. We're 39 in 2015 and 16, we're at 41. And I say that to look at the numbers, to suggest that many council members, through the use of temporary employees, through the use of work study employees, many, many council members have had three or four, sometimes five employees in their office. And what this change does, it's an administrative change to simply. Codify sort of a practice that has occurred even without this legislation. And I would remind my colleagues that you are not required to hire anyone. You are not required to use your budget. And so this gives the council members a choice, some flexibility. And those that choose not to use it certainly will have that choice. And so I, I applaud Councilmember Burgess for reminding us once again that we are stewards of the public public funds, the public tax based public moneys. But again, I think that while other cities there's some precedential value in what they do, it certainly is not controlling precedent. And that I think that we can continue to be a leader in this country for what we do in terms of delivering constituent services. So, again, this is designed to give us flexibility. And I think my colleagues make those points. And again, I will close debate. Unless anyone else has anything to say. No further comments. Please call the role on the passage of the Bill Bagshaw.
Speaker 1: Burgess No. Gonzalez, I Herbold Johnson. Suarez O'Brien.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 1: So on President Harrell eight in favor one opposed thank you.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will assign it next report for the from the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Legislative Department staff; increasing the number of Legislative Assistant positions; amending Ordinance 118851; and amending the Legislative Assistant Compensation Plan Administrative Guidelines. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04252016_CB 118661 | Speaker 2: Agenda item for Constable 118661. Relating to the Seattle Youth Commissioner. Many sections 3.60 7.0 20.0 or 30.0 50.0 60. And repealing section 33.60 7.07. Ms. because the committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Council Member Burgess.
Speaker 5: Thank you. In just a moment, we're going to consider 13 appointments to the Seattle Youth Commission. And this particular ordinance changes the nature of the commission a little bit. It reduces the membership from 25 to 15. It shifts the representation to the seven council districts to make sure that each council district has at least one member on the commission. It changes the term of service for the youth commissioner from one year to two years, and it syncs that appointment period up with the academic school year. It amends language around the annual youth town hall, which is required by the current current ordinance and broadens that so that the Youth Commission can sponsor events including a town hall if they wish, throughout the year and not just one year. It has more general language that allows the appointment of two co-chairs instead of just one chair, and it shifts responsibility for the commission from the Mayor's office to the Department of Neighborhoods. And then it gives authority to the Commission to write their own bylaws and to establish rules for how they will govern the Commission.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Are there any further comments from any of my colleagues? I do want to say thank you for making these changes. My son was once a commissioner on this youth council. And I'll tell you, they are really dynamic. They are the issues and the maturity that these young folks show us is incredible. And they are really into inclusiveness, making inclusiveness, making sure that underrepresented groups are heard, all schools are heard. So I think this is a commission that really, really carries a huge weight and allows us to hear from the voice of our youth. So thank you very much for this changes hearing no other comments. Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Bagshaw Burgess. Gonzalez Herbold. Johnson Juarez. I O'Brien High St i. President Harrell, I. 9 a.m. favored unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item items five through 17 into the record. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Youth Commission; amending Sections 3.67.020, 3.67.030, 3.67.050, and 3.67.060 and repealing Section 3.67.070 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04252016_Res 31660 | Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Are there any comments regarding this appointment? Those in favor of confirming the appointment vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the appointment is confirmed. Please read the next agenda item into the record please.
Speaker 2: For introduction adoption resolution 31666d Expressing the city sales fervent support for the designation of the area around Stonewall Inn as a national monument to be administered under the purview of the National Park Service.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President. In the early morning hours of June 28th, 1969, a police raid on the Stonewall Inn haven to members of the LGBTQ community of New York City ended in violence and riots. The front lines of the conflict saw police and patrons led by queer and trans women of color. A little known fact in direct and physical confrontation. And these women fought back. The voices of gender nonconforming activists. Sylvia Rivera. Marsha P Johnson. Stormy. De la very. De la very. And Miss Major Griffin. Gracie led the call for access to civil rights for all of the LGBTQ community. Two years earlier, a Seattle Times headline proclaimed On September 21st, 1966, quote, Tolerant Reputation, Seattle, Seattle, homosexual problem reported to be, quote, out of hand, close quote. And a series of proscriptive policies sought to limit the rights of the LGBTQ community. As a response, members of the community organize and founded the Dorian Society in 1967. Advocates for gay and lesbian rights here in Seattle stood up for equal protection under the law, and we will continue that fight until equity is achieved. Currently, none of our more than 400 national parks represent or connect to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer history. Despite the many sites that tell stories of people and movements across the country, from Seattle to New York, Chicago and beyond, our national parks belong to all of us, a fact that is particularly important as we celebrate the National Park Service's centennial this year and look to its next 100 years as an American storyteller. We hope that the National Park Service will examine themes that incorporate the significant events of our diverse population, diverse population and shared history across our country. While we celebrate the progress that has been made since the summer of 1969 and the initial events of Stonewall during Pride parades every June, there is still a lot of work to do. Many states and municipalities do not have employment protected protections for LGBTQ workers across the nation and here in our city. Trans people, particularly of color, are being politically and physically attacked. And in fact, this last year in our state legislature, we saw about five bills, anti-trans bills that were considered in our own state's legislature. Conferring national landmark status will help ensure that an important piece of our nation's history is preserved for future generations. The establishment of the Stonewall Inn as a national park would memorialize these events every day of the year. I want to thank all of the advocates who are still working for equity across our city and across our state. I want to thank the advocates who are in the room today who who are championing this particular issue. I think it's important to make sure that we are hearing these stories and that these stories are represented in our American history. We have a lot more to do, but I think this is certainly a step in the right direction. I want to thank my staff members, Brianna Thomas and Genevieve Jones and Corey Doll and Corey Simmons, who spearheaded this effort on behalf of my office. And I'm really excited and proud to have been able to introduce this resolution to my colleagues. And I will thank you all for your support of this resolution.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Katzman Gonzalez. Are there any further comments from any of our colleagues? Thank you very much and thanks for being here. Our proud it's our pleasure in supporting this and thank you for your leadership. I move to adopt resolution 316660. It's been moved in. Second note that the resolution be adopted. Are there any further comments? Those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries the resolutions adopted and the chair will gladly sign it. Thank you. Is there any further business cover for the council? Hearing. Then we stand adjourned. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION expressing The City of Seattle’s fervent support for the designation of the area around the Stonewall Inn as a National Monument to be administered under the purview of the National Parks Service. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04182016_CB 118652 | Speaker 5: The Report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee. Agenda Item to Council 118 652 Relating to violations of the All Gender Restaurant Ordinance and many Section 14 point No. 7.0 40 of the Seattle Municipal Code. To clarify a respondent's right to appeal the violations outlined in subsection 14.0 7.0 40 point C, the committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 6: Thank you. The old gender restroom ordinance, passed unanimously by the City Council in 2015, established a requirement for gender neutral signage on all single occupant restrooms in public accommodations across Seattle. The legislation before us today proposes a technical amendment to the 2015 all gender restroom ordinance to clarify a respondent's right to appeal the violation. Existing language in the ordinance states that a respondent may appeal the civil penalty by requesting a contested hearing. However, the function of a contested hearing itself is to appeal the underlying violation that leads to the civil penalty rather than the civil penalty itself. Consequently, a technical amendment is necessary to rectify the discrepancy between the appeal and the type of hearing associated with that appeal. Not only does this amendment reconcile a discrepancy, but it also ensures respondents have access to due process. The ordinance unanimously passed out of committee last Tuesday.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Councilmember Herbold, are there any further comments on this bill? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 0: So on i. Bagshaw. Burgess. Gonzalez. I. Herbold. I. Johnson. Whereas I O'Brien President Harrell.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passes and the chair will sign it these religion items three through 12 into the record please. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to violations of the All-Gender Restroom Ordinance; amending Section 14.07.040 of the Seattle Municipal Code to clarify a respondent’s right to appeal the violation outlined in subsection 14.07.040.C. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04112016_CB 118657 | Speaker 2: To be part of the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee Agenda Item three Council Vote 118 654 Relating to Historic Preservation Imposing Controls upon fire station number five a landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board under Chapter 25.12 of the State of Mississippi Code. In addition to the table of historical landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32 of Shadow Minister Code, the committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 4: Councilmember Burgess. Thank you. I think we all know where Station five is located. It's on the central waterfront right near Ivers, and this ordinance designates it as a historic landmark and adds it to our table of historical landmarks. It also imposes controls on how Fire Station five can be upgraded and remodeled, a process that will begin soon.
Speaker 0: Are there any further comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the Bill O'Brien.
Speaker 1: Bagshaw. Burgess. Gonzalez.
Speaker 2: Herbold II.
Speaker 1: Johnson Suarez. President Harrell II. Aden favor unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Next agenda item, please. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to historic preservation; imposing controls upon Fire Station No. 5, a landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board under Chapter 25.12 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and adding it to the Table of Historical Landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04042016_CB 118641 | Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Report of the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee.
Speaker 5: Report at the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee. Agenda Item one Constable 118 641 relating to funding for housing and community development programs adopted in the City of Seattle 2016 Annual Action Plan to the 2014 through 2017 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development and authorizing its submission to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development . Authorizing acceptance of grants from that department for programs and activities, including in the annual Action Plan of many Ordinance 124927, which adopted the 2016 Budget by modifying appropriations to various departments and budget control levels in the 2016 and after budget and ratifying confirming setting prior acts by 3/1 vote of the city council. The committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Burgess.
Speaker 6: Thank you. This is the legislation that we adopt annually to adopt the 2016 Annual Action Plan for the 2014 to 2017 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development, and authorizes the submission of this plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. It will bring in approximately $14 million, which are used to provide services, housing and facilities to low and moderate income persons, businesses and neighborhoods. I will point out one amendment that we made in committee, and that is to authorize $400,000 for the 23rd Avenue Eligible Business Support Assistance Grant and was, as was reported in council briefing this morning. Of the businesses that qualify for receiving funds have been identified and those funds should be flowing fairly soon.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Are there any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Whereas I. O'Brien Sergeant Major Burgess Gonzalez Herbold II. Johnson, President Harrell.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: 9 a.m. favored unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Report of the Gender Equity Safe Communities and New Americans Committee. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to funding for housing and community development programs; adopting The City of Seattle 2016 Annual Action Plan to the 2014 - 2017 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development and authorizing its submission to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; authorizing acceptance of grant funds from that department for programs and activities included in the Annual Action Plan; amending Ordinance 124927, which adopted the 2016 Budget, by modifying appropriations to various departments and budget control levels in the 2016 Adopted Budget; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts, all by a three-fourths vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04042016_Res 31654 | Speaker 5: The Report of the Gender Equity Safe Committees and New Americans Committee ten. Item two Resolution 316 54 Expressing the city's support for an effective, county wide, safe prescription drug disposal program, including control substances and requesting local pharmacies and the Seattle Police Department to install drug disposal drop boxes across the city. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 7: Thank you so much. I am pleased to move for the adoption of Resolution 31654, which is co-sponsored by myself and Councilmember Timber. Just I want to thank Councilmember Burgess for taking the the lion's share of the drafting of the resolution. Thank you so much, Councilmember Burgess, and and to your staff for doing that. This resolution expresses the city's support for an effective, countywide, safe prescription drug disposal program, including the collection of controlled substances, and request that local pharmacies and the Seattle Police Department install safe and secure drug disposal drop boxes across the city. We all know that in in our city and across the county, we are like so many American cities in the midst of a heroin epidemic. Indeed, in a 2015 report completed by the University of Washington, we learned that drug cars, deaths involving heroin and or methamphetamines peaked in King County, resulting in a 58% increase in heroin deaths . A 2013 study by the Federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration concluded that four out of five recent heroin users previously used opioid pain relievers such as oxycodone before switching to the less expensive option of heroin. Experts in the field have stated that providing safe disposal of unused prescription drugs, especially of controlled substances, is a public health approach that reduces the risk of nonmedical use that might lead to drug abuse, including heroin addiction. For these reasons, and those further articulated in this resolution, the Gender Equity Safe Communities and New Americans Committee unanimously recommends that City Council adopt Resolution 31654.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Council members Gonzales and Burgess, council member Burgess.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I think this is a very positive step. To make it possible for residents of Seattle to join other communities in King County to be able to safely dispose of prescription drugs, including controlled substances, police departments from Auburn to Woodinville and from Snoqualmie to now. Seattle will have these safe deposit boxes. Many individuals won't be comfortable going to police precincts, so we encourage pharmacies in our city to install these boxes. Programs supervised by the federal government and paid for by the pharmaceutical companies. So it doesn't cost pharmacies anything to have these collection boxes. They're safe, they're serviced and they're very secure.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Are there any further comments? Those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries, the resolution is adopted, and a chair will sign it. Is there any further business to come before the council? If not, we stand adjourned. Thank you very much and have a great afternoon.
Speaker 6: Very much. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION expressing the City’s support for an effective, countywide safe prescription drug disposal program, including controlled substances, and requesting local pharmacies and the Seattle Police Department to install drug disposal drop-boxes across the City. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03282016_CB 118649 | Speaker 1: The report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee agenda item for Constable 118 649 Establishing the terms and conditions for members of the Labor Standards Advisory Commission. Amending Section 3.14 point 934 admissible code and ratifying confirmed research and prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Council Member Herbold.
Speaker 2: Thank you. So the Labor Standards Advisory Commission was created with the Office of Labor Standards the same time that we enacted the legislation creating that office in 2014. At the time, the ordinance did not include terms of appointment or cause for renewal. We've only just realized that because we are now in the process of creating and implementing this Commission. And the amendments that were made to the enabling legislation include initial terms of odd number positions for one year and the even number positions for two years. Commission members can serve up to two consecutive terms, and the appointing authority may remove members for two or more consecutive absences without cause. The amendment has a ratify and confirm clause in order to appoint commission members immediately to help with legislation that's in the works. We've talked about the fact that a council member wars has brought to my attention the work that she's been doing with some of the neighborhood business districts and the need to augment the work of the Labor Standards Advisory Commission. And we've confirmed that the ability to create subcommittees is not limited or nor does it have to be explicitly allowed by this legislation so that work can move forward as well as creating the commission with with your vote today.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, are there any further comments, Councilmember Suarez.
Speaker 1: Yes, I have a few comments to make and I will not go over 2 minutes. Mr. President, I think you've been unfair because of the whole district thing, but I'll let that go. First of all, I want to thank Councilmember Herbold and the members of her committee, Councilmembers Sawant and Gonzalez, for their work on forming this commission and labor standards. I had an opportunity to go back and watch last week's public meeting, and I actually I learned a lot not only about the business piece, but also, of course, meeting with the workers and the unions as well. I support this legislation and its commitment to address wages, working conditions, safety and health and health of workers. I support the Commission being tasked with recommending ways to achieve workplace equity for women, communities of color, immigrants and refugees and vulnerable workers. With the fast paced growth in our region, we need to ensure workers are protected now and into the future. Our region is proving to be a leader in the nation in creating better conditions for workers, and there's more work to do. My District five includes several diverse business districts, including Northgate Mall, Thorton Place, Aurora, Lake City Business District districts, which include hundreds of small businesses which collectively employ thousands of workers. Ensuring workers in these locations are treated fairly, that policies are applied consistently and transparently is critical to that end. Therefore, I would like to encourage that the Commission hear not only from large business associations, but also from the many small business owners who make up the businesses and businesses in our neighborhoods. I have met with many businesses in my district with Neighborhood Chamber of Commerce, and they would like their voices to be heard as we go through this process. That included retail, restaurants, janitors, grocery stores in the hospitality industry. My concern is that we be heard in a constructive and transparent way. I would like to suggest that the Commission create a subcommittee to ensure neighborhood chambers, neighborhood business districts are included and ensure small businesses concerns are heard. The Lake City Chamber has over 206 members. The Aurora Merchants Association has over 500 members. Northgate Mall and Thornton Place has well over 130 stores employing anywhere between 1502 thousand employees. And for that, again, I want to thank Councilmember Herbert for her willingness to discuss these issues with me and entertain the prospect of a subcommittee to address some of the issues regarding small businesses. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. Any other comments? If not, please call the role on the passage of the Bill Johnson.
Speaker 1: Whereas I O'Brien i so on. Bianca Gonzalez i. Herbold i. President Harrell.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Eight In favor and.
Speaker 0: Unopposed bill passes and the chair will sign it. Report of the Energy and Environment Committee. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE establishing the terms and conditions for members of the Labor Standards Advisory Commission; amending Section 3.14.934 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03142016_CB 118638 | Speaker 9: The report of the full council agenda item one relating to city employment, authorizing the execution of collective bargaining agreements between the City of Seattle and certain unions, and ratifying, confirming Search and Fair Acts introduced March 7th, 2016.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Burgess.
Speaker 4: Thank you. This ordinance.
Speaker 0: Will pass.
Speaker 6: This is a collective bargaining agreement that has been negotiated successfully between the city and the Washington State Council of County and City Employees. Local 21 Z The Public, Professional and Office Clerical Employees and Drivers. Local 763 Supervisors Unit and the Public Professional and Office Clerical Employee Drivers. Local 763. This agreement will last through the end of December 2018. It is a collective bargaining agreement that affects approximately 100 city employees. The agreement provides wage increases and benefits consistent with the parameters set by the council's labor relations committee. And it also includes implementation of the new tier of our City Employees Retirement System for employees hired after January 1st, 2017.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, councilman burgess. I move to pass counts bill 118638. Is there a second second? This one moved in second that the bill passed? Are there any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Gonzalez Herbold, i. JOHNSON Whereas.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: O'BRIEN All right. So on. Bagshaw I Burgess.
Speaker 6: High.
Speaker 1: President Harrow.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor.
Speaker 0: An unopposed bill passes and I will sign it. Please read the next agenda item into the record, I believe, which is Clarke file 314316.
Speaker 9: Agenda item. New agenda item number two clerk file 314316. Application of Kitchen Regi to amend the property using development agreement adopted by ordinance 123 923 for property located 3902 South 49th Street, the committee recommends the application be granted. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment; authorizing the execution of collective bargaining agreements between The City of Seattle and certain unions; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03142016_CB 118636 | Speaker 9: The report is the report. The Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee Agenda Item six Council 118 636 Relating to Civil Rights authorizing the Director of the Office for Civil Rights or her designee to execute an agreement with the Social Justice Fund in Washington nonprofit to provide services related to zero youth detention projects amending ordinance 124 927 by lifting a budget proviso and ratifying confirming certain prior acts, the committee recommends the bill.
Speaker 5: Pass.
Speaker 0: And one can argue the most important piece of legislation of the day. Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 5: Thank you. This legislation is related to funds for work related to the Youth Detention Alternative Services, also known as zero detention projects that the council included in the 2016 adopted budget. The legislation approves a contract with the Social Justice Fund and the Council hereby lifts the proviso on the funding as required by last year's Council Green Sheet . Just to make a clarification, this budget action does not actually fund the programs. It simply funds the social justice project to to move forward with their identification of programs that will then receive this funding. The way they do this work is the social justice fund has a giving project where they bring together a multiracial group of 15 to 25 people who work together over the next six months to build community with one another, develop a shared analysis of race and class, and then make strategic grants based upon a competitive funding process which will follow the council's vote today. Just a personal note for much of my adult life, whether or not working on issues of homelessness or police accountability or drug reform, I've been working on issues to address the collateral consequences impacting people with criminal histories. I'm also the grandmother of two remarkable children who are biracial, and I'm frightened by the prospect that they could make a mistake that could land them in the school to prison pipeline. For many people, my fear is their reality. African-Americans in King County make up 50.7% of the incarcerated youth, despite being less than 12% of the population. Approximately 26.5% of youth bookings in King County come from the Seattle Police Department. Washington ranks first in the United States for jailing youth for status offenses such as truancy and running away. After attending the 2016 Black Prisoners Caucus Legislative Summit last month at Cleveland Bay Prison. I challenge myself to ensure that the city does more to support criminal justice reform efforts. This funding will allow the communities most impacted by our failed tough on crime laws to actually be participants in transformative policy reform that will help lay the foundation for the city to achieve zero detention for juveniles. This is the first step. The second step, I believe, also starts with working with the communities that have been doing this work for so long that have gotten us this far to really dig in and do a critical evaluation of the new Children and Family Justice Center. As part of that evaluation. We must identify and implement best practices to reduce the build capacity for detention use in the facility. The version on your iPads is a clean version. The version you have here on your dias on the dias is a substitute version. It the the substitute version really.
Speaker 2: Lifts.
Speaker 5: Up the work of the community members that have been working with the Office of Civil Rights and the Social Justice Fund and names them and their work thus far and moving forward. I moved to amend Council Bill 11 8636 Attachment A by substituting version two for version 1/2.
Speaker 0: Okay we're going to vote on the amendment first was been moved and second it to substitute version two for version one. Any further comments on the amendment. All those in favor of the substitution vote. I. I. Those opposed vote no. The ayes have it. Now, we would like additional comments on the base legislation as amended. Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold, for your leadership on this and your comments. I want to just reiterate some of the things you said. You know, we have heard loud and clear from a broad and diverse group of community members over the past year expressing their clear desire for us to be a city that no longer incarcerates any of our youth. And based on that community leadership, this council passed unanimously a resolution last year stating our vision to become that city, recognizing that there is a chasm between where we are today and where we want to be with the vision, this step and this work through the social justice fund to do this community based funding models for alternative programs is frankly, something unprecedented at this city. It's something that I don't think we would have be trying if it weren't for community members that came forward and was very, very explicit on how they see that a successful transition to zero youth detention had to go forward. And so I want to thank all the folks collectively who've been working on this for so long. Thank my colleagues for working, engaging on this. I know that this is just one of the many steps, but I'm really excited to be taking this step today and look forward to supporting it.
Speaker 0: I think it comes from Brian. Further comments from Councilmember Burgess.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Councilmember O'Brien, I really appreciate your comment that this is one step. I think as we as we really come to understand the children of Seattle and our efforts to, for example, several years ago expand the Nurse Family Partnership or to launch the Seattle Preschool Program. In addition to steps like this one today, we really have to look at the beginning of life for our kids. And there are many kids growing up in census tracts in our city with which have childhood poverty at a rate of 40% or higher. Which, you know, the federal government classifies that as heavily concentrated poverty. And for kids to grow up in that kind of an environment, they're really starting out with one arm tied behind their back, and it's going to be very difficult for them to be successful in life. And yet we have the evidence, we have the track record, we have the best practices that if we chose to follow them, we could cure that problem. It's not going to happen overnight, but we could certainly address that. You know, what's really troubling to me is in those federal census tracts that have poverty of 40% or more of children living in those census tracts, we also have the most Seattle public schools that are rated as the lowest performing schools in our city. So there's a direct correlation between where childhood poverty is, is found and where the school district's poorest performing schools are. But yet, just a few blocks away, there are some of our best performing public schools. And I think the challenge for us is why can't we take the success that has been shown that we can achieve and spread it to all of the public schools in our city? So I'm very supportive of this measure today, but I want us to, as we all I know, are committed to doing, continue to address this issue of whether or not our kids have a strong and fair start in life.
Speaker 0: I'd like to make a comment that what's I think most exciting about this legislation and moving forward is that we're making sort of making a resounding sound that these children are worthy of this kind of investment. When I spent a lot of time in whether it's the youth center or the the the halls of the schools or different camps talking to children, I impress upon them that they are worthy of many things love, education, investments, that they are truly worthy. And so often many of them are led to believe that they're not worthy. And so I want to thank the all of the community organizations and the advocates for fighting so fiercely, not just for this particular project, but fighting for these children. It's you don't get rich doing this kind of work, at least monetarily, but you get rich in so many other ways. And so I think that they very appropriately pushed the council to think outside the box and the executive, and we are better for this kind of investment. And I look forward to supporting and I want to thank my colleagues as well. Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I am really excited about moving forward with this particular piece of work as a key component to combating institutional racism that we know exists within our school systems, within our health systems, within our education systems. And this work, this body of work by Seattle City Council is is, I think, an affirmation of the fact that we understand that that institutional racism exists and that it's up to us to figure out how to empower community to fight against institutional racism. And that's what excites me about this particular vote, is that we are undergoing an effort to create a partnership between the Social Justice Fund and Epic two, in collaboration with the Office for Civil Rights to really listen to community, to hand over the ability to community, to tell us what it is the community truly needs to to to get to zero youth detention. And yes, that does begin with making sure that we are investing in our kids from the very, very start. But that doesn't negate the need to address the existing status quo. And so I'm really excited about this body of work moving forward. On a personal note, I grew up in the Lower Yakima Valley, which is predominantly Latino. And I have to tell you that most of most of the people that I know in the Valley I have known for 39 years all my life, met them the first day I entered into my free pre-K program. And unfortunately, some of them didn't do well even with the investment of of education. But the ones that did have that investment of education obviously did a lot better. And I'll just say that a majority of my friends who I went to school with unfortunately found themselves in the juvenile system, and then ultimately that led to prison . And it has destroyed the community. It's destroyed families. And so this is this is real work that has real impact. That's incredibly important. I just want to commend the folks who are involved in the movement for pushing elected officials to do the right thing and look forward to continuing to watch your work and be supportive of your work.
Speaker 0: Thank you for those words. Please call the role on the passage of the amended bill.
Speaker 1: Gonzalez I Herbold. Johnson for us. O'Brian. Hi, Sergeant. Hi, Bagshaw. Hi, Burgess. I'm President Herrell. Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed and the chair will sign it. Okay. If there. Is there any other for any other further business to come before the Council? Councilmember Burgess.
Speaker 6: Yes. I would like to be excused on March 28 to please.
Speaker 0: Second to move in seconded Councilmember Burgess. Be excused from. On March 28th. All those in favor say I. I oppose. Vote no. Any further business to come before the council? If not, we. We are adjourned. Thank you very much. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to civil rights; authorizing the Director of the Office for Civil Rights or her designee to execute an agreement with the Social Justice Fund, a Washington non-profit, to provide services relating to zero youth detention projects; amending Ordinance 124927 by lifting a budget proviso; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03072016_CB 118633 | Speaker 0: The Report of the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee Agenda Item two Accountable 118 633 Relating to the Pacific Place Garage and the Parking Garage Operations Fund. Authorizing the loan of funds from the fleet services. Something subpar and a subset of Finance and Administrative Services Fund to the Parking Garage Operations Fund. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Council Member Burgess.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. Council President O'Brien This in many ways, this is housekeeping legislation. It replaces a 2013 inter fund loan for the Pacific Place Garage Fund with a new Enter fund loan, which runs through December 31st, 2016. It authorizes a loan of up to $10 million, seven and a half million of which will be used to repay the formal loan. The rest will be used to cover any shortfalls in the garage fund. As I mentioned this morning and council briefing, this is essentially a bridge loan. As you all know, we have initiated a process to sell the Pacific Place garage and we have received multiple bids as part of that process. All of the bids are high enough to fully repay this loan and make the city whole. We expect legislation to come to the council in the next few months that will propose the sale of the garage.
Speaker 1: Any comments or questions. All right, please call the roll and the passage of the bill.
Speaker 0: BURGESS Hi. GONZALEZ Purple. Johnson. MORRIS So on. President.
Speaker 1: O'Brien All right.
Speaker 0: Seven in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Reporter The sustainability and transportation committee will read the report. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Pacific Place Garage and the Parking Garage Operations Fund; authorizing the loan of funds from the Fleet Services Subfund (50320), a subfund of the Finance and Administrative Services Fund, to the Parking Garage Operations Fund (46010). | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03072016_CB 118626 | Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Reporter The sustainability and transportation committee will read the report.
Speaker 0: The report at the sustainability and Transportation Committee agenda item three Cancel 118 626 relating to the Department Transportation authorizing the Director of Transportation to enter into a lease agreement with the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for Amtrak's continued use and occupant occupancy of a portion of King Street Station to provide passenger rail services. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: So this bill would allow starting a new 20 year lease agreement with Amtrak for the King Street Station. The agreement allows Amtrak to occupy the first floor, as they do today, and clarifies the city's right to lease leased spaces on the second and third floor, which will be occupied by the Office of Arts and Culture and periodically be used as a gallery space. Are there any comments or questions? Super exciting train stations. I knew Councilmember Johnson was excited about that. Art and art, of course. Please call their role in the passage of the bill.
Speaker 0: Burgess Gonzalez. I. Purple. Johnson Juarez I. So long.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 0: President Burgess our president O'Brien.
Speaker 1: High.
Speaker 0: Seven in favor not oppose.
Speaker 1: The bill passes in the terrible Senate. Item number four. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Department of Transportation; authorizing the Director of Transportation to enter into a lease agreement with the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for Amtrak’s continued use and occupancy of a portion of King Street Station to provide passenger rail services. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03072016_CB 118627 | Speaker 1: The bill passes in the terrible Senate. Item number four.
Speaker 0: Agenda item for accountable 118 627 relating to the 2016 budget and many ordinance 24 927 which adopted the 2016 budget, including the 2016 through 2021 Capital Improvement Program, creating nonexempt positions, adding new projects and revising existing projects. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you. This is related to the implementation of the MOVE Seattle levy, which was passed by voters last November. That $930 Million nine year levy created funding for a number of transportation projects over the next nine years. What this ordinance does is it's a legal step to create the positions and the budget authority to allow the city to move forward on the implementation of that. Are there any comments or questions?
Speaker 2: I have a few comments.
Speaker 1: Yes, councilmember wise.
Speaker 2: First of all, I want to thank Councilmember O'Brien. I know this came out of your committee and the people that put this information together. I understand from the I know it came from the move Seattle issue. And I know that we focused on safe roads, maintenance and repair and congestion relief. But there are two items in there that we're particularly thankful for. The broad view pedestrian improvements and speed drainage partnership. So the neighborhoods of Broadview Bitter Lake and Holla Lake, thank you for the hard work and that you heard what we had to say about what was going on in our district, in our neighborhood, and also under the pedestrian master plan for the funds dedicated to improve and construct new sidewalks near schools and additional funds for new sidewalks that are not in a Seattle public school work zone. So for that, I just want to say we support this and we want to thank the committee for looking in our neighborhoods and seeing our needs.
Speaker 1: Great. Thank you. Any other comments? All right. Please call the role in the passage of the bill.
Speaker 0: Burgess. Gonzalez. Purple. Hi, johnson. Suarez I saw on president o'brien high seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair will sign. General number five. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the 2016 Budget; amending Ordinance 124927, which adopted the 2016 Budget, including the 2016-2021 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); creating nonexempt positions; adding new projects; and revising existing projects. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02292016_CB 118628 | Speaker 5: The report of the full council agenda. Item one Council Bill 118628 relating to city employment. Authorizing the execution of a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Seattle and the Joint Crafts Council and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts introduced February 22nd, 2016.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Burgess.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. This is a piece of legislation introduced directly to the full council. As usually happens when we have collective bargaining agreements that have been successfully negotiated and agreed to by the parties. This legislation authorizes the mayor to implement a collective bargaining agreement between the city and the Joint Crafts Council. It's a four year agreement that lasts through December 2018. It affects approximately 1100 city employees. The terms of the agreement are consistent with the parameters set by the council's labor relations committee, including, importantly, acceptance of the new tier of city employees in the retirement system beginning January 1st, 2017. The Labor Relations Committee recommends its adoption.
Speaker 1: Are there any further comments? I will move to pass Council Bill 118628. Is there a second.
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 1: Or any further comments on that? Please call the rule on the passage of this.
Speaker 0: Bill Bagshaw. Burgess. Gonzalez. I Herbold. Johnson. Suarez O'Brien. Salon. President Herald. Hi. Nine In favor and unopposed came.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and Cheryl will sign it. It's an item number two, please.
Speaker 5: Agenda item two Council Bill 118629 relating to the city employment, authorizing the execution of collective bargaining agreements between the City of Seattle and certain unions, and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts introduced February 22nd, 2016.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Burgess, Thank you.
Speaker 2: This is another collective bargaining agreement that's been negotiated with four of our union partners, the Washington State Council of County and City Employees Local 21, which represents prosecuting attorneys in the City Attorney's Office, the Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local 79, and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local 289. This agreement lasts through December 2018. It represents approximately 200 city employees. The the terms of the collective bargaining agreement are consistent with the parameters established by the council's labor relations committee. And these unions also accepted the new retirement system for employees hired after January 1st, 2017.
Speaker 1: Further comments, I move to pass Council Bill 118629. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Any further comments? It's been second. Please call the roll on the passage of the Bill Bagshaw Burgess.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 0: Gonzalez. I'm Herbold. Johnson Suarez. O'Brien, sowhat president herrell.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Nine in favor an unopposed bill.
Speaker 1: Passed as the chair was signing report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee. Please please read the report. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment; authorizing the execution of a collective bargaining agreement between The City of Seattle and the Joint Crafts Council; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02222016_CB 118622 | Speaker 0: The motion carries in the resolutions adopted and chair will sign it. Yes. Reports of the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee. Please read the report.
Speaker 1: The report on the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee Agenda Item to Council Bill 118612 relating to the Department of Finance and Administrative Services declaring the vacant property located at ten 610 55th Avenue South as surpluses. Cities needs authorizing the sale of said property, authorizing the Director of Finance Administrative Services to execute all documents for the sale and transfer of the property and directing how proceeds from the sale shall be distributed. The committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 0: Customer Burgess.
Speaker 2: Thank you. This is a little sliver of property in South Seattle that was came into the city's possession in the late 1970s related to the failure to pay taxes for a local improvement district. This property is being sold now to the adjacent property owner who's paying a fair market value. The other adjacent property owners have no objection. Urge the passage of the ordinance.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Burgess. Are there any other comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Swan Bagshaw. Burgess. Herbold, Johnson O'Brien. Hi, President Harrell. I seven in favor. None oppose.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Next matter please. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Finance and Administrative Services, declaring the vacant property located at 10610 55th Ave. S. as surplus to the City’s needs; authorizing the sale of said property; authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services to execute all documents for the sale and transfer of the property; and directing how proceeds from the sale shall be distributed. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02162016_CB 118619 | Speaker 3: The Report of the Human Services and Public Health Committee Agenda Item one Constable 118 619 Relating to homelessness, lifting and budget provides in person finest generals, reserves, budget control level and begin cash transfers between various city funds. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Bagshaw.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much. Since all nine of us were together last week, I'm not going to spend a lot of time going through again what we had heard. But you will recall that last November that this council approved a $2.3 million set and it was for one time funds for emergency homelessness services. And we placed a proviso on this. We were pending our Human Services Department creation of a spending plan which was presented to us. We first heard about it in January, then we had an opportunity to go through it specifically together last week. And the legislation funds are going to be provided for fundamental services for people who are experiencing homelessness, including child care support, emergency shelter for youth, more outreach workers and so on. But here's what I would like to say to my colleagues. I certainly approve moving forward with this, but I am calling upon all of us, as well as the mayor's office and our department heads, to really reexamine this emergency. It was presented and declared as an emergency on November 2nd. I believe there is a lot more we can do to treat this as an emergency and just as if it were an earthquake like what people did when we had Katrina, when we saw a tremendous flooding, the community came around and figured out things that they could do in months, not years. And I believe that that's where we are as well today. I've reached out to the mayor's office. I'm working with our service providers, with our advocates to really suggest that rather than dividing ourselves or being divisive, as the mayor had said at the end of his speech, that we focus on the big the big part of our work on permanent housing, whether we're working through Hadleigh and building on that, but that we focus on the emergency itself and something that Barbe Graff would do to have an emergency group pulled together. We're working with the mayor's office, with our service providers and yes, with our community. And Cindy Pierce, thank you for being here, because what I am hearing from neighbors is very much like what you had provided.
Speaker 1: Yes, let's.
Speaker 6: Get permanent housing, even if.
Speaker 1: It's interim.
Speaker 6: Get a lot of it out, make sure that it is available across our city and our county. Invite people to come into the.
Speaker 1: Warm, dry.
Speaker 6: Housing and have a certain expectation, expectation of behaviors that people will meet. Now, we will be working with our friends at ACLU and the Public Defenders, but I would like to call upon the mayor's office today to say, let's have an emergency together team together, like perhaps it's a hal a light, but we get.
Speaker 1: Started.
Speaker 6: And my call is that we commit ourselves in this city and the county to get 1000 new units of dry housing. I've been to the town encampments. They are not the answer. Yes, they are better than being out by yourself. Yes, they are definitely better than being cold and alone. But it doesn't provide a warm space. What I'm hearing from the providers and from our neighborhood is we would like to see people inside, we'd like them inside, but we'd also like to have garbage cans and recycling cans and Porta Johns available for people now.
Speaker 1: So this is.
Speaker 6: Part of the emergency more safe, dry places. And that we are whether they're tiny houses, whether they're modular units, whether they're boarding houses or rooming houses, that as an emergency. We have a call to say in months, not years, that we find 1000 spaces. So with all that, I want to move ahead, urging this council to adopt what we all voted.
Speaker 1: On last week.
Speaker 6: I believe Lisa Herbold has an amendment she'd like to present. I'll be supporting your amendment, and I will sit down and ask for that amendment.
Speaker 2: Before we move to Councilor Herbold amendment, are there any other comments on the base legislation or make sure we don't have any comments we're not hearing on the base legislation? Councilmember SUAREZ.
Speaker 1: My question was this. I was just checking with councilmember councilmember. Sharma are in Berkshire. So right now my comments are just in general not to. Councilmember Herbert's amendment, is this the time to make.
Speaker 2: This would be a good time for them.
Speaker 1: Okay, good. They're not too lengthy. But there is something that I think you've all seen in a theme of my representation. I'm really proud of the city that we have a racial injustice, social justice initiative. But there is something that's very glaring and important, and I think we need to look at it, and that's geographical parity. I did had a chance to read the implementation plan. I know that Seattle's investment in homeless services, the focus is on prevention, intervention and permanent housing. I had a chance to look at the Human Service Department homeless report as well. I guess my concern is that we do spend only 11% on prevention. Prevention, of course, in our district right now is eviction prevention and moving moving costs for the people that we service. I can't speak directly to District four, Councilmember Johnson's district or to District six Councilmember O'Brien's district, but I can speak directly to count to district number five. The North End, or at least District five, has been a has pretty much been a desert of social services. We have two social service organizations, which this is why this concerns me. District five makes up about 40% of the city's landmass, and we only have two social service organizations that serve as a great client base and offer many services. We have eight elementary schools, three middle schools and two high schools, and we deal with homeless children and two service and 15 north north help line provided eviction prevention services for over 200 children and kept their families housed. And also, I wanted to add that when we hand out motel vouchers, where do you think those people go? They go on Aurora. And when those motel vouchers expire, where do those people go? So in the north end, when those vouchers expire, we don't have the services to absorb the capacity of those people what they need. And it isn't just it's mainly women and children in the north and we have the north and help line and we also have Mary's place. So my concern is this, that we not just focus on a downtown only or south of the ship can now focus on addressing homelessness. That we learn and we see that the city is much bigger and much broader and that the homeless issue is very alive and very critical in the North End and in particularly for District five. And I would hope that you would consider that when we look at how we allocate this money. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Juarez. Are there any other comments on the base legislation?
Speaker 6: Councilmember Swan I can make them know, but it doesn't make sense to do the amendment.
Speaker 2: Well, I think the amendments going to be a sort of a separate discussion. So I don't know if it's going to change any of the base comments. And so why don't you go ahead and proceed here.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. President Harold. So firstly I'm glad to vote in favor of lifting the proviso to allow allow the $2.3 million to be spent on homeless services, particularly in increase in shelter beds. As we recall, this was the budget amendment passed by council after the mayor submitted his 2016 budget and after the state state of emergency was declared. Homeless advocates and activists will remember that grassroots pressure was required to make this a reality. Particularly, I wanted to commend the Seattle Human Services Coalition and the Seattle King County Coalition on Homelessness and Councilmember Former Councilmember Liccardo found the funds to make this possible. And as we know and as Councilmember Mexico said, this will make a difference. But also, as I wanted to join her in saying that, we should also be clear that the solutions have to be in proportion to the scale of the problem. And we know that the problem is far bigger. And I think at the end of the day, the success metric cannot be what we've spent so much now, we can't spend any more. These are human beings, so it has to be able to do whatever it takes. And obviously, as the one night count indicated, the problem has far from been solved. The problem is growing. And I also think that some good points have been made. You know, there is no one single solution. I think the people who are making points about the need for additional funding for social services directly related to drug addiction , I think that is absolutely correct. That is what we need. I also join Councilmember Juarez in pointing out I mean, and I think are pointing out the geographical disparity, social service deserts. I think that that is also accurate and that also needs to be addressed. And we need to do everything in our power and we haven't done any everything in our power. During the same budget discussions that Councilmember Legarda last year found the funds to make what we're doing today possible. I had also proposed $10 million to be used out of the emergency sub fund for 2000 shelter beds immediately. And this was a proposal that was brought brought by Seattle King County Coalition on Homelessness. And I hope that now, after a few months have passed, the crisis and the scale of the crisis is clear to all elected officials. I really hope that councilmembers will approve the $10 million proposal in the first quarter supplemental budget of this year. And, you know, I intend to bring that up. And I also invite all members of the public to join me in the People's Assembly, where we will be. You know, this is the main call to action on homelessness on February 27th at noon. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Swan, are there any other comments on the base legislation?
Speaker 6: I have just one thing I would like to add, and that is I'm not talking about shelter beds, the idea of people being sent out at 630 in the morning and maybe have a space where they can come in the afternoon. I'm talking about places where they can be 24 hours a day. Just very quickly, make sure I totally support that. Any proposal you make to greatly alleviate the suffering of homeless people, I am absolutely there with you. So if we want to if you want to discuss how to spend the $10 million, I am absolutely for that . But my concern is let's show the political leadership and actually spend those $10 million. I mean, the emergency funds in various emergency funds, the city has $106 million right now. The money is there. We have declared a state of emergency. Let's do it. And I'm happy to work with any councilmember who really wants to push that forward, and I'm happy that you're talking about it.
Speaker 2: Okay. So we're going to move from. Thank you, Councilmember Swan. We're going to move from the base legislation to a proposed amendment by Councilmember Herbold and Customer Herbold. Perhaps you could walk us through I don't know if there's two amendments or something that maybe you could just walk us through what you're proposing.
Speaker 7: So I'll make a motion first. Yes. I move to amend Council Bill 11 8619 by adding a new Section three and by remembering the last section accordingly. The new Section three is entitled as part of amendments to the 2016 budget, included in what is commonly known as the 2016 first quarter supplemental budget ordinance, the City Council intends to increase appropriations by up to $200,000 solely to meet remedy conditions directly associated with unsanctioned camping in Seattle that may pose significant threats to health and safety of people living in or adjacent to unsanctioned camps and may be spent for no other purpose. Such conditions include but are not limited to lack of running water or basic sanitation and a lack of facilities for disposing of garbage. Recycling and compost remedies may include, but are not limited to hand-washing stations, portable toilets and showers. Containers for disposing of used needles with collect. Service and containers for sorting into disposing of trash, recycling and compost with collection services. This appropriation may not be used for encampment removal.
Speaker 2: Okay. So I'm going to just refer to that as amendment number one, just so we can know what document.
Speaker 7: This is the only amendment I'm bringing forward.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 6: And that's blue, right? So we have two ones, red and one's blueprint.
Speaker 7: The difference is, if you look in the the header, it says council intention to appropriate funding dedicated to remedy public health concerns, etc.. And I've only passed one out. So if you have another one. So I didn't pass out just now. Toss it.
Speaker 2: So they both actually they're a little different. There's a similar caption on each one. So can you read the caption that you're intending to read? Is it council intention or proviso to appropriate.
Speaker 7: Its council intention? And just if I could get a second, I can explain why there were two in the first place.
Speaker 2: Okay. Let me make sure what we're moving though. So that one is a red copy that I have. And the top says council intention to appropriate funding, dedicated remedy, public health concerns, etc. and that's what you read. So does everyone have that copy in the red? So it's been moved in second to consider. Councilmember Herbert's amendment number one that I'm calling all those in favor of. Vote I. Whoa, whoa. I'm sorry. Let's have a discussion first.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I appreciate it. So the background on this is, yes, I did originally bring forward an amendment that appropriated funds $200,000 from hs DS, one of their BCL levels that would be appropriate to this. It was not intended to come from the state of emergency money. Neither the money that was appropriated last year in the 2015 budget, nor the money that the Council is appropriating today. It was in the general BCL level that relates to homelessness services. It's a bcr of about $44 million because the feeling was that given the fact that the executive we know does a they budget for an underspend of between two and 4% depending on which department. I felt that the department should be able to come up with $200,000. We heard from the mayor's office, CBO and HST. They were not supportive of the amendment. So I worked with Councilmember Bagshaw to instead put forward something that is more aspirational for what we intend to do in the first quarter supplemental as as to the need for this amendment in the spending plan, an earlier version of the spending plan, there was $200,000 that was earmarked for sanitation and and hygiene activities associated with unsanctioned camping. And as we got closer to the discussion in Councilman Baxter's committee, in the vote, the committee vote there, it became apparent from the perspective of HST that they actually need to earmark those sort of floating dollars for floating cleanups. They needed to earmark them for the two RV safe sites and the third sanctioned encampment that's going to be coming online. So there was a there is a an interest on the part of HST to do some work. We've clearly heard interest on the behalf of the community, both the human service advocates, the homelessness advocates and the neighborhood advocates, that it's understood that there are encampment removals that are going on. Those encampment removals are prioritized according to true public safety threats. That's the goal. But then there are encampments that are not a priority for removal right now, but they still very much need hygiene and sanitation help. And so this is to in to support the HST and the executive departments that are doing this work into moving into that area and mitigating the impacts of folks who are sleeping outside.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thanks for that explanation. I'm sure there are some comments or questions from my colleagues on the amendment proposed by Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 8: Councilmember Burgess, thank you. Last week we met. In the Human Services Committee, and all nine of us were present at that discussion. And this concept of the council. Appropriating or stating its intent to appropriate funds for this purpose did not come up. That would have been an appropriate place in the committee to have that discussion and to properly vet this concept. This. This also, in many ways falls outside the normal process of how we would deal with mid-year budget adjustments. We would do that when the first quarter supplemental budget was actually being considered by the council. But this even jumpstarts that process. So I'm going to oppose this amendment for a couple of reasons. First, it's not consistent with how we should thoroughly review and vet allocation of funds. I know that Councilmember Herbold believes that there's underspend and this would be easy to allocate $200,000, but in fact, that would be a conscious decision that we would make when adopting a budget ordinance would be to either directly reallocate underspend if there is any present and to use it for these purposes. But that process is not followed here. The second, and maybe more substantive reason that I'm opposed to this amendment is that it is essentially asking city government to endorse the presence of unsanctioned encampments in the city and to spend money on those unsanctioned encampments. That is not a policy decision that we have made in the city. In fact, we've made a very different policy choice to sanction certain specific authorized encampments and specific RV parks. We have not made a policy decision to support unsanctioned encampments, and I think that kind of a decision should be made through our committee process, where we have an opportunity to engage in a robust discussion and to to weigh the merits of that kind of a decision, pro or con. So for these reasons, I'm going to oppose the amendment.
Speaker 7: May I respond?
Speaker 2: Councilmember Herbold would like to respond, and we may have other concerns from you. Want to chime in, please?
Speaker 7: I respectfully disagree. This in no way sanctions unsanctioned encampments. It merely recognizes that there.
Speaker 1: Are.
Speaker 7: There's garbage and there are needs associated within with with those encampments that are in the real world. In no way authorizes those unsanctioned encampments. And secondly, I do apologize for the timing of this. We because this is a state of emergency, we sped up our process for how we normally handle legislation. Normally, we would hear the legislation first and then vote on it in a subsequent committee meeting. And because we were trying to act in a way that recognized that we are in a state of emergency, we voted out this legislation the same day that we heard it, which was on Thursday.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Bagshaw.
Speaker 6: Thank you. And Councilmember Herbold, I want to say thank you for bringing this forward and notwithstanding the fact that some of my favorite friends in the audience feel very strongly against this, the reason I'm supporting it is not because it's the end all, be all. But likewise, I've had many conversations with neighborhoods who are saying The most important thing you can do right now to help is to help us clean things up and to provide places for people to put garbage recycling. And rather than having human waste put around making it, making Porta Johns available to people so they can use it . And we are not suggesting that this go on forever, but right now I think we have an opportunity citywide to actually clean things up. It is a public health problem. So that's the reason I'm supporting this. And we will be working really hard in the next couple of weeks with the mayor's team to find a solution and many solutions that are going to help make this whole city a safer, healthier place to be.
Speaker 4: You've got Jackson.
Speaker 2: Please. Please, sir. I'm going to have to please myself. The right thing. Thank you. Thank you for removing yourself. Do I have any other. The police haven't removed this year's crop. Okay. Do your job. Okay. Can we got. Okay. Are there. Thank you, Casper and big show. Please have him removed. Phone number. We'll figure it out. Housing Council member Johnson.
Speaker 4: I'm going to take you to the recycling could take you from every intersection, see out because they're already here and nobody's using them. I wrote everybody in one place where we can put the recyclable cards.
Speaker 2: We can get hold.
Speaker 4: Of but everybody else in one place. This is the only way we're going to make this work. And you guys.
Speaker 8: Counting the ballots. Let's go right to focus.
Speaker 2: Because you are not a council member, Johnson. You're not.
Speaker 8: Well. So I had a question related to this. You know, one of the comments that I've heard from I've spent so in the six weeks that I've been here, I spend time every week trying to reach out to nonprofit providers or private sector folks in the fourth District who might be interested in hosting a semi permanent basis , either for a couple of months or six months. Folks who may be living in car campers, maybe living in RVs or maybe living in one of the unsanctioned encampments. The most common refrain that I get back from individuals who expressed an interest is other city resources that would help, you know, either to provide mental health counseling for folks who may be hosted to provide, as Councilmember Bagshaw alluded to, sort of sanitary services or plumbing services that may not exist in the locations where these these nonprofits or these private sector folks are interested in hosting. Is it your intent that some of these resources could be used for that kind of outreach to folks who aren't currently hosting but would be interested in hosting individuals who are experiencing homelessness?
Speaker 7: The intent of this amendment is to deal with conditions related to no running water, basic sanitation, lack of facilities for disposing of garbage. Recycling and compost remedies may include but are not limited to hand-washing stations, portable toilets and showers and containers for disposing of sharps. So it's really to deal with the areas where we know that they're encampments. They are not sanctioned, but they are not on the city's priority list for removal. But they are still creating health and safety issues both for the community and for the folks who are living there.
Speaker 8: Well, you permit me to ask.
Speaker 2: Another question, please, Councilman Johnson.
Speaker 1: So in in.
Speaker 8: To review back what I think I heard from you. So our objective here is to say there are some encampments that are not receiving those services currently. And here sorry, I'm talking right next to me. So it's I don't want to overwhelm the volume of her. So my question, I guess, then, to restate what I think I'm hearing from you is, you know, we've got a system, as was explained to us last week, wherein an encampment is identified and services are offered to those folks living in that encampment. But that generally there are several encampments in the city that are not a high priority. But we are seeing in some of those places certainly a need for clean, safe, hygienic places for people to use the bathroom and dispose of garbage. And so the intent here is to try to provide additional services within the Human Service Department to be able to address some of those community needs that we're hearing from people.
Speaker 7: So I, I don't know exactly how we would implement this work. This was work that was identified by HST as in an earlier version of the spending plan that was not tied to individual encampments. So it would not be HST going out and providing services per se. It would be more funding for garbage cans and garbage pickup visits by people who are professional and know how to remove needles and dispose of them properly. It's though it's not it's not so it's not services as you think of social services.
Speaker 8: Okay. Look.
Speaker 1: I have a question, sir.
Speaker 2: Council member or us and Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 1: First of all, thank you. Council over her vote for the two points to make. So, as you know, one of the things that Councilmember Bagshaw asked of us in a memo is to ask our community. So I went to the Mennonite church and met with homeless groups about what the needs are in the north and in District five. So I had some questions along the same lines as Council Member Johnson how would we use these services and how would we implement or get access to these funds, to these quote unquote encampments that are actually in the North End as well as that? So I totally.
Speaker 7: Agree that geographic dispersion of these services is very critical.
Speaker 1: So, okay, I guess I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: I mean to asked one council member speak at a time please finish.
Speaker 7: KINSMAN Worse. That's not spelled out in the amendment. If you'd like.
Speaker 1: To.
Speaker 7: Suggest some friendly language to get at the need for geographic dispersion throughout the throughout the city and not just focused on. Okay.
Speaker 1: Can I just make councilman art council president. Can I just make a observation as somebody is. Councilor Johnson was saying we've only been here four or five weeks.
Speaker 2: Please.
Speaker 1: And I'll just be blunt and candid. This is one of the most frustrating and difficult things about being a newly elected council person, is that we don't always talk to each other. We don't always get amendments. I got this amendment in an email at noon. I didn't can't catch up with the changes. I understand the intent, the passion behind it. I get it. But my concern is, isn't it a issue of process is that we never get this stuff ahead of time to actually kind of go through these kind of questions that we're having so we can do more than just friendly amendments but ask these kind of questions. So, I mean, I, I agree with what you're saying here, and I agree with the intent and the actions that you're trying to achieve. I guess my concern is, and I do support this, by the way, is some of the questions that are just left out there is how to is this just another thing we're passing? We're saying $200,000 and then we don't know where it goes again. I don't know what neighborhood it's going to go to. I don't know what an encampment are you talking about? One tent or four. Are we talking about I mean, there's just a bunch of things I'm still not concerned. So, again, I just wanted to say and put that out there for my for my other council members about some of my frustrations of us not talking a little bit more about some of these issues, particularly when we call something an emergent situation that we don't we don't get the information till the last minute. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 8: And so not well, I guess I would just want to add, this is a intent to and so I'm prepared to support this. And I think that we will have an opportunity when the first quarter supplemental budget is actually before us to dig into it and talk about specifics. And you know, frankly, I'm looking for be looking for feedback from both community members and the Human Service Department on how best to get the language in there and the language you have here. I think Lisa makes makes it points well, but it may be that we modify that language between now and then. But the intent here, I'm fully supportive of and appreciate the amendments.
Speaker 2: Any other comments? Council members who want.
Speaker 6: I wanted to thank Councilmember Herbold for bringing this amendment forward. It provides essential funds for unsanctioned encampments. And as she said, these are garbage removal, you know, infrastructure type services that they need urgently and. I am particularly glad that consumer Herbold has taken care to write this amendment in such a way that it makes it clear that this appropriation may not be used for encampment removals. I am totally against the sweeps. Homeless advocates are against the sweeps, and council members, I think, should join me and advocate in asking the mayor to halt the sweeps. And I appreciate that. In supporting this amendment, I will not inadvertently supporting any funding increase for sweeps for councilmembers who are concerned about. Well, you know, first of all, I second Councilmember O'Brien's remind her that, you know, this is doesn't intend to approve funding. We will come back to this issue. So for those of you who agree with this amendment and spit it out, urge you to vote yes. And if you don't agree with it in spirit, then obviously you'll be voting no on it. And as far as the question of where the funds will come from, I mean, we're not dealing with that question right now. But there's a very simple answer. The mayor's office right now is spending over $1,000,000 on sweeps, stop the sweeps, divert the funds to essential services that homeless people need. And I would remind everybody that whether encampments are sanctioned or unsanctioned, we're talking about human beings. Human beings are going to have the same needs. Garbage removal is going to be a need. Whether it's a sanction encampment or unsanctioned, that doesn't make any difference. You're still going to have you're going to need to have your trash removed. And the whole community wants all trash removed so that we have, you know, maintenance of infrastructure everywhere. And again, I urge everybody to also support my proposal, which is really the proposal of the King County Coalition to End Homelessness on $10 million on emergency funding. Of what? Whatever kind. I'm happy to look at I'm flexible on how best to achieve it, but I am not flexible on the amount of funding that's needed because it is deeply underfunded. The last point I will make is on process and for those of you who are new, I can tell you I've been on the council for two years. The process is not followed when it's a question of immediately making sweetheart deals available for big corporations. So this isn't the Seattle the so the well-known Seattle process is really a process that grinds to a halt, virtually grinds to a halt when it's a question of making funds available for ordinary working people, for those who are marginalized and oppressed. So my personal appeal to everybody on this council will be is to follow your heart if you think that's the right thing to do, if you stand with the marginalized and oppressed and it's the right thing to do.
Speaker 2: Thank you for those comments, Councilmember Gonzalez. Wind up to be here pretty soon. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you, council president. Thank you, Councilmember Herbold, for putting this issue in front of us. I think that, you know, really, really what I wanted to make a comment about is that in reality, I think this is the hardest part of our work as a city council members is balancing what I think we hear from our constituents , which is a need to, as they like to put it, enforce our laws, which we continue to do and we will always continue to do and and the need to be compassionate and to understand that underlying the concerns that we hear from community about unsanctioned encampments are fundamental issues of public health and public safety. And I think that this proposal that you're putting before us that signals an intent for us to address that clearly is is is a good it's a step in the right direction. And so I want to I want to appreciate the fact that I think you are trying to strike a balance here. This does not take money away from continuing to do what we have been doing as a city, which is to go to unsanctioned encampments that present a clear public health and public safety concern and engage those folks in services or attempt to engage those folks, folks in services while also addressing the underlying public health and public safety concerns. This, in fact, will identify, hopefully, some additional money up to a certain amount that will address those public health and public safety concerns at unsanctioned encampments that may not fall into that Tier one list of unsanctioned encampments that has been identified by the mayor and the Human Services Department. So I am supportive of this intent, and I'm looking forward to working with you and with the departments that are going to be impacted by this to see how we can move this forward.
Speaker 2: Thank you. So I am going to call for a vote. I did want to at least put my $0.02 in and that is I'm going to support the amendment. But this notion but I do think it's bad practice for us to get into heavy substantive amendments at the last minute that I know your your former boss was known for that. But that is that is a discouraged practice because many of us have well-intended questions about, well, what are we exactly doing? And we want the opportunity to cross-examine department heads and to make sure we know what we're investing in. I think it's positive intent, but just legitimate questions. And so I don't want to encourage this over and over again. And I don't think I don't care if it's where there's big business or small business or immigrant and refugee work or whatever. It's just nice to have notice on what we're trying to agree on, what we're trying to legislate, irrespective of what the merits are. So and I think many of us are not moved one way or the other by the the topic. We just want to have it a chance to meaningfully respond. And I appreciate Councilmember Burgess's points in the process issue. So having said that, we're going to have a vote on the amendment and I'm going to ask this. You raise your hands those in favor of the amendment. Vote I in. Raise your hands I. Those oppose vote no and raise your hand. So no, the motion carries, the amendment passes. And now I will I will call for a vote on the amended legislation. Are there any closing comments on the amended legislation? Good. Thank you very much. Glad there's no comments. There are in all seriousness that Councilmember Herbold or anyone else, do you want to say anything? And we're good to go. Okay, so please call the roll on the passage of the amended Bill O'Brien.
Speaker 3: All right, so on. I beg your pardon? Burgess Gonzalez, I Herbold. Hi, Johnson Suarez President.
Speaker 2: Harrell I.
Speaker 3: Favor non.
Speaker 2: Oppose. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. It's the report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee. Please, please read the report.
Speaker 3: The report reported the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee Agenda Item to cancel Bill 118 623 amended the 2016 through 2021 Adopt a capital improvement program authorizing acceptance of pass through grants. Funds from King County granting budget authority for expenditure of said grant funds and authorizing the Director of Public Utilities to use such pass through | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to homelessness; lifting a budget proviso imposed on Finance General's Reserves Budget Control Level; and making cash transfers between various City funds. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02162016_CB 118623 | Speaker 3: The report reported the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee Agenda Item to cancel Bill 118 623 amended the 2016 through 2021 Adopt a capital improvement program authorizing acceptance of pass through grants. Funds from King County granting budget authority for expenditure of said grant funds and authorizing the Director of Public Utilities to use such pass through grant funds and to enter into agreements for the acquisition of certain properties and the design of habitat restoration projects along the Cedar River. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 7: Councilmember Herbold So this is pretty straightforward. It is the authorization of some grant funds in order to do some much needed salmon habitat restoration projects. They're going to be looking at actually acquiring a number of properties, and that's some work that we're going to be having. Espe you come back to committee and dig in a little bit more as far as the location of the different properties in the potential scope of the work moving forward.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Are there any are there any comments other than the ringing noise? If not, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: O'Brien So I beg your pardon? Burgess Gonzalez Herbold I Johnson Suarez President Harrell.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Am favoring unopposed.
Speaker 2: The bill passes and the chair with signage. Next matter, please. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE amending the 2016-2021 Adopted Capital Improvement Program; authorizing acceptance of pass-through grant funds from King County; granting budget authority for expenditure of said grant funds; and authorizing the Director of Seattle Public Utilities to use such pass-through grant funds and to enter into agreements for the acquisition of certain properties and the design of habitat restoration projects along the Cedar River. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02082016_CB 118610 | Speaker 8: The report at the Sustainability and Transportation Committee Agenda Item nine Council Bill 1186 1020 Macy's Restaurant Corporation. Permission to maintain operated pedestrian SkyBridge over and across Third Avenue between Pine Street and Ceres Street for a ten year term renewable for two successive ten year terms. Committee recommends the bill pass the.
Speaker 1: Council member O'BRIEN.
Speaker 5: Thank you. So we have a series of pieces of legislation coming forth and transportation committee today. They all relate to leases, easements, transfers. I will try to move through them swiftly. This is a new and new ordinance related to the SkyBridge between Macy's and the parking garage over Third Avenue. This is for a ten year term and then can be renewed for two additional ten year terms. They pay a lease fee to the city for the permission to do this. Last year that was about $28,000. It's tied to the assessed value coming out of King County. So it adjusts on an annual basis.
Speaker 1: Very good. Are there any other comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Whereas I O'Brien. Swan Baker, Gonzalez, Herbold Johnson, President Harrell. I n favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Agenda item number ten. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE granting Macy's West Stores, Inc., permission to maintain and operate a pedestrian skybridge over and across 3rd Avenue, between Pine Street and Stewart Street, for a ten-year term, renewable for two successive ten-year terms; specifying the conditions under which this permit is granted; providing for the acceptance of the permit and conditions; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02082016_CB 118611 | Speaker 8: Agenda Item ten Council Bill 1186 11 relating to the permissions granted to Fremont Dock Company by ordinance 121706 to use and occupy a portion of Fremont every north under the Fremont Bridge north approaching lying north of the Lake Washington ship canal and south of the former Burlington Northern Main Line. Right of way. Committee recommends double pass.
Speaker 5: Trying to be recognized.
Speaker 1: I can't remember, Brian.
Speaker 5: If I went first, I would get in trouble. So. So this is underneath the Fremont Bridge on the north side. The, uh. The city owns the footprint underneath the bridge, but doesn't actually own access to it. And so this swaps some of the square footage underneath the bridge in exchange with the Fremont Company, in exchange for access underneath it and around the edges of it. The there's no money that changes hands because the value of the swap was valued to be about equal. We did notice just to the last minute that there were a couple blanks on this bill and one typo that needed to be corrected. So I would like to move to amend Council Bill 118611, Section ten a first sentence by deleting these tags and adding this to this and then filling in the blank with council bill number 118611 and then also in section 13 C by filling in the blank with council bill number 118611.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It's been moved to a second. Thank you, Councilmember Brian, I believe before we entertain that amendment, I'm going to have to suspend the rules. And so I will need to suspend the rules to consider this amendment, since it wasn't previously circulated to us by 12 noon. So I moved to suspend Council Rule three, a62 considered an amendment to Council Bill 118611 that was not previously circulated. So all those in favor of the suspension of the rule vote i. I those opposed vote no, the motion carries. And now we could proceed with the consideration of the amendment that has been moved and seconded already. All those in favor of the amendment vote i. I. I. Those polls vote nay or no. The motion carries and we should proceed with consideration of the amendment. Uh, is there any further comments you would like to say on the underlying bill? It comes from Brant. Are we good to go?
Speaker 5: Good to go for my.
Speaker 1: Okay, so please call the rule on the passage of the amended bill.
Speaker 2: Whereas I O'Brien. Hi. On Major Gonzalez Herbold Johnson, President Harrell Aden favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: A bill passes then Charles sign it. Agenda item number 11. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the permission granted to Fremont Dock Co. by Ordinance 121706 to use and occupy a portion of Fremont Avenue North under the Fremont Bridge North Approach lying north of the Lake Washington Ship Canal and south of the former Burlington Northern Main Line Right-of-Way; providing for the acceptance of the permit and conditions; amending Ordinance 121706, repealing Exhibit A to Ordinance 121706, and adopting a new Attachment A to Ordinance 121706; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02082016_CB 118612 | Speaker 8: Agenda item 11. Council Bill 1186 12. Relating to pedestrian skybridge over and across the alley between university way northeast and 15th Avenue, northeast north of Northeast 45th Street, and certain window protrusions over portion of university northeast. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 5: Councilmember O'Brien This is another SkyBridge lease. This is the alley behind KUOW, which some folks may be familiar with the dollar amount for the lease. The space is about $7,000 last year and like the other ones, it's adjusted automatically based on assessed property value.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Are there any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Whereas I. O'Brien so on. Thanks Shaw Gonzalez Herbold Johnson President Harrell I Aden favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passes the chair will sign it agenda item number 13.
Speaker 8: Item 12.
Speaker 1: Jim Item number 12.
Speaker 8: Item agenda item 12. Constable 118 615 excepting various deeds and easements for street or alley purposes, laying off, opening, widening, sending and establishing portions of rights away, placing the real property conveyed by said deeds and easements under the jurisdiction of the College of Transportation and ratifying confirming certain prior acts, the committee recommends the bill passed. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to a pedestrian skybridge over and across the alley between University Way Northeast and 15th Avenue Northeast, north of Northeast 45th Street, and certain window protrusions over a portion of University Way Northeast; amending Ordinance 122202, updating the insurance and bond requirements; amending the annual fee and other terms and conditions of the permit; renewing the term of the permit to Limantzakis Properties No. 1 LLC; providing for the acceptance of the permit and conditions; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02082016_CB 118615 | Speaker 8: Item agenda item 12. Constable 118 615 excepting various deeds and easements for street or alley purposes, laying off, opening, widening, sending and establishing portions of rights away, placing the real property conveyed by said deeds and easements under the jurisdiction of the College of Transportation and ratifying confirming certain prior acts, the committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 1: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 5: Think so. Agenda 12 and 13 are similar. The process by which this happens is in development, in development of certain parcels as the developer works with DPD. Sometimes there are conditions that require them to transfer some property to the city of Seattle, and maybe for easements, it may be that it's a requirement that a sidewalk be widened . Those types of things happen. And once about 20 or so of those have happened, as DOT assembles all 20 of those in a single ordinance and sends them our way so that we can do the legal work to accept that property that is being granted to the city. That is what agenda item 12 and 13 both do for chunks of about 20, I think. The attached document shows the maps of where each of these parcels are, and the one is often just a sliver of land that it is being conveyed or laid off. And the current pace of development means we'll probably see one of these bills every couple of months, essentially.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Brian. There are no further comments. Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Juarez I. O'BRIEN So on Big John Gonzalez Herbold. JOHNSON President Harrell. Hi. Aden. Favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and Cher will sign it. Agenda item number 13. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE accepting various deeds and easements for street or alley purposes; laying off, opening, widening, extending, and establishing portions of rights-of-way; placing the real property conveyed by said deeds and easements under the jurisdiction of the Seattle Department of Transportation; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. (This ordinance concerns the following rights-of-way: the alley in Block 3, Hillman’s Lake Front Addition to The City of Seattle, Division No. 3; Northwest 43rd Street, Northwest 45th Street, and 8th Avenue Northwest abutting Block 19, Denny’s Addition to Ballard and Seattle, and Block 176, Gilman Park; Burlington Northern Railroad Company’s right-of-way abutting the Southwest quarter of Section 11, Township 25 North, Range 3 East, W. M., King County, Washington; Aloha Street and Minor Avenue North abutting Block 4, Supplementary Plat of D. T. Denny’s Second Addition to North Seattle; the alley in Block 44, Addition to the Town of Seattle as laid out by A. A. Denny (commonly known as A. A. Denny’s 6th Addition to The City of Seattle); the alle | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02082016_CB 118617 | Speaker 8: Agenda item 14 Council Bill 118 617 Relating to the Bridge Rehab, Rehabilitation and Replacement Project, the committee recommends that the full council pass the bill.
Speaker 1: Councilmember O'Brien. We need some inspiration has been.
Speaker 5: Really lively on this one. I mean, I'm trying to think how to get lively on this one is a stretch. So this is if folks are familiar, when you're walking down Fifth Avenue and you pass under. Yes, there there's a bridge there that goes over it. We're doing some there's some work to be done to shore up the structure there. And when you're walking south on the right side, there's actually a room behind the wall on the bridge, and there's a few square feet of in there, which is going to change ownership as a result of this bill. Because of that, we can do the shoring work that we need to to support that structure, that inspirational that.
Speaker 1: Is. Thank you, councilman brian. Any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill for us.
Speaker 2: I. O'BRIEN So I beg Sean Gonzalez, purple. JOHNSON President Harrell All right. Eight in favor, nine oppose.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. An item number 15. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement project; authorizing the Director of the Seattle Department of Transportation to acquire, accept, and record, on behalf of The City of Seattle, a permanent easement from Neubert Family Limited Partnership, a Washington limited partnership, located in a portion of Lots 6, 7, and 8, together with a portion of the vacated alley abutting Lot 8, Block 17 of Town of Seattle, as laid out by D. S. Maynard, commonly known as D.S. Maynard’s Plat of Seattle, for the purposes of constructing, repairing, replacing, and maintaining a Yesler Way abutment wall, sidewalk, and other transportation infrastructure; placing the real property rights and interests conveyed by such easement under the jurisdiction of the Seattle Department of Transportation; and ratifying and confirming prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02082016_CB 118613 | Speaker 8: Agenda item 15. Council Bill 118 613. Relating to city owned property under the jurisdiction of the South Department, Transportation and Blocks two and seven steel plant addition to the City of Seattle. BLOCK six Mystery Plat of lots 11 to 20 BLOCK one Steel Plant Addition to the City of Seattle on blocks 54 and 55 Home Craft Edition to the City of Sale, designating the properties for street purposes and laying off opening widening extending establishing portions of Delbridge way southwest south as Orchid Street and Denmark way southwest. The committee recommends the bill.
Speaker 1: Pass because remember, Brian.
Speaker 5: This is an exciting one, folks. This this is we're getting some new right away in the Delbridge neighborhood as a result of work that was done years ago, as far as I can tell. And we're getting the ride away from Ascot property. So it's just a transfer from one hand to the other within the city. But still, there's a lot of excitement about that. And so because of this project in the past, in all seriousness, the land that was formerly Ascot land that they had bought in long time ago is now actually an official part of the right away , thanks to this ordinance, assuming it passes.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember O'Brien, are there any further comments and please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Suarez i o'brien so want big John Gonzalez purple Johnson President Harrell.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and chair with signage. We have the adoption of other resolutions. Please read to an item 16 in the record. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to city-owned property under the jurisdiction of the Seattle Department of Transportation in Blocks 2 and 7, Steel Plant Addition to the City of Seattle, Block 6, Smith’s Replat of Lots 11 to 20 Block 1 Steel Plant Addition to the City of Seattle, and Blocks 54 and 55, Homecroft Addition to the City of Seattle; designating the properties for street purposes; and laying off, opening, widening, extending, and establishing portions of Delridge Way Southwest, Southwest Orchard Street, and Dumar Way Southwest. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02012016_Res 31647 | Speaker 3: The Report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee Agenda Item number two Resolution 316 47 relating to the Madison Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project, adopting the Madison Corridor BRT locally preferred alternative and endorsing efforts to pursue federal funding for the Madison BRT project. The committee recommends a resolution be adopted.
Speaker 1: Council Member O'Brien Thank you.
Speaker 0: So exciting to be standing here today with a project that is at the point they were ready to go out and apply for some federal funding. We are in a position here to adopt the locally preferred alternative, which is an attachment. You can get a sense of the layout of this BRT, but it's exciting to be talking about bringing reliable mass transit in a corridor, the majority of it in a dedicated right away, which will be excellent. There's still a number of hurdles we have to get through before this is on the ground. But today is a great step forward to support this.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember O'Brien, are there any other comments? Those in favor of adopting the resolution vote I high those oppose vote no the motion carries and the resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Next item, please. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION relating to the Madison Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project; adopting the Madison Corridor BRT Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA); and endorsing efforts to pursue federal funding for the Madison BRT Project. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_01112016_CF 314278 | Speaker 7: The report, the full council agenda item number one clerk file 314278. Petition of ACORN Development LLC for the vacation of the Alien BLOCK 21 Sarah Abel Second Edition to the City of Seattle, bounded by Bell Street, Seventh Avenue, Blanchard Street and Eighth Avenue, held December 14th, 2015.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Burgess.
Speaker 6: Councilmember.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Gonzales. I'm sorry.
Speaker 5: Thank you. So this is this is related to the revocation of block 21. The Transportation Committee recommended approval of the vacation of the alley in block 21. So I think the way that the order goes is that we will consider first the amendment that is being made to the Transportation Committee's recommendation for approval of the allocation. That amendment is being made by myself, Council member Burgess and Councilmember Herbold, and then secondarily will take up the recommendation of the Transportation Committee as amended if the amendment passes. I think I'm accurate on that in terms of process. So by way of background, the full council took up this particular the Transportation Committee recommendation at its hearing on December 14th, 2015. At that time, council members Liccardo O'Brien, Sawant and myself raised concerns about the need for a condition as part of the Clark file that would serve to protect free speech activities should the vacation be granted . And as a result of that, the full council voted to hold over this particular item to today's hearing of the full council, and it is before us at this particular point in time. Now, over the past several weeks, I've worked with Councilmember Burgess and subsequently with Councilmember Herbold to draft some language that that would address those free speech concerns that were brought up in our full council, our last full council hearing before we went to recess. And I believe that this amendment addresses those concerns as related to the free speech of members of the public who seek to access that public, private property. And I, I want to say thank you to all of the advocates, both from SEIU Local six and from Transit Riders Union and others who have come and talked to city council members in the intervening weeks and who have come today to provide testimony on their concerns around Amazon's practices and want to want to at least iterate on my part that I, as a labor lawyer, as somebody who worked ten years on protecting and championing and advocating on behalf of only workers against corporate interests, I hear your concerns and I hope that we can move forward on this city council to address those concerns in a forum where we have the latitude to be able to really take on those particular issues. So the amendment before us is in everybody's packets. And the amendment includes just by way of background, it includes a few different changes. It will include a paragraph in what's known to be the property, sort of let me get this. The the PDA, which is a property use and development agreement, will include a condition in this allocation. Should it be granted that the areas that are open and accessible to the public must be open and accessible for 24 hours a day, with temporary closures permitted only for reasons such as maintenance, safety or private functions, free speech activities that will be fully protected with this particular amendment. If approved, free speech activities include things like handling, signature gathering, holding signs, all without obstructing access to the space, the building or other adjacent amenity features, and without unreasonably interfering with the enjoyment of the space by others shall be allowed within these public benefit features while engaged and allowed activities. Members of the public may not be asked to leave for any reason other than conduct that unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of the space by others. That is the actual language that will be imposed as part of a condition of the PDA if this amendment passes. Another aspect of this is that it creates both a signage requirement and which which would have to be not only reviewed, but approved by Ascot Street vacations. That sign will advise people who are making use of the property knowledge with their rights around free speech activities. The last piece of this is that there is now included a a provision that will allow the city to seek enforcement against Amazon. If if those free if there is a claim that the free speech condition has been violated, then there will be a mechanism to create to do enforcement and make sure that folks rights are being upheld in that regard. So that is by way of briefing the amendments that are being proposed by myself, Councilmember Burgess and Councilmember Herbold. And I'll hand it off to my co-sponsors to add remarks.
Speaker 6: I'd Second Amendment.
Speaker 1: Okay, it's been moved and second to amend council bill. The clerk filed 314278. Are there any further comments on the amendment? If not, we do. Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I just want to thank Councilmembers Gonzales and Burgess for including the my two requests, one being the addition of the hours of open access, and secondly, the enforcement the enforcement mechanisms already in the language. But you flipped it so we could also make sure that the signage is provided. I've been active in developing the city's POPS program. Privately owned public spaces, and providing signage for these spaces is really, really important if you want to see.
Speaker 4: Good active use of.
Speaker 5: Them. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you for those comments. Are there any other comments on the amendments? If not?
Speaker 8: Sorry. Sorry.
Speaker 1: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 8: It's early in the year. Council President Harrell. Should we be standing or sitting when we're making comments?
Speaker 1: So the rules changed?
Speaker 3: Oh, no.
Speaker 1: Standing is optional. No.
Speaker 6: Let's look. We look that.
Speaker 1: Through. We slip that through. I think people should stand. But I did support the change.
Speaker 8: So that some standing is kind of like the exclamation point.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's right. Yeah. You do it with emphasis here, so don't overdo it.
Speaker 8: Okay.
Speaker 1: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 8: Thank you. So I want to thank the the folks that worked up this amendment. As folks know, this was a point of contention at full council at the last meeting of 2015, excuse me. And one of the reasons why I wasn't ready to support it. And I think the this language addresses a lot of the concerns around First Amendment rights. My preference has been to refer this back to committee because I don't think there was just full discussion in committee. But that said, I will support this. I want to I want to just re-emphasize that I have experienced security guards approaching me when when I had a sign on Amazon Plaza, and I'd spoken to that a few times before. Also, over the holiday break, I was forwarded a Twitter post by a local news reporter who was approached by an Amazon security guard, which she speculated was an Amazon security guard asking her to leave or if she had permission to be there. And so I think it's really important that Amazon commits to making sure that security officers are properly trained when regards to respect the rights the public has on these spaces. And I look forward to having that dialog with Amazon as we move forward to respect the rights of of Seattle's residents and workers. I have some other comments I'll make on the underlying bill after this amendment moves forward, but I will support this.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Are there any other comments on the amendment hearing then? The clerk filed 314278 has been moved. And second, in terms of the amendment. All those in favor say I. I oppose. The ayes have it. Would you like additional comments on the underlying.
Speaker 3: Clifton. I have.
Speaker 4: Just one.
Speaker 1: Councilmember.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I want to say special thanks to those in the neighborhood in District seven from Belltown and the Bell Street Corridor, that what this particular space will do is to help us connect what we're now calling Moai to market. And it will be a pedestrian corridor for people to be able to walk in. An expanded lovely green space at this particular parcel will be part of it. But I want to say thank you to those that were involved. This is 30,000 square feet of public open space and it had the enthusiastic and unanimous support of our Downtown Design Review Board. And I support this as well as being your District seven council.
Speaker 1: Thank you. If there are no Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I just wanted to also express my support for the underlying legislation today. As the public may know, there are two options set in front of this body right now in terms of the what Amazon has filed with the city for its master use permit. The approval of the allocation, I think is the best possible built environment choice for our residents. Not only does it offer a better pedestrian environment, but also contributes financially to that pedestrian environment, as well as generating over $8 million towards affordable housing here in the city. I want to say thank you to my colleagues who offered an amendment around the privately owned public spaces. I, too, have been booted out of a privately owned public space just for being on the phone because I didn't have a badge. So we need to make sure that we're doing what we can to make sure that these are, I think, appropriate leave monitored and that the security folks are really well trained on what can and is allowed in a privately owned public space. I think it's really important for us to understand the public benefits associated with vacations. We don't currently have the authority, as I understand it, to enter into the sorts of benefits that have been put forward by some organizations. But I hope that we can go back as a committee and as a council and take a look at some of the opportunities moving forward over the next couple of months.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Johnson, are there any other comments any my colleagues would like to make on the amendment? Clark filed 314278. Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 8: Thank you and thank you, Councilmember Johnson, for that segway into what I'm about to say, because I do want to take a minute to just step back and both acknowledge that from an urban design perspective, a lot of great work. Obviously, a unanimous decision by the Design Commission speaks highly of the design elements. We heard a few folks comment today from the broader community about the design elements that they like. And I would agree that those design elements are very strong for this project. But the issue of, you know, how the public has some say in what private design happens is somewhat limited. And when we are selling public right of way is one of the opportunities, we have to have some influence over how that moves forward. And I want to just be explicit with the public and future applicants that this council takes that role very seriously. And I think that it's a we're at a point now where the guidelines and standards that we've been following historically, well, they may have been appropriate in the past. It's time for us to revisit those and see what's appropriate going forward. Today is a very different world than it was 20 years ago or even five years ago, and that work has started during the budget process. Last year the Council asked our staff to do to gather data on on street vacations and early vacations over the last 20 years. And we expect to hear back from Massdot sometime in the next couple of months to see what are the types of public benefits we've received in the past and then also have the conversation about what are the types of public benefits we think the public is looking for going forward within the legal constraints that we have to operate in. I also want to just take a second to talk about an ongoing labor dispute that's happening at Amazon and how disappointed I am that a company like Amazon that has created so much wealth for some folks in the community is also contributing to a race to a race to the bottom for its contracted security workers. Specifically, I'm going to call out the Amazon subcontractors, security, industrial specialists. Some folks during public comment highlighted them. This is the kind of company that the way they're behaving now should have no place in Seattle. SARS has at least 15 individual complaints filed against them for numerous violations of Seattle's paid sick leave and safe time. Law workers have been suspended and even fired for taking sick leave. When the Seattle Office for Civil Rights, the Seattle Office for Civil Rights has reached a settlement agreement with SIAC for these violations. But my understanding is SARS has still not complied with all the terms of those settlements. SARS has also had numerous federal labor law complaints against them, for which they recently settled with the National Labor Relations Board. It's the type of company that for actually frankly, for for a company like Amazon that is such a high profile and such a successful business in our community. And someone that I think all of us want to be pointing to is the example of what Seattle businesses do. I think Amazon can do better when they hold their subcontractors accountable. And frankly, it's been appalling to me that they've continued to absolve themselves the responsibility and say that this is merely on SARS. Folks have said that Amazon, while driving incredible growth and wealth in Seattle, has also been playing an instrumental role well and has played an integral role in Lifting City out of the Great Recession. It has also pointed to as a symbol that has caused displacement and drive. Not the cost of housing and forcing and growing income inequality we face. There's an opportunity here, I think, to demonstrate how a city that's becoming a city of tech workers can also be one that supports those that serve them their coffee and manage their office buildings. That's why I think it's more important than ever that we carefully think about the future of public benefits that are provided for street and alley vacations and for any deal that results in public property or ride away becoming privatized. I want to just I see some Amazon folks, some representatives in the room to commit to you that I won't be part of the conversations going forward. I, I believe that our interests are actually aligned here. And I hope that we can continue to work towards solutions that meet all of our needs and take steps for Amazon to really demonstrate to our community that they are going to be a high road employer for all workers and not just the Walmart in the sky. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Bryan, councilmember suarez.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is deborah ward and I represent district five.
Speaker 3: First of all, I want.
Speaker 5: To thank council member Herbert Burgess and Gonzales for the amendments that they made and the good work that they did in addressing the First Amendment issues. I am new, but I did have an opportunity to go back and look at the public benefits and what we look at when we make a determination about street vacations. I think it's important to keep in mind that the city acts as a trustee.
Speaker 2: For the public in the public good.
Speaker 5: And that the public benefit we receive should outweigh the benefit that the petitioner receives. I'm not pointing to any particular company right now, and I want to thank the people that have spoken to Councilmember.
Speaker 3: Salant and O'Bryant.
Speaker 5: That we need to go back and look at 2009. And what we laid out is what the issues about what a public benefit is and what it brings to a community and the world is a lot different now in 2006 than it was in 2009. And I think we need to revisit that. Certainly business does time or does business in real time, and I think the government should do business in real time. And I look forward to working with the community, the business community, and certainly with my fellow.
Speaker 3: Council members on public public.
Speaker 5: Benefits and what they mean to our community.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember where's Councilmember Sawant?
Speaker 4: Thank you, President Harrell. I, I have talked to guns to members. My staff have talked to a gun to members. And one of the points that has been made. Frequently is that, well, if we want to change the public benefit process, then we should change it and then apply the law, not hold Amazon accountable to a law that isn't in place at this moment, as if, you know, somehow this is going to be grossly unfair to Amazon. I wanted to say that it's not totally I mean, that there is some truth to that, but it is not totally accurate to say that Amazon has dutifully gone through the whole process. And as Governor O'Brien explained, you know, there were there's a there's a very clear rationale for taking this back to committee. Part of the process that every petitioner has to go through is for the council, this body, elected body, to vote on such an allegation. This is part of the process. But as I see it, this is not a rubber stamping. It shouldn't be. At least that's what I think. This is the only this part of the process where the council comes into action is the only accountability, democratic accountability that working people can have over big business. Council members can talk about changing the process, but the reality is that that that is only meaningful if elected officials are willing to vote against such an early vacation for the moment or send it back to committee. As Councilmember O'Brien said, that was our preference, and I would still prefer that even if the request is coming from a powerful business. I don't think it will be sufficient. Even as far as the free speech is concerned, free speech concerns are are, you know, are the topic. I supported the amendment and just do things. Thank former council member Lekota, who brought forward the former incarnation of that amendment that we just passed. I don't think I support that, but I don't think it will be sufficient to address the concerns of free speech and also concerns of workers. Amazon has outsourced a security guard to a company and has gone tomorrow and said to security industry specialists or ISIS to try and avoid them by letting them have their democratic right to a union. It makes it easier to oppress workers in this way if you contract it out so you can just wash your hands of it. But we know SARS has shamelessly flouted Seattle's basic labor law. They did not give safe and sick leave. They have engaged in routine intimidation and even firings when one woman worker demanded her rights. As I has responded by publishing her children's medical records online, that's an example of intimidation. And Amazon is willfully turning a blind eye to this problem. They have refused to respond to these concerns, and I know that they have refused to respond because I was with workers at a demonstration when they had a letter to present to Jeff Bezos. He refused to meet with us. And I think they didn't know that they are the workers at a councilmember with them. And they made us all go on the street in the rain, even leaving their foyer, public foyer. Many elected officials think one can represent both the needs of workers and. Big business, but you cannot. This is a live example of where you have to pick a side and consumers are choosing to pick a side one way or another. And it's. Disingenuous to pretend that this is all just fair and square. We have a society that has a significant wealth and power differentials, so it is not neutral. This process is not neutral. It's not supposed to be neutral. And I know elected officials have said and will continue to say a lot about workers. But let's be clear, unless we use our position on issues like this one on bills like this one to hold big business accountable, then it is just words. At the end of the day, I'm sorry. Then they're just words. And because Amazon.com didn't want to be bothered with a delay until members, many of whom have accepted corporate donations and have a long track record of standing up for corporations against workers interests, I have indicated a willingness to give Amazon a smooth passage. I have no divided loyalties. I support workers. And if council members are not willing to send this back to the Transportation Committee to be properly discussed, and I do intend to vote no on this allegation. But my first choice would have been to send us back to committee. And I wanted to thank Councilmember O'Brien for politically leading that that part up last year. And that would have been a good opportunity for the council to do its job, to provide the space, to discuss with the community, the workers and Amazon, and find a real solution to the concerns. Then Amazon could have had its Ali vacation, but in a way that protects the public. However, council members have made it clear that they will not support that. So I cannot support this allegation that does not protect the interests of regular workers.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember, so much. So we have in front of us Councilmember Herbold, please.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 5: So. One point to remind folks, if you don't remember in 2014, this council actually wrote a letter to Jeff Bezos. And to my to my knowledge, we haven't received a response. And it is it was a letter designed to deal with just these issues. I did speak to two Amazon representatives last week. They informed me that they had performed an audit of Cece's employment practices. And I at that point asked whether or not we could see or have a review of that audit so we could judge for ourselves the compliance with the city's labor laws. I think that's the appropriate place to have this conversation is within the context of our enforcement mechanisms. We have just the the previous years council passed legislation to explicitly give the Office of Civil Rights, the Division of the Labor Standards Office, the ability to do proactive enforcement of our labor laws. I think we need to work really closely with that office in identifying industries and particular employers where we have seen a history of problems. And I would really be interested in bringing that conversation on how to roll out that proactive element of this office. To my knowledge, are the Office of Labor Standards is not doing proactive enforcement at this point. And I think we need to talk about how to roll that out, how to engage with the community and identifying industries and particular employers that we want to see that proactive enforcement for. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you for those comments, Councilmember Herbold. Okay. So we have an amended or a condition court file 314278. Are there any other comments that any of my colleagues would like to make of this first agenda item of 20, I might add. Hearing no comments. Those in favor of granting the petition as a condition to vote i. I. Those opposed vote. No. No. Okay. The motion carries and the petition is granted as conditions. Okay. Next, we'll have, I guess, items two, three and four read together for convenience agenda items. | Clerk File (CF) | Petition of Acorn Development LLC for the vacation of the alley in Block 21, Sarah A. Bell’s Second Addition to the City of Seattle, bounded by Bell Street, 7th Avenue, Blanchard Street, and 8th Avenue. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_01112016_CB 118602 | Speaker 1: Hearing no comments. Those in favor of granting the petition as a condition to vote i. I. Those opposed vote. No. No. Okay. The motion carries and the petition is granted as conditions. Okay. Next, we'll have, I guess, items two, three and four read together for convenience agenda items.
Speaker 7: Two, three, four. Agenda item number two cancel 118602 relating to said employment to be known as a pay zone ordinance. Adjusting the pay zone structures for the city's discretionary pay programs and ratifying confirming certain prior acts. Cancel 118603 relating to city employment providing wage increases effective December 31st, 2014 December 30th, 2015 December 28, 2016 and December 27 , 2017. For certain non represented city employees and officers providing adjustment to certain pay titles in addition to the 2015 wage increase authorizing a $15 per hour minimum wage for all non represented city of Seattle employees authorized indirect in Seattle Human Resources Director to change rates of pay for certain job titles to a minimum of $15 per hour , effective April 1st, 2015, authorizing paid leave for city employees who took furloughs in 2010 and ratifying confirming search prior acts and council Bill 118604 related to city employment. Authorizing the execution of collective bargaining agreements between the City of Seattle and certain unions in the coalition of city unions for the time period, January 1st, 2015 through December 31st , 2018, and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. All bills introduced December 14th, excuse me, January 4th, 2016.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Burgess.
Speaker 6: Thank thank you very much. And I apologize, advance this will take a couple of minutes. But these three bills together represent successful negotiations with several of our city employees, labor unions. Each of these council bills is consistent with the parameters set by the city's Labor Relations Policy Committee. The hourly wages for city employees covered by these council bills will increase by 2% in 2015. 2% in 2016. 2.5% in 2017 and 2.75% in 2018. Council Bill 118602. Adjust the hourly pay zone range for employees in the discretionary pay program. Council Bill 118603. Adjust the hourly rates for non represented employees in the step and grade pay program. Each step is increased by the wage adjustment percentage that I just cited for the first bill. The second council bill also increases wages by 3.5% for some identified non represented job titles, which the city is experiencing. Recruiting and retention challenges with the bill also provides a furlough return leave for employees who took unpaid furlough in 2010 by adding these leave days in 2016 and 2017. Council. Bill 118604 authorizes the mayor to implement four collective bargaining agreements between the city and the professional and technical employees. Local 17. Local 17 of the Probation Counselors Unit, the Seattle Municipal Court Marshals Guild and the Journeymen Apprentices of the plumbing and pipe fitting industry. Local 32. In addition to the wage adjustments and the furlough return leave program for represented employees, this council, this last council bill also creates a new tier of the Seattle City Employees Retirement System. Sears two four new employees hired on or after January 1st, 2017. The purpose of implementing the new retirement plan is to reduce financial pressures on the city and to enhance the sustainability of the city's retirement plan. The new plan is structured similarly to the current plan as a defined benefit plan. Current employees will remain in Series one. New employees will join Series two after January 1st of 2017. Currently, the city and its employees contribute 15.8% of overall payroll to fund the benefits of this plan. This will drop to 11.9% for Series two. Cost savings to the city of Seattle are estimated to be $200 million. Employees in the new plan. Will earn 1.75% of final average salary for each year worked. Employees in the current plan earn 2% for each year worked. Members of the new plan will contribute 7% of their salary toward retirement benefits. Members in the current plan contribute 10%. Employer contributions. The city government's contribution in the new plan will be 5% compared to 6% for the current plan. Are there any questions or comments? Thank you. And I would urge adoption of each of these three council bills.
Speaker 1: Okay. Councilmember Swan has a comment or question, please.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Just a couple points to note. Some council members may remember that during the 2014 budget, with the help of advocates from the City Union and the labor movement, we passed a budget amendment to increase the lowest wages for city workers to $15 an hour. The mayor had promised to do that when he first took office in January 2015, but that wasn't funded. And we put we put that money in the budget and the city unions have been fighting to have it take effect ever since. Ever since then, as they negotiate all the union contracts of the city workers. Today, I'm really delighted that we're seeing this come to pass and the struggle is paying off. The council bill does implement that minimum wage for city workers, and according to the city unions, it will be retroactive to April 1st of last year when the of 2014, when the funding in the 2014 budget was first planned to take effect. That means a lot. Sorry, 2015. That means a lot of Seattle's lowest paid employees will see a better paycheck soon. And really, it's it's a delight to vote yes on that. I also wanted to thank all the city union representatives for your tireless work. Some of you are in the chambers today on behalf of your members, and obviously you also set the benchmark for non-unionized workers. And it's very important to recognize that solidarity. It's it was unconscionable that you had to work without a contract for over a year because city negotiators were trying to play hardball with you for so long. And I know that your members are voting on the contract now, and I will absolutely support them in whatever they decide. But I also wanted to reiterate that if city negotiators were not willing to come to an agreement with city unions, I believe that the whole labor movement would have stood with you. And certainly I would have supported you. And I really think that this is an example of how when we win one victory, we also win other victories, because that sets the trend. Just to mention a couple of things, in addition to what Councilmember Burgess said, you know, of course, first of all, maintaining defined benefit plans is a significant thing. I think that to recognize the union in being able to hold on to that everywhere, public sector workers are under attack, being forced to accept what is essentially an austerity measure, going from defined benefit to defined contribution plans. And the other thing is that the wage increases are retroactive to January of last year when the old contract expired. This is particularly important because it means that union members are not penalized for holding out a good contract. It sets a good example. And lastly, I wanted to draw attention to something I mentioned in briefing this morning. The Supreme Court today is beginning hearings on Friedrich versus Friedrichs versus the California Teachers Association. The outcome of this decision, this hearing, will have a deep impact on future organizing by public sector unions everywhere around the nation, including public sector unions in Seattle. So we do have to very actively support the California Teachers Association to defend the Democratic right of workers to form a union if they have a majority.
Speaker 1: Thank you, counsel. So what are there any other comments before I move for passage?
Speaker 6: Councilmember Burgess So I just want to also thank our city labor representatives that are with us today. I remember almost four years ago when we first began discussing the need for modifications to the retirement system. And at that time, the Council insisted that Labor representatives be with us at the table and that we learned together the challenges that we face with the retirement system. So thank you for participating in that process with us. I think we've achieved a great outcome. Contrary to what my colleague just said, I think the city and our unions bargained in good faith throughout this process. There was no stalling or delaying. There were no unfair labor practices. We worked together diligently to arrive at these agreements today, and I think we can all be very proud of them.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Burgess. Okay, so I move to pass. I would take these individual I moved to pass counter bill 118602. Is there a second? It's been moved in second that the bill passed. Are there any other additional comments? Well, the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Burgess Gonzalez. Herbold, Johnson. Suarez O'Brien.
Speaker 3: All right, so on.
Speaker 2: Hi. President Harrell.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 2: Nine in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passed, and the chair will sign it. I move to pass Council Bill 118603. It's their second. It's been moved in seconded that the bill pass. Any other additional comments hearing none with the clerk. Please call the roll on the passage of this bill.
Speaker 2: Burgess Gonzalez. Purple Johnson. Suarez O'Brien. So what beg your president? Harrell I am favoring and opposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passed and the chair will sign it. I moved past Council Bill 118604 so moved in second that the bill passed. Are there any other comments? Young men with a card, please call the roll on passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Burgess Gonzalez Purple. Johnson Juarez. O'Brien Sergeant Bagshaw. President Herald.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Nine in favor nine opposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passed and the chair will sign it.
Speaker 3: Please give that an apology.
Speaker 1: Yes, I've signed all these documents. I'm just kidding. Okay, next we have the report of the planning land use. And no, do we have one more item on this report of the planning Land Use and Sustainability Committee? Please read the report. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE, relating to City employment, to be known as the Pay Zone Ordinance; adjusting the pay zone structures for the City’s discretionary pay programs; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_01112016_CB 118580 | Speaker 1: Yes, I've signed all these documents. I'm just kidding. Okay, next we have the report of the planning land use. And no, do we have one more item on this report of the planning Land Use and Sustainability Committee? Please read the report.
Speaker 7: The Report of the Planning, Land Use and Sustainability Committee. Agenda number five Constable 118 580 relating to land use and zoning repealing ordinance 124552 and in many sections 23.40 2.58 23.40 78.002.004.0 2020 3.40 8.002.005.0 6520 3.40 9.002.0. 25.0 42.0. 90.1 42.3 100.3 20.3 38. 23.50 .00. 2.0. 12.0 14.0 4420 3.60 6.1. 22.3 22 and 23.84 8.0 25 zero. Mr. Code to change marijuana zoning regulations and make technical corrections, the committee recommends that the bill passes amended.
Speaker 1: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 8: Thank you. So I'm just going to walk through a couple of the points on this bill. We have four amendments that I'm aware of that we'll take up in order. And then I can just speak to what the bill does at the very end to the mayor presented legislation to the council a little over a month ago . We had a public hearing and a couple of committee meetings to discuss this and the bill that the mayor proposed. There's there's two measurement issues that we often conflate, and I'm trying to keep them clear here. One is around buffers. So how far do marijuana businesses have to be from certain types of other uses, like daycare parks, community centers, arcades? And then the second term we use a lot is dispersion, which is how far do marijuana retail establishments have to be from other marijuana retail establishments? There are three different levels of businesses. There's the retail establishments. There's also producers and their processors. I just want to be clear that when we're talking about dispersion, we're only talking about retailers. There's not a dispersion requirement around producers or processors. The buffer zones apply to all of them. The bill that was proposed by the mayor and came out of committee included a 500 foot buffer zone for producers, processors and retailers for the types of activities. The buffer from the types of activities that state law allows us to reduce the buffer below a thousand feet. The dispersion requirement is not any requirement by state law that doesn't exist in existing city law. The bill that was proposed by the mayor's office proposed dispersion requirement of 500 feet, meaning if one retail business is located in one location, the second one could had to be at least 500 feet from that property to open up as it came out of committee that was amended by former Councilmember McCarter. His amendment was passed out of committee to reduce the dispersion requirement to 350 feet so businesses to retail businesses could not be within 350 feet. So we have four amendments. The First Amendment is one that I'm sponsoring. So I'm going to go ahead and speak to that and ask for a Second Amendment number one in our packet deals with the buffer zones and specifically with lower the buffer zone from 500 feet to 200 feet for the producers and processors only, not the retailers.
Speaker 3: To around 50.
Speaker 8: Feet. What did I say? Hundred, 250 feet. Thank you. I'm getting the words right now. I need the numbers wrong. So, again, current the current ongoing bill we're talking about has a 500 foot buffer zone for all types. This amendment would reduce that buffer from 500 feet to 250 feet just for the producers and processors, not for the retailers. Is there a second for that?
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 8: Okay. I'll just speak briefly to that. My from a policy perspective, I understand the idea of having buffer zones from these certain types of uses. Again. The ones that come to mind arcades, community centers, child care centers, parks, the types of sensitive uses within the city that often have youth often have folks that specifically are prohibited from using marijuana. We want to keep some space between those those uses and the retail stores. The the producers and processors, on the other hand, do not have any retail presence. There's no signage. There's really no way for my understanding, for the average citizen to even know what's going on inside. It's just another business that the public doesn't have access to. So I don't believe that having a great buffer zone for those operations makes policy sense, which is why I'm supporting that.
Speaker 1: We have an amendment to decrease the buffer for our producers to 250 feet. Are there any other comments? I'd like to actually make a comment, as I said this morning, that it's I'm I'm going to support the amendment, but with some level of concern. And that concern is, as I understand, the state's position, they are not limiting the number of production or growing licenses. I think there are policies as far as going to be sort of let the market take care of itself. Many growers, I think, are possibly going out of business because there seems to be a lot of product out there that hasn't been moving. And I'm concerned that, again, there are chemicals that are sometimes used, there are disposal issues on the grow operations, there are odor issues that neighborhoods are concerned about. And I just don't think we've adequately thought through some of the unintended consequences of just increasing the number of producers. And I don't even know if we need to do that at this point. I don't think we've done that, both research or data homework or looked at the impacts. But I as a policy standpoint, we have decriminalized this product and we're trying to get patients their medicine, and I'm supportive of where we're trying to head. But I just think there there's a lot of work still to be done as we lower the buffers. But generally speaking, I know there's been support on the council for this and I don't want to send away that support, but it is with some level of concern. Are there any other comments of Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 8: Just at this morning, this morning's briefing council President Harrell, you mentioned that and I had a chance, my staff had a chance to have a conversation about producer providers. And I just the reality is that this is kind of a joint regulatory effort between the city and the state. And ultimately the state holds a lot of the cards is what's happening. My understanding is that the state is not in the process of issuing any more producer processor licenses. They have set a cap on the number of retail, but of course it's a state and they could change their mind at any point in the future. So I don't my sense is that your concern is not something that's happening today, but obviously could become valid if the state were to change its direction.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Hearing no other comments will vote on this in a minute. All has been moved in. It's been moved to Amendment one, has been moved to there. A Second Amendment one to council. Bill 118580 has been moved. And second, all those in favor say I. I opposed. The ayes have it. Let's move to amendment number two.
Speaker 8: Great. So I'll speak just briefly to this and hand it off to Councilmember Herbold, who is a sponsor of this. This amendment is also about the buffer zones. This is about buffer zones for the retail operations in one specific area in the downtown zone. Councilmember Herbold So.
Speaker 5: This works off of the existing buffers in the mayor's proposed bill. The existing citywide buffers are 500 feet. This creates an exception to that of 250 feet in a specific zone. It's the downtown mixed commercial and downtown mixed residential zones. And this is in the downtown urban center west of I-5, north of yester way and south of Denny Way would not apply in.
Speaker 2: Specific.
Speaker 5: Carved out areas within the downtown urban center, including downtown office or one and two downtown Harbor Pike Place Market mixed or Pioneer Square mixed. The reason for this amendment is this is a high tourism area with cruise ships. More will be coming soon and an existing street drug dealing problem. It's actually we've had Liz Campbell from the Belltown Community Council come and speak to us about their concern about the illicit drug trade in the area and that their desire for a legal store will hopefully eliminate that that illegal activity. In particular, I know that there were questions about. A Town ID and Pioneer Square. Those are not included. And if there are specific questions that councilmembers have about the amendment, I'd love to receive them.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. So are there any comments on Councilmember her Herbold Amendment two, which, as I understand it, for retail stores lowers the buffer to 250 feet. Any other comments?
Speaker 8: Only in those zones.
Speaker 1: Only in the specified zone.
Speaker 3: I should say.
Speaker 1: Okay. So it's been amendment to Councilmember Herb also has been moved. Is there a second? Second so moved in Second Amendment number two. All those in favor say I opposed the ayes have it. Amendment number three.
Speaker 8: Okay. So amendment number three, we're going to shift from just talking about buffer zones to talking about dispersion. The current bill before us has a dispersion requirement of stores have to be at least 350 feet from each other. Council members purchasing Gonzalez have an amendment that would change how we calculate dispersion.
Speaker 6: So please, this amendment has to be viewed in the context of the buffer zone as well. So both the buffer and the dispersion need to be viewed together. So this would say that there cannot be more than two properties with major marijuana activity, including the retail sale within 1000 feet of each other. So a thousand feet is approximately four or five city blocks, depending on what part of town you're in. So if you think about a neighborhood business district, for example, with this amendment, there could be two retail outlets within a thousand feet. If the buffer is also met. So except in the downtown area, the amendments that we just passed, it would have to be 500 feet buffer between. The sensitive uses like parks, community centers, childcare facilities. But then only two allowed within 1000 feet. So I would move amendment number three.
Speaker 4: Second.
Speaker 1: So we have amendment number three in front of us that's been moved on second. And are there any additional comments on amendment number three?
Speaker 5: Councilmember Gonzalez The only thing that I would would add to this particular amendment that I think is important for us to keep in mind is that this this particular dispersion requirement would not go into effect until it is signed by the mayor, so it becomes effective immediately upon the mayor's signature. So this does not impact current current marijuana retail locations. It would only impact the siting and zoning requirements for major marijuana activity moving forward.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much for that clarification. We have amendment number three that has been properly moved in second. And all those in favor say I, I opposed the ayes have it. And Councilmember O'Brien, I believe you had Amendment four. That was somewhat based on the passage of 1 to 3.
Speaker 8: The bill, their own adventure for portion of the meeting. So amended number for the intent of a minimum of four is to go back and add some recitals justifying the changes in the buffer zones that we just made in our in our documents. There are four different versions based on what could have happened earlier in the meeting, because both amendments, one and two are approved. I am going to go ahead and propose alternate RD of Amendment four, which, as is the recital language that had previously been reviewed by law to support the changes in the buffers that we just made in the amendment.
Speaker 6: Second.
Speaker 1: Okay has been moved in seconded amendment number four, which is basically alter D. It's been moved in seconds for its passage. All those in favor say I. I opposed the ayes have it. Councilmember Brian, you want to make any closing remarks relative to the bill as amended?
Speaker 8: Yeah. Thank you. I want to I want to thank the mayor's staff and David Mendoza in particular for doing a lot of work over the not just the last months, but over a year. It feels like we are at the leading edge of a new industry. We're trying our best to get this right. We're learning a lot, I think the the enforcement work that they've done to help transition medical providers into the recreational framework, well, not perfect. I think it is taking great steps. I also want to thank folks from the community for the various aspects that have done a lot of work to try and help us understand what their business environment looks like as we made these changes. I want to highlight just a couple things that we're not doing today but may come up specifically around the current legislation and the underlying law before we passed this legislation. Both prohibit retail operations within any of our historic districts, and that is not being proposed to change today as a tourist district. Historic districts include Ballard Avenue, Pioneer Square, Pike Place Market, Columbia City, International District, and perhaps others. There have been conversations from folks in the community who would like to lift that prohibition in both the Ballard Historic District and possibly Pioneer Square. And my conversations with community members from both Ballard and Pioneer Square was that the communities there hadn't had enough time to process and have conversations on those, but are open to possibly making changes in the future. And so what I have told both advocates and community members is that I will do what I can to help foster communications in the coming weeks and months. And if it seems that we can get to a place of consensus, I would certainly support coming back with legislation to make changes to those historic districts where we've had more process and more opportunity for people to weigh in.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember O'Brien. I'd like to suggest, as I support this amended bill, that we still have so much work to do. I mean, we're way beyond the issue as to whether we support decriminalization of marijuana. I mean, that that's an old debate. I think we've shown a strong commitment toward basically supporting this industry and making sure we regulate and tax and do all those kinds of things as well. At this point, we're also looking at trying to enrich our city and trying to educate our kids and trying to protect our neighborhoods. And so when we talk about the environmental impacts, we talk about the people impacts, we talk about its effect on poorer or underrepresented communities. There still remains a lot of policy work to do. And this, I think, is one of the very few times where the state are actually moving faster than we are from a city standpoint . So as they do their licenses, I think we are trying to figure this out. We also know that there are many neighboring cities as well trying to figure this out as well who may not get as many licenses. And so Seattle, being such a large city that we have an opportunity to be a leader in this industry, but to do it in a very smart and concerted way. So I think that both the race and social justice impacts of what we're trying to do, the environmental impacts we still have work to do. I want to support I want to voice my support to all of the industry participants out there, both on the medical side and recreational side for helping us create this industry. And we hope to be partners with you in the future. Are there any other comments on this bill as amended, just briefly? Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 5: I also wanted to echo Councilmember O'Brien's gratitude to the mayor's office and to David Mendoza in particular, who has spent probably a countless number of hours working on this policy issue, both at the state level. And we're lucky enough to have him here at the city continuing to to provide us with his his knowledge around this particular industry and policy issues related to to to this new venture that we're on. I'm really pleased that this ordinance has passed. I think it's really critically important that we continue to foster an environment within the city of Seattle where we can create a competitive industry for retail marijuana businesses. And I think that the zoning law that we've just passed will do exactly that. Of course, we have a lot of other work to do to ensure that there are no disparate impacts based on race or social justice or other important factors. First and foremost will be tackling, I think, the delivery legal delivery services system to make sure that either they are folded into the system or that we are deploying city resources appropriately to ensure that those types of illicit markets aren't hurting. What the voters have said loud and clear is an industry we want and expect to flourish within our city, within the bounds of the law. So thank you to the mayor's office and thank you to the city council for for taking this step.
Speaker 1: Thank you for those comments. Councilmember Gonzalez. Hearing no further comments, I move the passage of Council Bill 118580 as amended and moved in second that council bill 118580 passed passed. Please call the roll on passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Burgess. Gonzalez. Herbold Johnson Suarez O'Brien. Safwan Bagshaw. President Harrell I. Nine in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Next we'll have a report of the energy committee. Please read the report. Okay. And as the clerk prepares to read the energy bill, I will announce that the bill that we just a minute is not ready for the chair signature, but once it is ready. You'll be signing at that point? Yes. Are you ready for the energy report? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; repealing Ordinance 124552 and amending Sections 23.42.058, 23.47A.002, 23.47A.004, 23.47A.020, 23.48.002, 23.48.005, 23.48.065, 23.49.002, 23.49.025, 23.49.042, 23.49.090, 23.49.142, 23.49.300, 23.49.320, 23.49.338, 23.50.002, 23.50.012, 23.50.014, 23.50.044, 23.66.122, 23.66.322, and 23.84A.025 of the Seattle Municipal Code to change marijuana zoning regulations and make technical corrections. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_01112016_CB 118513 | Speaker 1: You'll be signing at that point? Yes. Are you ready for the energy report?
Speaker 7: The report? The Energy Committee Agenda Item six cancel 118 513 relating to the satellite department declaring certain real property rights surplus to utility needs, authorizing the general manager and chief executive officer to execute an agreement for the city to grant an easement for access purposes over a portion of the city's FT own transmission corridor at 14 355 Linden Avenue North in Seattle, Washington. And to accept the release of an easement of said address accepting payment for the true and full value of the easement, beginning rent being granted from res properties, limited partnership and ratifying confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 3: Councilmember Swan.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Bruno. This council will authorize the city to execute an easement agreement under some power lines and city light will be paid for this easement. And the energy committee recommends that we pass.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you for that. Just bear with me here. So this is a bill. And look at my notes here. So it's I move to pass council bill 118513. Is there a second it's been moved in second. That council bill 118513 pass. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill burgess.
Speaker 2: Gonzalez herbold Jonathan Suarez I O'BRIEN So I beg your president Harrell.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passes the chair will sign it. Please read council bill 118563 into the record and you may read the short version if you'd like. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; declaring certain real property rights surplus to utility needs; authorizing the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer to execute an agreement for the City to grant an easement for access purposes over a portion of the City’s fee-owned transmission corridor at 14355 Linden Avenue North in Seattle, Washington, and to accept the release of an easement at said address; accepting payment for the true and full value of the easement being granted from Rise Properties (Woodland Pointe) Limited Partnership; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_01112016_CB 118595 | Speaker 1: Please read the report.
Speaker 7: The Report of the Park Seattle Center Libraries and Gender Pay Equity Committee Agenda Item 15 Council Bill 118 595 Authorizing an agreement with the Operating Foundation for support of the Seattle Japanese Guardian, the committee recommends that the bill pass with an abstention from Councilmember Harrell.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Bagshaw.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. I will be addressing this since our former colleagues, Councilmember Rasmussen and Councilmember Gordon, are not here today to do so. This particular legislation proposes a mechanism for us to ensure the financial sustainability of the Japanese garden, and the legislation proposes the transfer of the fundraising responsibilities for the Japanese garden from ARC. That's her Association for Recreation Council to the Arboretum Foundation. The Arboretum Arboretum Foundation will assume responsibilities, as it does already for the Greater Arboretum. And all of you know that the Japanese garden is in the heart of the arboretum. So the foundation's duties, should we approve this will include fundraising, membership, program management, volunteer recruitment and event management, as well as fundraising and public outreach. The transfer of the duties is supported by a number of organizations, which I will speak to in just a moment. We also have heard some opposition from a few individuals, but what we are hearing from the Arboretum Foundation, the Parks Department, ask the Japanese Garden Advisory Board. And last week, I received a letter from Tony Omar Eguchi, who is president of the Seattle Tea Ceremony Association, that they are recommending that we proceed with this. The foundation will create a Japanese garden committee with a dozen members to address the multiple needs of the garden. The Arboretum found out a foundation has staff and board members that have demonstrated interest in and involvement with the Japanese culture. And you heard from several of them today, including Diana Doshi, who is here to speak to us, and Roger Williams. Also, Terry Holmes was here as a former board of Park Commission. So I'm going to just briefly talked about the basic obligations of the Arboretum Foundation, which will be to replace ARC as the primary support organization to recognize Seattle Parks and Recreation. That's our Parks Department. As the owner and operator of the Seattle Japanese Garden, for the garden to continue to work with the Parks Department to raise funds, recruit volunteers and so on. We will also support implementation through the Arboretum for designated events, coordinate and train volunteers, and to expand and implement the Japanese Garden Membership Program. There will be much more, but this is the basic outline. The committee recommended that we proceed, and as a new board member and Vice Chair of the Parks and Seattle Center Committee, I recommend that we approve this as well.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Bagshaw. Are there any other comments on Council Bill 118595. I'll just make some comments. I'll reiterate the comments I made during the committee where I abstained, and that is that I think the goal, the goals are noble. And what we're trying to do, we're trying to have a premier Seattle Japanese garden. And it seems as though if you look at Portland as the model of one of the best in the country, that they seem to develop a core competency, a certain organization that strictly focuses on that kind of entity as opposed to it being part of a larger portfolio. And while I think the Arboretum Foundation is an outstanding organization, my concerns was whether the Parks Department had looked at other options or what those options were, and I didn't think that they presented any other options other than sort of moving forward. The Arboretum Foundation. I am going to support this legislation, but I would ask that the the new chair continue to really sort of do a deep dove on what other possibilities might be, what support the Arboretum Foundation may be. You may recall during the committee discussion, I asked the question whether the sale Japanese garden will be a standalone five one C3 in ten or 15 years or what the plans are there. And there was somewhat of a rich conversation, sort of mixed signals there and what may make sense down the road. But certainly as an interim step, this is what the department is at least suggesting. So I will support it, but I think a lot of work still needs to be done. So having said that, are there any other comments on this bill?
Speaker 4: Be noted.
Speaker 1: Please call the role on the passage of the Bill.
Speaker 2: Burgess by Gonzalez Herbold Johnson Suarez O'Brien. All right, so I beg Shar President Harrell.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and chair will sign it. Next we have one, two, three, four, six appointments, I believe. And and can you read all six into the record at once, please? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE authorizing an agreement with the Arboretum Foundation for support of the Seattle Japanese Garden. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12112017_CB 119081 | Speaker 1: Bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read the report of the planning, land use and Zoning Committee Action Item number three.
Speaker 3: The report of the Planning and Zoning Committee. Janet and three Constable 119021 relating to the regulation of short term rental businesses. Adding a new Chapter 6.600 short term rentals to the Cielo Ms. Code. Can we recommend the bill passes amended?
Speaker 1: Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 7: Okay. We are here at the final three bills related to short term rentals. The Council previously adopted per night tax on short term rental operators, and then updated the land use code to define what a short term rental use is. We have in front of us today is the rental uses regulation bill. Currently, short term rental uses are permitted but not regulated, and this bill establishes regulations on the operation of short term rentals to go into effect starting January one, 2019. The bill that came out of committee does a couple of things. Defines and establishes a licensing framework for short term rentals, and the operators utilize short term rental platforms. The legislation establishes a cap on the number of dwelling units a person can operate as a short term rentals to units for units in operation before September 30th of this year and moving forward is capped at the primary housing unit plus one additional unit per operator outside of the downtown and a specific exemption area within the downtown is the downtown uptown self. Again, urban centers and units in certain building types in the first all capital urban center. We also have the ability for those folks who are entering the marketplace after September 30th, 2017 to play in the short term rental field. They are required to play at the primary plus one level. So they're allowed to have one unit on the market place. On a second unit has to be their primary residence. We are going to be discussing several different amendments associated with this. But before we get to those amendments, I just want to again take a moment to say a quick thank you to Allie Bonacci of our council central staff, and Amy Gaw from my office. This has literally been a two year process, and we've sort of inherited this from then Councilmember Burgess and then now Mayor Burgess. And I understand the complicated nature of this fact of this legislation. And I want to say thank you to many of my colleagues who took extra time to send the bill back to committee. It is not a perfect bill, from my perspective, but it certainly is better than the one that we had the last time around. So why don't I stop there, take discussion on amendments, and we'll go from there.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Johnson, again, thank you for inheriting this and working so hard through it. I believe there are some amendments. Unless anyone wanted to say anything about the base, legislation will go to potential amendments. Or are there any comments on the base legislation that had come out of committee? Why don't we take the amendments in the order that we discussed them this morning? And so, Councilmember Bagshaw, I think you had the First Amendment.
Speaker 0: I do think you amendment number one would actually reduce the area of land where we would grandfather units. And I want those of you who have been testifying to know that I've heard you loud and clear. We've got homeowners and condo owners and business owners, large and small, and we have strong opinions on both sides of this . Last week, when we had our meeting, I spent time and actually pulled this amendment off so I could spend more time over the weekend to hear from you, hear from people and go back and read what had been presented to us. So today, again, I'm going to bring what is now Amendment One back, which will reduce the exempted grandfathered area, actually make it about the size of our downtown core hotel area from Cherry to Olive Street. This has fewer affordable units, more hotels, more tourist attractions in the area. This is where our city's hospitality industry already exists in force. I actually happen to live in this area, so I am mindful of what I am doing. But my goal here with this amendment is to ensure that areas such as Belltown, Uptown, South Lake, Union, Pioneer Square, where there are many units that are units for families, some are family sized. We are working very hard to get a school into this area. We want to make sure that we are advocating for a family friendly Seattle. The goal here is going to make sure that people still have still have their ability to have a unit that they can rent out their primary unit and one other , but at the same time increase the number of units that will be available for for families full time. I'm really conscious of what I received from one individual who said, I've got somebody who is running out a unit almost every night to my left, to my right, over my head. And that is not a place that I personally would want to live. And I'm sure that that individual doesn't want to live there in that way. As well. So we're trying to restrict that to a reasonable place. So if you've bought a unit, you've bought a home in a condominium or in an apartment building where others are renting it out, you can assume that you are going to have a place where you can live and have your own quiet nest and not have people who are vacationing around you every night. So that's the reason behind this. And I would like to move forward with Amendment One.
Speaker 1: Very good. Just to be clear, as I recall, the amendment as I recall, I'm looking at a script here just to be very clear that the amendment and described in the written document. Basically change is the first sentence in the code. 6.600.040. B point to deletes the term Uptown Urban Center or the South Lake Union Urban Center and adds south of all of way and north of Cherry Street. That's the amendment.
Speaker 0: That's correct.
Speaker 1: Okay. Is there a second? Okay. Any further discussion, Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 7: Not to belabor what has already been a good hour and a half long meeting, but I just want to say to you again, Councilwoman Baxley, I think reasonable people can disagree on this. I'm going to be voting no on this amendment for many of the issues that you heard from folks and public comment. It reduces jobs. It reduces the amount of funding that we can have for our equitable development initiative. And I'm not sure that it's in that many decisions will actually revert back to the long term rental market. So I'm going to be voting no.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Very good. Just a quick response to that. I failed to say thank you and my true and deep appreciation, Councilmember Johnson, for you taking this on. It's not been easy. And goodness knows, there have been plenty of amendments that you've dealt with. And I agree with you, reasonable minds can differ. And I appreciate your point of view.
Speaker 1: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Councilman Bagshaw, thank you for bringing this forward. Today, I will be supporting this. I want to respond to just a couple of things I heard in public comment. One of the last public comment was talked about the struggle for folks who are living in Belltown to be able to afford to live there. And I want to remind everyone what this does do and doesn't do. What it means is there'd be a small area in the downtown area that Councilmember Bexar referred to where folks that are legally operating, Airbnbs would be able to operate an unlimited amount in that range outside that area. People would continue to be able to operate two units. So the example of someone who occasionally leaves their place empty because he goes to his then boyfriend or girlfriend or rents out to make a little extra money that would still be allowed. In fact, people could own speculate or, you know, investments or speculative to units outside this narrower range and rent those out. This only starts to impact individuals who are owning three or more units that they're renting out. What would that impact be? Well, they would could rent them out on a long term rental. They could sell them. Someone can move there. And the jobs front, I just I respect that. There's a lot of folks that are running businesses right now that are employing folks. And I understand that you set those businesses up following all the rules all the time. But as technology changes, as situations change, we make policies that react to that. And I want to just remind folks that people, residents also create jobs, not just tourists create jobs. So it's a shift for sure. But it's not that this is against jobs. There may just be slightly different types of jobs.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember. We're just discussing amendment number one, Casper Mosquito.
Speaker 4: Wonderful. Thank you, Mr. President. I just have a few questions. And perhaps they're best directed to the sponsor of the amendment or to staff, if that's okay, to ask for clarification. So, number one, can you please confirm, just as Councilmember O'Brien just reiterated, that this amendment and the underlying bill does not exclude short term rentals in any part of the city? Correct. Correct. Okay. And in an effort to make sure that the folks who've testified before, who are cleaning the places, making sure that things are getting up and ready, managing, there's nothing that precludes them from continuing to manage. This is really just directed at ownership, is that correct?
Speaker 0: Oh, so it's it's it is it is good. I would say that it is going to impact jobs.
Speaker 6: The economy.
Speaker 1: I'm going to ask the next person like this gentleman is being disruptive. I'm just going to ask I'm going to warn you now. I have to do that. And I'm just going to have you removed. Please. We heard your comments. We we know this is a passion, but let us deliberate and make decisions. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: So repeat your question, please.
Speaker 4: The common was the question was asking around those who are providing cleaning facilities, those who are managing. Is there anything in the amendment or the underlying legislation that changes any of those rules?
Speaker 0: It doesn't change the rules, but what it will do is it's going to reduce the number that an individual might own. So if somebody is owning and renting out short term and as a number of people have said and this is a concern that I heard loud and clear last week, which is why I paused before bringing this forward. It is going to impact people who have a number of units in an area and that they have, let's just say, those who have cleaning that come in regularly when somebody leaves, that is that will impact them. There is no question about that.
Speaker 4: And is that information going to be part of the report that we get in six months? And in the report that we get in six months, will we also be able to look at potential impacts on the black market, maybe apartments that are not listed on some of the platforms that we've been talking about?
Speaker 0: And I think that's really important that we ask for specifically that.
Speaker 4: Okay, great. Those are some of the things that I'll be looking for. And I just want to thank you for your work on this and Councilmember Johnson and the entire committee. I think that this is a a good hybrid, a good approach. And I've heard from some of the folks that say that they want to be able to stay in the city, raise their kids in the city, make sure that they can afford their first place in the city. And I look forward to supporting our amendment and to talking about the underlying bill soon.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Very much. And any further comments on amendment number one? It's been moved in second and all those in favor of amendment. Amendment number one, please vote i. I opposed.
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 1: I'll ask you say I if you support it and raise your hand, support the amendment. Number one. I. I. Opposed now 5 to 2, the amendment passes. Amendment number two and three are sort of related. So I'm going to ask Councilmember Brian to walk us through two and three.
Speaker 8: Council President It's okay. I'd like to walk through 3/1 and I actually do not plan to bring amendment number two. Very good. Amendment three does a couple of things. And I'm going to speak to the first piece of it and allow my co-sponsor, this amendment, Councilmember Herbold, to speak to the second piece. Amendment three specifically. The first piece is just strengthening the language to make it clear that there will be a fee recovery mechanism to fully recover the costs of the directories, administrative, enforcement and other regulatory costs. The language in the underlying bill, I believe, is pretty clear on that already, but this amendment makes it, I think, pretty explicit . So it's unambiguous. Specifically, what Section D would say is the director shall review annually any of the licensing fees in the subsections listed here and shall make any necessary adjustments in a director's rule to ensure the fees achieve full cost recovery of the directors, administrative, enforcement and other regulatory costs and no more. So specifically, what I want to just state in layman's terms what this is intending to do is platforms that will need to be in compliance with the city's new regulations, will pay some sort of regulatory fee, and that fee will be set by directors on an ongoing basis and can be adjusted up or down as necessary in order to ensure that they're fully covering the costs it takes to administer the regulations we're putting in place. Councilmember Herbold, would you wanna speak to the latter part of the same amendment?
Speaker 5: Sure. The latter part of the same amendment clarifies that as the director is making recommendations on a fee structure to ensure full cost recovery, as Councilmember O'Brien explained that they will consider both a per night fee, as well as a graduated annual fee with tiers based on the numbers of listings on a platform. The idea being that some folks wanted an approach for the fee to be something other than a per night fee. The suggestion would be was a flat annual fee. I had a concern about a flat annual fee because it would treat platforms with many participants the same as platforms with fewer participants. And so that's why I sort of keyed up the notion of, yes, let's look at a an annual fee instead of a per night fee, but let's look at one that's graduated according to platform size. And it clarifies as well that fees will produce a written status report to the Council by June 2018. For our consideration and any potential next steps, there is no net. There are no next steps required by the Council but by us getting that report by June, when this is supposed to go into effect January 2019, it gives us an opportunity to ask Act if the recommendations from our face are not aligned with these objectives.
Speaker 1: Very good. So we have an amendment number three in front of us. Any further comments regarding amendment number three? And it has once you formally move it and you get a.
Speaker 8: Second, go ahead and move. Amendment number three.
Speaker 1: Has been moved. And second, any further comments on amendment number three? All those in favor of amendment number three. Please say I and raise your hand. I opposed the ayes have it. So there you go. And Brown. So he's not bringing forward number two. So we're still stuck with amended legislation with anyone else like to make any comments about the overall legislation comes from O'BRIEN Yeah.
Speaker 8: I just want to speak briefly to amendment number two, which I will not be bringing forward. Colleagues, I appreciate getting the clarity on the language. And now that we have, I think, unambiguous certainty that there will be some sort of regulatory fee to cover the costs instead of setting a specific fee. At this point, we can wait for the director to come up and do that process now that we've given them that authority. So I will withdraw amendment number two.
Speaker 1: Very good. Any further? Any any further. If skies are to councilmember a.
Speaker 8: Cigaret.
Speaker 1: Have this man please escort it out, please and have this gentleman escort it out as to thank you. Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 5: I want to speak to some of the the frustration that we're hearing from folks about the exemptions to the caps. I want to clarify that these are exemptions that that not from the ability to participate in short term rental market as an income generating activity, but it is an exemption to make sure that folks outside of the exemption area are not hampering the access to to to permanent long term housing, whether it's rental housing or or homeownership opportunities. And, you know, I think Seattle's legislation that we are poised to to vote on is really much more generous to folks who are engaged in this activity than many other cities. Councilmember Mosqueda shared some research from her office last week that shows each Denver, Los Angeles. San Francisco. Santa monica, Portland and New York City. All limit. Short term rentals to units within people's primary residence. I think, you know, we are trying to balance the fact that people rely on this income to maintain their own mortgages, their own expenses, as well as give folks opportunities to to employment within this within this industry. And in doing so, I again, I think we're more generous than than many other cities that we are seeing that are moving into this this area.
Speaker 1: Very good. Any further comments on that? Because Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 7: So, you know, we have ended in a very different place from where we started. And I want to recognize that. And I think one of the important distinctions here is we started with a process that was intended to solely just focus on regulation. And I think some of the differences here between some of the difficulties between comparing our model to other cities models is that we are different in that this was an allowable legal use for a long period of time, which is different from what other cities have gotten into where they've started to regulate a use that wasn't legally allowed. So that distinction is important as we got into a lot of the negotiations with many of the folks who are legally operating businesses in the city. But I don't want to lose sight of, I think, what it was an important change for us as a council and as a city, which was to talk about revenue model as well as a regulatory model. We started this process with just an objective of reducing the number of units that could be on the short term rental market platform. And we changed that about nine months ago to talk about not just the regulations, but also the opportunity for revenue here. And that was no small part started by many of the folks who are out in the audience today. And I want to recognize those folks, because rarely is an elected official D.C. individual stand up and raise their hand and say, please tax me. Because I believe that that is the right thing. And not only I want you to tax me, but I also want you to tax me and have it fund projects that are going to benefit my community. So a change here towards a tax that is going to fund equitable development should not be one of the things that's lost in the shuffle of what has been a really complicated set of negotiations around regulation. So I want us to not lose sight of that fact. I think that the bill in front of us is certainly not the bill that I thought we were going to end up with. I don't think it's a bad compromise by any stretch of the imagination. And I want us to remember that in the long run here we met a really diverse set of objectives with a very diverse set of stakeholders. And I'm hopeful that as we get into 2018 and talk about implementation, that we can continue to work collaboratively together, together across all the different entities.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Johnson. Any further comments can bring back.
Speaker 0: As a just a moment of personal privilege. There seems to be some concern in the audience. I don't own any real estate other than the one in which I live, and my particular condo does not allow short term rentals. So if anybody has any concern that there's a financial interest here, not the case.
Speaker 1: Councilmember O'Brien, thanks for clarifying that.
Speaker 8: I want to I want to take a minute to just highlight that one of the driving principles for me in this process was centering racial equity around this policy decision. And I want to thank the folks in our community who have been doing analysis about the racial disproportionality of both, who benefits from the existing system and the proposed legislation, and who was hurt by it. And I also want to thank the individuals who came and testified today, specifically using a racial equity lens to help us think through this. We know we live in a city that is in a society that, frankly, is not equal. And a lot of those inequities fall along racial lines. And I think it's critically important if we want to undo the unfair system that unfortunately creates huge disparities, often based on race. And we need to be centering that approach as we make these policy decisions. And as someone I think said a very eloquently in comments today, you know, people of color benefit less than white people in this program, and they're disproportionately hurt by the displacement because of homeownership patterns. I think everyone in our community I'd like to think everyone our community wants to get beyond that, where homeownership is equally shared by people regardless of race. But we're not there today. And we have to recognize that the policies we make in a system that is unfair have disparate impacts. And so I'm proud of where we gone today. I think we've created a path where people can continue to operate successful businesses. There will be some changes for sure. And I think those changes overall will be better for the city.
Speaker 1: Well stated, Councilmember Mosquito.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. And thanks to the council, especially to Councilmember Johnson, for shepherding this through. I have learned a lot from the last few conversations that I've had over not just the last two weeks in this role, but in the last year or so, as I've heard about this issue, I want to echo Councilmember O'Brien's appreciation for the community that's come forward, especially for Puget Sound Stage and the research that she put together with the limited data that we have so that we do have a better analysis on who will benefit and how we can continue to create greater equity in this city. This is an issue that I take very seriously and personally as well. I know individuals that have been able to stay in their home, keep their home and live with financial security because of the ability to rent out and a mother in law unit or a downstairs unit, as many of you said, or your second home. The legislation before us, I think, allows for people to maintain that mom and pop approach to keeping their units afloat. And also, I will, as I mentioned in the questions ahead of time, be looking to see what the impact will be on those who do the cleaning and the preparations for these short term rentals. I think that this is a priority to make sure that individuals can stay and be financially stable in our city, recognize the entrepreneurial spirit in which these units became available, but also try to create as much housing as we need as we have a housing crisis so that we're looking to constantly bring more homes onto the market . I am very sympathetic to the need to make sure that people can raise their kids here, can live in the city that they work and create opportunities for greater home ownership. So to those of you who've emailed me and met with me on this point, I hear you and I look forward to working with you, especially as we have this report coming up in six months. I also want to make sure that we address the concerns that Councilmember Bagshaw and others have brought up about wanting to make sure we don't have de facto hotels. And with the legislation that's already been passed, I know we've taken some tremendous strides to looking at health and safety , making sure that we're creating regulation. And this is the final puzzle piece I think helps us lead in terms of creating greater stability. And I also end by just saying this is an issue that I think can help be level setting as we look at other cities and in terms of how they get new economies under regulation , trying to be creative and innovative, recognize the entrepreneurial, entrepreneurial spirit while we protect workers and while we protect our safety of our residents and our visitors. I do look forward to working with you and appreciate all the work that went into this and I'll be voting yes.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Mosquito. Okay, I think we are ready to vote, so please call the roll on the passage of the amended Bill Bagshaw.
Speaker 2: Gonzalez Herbold, Johnson, Machado O'Brien, President Harrell seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passed and chair sign it. Please read the next agenda item and you can read the short title.
Speaker 3: The Select Budget Committee Gentlemen four Accountable 119 148 Relating to funding for Housing and Community Development Programs, Committee recommends the bill passed. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the regulation of short-term rental businesses; adding a new Chapter 6.600, Short-Term Rentals, to the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12112017_CB 119158 | Speaker 3: The Select Budget Committee Gentlemen four Accountable 119 148 Relating to funding for Housing and Community Development Programs, Committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 1: Council member, HERBOLD.
Speaker 5: Thank you. This bill allows unused community development block grant funds from previous years to be spent during 2017. It adds 1.2 million to multifamily rental, housing preservation and development, specifically as it relates to economic development items. It also adds 275,004 only in Seattle Neighborhood Business District program for a 2017 total of $750,000. And it also adds funds for small business and entrepreneurial support of $95,000. It also takes an action necessary under HUD regulations regarding disposition of property to allow for the transfer of ownership of the Greenwood Senior Center to the Phinney Neighborhood Association. There's no financial impact there, and that's simply because any change in funds from committee development block grants over $50,000 requires council action.
Speaker 1: Very good. Any further questions on this agenda item?
Speaker 7: Councilmember Johnson just want to say I've met with the Phinney Neighborhood Association about this on several occasions. They're very excited about this transfer of property. There's a lot of work to do on that Greenwood Senior Center, but once it's completed, it's going to be a really wonderful, revamped jewel of their community.
Speaker 1: Great. Excellent.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: Okay. I think we're ready to vote. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Thanks. Shaw. Gonzalez. Herbold, II Johnson. Let's gather I O'Brien. President Harrell. Hi. Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Passage through the Senate. Please read the next agenda item. Be going a short title, please.
Speaker 3: Agenda item five Constable 119 152 pertain to the fund structures of the city treasury or reorganizing certain funds and some funds consistent with the recommendations of the city's financial management and accountability program. The committee recommends the bill passed. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to funding for housing and community development programs; amending the City of Seattle 2014, 2015, and 2017 Annual Action Plans to the 2014 - 2017 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development to repurpose funds to Office of Economic Development (OED) neighborhood business district activities, business technical assistance, Section 108 loan repayment activities, and Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (HALA) implementation activities, and to add disposition of real property; amending Ordinances 124496, 124756, and 125365, which adopted the 2014, 2015, and 2017 Annual Action Plans; amending Ordinance 125207, which adopted the 2017 Budget, by modifying appropriations to various departments and budget control levels in the 2017 Adopted Budget; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12112017_CB 119152 | Speaker 3: Agenda item five Constable 119 152 pertain to the fund structures of the city treasury or reorganizing certain funds and some funds consistent with the recommendations of the city's financial management and accountability program. The committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 1: The council member Herbold Thank you.
Speaker 5: This is a bill with a very, very long title, but a short description. It rewards reorganizes the city's fund structure simply to be in accordance with the new what we are called the thin map system. The new system will allow the city budget office to have more up to date information on departmental spending at a project level
Speaker 1: . Any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Thanks. John Gonzalez. Herbal. Hi, Johnson Moschella. I O'Brien. President Harrell seven in favor an unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passed and chair of Senate. I think we're going to jump to number eight now. So please read agenda item number eight.
Speaker 3: Agenda item eight. Constable 119 153 and many. Audience 125 475, which adopted the 2018 budget. The committee recommends the bill passes amended consumer herbal.
Speaker 5: Thank you. This is a companion piece of legislation to the one we just voted on. It changes budget control levels to reflect accounting changes, amendments, the CFP, the Capital Improvement Program, Project ID codes. Also, it aligns provisos that the Council passed regarding the ACA. So Project Tunnel and the daily multimodal quarter with the fin map system.
Speaker 1: Very good. Any questions? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: By John Gonzalez HERBOLD. Hi, Johnson Macheda I O'Brien President Harrell High seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Sign it. Now, let's go back to number six and you can read the short title. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE pertaining to the fund structure of the City Treasury; reorganizing certain funds and subfunds consistent with the recommendations of the City’s Financial Management and Accountability Program; creating new funds; transferring assets, liabilities, and fund balances between certain funds; making technical corrections; repealing Chapters 5.76 and 21.100 of the Seattle Municipal Code; amending Sections 3.02.120, 3.06.010, 3.06.055, 3.12.120, 3.15.007, 3.35.030, 3.35.050, 3.39.035, 4.40.020, 4.44.060, 4.50.020, 4.100.020, 5.06.030, 5.24.010, 5.24.020, 5.40.120, 5.64.030, 5.64.100, 5.78.200, 5.78.210, Chapter 5.80, Sections 11.16.312, 11.61.090, 12A.10.110, 15.04.074, 15.62.110, 15.91.016, 16.08.050, 20.32.050, 22.202.050, 22.202.060, 22.214.087, 22.220.090, 22.220.100, 22.900G.080, 22.930.120, 23.58D.006, and 23.90.018 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and amending Ordinances 104195, 112556, 114893, 115859, 116642, 117342, 117472, 117977, 118289, 118617, 119273, 119758, 120214, 120489, 120912, 120944, 121206, 121661, 121742, 122088, 122424, 122603, 122876, 123177, 123184, 12376 | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12112017_CB 119153 | Speaker 5: So Project Tunnel and the daily multimodal quarter with the fin map system.
Speaker 1: Very good. Any questions? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: By John Gonzalez HERBOLD. Hi, Johnson Macheda I O'Brien President Harrell High seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Sign it. Now, let's go back to number six and you can read the short title.
Speaker 3: Agenda item six Cancel 119 157 Authorizing 2017 acceptance of funding from non city sources committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 1: Cut from Herbold.
Speaker 5: This bill authorizes departments to accept several grants in 2017. One in particular shout out to the ability of Stott to accept a $4 million grant to support the software industry project.
Speaker 1: Very good. Any further questions? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Beggs John Gonzalez Herbal Johnson Mosquito. Hi O'Brien. President Harrell.
Speaker 1: High.
Speaker 2: Seven in favor not.
Speaker 1: Opposed the bill passed and chair of the Senate please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 3: Agenda item seven Council Bill 119 146 Amending Ordinance 125207, which adopted the 2017 budget, including the 2017 through 2022 Capital Improvement Program. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 5: Councilmember Herbold This bill is the bill that we sometimes referred to as the fourth quarter supplemental. It authorizes spending for departments during the remainder of 2017, including grant funds accepted in Council Bill 11 9157. The legislation itself impacts the terms of the Seattle Police Management Association and Local 77 contracts, and this legislation is necessary to provide departments the legal authority to spend funds this year. Without it, they either couldn't spend it would have would be out of compliance with state law.
Speaker 1: Very good. Any further questions? Comes from skater.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Madam Chairman, do you mind if I ask a question? Mr. President, is that okay?
Speaker 1: Yes, please.
Speaker 4: Thank you for.
Speaker 1: A hard one.
Speaker 4: I don't know if this is more a process question, and so I appreciate all the work that you did. And given this is the last amendment to the budget process. A question just about how we continue to address the questions that have come up around the need for bridge funding, given the RFP process. And in conversations with our state legislative champions in the city, we understand that the new progressive majorities in the House and the Senate, there may be opportunities for additional funding to come in. Is there is there and will there be ongoing conversations about the gaps that have been created because of the RFP? And and do you anticipate a further opportunity to help close those gaps, as the constituents have suggested.
Speaker 5: The city can take legislative action that impacts the budget at any time during the year. We, as a matter of practice, vote on a budget every two years, the biennium budget, and we adjust it every every year in between the biennium. We also have quarterly supplementals as a as a practice. But if there is an effort on the part of this Council to make different allocations or new allocations, that is a step that we can take. We don't have to wait for another supplemental budget to come along.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Speaker 1: Very good. Any further questions? If not, please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Major Gonzalez Herbold II. Johnson Misgender. I O'Brien. President Harrell High seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passed and I'm sure he'll sign it. Please read items nine through 12.
Speaker 3: The report The Education, Equity and Governance Committee Agenda Items nine through 1212 appointments 862 364 reappointment said Heather Lewis, Mark two Laura L'absence sensei and Christopher Admiral Alejandro as members Community Technology Advisory Board for Term two December 31st, 2018. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 125475, which adopted the 2018 Budget; modifying appropriations to various budget control levels and from various funds in the Budget; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12112017_CB 119162 | Speaker 1: Very good. So please read the next agenda item into the record.
Speaker 3: To the report of the Energy Environment Committee. Agenda Item 14 Constable 119 162 relating to the satellite department, excepting various easements for overhead and underground electrical rights in King County, Washington, and placing set easements under the jurisdiction of the city lt department and ratify and confirm Research and Parks Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Gonzalez, thanks you for pinch hitting.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council Bill 119162 is routine legislation. City Light requires that the owner of a new or altered electrical service obtain the utility easement for the city of Seattle. Whenever city light conductors must pass over under or through the property of another person. Or when service equipment such as poles or vaults must be located either on the property being served or the property of a third person. This Council bill accepts many of those easements bundled together into one bill for efficiency. The Energy and Environment Committee recommends Council pass this Council bill and as Lynn described it from City Light. If we want to deliver electricity to homes, we have to say yes to this bill.
Speaker 1: Well, that sums it up. Any further questions? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Thanks. John Gonzalez in purple. Hi, Johnson. Let's get to I O'Brien. Hi, President Harrell. Hi. Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read the short title for agenda item number 15. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; accepting various easements for overhead and underground electrical rights in King County, Washington; placing said easements under the jurisdiction of the City Light Department; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12112017_CB 119049 | Speaker 1: Very good. And any questions on the appointments? All those in favor of confirming the appointments. Please vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the appointments are confirmed. Please read the reports of the Parks, Seattle Center, Libraries and Waterfront Committee.
Speaker 3: The Report of the Park Sale Center, Libraries and Waterfront Committee Gender 19 Council will 1190 49 relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation authorizing the Superintendent of Parks Recreation to enter into an concession agreement with Earth Courts to Occupy and use a portion of Building 30 at Warren G. Magnuson Park for general office purposes. Can we recommend that the bill passes amended?
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Beckstrom, thank you for filling in.
Speaker 0: Yes, you bet. And I want to extend, thanks to Councilmember Suarez and also her staff, Mercedes and Brendel, in particular in parks for moving this forward. We spent many meetings on this and it's a ten year agreement with two five year optional extensions. The agreement provides earth core with space, I believe, at building 30 for their operations and in exchange they will pay rent and make tenant improvements to the space which is in desperate need of these improvements. They will offer also a series of public benefits which is attached to the contract as exhibit B1. And I just want to say this has been an effort that Councilmember Suarez has led to make sure that when we're entering into contracts like this on park property, that there are real public benefits. This will require community outreach to various networks and to including environmental professionals of color, Green, Rainier Valley Core and Student Conservation Association, among others. There also will be an ecological restoration offset where Earth Core will provide at least two restoration projects annually to the Seattle Department of Parks. At no cost to the city Earth Core will also provide volunteer and expert experiential learning opportunities in the city for students and the general public that are not otherwise funded by parks. And I think think. Thank you. Thank you. So I really want to extend thanks to Earth Core for working with the department and our council central staff as well to improve the public benefits. Tracy Radcliffe helped us in particular and appreciate the work that all have been doing to raise the bar around this. So we would like to move forward with this and the committee unanimously recommended passage.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Any questions or comments on this bill?
Speaker 7: Anytime someone says the word Magnuson Park, you know that I'm statutorily required to comment. Right. This is the part where you say, you know, district four, blah, blah, blah, etc.. But in all seriousness, the earth core folks are really excited about finally getting this deal done. And we're, you know, in the continued effort of revitalization of Magnuson Park, they're going to be a critically important nonprofit to steward building 30 across the finish line. So a lot of reason for celebration today. I'm excited to see them move forward with this long term is with.
Speaker 6: Us.
Speaker 1: Very good. Okay 40 to support D four, please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: John Gonzalez Herbold.
Speaker 7: JOHNSON All right.
Speaker 2: Let's get our High O'Brian High President Harrell High seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill pass and show sign it let's move to agenda item number 23.
Speaker 3: Of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Agenda Item 2010 Table 119 145 Related to employment in Seattle, amending sections 14.16 point zero, 10.0, 15.0, 20.0, 25.0 3.0. 40.0. 45.0. 50.3 55.1 22.011 ten 10.0 20 of the Services Code and strengthening the clarifying labor standards requirements for paid sick and paid safe time and secure scheduling and | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation; authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to enter into a Concession Agreement with EarthCorps to occupy and use a portion of Building 30 at Warren G. Magnuson Park for general office purposes. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12112017_CB 119145 | Speaker 3: Of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Agenda Item 2010 Table 119 145 Related to employment in Seattle, amending sections 14.16 point zero, 10.0, 15.0, 20.0, 25.0 3.0. 40.0. 45.0. 50.3 55.1 22.011 ten 10.0 20 of the Services Code and strengthening the clarifying labor standards requirements for paid sick and paid safe time and secure scheduling and amending the name of Chapter 14.22 of the Senate Code to make Technical Corrections Committee Recommend Single Pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 5: Thank you. This legislation was passed out of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee on November 28th. We held it before bringing it to full council because we had some amendments to work on that. I know Councilmember Musgrave is intending to speak on, but we needed to move it out of committee at that meeting and to ensure that it would actually pass the full council before the end of the year, which was required by Initiative 1433. The the ordinance itself updates the city's paid sick. In Safe Leave law to reflect changes in state law from the voters passage of Initiative 1433. Some of the specific changes include allowing use of leave to take care for a child, which is already in the existing legislation. But it changes how we how we define that. So it includes sibling and grandchildren. In addition, Tier one employers under our law had to have for a minimum of four employees in order to be considered Tier one. This new law now covers employers, even if they only have one employee. Then finally, there are two other primary changes. One is that our existing paid sick and safe leave allows annual caps on the use of paid sick and save time. Now, caps on the annual use are not going to be permitted moving forward because that is what is required in the initiative that the voters passed. And finally, one piece that we have in our law is that even though employees start accruing paid, sick and safe leave, the first day they wait, they start working. There was a waiting period of 90 calendar days from the start of employment before employees could start using that. That that accrual in our original ordinance, the waiting period was 180 days. So this legislation will change it to 90 days, which again is consistent with state law. And then finally, there is a specific requirement related to what happens when somebody who has accrued, paid sick or safe leave leaves their employment, but then returns to that employment and whether or not their leave can be reinstated. In our legislation, you could have it be reinstated if you only if you were gone for less than seven months under this new change. Paid sick and safe leave must be reinstated, even if the break is a 12 month break in employment.
Speaker 1: Very good. Councilmember Mesquita.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that we consider Amendment one harmonizing language and Amendment two regarding the waiver extension together, if possible.
Speaker 1: I think we better vote on them individually, but I think let's go with amendment number one. First, you want to describe it just a little bit and we'll get a second. Which is it been described adequately to everyone? Satisfaction. Okay. It's been moved to second. So Amendment number one is removed. And second and all those in favor of amendment number one, say I, I oppose the ayes have it. And then I would like to move amendment number two.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that we consider amendment number 2/2.
Speaker 1: To moved in second and for amendment number two. All those in favor say I oppose. The ayes have it. Okay, so now we have an amended base legislation. Any further comments on the legislation?
Speaker 5: I think it would be great to just talk a little bit about what particularly Amendment two does if Councilmember Mosquito would indulge us and give us a quick overview. I think it was an important enough issue that came up in committee that little daylight and transparency would be useful.
Speaker 4: Wonderful. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Madam Chair. I think you guys are the ones who are indulging me. So thank you to our council colleagues. And thank you, Mr. President. This is a really exciting day. We have worked long and hard in the city of Seattle to lead the nation in paid sick and safe leave . And because of your work over the last five and six years, we were now able to pass Initiative 1433 statewide with over 60, with almost 60% of the vote. And today is a really incredible day that we're able to now put the city law in harmonization with the state law. Thank you to director or who's in the audience with us as well for the work to try to harmonize this legislation. As you heard from Councilmember Herbold, there's a number of provisions that are slightly different. And I think the state initiative builds on the success of the city of Seattle. And in an effort to make sure that we give our contractors, that we give our employers and our workers enough time to get into harmony. Harmony. We have suggested an amendment to that. We honor existing collective bargaining agreements that will be negotiated or are currently in existence through the end of 2018 and through the life of those contracts. Recognizing that the intent is to make sure that everyone in the city is able to benefit from paid sick and safe leave. It's a public health issue. It's an economic justice issue. And we want to make sure that we also respect the opportunity for folks to negotiate and get up to speed. So I look forward to working with Director Ore and the stakeholders, business and labor to make sure that we have everybody around the table and talk about expectations at the end of 2018 or at the end of those contracts. I'm also very pleased, if you look at the suggested amendment in front of you, it clearly states in to sub B that this this Office of Labor Standards has incorporated all of initiative 1433 into our Chapter 1416 giving our Office of Labor Standards the tools needed to make sure that we're implementing our law, plus the new state law as well. To the extent that those provisions go above the state law, we will allow for that waiver to continue. But I think it's a great compromise with business and labor and I look forward to 2018 and further discussions.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council Member Skinner Okay. Any further comments on that? You're not a number 20. We're good. Okay. Please call the roll on the passage of the amended bill.
Speaker 2: Make sure. Gonzalez I herbold. Johnson Let's get to I. O'Brien. Hi. President Harrell high seven in favor and.
Speaker 1: Unopposed bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read the next agenda item. You can read a short title.
Speaker 3: The Report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee Agenda Item 21 Capsule 119 151 relating to Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority Committee recommends the bill passed. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to employment in Seattle; amending Sections 14.16.010, 14.16.015, 14.16.020, 14.16.025, 14.16.030, 14.16.040, 14.16.045, 14.16.050, 14.16.055, 14.16.120, 14.22.010, and 14.22.020 of the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) to strengthen and clarify labor standards requirements for paid sick and paid safe time and secure scheduling; and amending the name of Chapter 14.22 of the SMC to make a technical correction. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12112017_CB 119151 | Speaker 3: The Report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee Agenda Item 21 Capsule 119 151 relating to Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority Committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 1: Cast Member O'Brien.
Speaker 8: You we're going to hear a number of amendments or piece of legislation regarding sound transit. This is the first of them. This would amend the existing agreement that cities had with sound transit for over a decade. It's the Third Amendment to that agreement, and it would bring in new terms and agreements related to the Lynnwood Link section , which is the light rail extension from Northgate to in with transit center and how the city during construction of that will integrate our work with the sound transit.
Speaker 1: Very good. Any questions on this agenda item?
Speaker 5: Councilmember Herbold. I do have an amendment.
Speaker 1: On number 21.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay. I didn't realize that, but that's fine.
Speaker 5: So I'd like to I think it's Amendment One has been distributed.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I think it's a different one.
Speaker 5: I'm so sorry. Last night lost my way. So it's it's not on item 21. It's on item.
Speaker 1: 25.
Speaker 5: Five.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Notes. I had considerable. Does that consistent now with your notes.
Speaker 5: Got it now.
Speaker 1: Okay. So if no further comments, please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Thank John Gonzalez. Purple. Hi, Johnson. Mr. O'Brien. President Harrell.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill pass and share assign it, please. Read Agenda item number 22.
Speaker 3: Agenda item 22 cancel bill 119 145 relating to the state Route 99 Alaskan Way Viaduct and see what replacement program authorizes the mayor or the mayor's designee to execute an agreement with the state of Washington to set forth roles and responsibilities for the state's project to demolish the existing Alaskan Way Viaduct structure. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit); authorizing the Director of the Seattle Department of Transportation to execute an amendment to the “Agreement between the City of Seattle and Sound Transit for Grant of Non-Exclusive Use of a Light Rail Transit Way as related to the Link Light Rail Transit Project” to reflect the approved alignment for the Link Light Rail Transit Project, including addition of the portion of the Lynnwood Link Extension located within The City of Seattle; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12112017_CB 119155 | Speaker 3: Agenda item 22 cancel bill 119 145 relating to the state Route 99 Alaskan Way Viaduct and see what replacement program authorizes the mayor or the mayor's designee to execute an agreement with the state of Washington to set forth roles and responsibilities for the state's project to demolish the existing Alaskan Way Viaduct structure. Once the tunnel tunnels open for drivers, the committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 8: Councilmember O'Brien Hey, everyone, the last quarter viaducts coming down some time next year it will start. Hopefully this is the agreement between the city of Seattle and watch dot on the staging for the demolition of that viaduct for the public to be aware the the expectation is by this time next year there'll be vehicles traveling in the new tunnel, at which point we will close the viaduct to vehicle traffic and begin the decommissioning of that, meaning the tearing down of it, how and where they tear that down. And what is the state's responsibility? RELATIVE The city's responsibility has all been hammered out in this agreement. There's been a series of agreements along the Replacement Alaskan Way Viaduct. And this is I think there's one more agreement to come related to Battery three tunnel that we're getting. We're getting the work done here.
Speaker 1: Very good. Any further comments?
Speaker 0: Just one quick.
Speaker 1: Quick that's back show.
Speaker 0: Thank you for all this work. You know, we have all been working on this since 2004. Even though some of us haven't been on the council out this long, we've.
Speaker 8: I think none of us technically we've been on the council that long.
Speaker 0: But it's been a it's a really important day for the city that we're moving forward with this. And I would just specifically like to ask, when you get to the Battery Street tunnel document, if you will talk with me about that, because our Belltown neighbors are very interested in what happens there. I understand the rubble is going to go in the tunnel, but they're looking at how do I make the green connections?
Speaker 8: You bet. And I've had conversations with Scott along the way. They're well aware that you and your constituents are constituents are have concerns about that. And so as that comes up, we'll be sure to engage the community.
Speaker 1: Very good. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Thanks. John Gonzalez, Purple Pi Johnson, Shadow O'Brien, High President, Hero High seven and favorite on oppose.
Speaker 1: The bill passed in show with Sonny D's religion idea number.
Speaker 3: 2323 Quirk File 314309 Petition of Seattle Department Transportation to vacate Broad Street right away between Dexter Avenue North and Ninth Avenue North, a small area of adjacent merges Marcia Street and any remaining eighth Avenue North right of way between Mercer and Roy Street to consolidate all property on the block between Mercer Street and Royce Street, Dexter Avenue | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the State Route 99 Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall Replacement Program; authorizing the Mayor or the Mayor’s designees to execute an Agreement with the State of Washington to set forth roles and responsibilities for the State’s project to demolish the existing Alaskan Way Viaduct structure once the bored tunnel is opened to drivers. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12112017_CF 314309 | Speaker 3: 2323 Quirk File 314309 Petition of Seattle Department Transportation to vacate Broad Street right away between Dexter Avenue North and Ninth Avenue North, a small area of adjacent merges Marcia Street and any remaining eighth Avenue North right of way between Mercer and Roy Street to consolidate all property on the block between Mercer Street and Royce Street, Dexter Avenue , North and Ninth Avenue North Committee recommend recommends the petition be granted it's condition.
Speaker 1: That's premier Brian.
Speaker 8: Thank you. This is one of two pieces of legislation that we will discuss in the other in a moment related to what we refer to as the teardrop site. This is a large parcel property in South Lake Union, just on the north side of Mercer, and the other would be the east side of Dexter that is owned by Seattle Department of Transportation. Some of that land is owned outright and some of it is owned as street right away. We refer to that as a teardrop site, because when you leave the former site of Broad Street going through there, it makes it look like a shape of a teardrop with this action will be vacating. Well, not this section, but this is the beginning of the first of two steps will take to vacate the right of way and Starwood would basically buy that right away from itself and make that whole parcel a regular parcel of land. And it will no longer look like a teardrop site anymore. This is just the Clark file we're filing. I expect that within about three months, we will receive the final legislation for the conclusion of that vacation and make it final, at which point we expect the department will go out on the street shortly thereafter with an RFP , and I'll talk about that RFP and a few agenda items.
Speaker 1: Very good. Any further questions? Those in favor of. Placing the clerk file on file. Please vote i. I those opposed. I have an clerk file. Oh, those are conditions. Okay. So those in favor of granting the petition as conditions, please vote. I i those opposed vote no. So the motion carries the petition is granted as condition chair was signed the conditions of the City Council. Please read the next agenda item. | Clerk File (CF) | Petition of Seattle Department of Transportation to vacate Broad Street right-of-way between Dexter Avenue North and Ninth Avenue North, a small area of adjacent Mercer Street, and any remaining Eighth Avenue North right-of-way between Mercer and Roy streets, to consolidate all property on the block between Mercer Street, Roy Street, Dexter Avenue North and Ninth Avenue North. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12112017_Res 31786 | Speaker 1: Any further comments? All those in favor of adopting the resolution as amended. Please vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted. The chair will sign it. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 3: Agenda Item 26 Resolution 317 86 Calling for the issuance of a combined request for proposals for the disposition of 833 and 620 Aurora Avenue North, where the disposition would address neighborhood interest, creating opportunities for all city residents to take advantage of South Lake Union as a neighborhood of opportunity, the committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended
Speaker 1: . Councilmember O'Brien Thank.
Speaker 8: You. This is the second of the two legislative actions today related to the teardrop site in South Lake Union. This resolution gives direction to the executive to proceed with an RFP or request for proposal for our staff to sell that parcel and the terms and conditions under which the Council will evaluate that transaction. As I mentioned earlier, once the once the street vacation is complete and that parcel is assembled appropriately for sale, we want to maximize the proceeds to the city. And this legislation calls. This resolution calls that RFP to be done with conditions on other benefits in addition to the sales price that we want to get out of that . This particular focus I'll just highlight on affordable housing and maximizing the amount of affordable housing we can get out of that parcel, whether it's produced on site or generates revenue to be produced. Additional affordable housing off.
Speaker 1: Very good. Any questions about this resolution? Those in favor of adopting the resolution please vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries the resolutions adopted and Cheryl, sign it. Please read items 27 and 28. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION calling for the issuance of a combined Request for Proposals (RFP) for the disposition of 800 Mercer Street and 620 Aurora Avenue N where that disposition would address neighborhood interests, creating opportunities for all City residents to take advantage of South Lake Union as a “neighborhood of opportunity.” | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12042017_CB 119082 | Speaker 2: Bill passed and the chair will sign it. Please read our first agenda item into the record.
Speaker 1: The Report of the Planning and Zoning Committee Agenda Item one Constable 1190 82 relating to short term rental uses and bed and breakfast uses and many sections. 20.2. 14.03. 23.40 4.0. 5120 3.40 5.5 4520 3.84 8.0 24.0 39.3 36 of the Seattle Code and adding a new section 23.40 2.0 62. The CMC committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much, Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 7: Briefly, the council president. As you know, there are three bills that make up our collective work on short term rentals. Bill number one, the revenue bill that a gentleman just spoke about in public comment was adopted by this council just a few weeks ago. This is bill number two. This bill effectively defines short term rental in the land use code. Bill number three is still in committee. We have committed discussion about that tomorrow morning here for council chambers. That's the bill that would set up a regulatory framework for short term rentals. This just defines what a short term rental is in the land use code, so that when we do decide to regulate it, we know what we're regulating. Have it answer questions.
Speaker 2: Very good. Any questions from any of our colleagues? If not, please call the role on the passage of the Bill O'Brien.
Speaker 5: Sergeant Bagshaw.
Speaker 3: Johnson.
Speaker 5: By Juarez. I Herbold. Hi, mosquito i. President Harrell. I aid in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: Thank you. The bill passed and chair will sign it. Please read agenda item number two. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to short-term rental uses and bed and breakfast uses; amending Sections 22.214.030, 23.44.051, 23.45.545, 23.84A.024, 23.84A.030, and 23.84A.036 of the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC); and adding a new Section 23.42.060 to the SMC. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12042017_CB 119147 | Speaker 2: Those oppose vote no. The motion carries with the applications granted as conditioned and the chair was signed the findings, conclusions and decision of the City Council. Please read agenda item number three and we read the short title, please.
Speaker 1: The Report of the Full Council Agenda Item three Council 119 147 relating to land use and zoning.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 7: So this is the council bill that implements the quasi judicial rezone of the West Seattle Church property that we just discussed. And in this instance, I'll leave it up to you. Council President to move the we substitute the property use and development agreement that we just talked about as part of the Clark file. And I will just take a minute to add. I'm glad. Councilmember Herbold to be on a hiatus from social media because it sounds like we all got ripped a pretty good one for our actions last Monday. Some. I'm glad that I'm taking a little break. Thanks for taking one from taken one for the team on that one. I appreciate it.
Speaker 2: So did I hear in that a motion to amend the council bill because it would be by substituting or would you like me to make please?
Speaker 7: Please. I know you've got the script in front of you. Council President.
Speaker 2: So I will move to. I mean counts Bill 119147. Exhibit B by substituting the the executed property use and development agreement with the and executed property use and development agreement.
Speaker 7: Second.
Speaker 2: Okay. All those in favor of the amendment. Please vote I. I oppose. The ayes have it. So we have an amended bill. Any further comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the amended bill.
Speaker 6: O'BRIEN All right.
Speaker 5: So on Lakeshore.
Speaker 3: High.
Speaker 7: Johnson I.
Speaker 1: Was I Herbold.
Speaker 5: Mosquito.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 5: President Harrell.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 5: Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: Bill passed and was sign it. Please read the next agenda item into the. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending Chapter 23.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code at page 150 of the Official Land Use Map to rezone property located at 5911 42nd Avenue Southwest from Single Family 5000 to Lowrise 1, and accepting a Property Use and Development Agreement as a condition of rezone approval. (Petition by David Neiman, C.F. 314343, SDCI Project 3016200) | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12042017_CB 119142 | Speaker 2: Bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read agenda item number six.
Speaker 1: Agenda item six. Constable 119 142. Relating to sale of public utilities and many provisions relating to adjustments to the wastewater volume charge due to water leaks and amending section 21.20 8.107 Inspection Committee recommends that the full council passed a bill.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 1: Thank you. This piece of legislation addresses complaints that SPU had been receiving around unfair billing under certain circumstances where there are water leaks. The proposed legislation removes the requirement that water leaks must be hidden or underground and makes other leaks eligible for adjustments to the wastewater volume based on other types of water leaks that don't actually enter the sewer system. The thinking being the customer should be charged for the the excess water usage, but not the sewer usage if the leak is not resulting in additional water going into the sewer.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Are there any further questions? Please call the role on the passage of the Bill O'Brien.
Speaker 3: Hi, Sergeant Bagshaw Johnson.
Speaker 5: I was. Herbold.
Speaker 1: I was scared.
Speaker 5: I President Harrell I didn't favor and and oppose.
Speaker 2: The bill passed and sure was sign it please read agenda item number seven. Seven, seven passed and none opposed. Yes. And the bill passed. And chair of the Senate, please read agenda item number seven. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; amending provisions related to adjustments to the wastewater volume charge due to water leaks; and amending Section 21.28.100 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12042017_CB 119141 | Speaker 1: Agenda item seven, cancel 119 141 relating to historic preservation, imposing controls upon the Campbell Building and member designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board under Chapter 25.12 said I misspoke code and adding it to the table. Historical landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32 of this atmosphere. Can we recommend the bill pass?
Speaker 2: Council Member Herbold Thank you.
Speaker 1: This piece of legislation imposes controls on the exterior of a building called the Campbell Building. The Campbell Building is located in the Alaska junction. Cupcake Royale is its tenant. It was designated earlier this year by the Landmarks Preservation Board because it meets four of the six criteria for landmark preservation. Only one is actually needed for landmark status, and the movement to nominate this particular building was unique. It came as a result of community efforts from each the Southwest Seattle Historic Historical Study Group, together with the Southwest District Council, the West Seattle Junction Association, the Junction Neighborhood Association and Arts West. They did a community effort where they surveyed the historical resources within within the the junction, and they issued a report called What makes West Seattle Junction Special. And this is one of the buildings that rose to the top four for their attention and bringing it to the Landmarks Preservation Board. I want to thank Council President Harrell for allowing me to have this heard in my committee. Normally, this would be heard in a committee that is no longer meeting, but by it being heard in my committee, it allows the owners to apply for tax credits by us acting by the end of the year. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Any further comments? If not, please call the role on the passage of the Bill.
Speaker 5: O'Brien.
Speaker 3: By Sergeant Bagshaw Johnson for us. Herbold I was kera I President Harrell high eight in favor in an oppose.
Speaker 2: Bill passed and Sherman sign it please read items eight 311 together. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to historic preservation; imposing controls upon the Campbell Building, a landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board under Chapter 25.12 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and adding it to the Table of Historical Landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11272017_CB 119138 | Speaker 5: The report The full council agenda item one Constable 119 138 relating to procedures for filing council vacancies and excuse me filling council vacancies. Adding a new Chapter 3.83 consisting of Section 3.93 points. You attend to this gentleman's code.
Speaker 0: And before I relinquish the Florida Councilmember Harris tally, I just wanted to say, you see what we put up with? We actually ran for these jobs. Council member Harris tally, please introduce the legislation. You have the floor.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Council President Harrell So this is an addition to the current charter and specifically Section 3.93.010 to look at what it is to have a transparent process. So actually making clear the process that was actually utilized with the appointment process that came up when this position eight seat became available and having it be the process that we move forward with for any other open seats that should come forward for the city council in the future. We worked very closely with central staff, the clerk's office and legal for considerations of what worked well in the previous process. What it meant to have these additions added as an explanation of what it is to have an open process and to make sure that this gave adequate room for the City Council to have discretion. It does add three distinct pieces that were present in the last process. One is that it does have an open application process that would be managed through the clerk's office and representation of city council. That would allow, though, all those interested in the position to submit materials for review for the Council in the public at large. It also includes the opportunity of a public forum which would have an application process for community entities to apply and work beside the council to think through what sort of questions would be appropriate for those considering appointment and actually have a public forum that in the same way we make other content available to the public, whether they can attend in City Hall or not available through the Seattle Channel, all those impacted by the appointment would be able to view folks questions there. We thought that was important for the most salient issues and role they would have in that interim role to be brought forward. And we made sure to add community entities so that it could be even loose affiliations of elders, say, in a community who wanted to apply and come forward with inquiries about their community. And the third is that we also would have an open public forum where the council themselves could be addressed by those candidates and also have questions of the candidates with a public comment period of the public. It worked quite well. There were 16 applicants in the last round and several were quite qualified and it gave an opportunity for the public to have comment and hear from the applicants and for the council as a whole to have multiple opportunities of engagement in a very short timeline of about it was actually five business days from the time of the application to appointment with the last process. So with that I'll open it to discussion. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Council Member I believe you would like to amend the council bill by substituting versions of my notes. Are correct. Is that correct?
Speaker 6: That is correct. I mean, we can have that actually after the discussion of the base bill or now do you have a preference?
Speaker 0: Why don't we put the new one in place? So go ahead and move to amend and then I'm sure to get second and then we'll discuss about the legislation. So then when we're finished, we could actually pass it.
Speaker 6: Wonderful. I move to amend Council Bill 119138 by substituting version two for version one B and everyone has version two before them with notes and read of changes. The changes are for consistency and language of community entities and for some corrections on capitalization of reference to the City Council. Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. It's been moved in second and to simply substitute the versions is not the vote on the legislation is just on the substitution. All those in favor say I, I oppose. The ayes have it. So now we have the version that we will consider for adoption councilmembers. Charlie, did you have any other comments or now would be the time to ask any questions or how would you like to proceed?
Speaker 6: I have no other comments at this time and open it up to my colleagues. If they have statements themselves.
Speaker 0: They my colleagues have any questions or concerns, I'll just make a comment if no one else does. And that is I want to thank you for memorializing a practice that we sort of with community input. And the input of my our colleagues sort of made it up to make sure this consistent with the charter, consistent with the council rules and obviously resulted in a in a process that people accepted. And so you took the time to memorialize this and make sure that transparency is the key. And I know in your research and looking at appointments, going back to the nineties, that certainly there were improvements, there were processes back there that could have been improved . And I think that this legislation that you've drafted captures what we're trying to do, which is to make sure that we are making great decisions for this, the city, that we are transparent and we're listening to our communities as we make our decisions. So I it's my favorite, my privilege to support it. Any other questions from any of my colleagues? Okay. So this is a bill, so please call the role on the passage customer rehearsal and have any closing remarks before we vote on it.
Speaker 6: I just wanted to, you know, thank those in this body for having that transparent process. I don't think anyone could have imagined so many would have applied for the position, and certainly I would not find myself here if you hadn't had a transparent process. So I have appreciated the opportunity that this this brought forward and I think the type of discourse that was created even before budget season or other things, as folks considered what it was for someone to fill this position. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Excellent. So I will move to pass counts bill 119138 as amended. Is there a second? Okay. Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Whereas I O'BRIEN Make sure Harris tally Herbert Johnson President Harrow seven in favor none oppose.
Speaker 0: The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. Adoption of other resolutions. Please read that into the record. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to procedures for filling Council vacancies; adding a new Chapter 3.93, consisting of Section 3.93.010, to the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11202017_CB 119122 | Speaker 0: We can read the short title. Okay. And we'll take them individually, but we'll read a few in groups. And so we'll try to talk through that as we go through. So let's start with Jeanette in number five. Please read that in the record.
Speaker 10: The report of the Select Budget Committee Agenda Item five Constable 119 122 authorizing 2017 acceptance of funding from non city sources committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Okay now just to puts Councilmember Herbert I was going to say before you describe what we're doing is I think we sort of have some. Notes on where there may be an adjustment here there. So I wanted to make sure our accounts members are more at ease or we're not going to sneak anything through. And you were you didn't catch it. So we'll make sure we slow it down when we have to. So, Councilman Herbold, you have the floor.
Speaker 9: Thank you. I was thinking that I would say just a few opening remarks.
Speaker 3: At the start.
Speaker 9: And then hold remarks related to the items contained within the budget itself until we get to item 35, which is the adoption of the budget itself.
Speaker 0: Very good.
Speaker 1: All right, great. Very good. All right.
Speaker 9: So with that, I will make my opening remarks. Thank you. So over the course of the last seven weeks, my fellow council members of the Budget Committee and I have scrutinized and debated Seattle's fiscal priorities. Our vote today to approve city spending reflects our collective attempt to balance the budget amidst a multitude of competing priorities. As Chair of the Budget Committee, I was responsible for assembling a final balancing package that was challenging and addressed the values of our constituents, especially those with the most urgent needs. I believe our most vulnerable communities deserve our best efforts and today the budget we pass will reflect that effort together. My council colleagues and I have managed to, through the committee process, pass several important amendments to the budget that we'll discuss a little a little later. And these amendments will meaningfully impact the lives of everyday people in Seattle. All the while maintaining current, current service levels. We often talk about prosperity, not lifting all boats, but the proposition that we are faced with and the reason why the head tax was proposed is because economic prosperity is not only failed to help everybody, but this economic prosperity is resulting in some people being harmed. And I believe that the beneficiaries of that prosperity must do more to address the impacts of the prosperity that has not been shared by all. In seeking a budget that had at its core, principle of fiscal responsibility and sustainability. I proposed a progressive, ongoing revenue source to support a surge in affordable housing production. I proposed it in my in my balancing package. The credit goes to councilmembers O'Brien, Harris, Talley, and so on for for identifying it as a proposed source. And though the council did not pass that that revenue source, the council will be considering a resolution, which we'll talk about a little bit later, to assemble a task force to develop recommendations for that dedicated progressive revenue source to support people experiencing or at high risk for homelessness. This is a huge win for those who have been waiting for something big and bold to address the city's civil emergency on homelessness. And I want to specifically thank the efforts of the Housing for All coalition and everyone who has come out to testify and support their priorities, not only at two public hearings, but folks have been here in each of 11 Budget Committee meetings testifying, holding our feet to the fire. Your engagement has made this a better budget process, a better budget. And I count on your ongoing activism to push the Council to enact ongoing, sustainable, progressive revenue sources in the future.
Speaker 0: Very good. So we have counts, Bill 119122 in front of us and we're going to proceed with the vote. Unless you're any further comments, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Johnson, Maurice O'Brien. Sergeant Bagshaw. Hi, Gonzales. I tally I hold High President Harrow High nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill pass ensure assignment please read item six, seven and eight is the record short title. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE authorizing, in 2017, acceptance of funding from non-City sources; authorizing the heads of the Executive Department, Department of Parks and Recreation, Seattle Fire Department, Seattle Police Department, the Seattle Department of Transportation, and the Cable Television Franchise Subfund to accept specified grants and private funding and to execute, deliver, and perform corresponding agreements; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11202017_CB 119111 | Speaker 0: Those in favor of filing. Clark 314. Clark file 314383. Please vote i i those oppose vote no. The motion carries and that file is placed on file feed read agenda items nine through 12 the short title as well.
Speaker 10: Legend Item nine counts bill 119111. Relating to regulatory, business and professional license fee, the committee recommends the bill pass agenda item ten Council Bill 119112 relating to pet adoption fees and other animal control fees. Committee recommends this bill pass agenda item 11 Casper 119106 related to fees and charges for permits and activities of the SEAL, Department of Construction, inspections and related fees by other departments and technical corrections. The Committee recommends this bill pass and Agenda Item 12 Council Bill 1190 99 relating to street and sidewalk use committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Okay, this should be pretty perfunctory. Comes from a did you need to say anything on these?
Speaker 9: Do not.
Speaker 0: Okay. So please call the roll on agenda item number nine.
Speaker 1: Johnson Marez O'Brien Sergeant Bagshaw Gonzalez I. Harris Talley. Herbold. Hi. President Harrell. Hi. Nine in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read the please call the role on the passage of Council Bill 119112 Johnson Suarez.
Speaker 1: O'Brien Sergeant Bagshaw Gonzalez Hi Harris Talley Herbold Hi. President Arrow Hi. Nine In favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill Pass and Chair was silent. Please call the roll on council. Bill 119106.
Speaker 1: Johnson.
Speaker 6: Hi.
Speaker 1: Suarez. O'Brien. Sergeant Bagshaw. Gonzalez. Harris. Talley. Herbold. Hi. President Harrell. Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passed and chair of Senate. Please call the roll on council. Bill 119099.
Speaker 1: Johnson. Suarez. O'Brien. Sergeant Bagshaw. Gonzales, I. Harris. Talley. Herbold. Hi. President Harrell. I nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed and chair of Senate please read items 13 through 15 into record and a short title please. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to regulatory business and professional license fees; adjusting business and professional license and registration fees associated with the regulated activities of alarm monitoring, trade shows, residential sales, tow companies, used and recycled goods, adult entertainment, and price scanning; and amending Seattle Municipal Code Sections 6.08.010, 6.10.010, 6.20.040, 6.204.030, 6.204.080, 6.214.270, 6.250.060, 6.270.060, and 7.04.645. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11202017_CB 119110 | Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passed in show senate. Please read item 16 through 21 in the short title.
Speaker 10: Agenda item 16 321 Council Bill 119110. Lean to Contracting Adeptness Committee Recommends the bill passes amended council bill 119109 relating to Contracting and deafness committee recommend civil pass cancel 119108. Related to the solid waste system the city of Seattle can be recommends the bill pass. And Council Bill 119105 relating to the electric system of the City of Seattle. Can we recommend that the bill passed? Cancel 119104 Relating to electric system the city of Seattle. The committee recommends the bill pass and cancel 119 100 the related solid waste water system. The City of Seattle. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Very good, Mayor. Proceed. Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 9: Yes, please.
Speaker 0: Okay. Please call the roll on council. Bill 119110.
Speaker 1: JOHNSON Whereas I. O'Brien Sergeant Bagshaw. I. Harris Talley. Herbold. Hi. President Herrell. Hi. Nine In favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and chair of Senate. Please call the roll on. Constable 119109.
Speaker 1: JOHNSON Whereas.
Speaker 6: O'BRIEN All right.
Speaker 1: Sergeant Major Gonzalez, I. HARRIS Talley. Herbold hi. President Harrell I nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passing cheryl senate. Please call the roll on council 119101.
Speaker 1: JOHNSON All right. O'BRIEN Sergeant Bagshaw. Gonzalez I. HARRIS Tally I. Herbold President Harrell, I. Nine in favor an unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and show Senate. Please call the roll on cancel 119105.
Speaker 1: Johnson Whereas. O'Brien Sergeant Bagshaw. Gonzalez, I. Harris. Talley. Herbold. II. President Harrell, i. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and chose. Sign it. That was 105. Correct. Okay. Please call the roll on council bill 119104.
Speaker 1: JOHNSON Whereas.
Speaker 6: O'BRIEN All right, Sergeant Bagshaw.
Speaker 1: Gonzalez I. HARRIS Talley. Herbold, President Harrell I nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and chose sign it please call the roll on council bill 119100.
Speaker 1: Johnson. I was O'Brien. Sergeant Bagshaw. Gonzalez. I hear his tally. Herbold. Hi, President Harrell. I nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed in show sign please read. Agenda item number 22. And for the record, the short term. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to contracting indebtedness; authorizing and providing for the issuance and sale of limited tax general obligation bonds to pay all or part of the costs of various elements of the City’s capital improvement program and for other City purposes approved by ordinance, and to pay the costs of issuance of the bonds; providing parameters for the bond sale terms including conditions, covenants, and other sale terms; amending Ordinance 125197 to rescind and reapprove the authorization for certain previously authorized but unissued debt; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11202017_CB 119115 | Speaker 0: Bill Parsons Show Sign Please Read Agenda Items 29 332.
Speaker 10: Agenda Item 29 Council Bill 119115 relates to the City Department Committee recommends the bill pass agenda item 30 Council 119 120 Related to Organization of the Office for Civil Rights, the committee recommends the bill passes amended agenda item 31 Council Bill 119 124 Conditioning the Department of State excuse me conditioning the State Department. Transportation's 2018 Grant Applications Committee recommends the bill pass agenda item 32 Cancel 11913 6,000,000,002 Decreasing Mineralized Material Excuse me. Militarization of Police Activities Committee Recommends Bill Pass.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any comments and items 29 332 comes from Herbold.
Speaker 9: Thank you. I'm going to speak to items 30, 31 and 32, but I recognize that other council members might want to speak to those items as well. As it relates specifically to item number 30, this relates to the Office of Civil Rights. Back in September, in my Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee meeting, we discussed discussion on an issue related to areas of the Seattle Office of Civil Rights that would actually benefit from having more independence for that office. Through incorporation of feedback from civil rights staff, through an engagement process that department ran. Our committee discussion and input from each. The Women's Commission, the LGBTQ Commission and the Human Rights Commission. We developed an ordinance that would require racial equity toolkit be done on the questions of permanent structure leadership and the duties and responsibilities as OCR. And it also outlined the governance structure of OCR during the the completion of the Racial Equity Toolkit Kit, including specifically allowing the Women's Commission, the Human Rights Commission and the LGBTQ Commission and the People with Disabilities Commission to advise on director appointments. Adding adding a firing for cause protection to the future associate director appointment and outlining a term for future directors of four years based on community input and request. We also included a recital regarding the intention to introduce an anti retaliation amendment in the next 60 days. As it relates to item 31, I just wanted to pull this one out because there's been much discussion and work done by my council colleagues, especially council member O'Brien, as it relates to how state can apply for funding on projects that this Council hasn't maybe fully vetted yet and given a green light on. And so this ordinance states that items that asked can apply for grants above 5 million. And then lastly, item 32 relates to demilitarization of police activities. This is an item that was brought to us by a network of progressive elected officials that each councilmembers, Gonzalez, O'Brien and myself are members of. And it specifically adds a new section of the municipal code stating that MPD will not participate in the U.S. Department of Defense's 1033 program, and it directs the department to take steps to withdraw from that from that program. This is in response to the issue of militarization of police departments nationwide. It's less of an issue in Seattle than in other places because we have not been participating, but we have not yet formally taken the steps to withdraw from that program. And we definitely want to memorialize the past practice, since police chiefs, mayors and council members come and go.
Speaker 0: Very good. Thank you for those comments. Guzman Herbold Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 3: I just wanted to quickly talk about agenda item 32, which is the council bill that Councilmember Verbal just spoke about. So she and I sort of teamed up to get this over the finish line. And I, I took the lead on making sure all the right words were on the on the, on the paper and that the process was met so that she could focus on her budget share responsibilities. But I was really proud to be able to be the primary sponsor on this particular ordinance. And I think it is wise for us to memorialize this Council's desire and intent around federal surplus weaponry programs such as the 1033 program. And I think that this puts us on on on a clear and solid footing to make sure that that there is no slipping back in terms of the department's current commitment to not participate in that program. And they had an opportunity to review this ordinance and felt that it was a good step forward and they are completely willing and wanting to comply with this ordinance and are supportive of the passage of this particular bill.
Speaker 0: Excellent. Any further comments and items? 29 332. If not, please call the role on the pastor of Constable 119115.
Speaker 1: Johnson. Suarez. O'Brien, Sergeant Bagshaw Gonzalez I. Harris Talley I. Herbold, i. President Harrell, I. Nine in favor an unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill pass and show. Sign it. Please call the roll on the part of Constable 119120.
Speaker 1: Johnson. Suarez. O'Brien. Sergeant Bagshaw.
Speaker 3: Gonzales, I.
Speaker 1: Harris. Talley. Herbold. Hi. President Arrow. Hi. Nine in favor.
Speaker 0: An unopposed bill passed and chose. Sign it, please call the roll on the passage of council. Bill 119124.
Speaker 1: Johnson Maurice. O'Brien Sergeant Bagshaw. Gonzalez Hi. Harris Talley. Herbold. Hi. President Harrell II nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and show sign it in, please call the roll on. Constable 119136.
Speaker 1: JOHNSON Whereas I. O'BRIEN So aren't I. BAGSHAW All right. Gonzales I. Harris Talley. Herbold Hi. President Harrell, I. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed in show side. Please. I'll try to give the clerks little time. You're shuffling just as fast as I am. So please read. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; amending Ordinance 121176 to remove certain performance pay provisions. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11202017_CB 119128 | Speaker 10: 33.
Speaker 0: Please read counts bill 119128 Jan 1933.
Speaker 10: Agenda Item 33 Counts Bill 119 128 Relating to the Equal Development Initiative, the committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: On key issues, I believe. Councilmember Herbold, it comes from O'Brien. I know. Councilmember O'Brien, you have the microphone.
Speaker 6: Correct me. This is the bill that I passed around, a proposed substitute on this morning, a council briefing. I just am passing around a revision to that based on our discussion this morning. Council President Harrell suggested something to remove the word marginalized. So the the copy you have in front of us removed that word from the second recital. It also some folks noticed that we had two sections for us this morning. And so this renumbered the last section to be a section number five for the public that wasn't watching. This is a bill around the Equitable Development Initiative. The substantive piece of this is it adds a Section four which says the Office of Planning and Community Development is requested to submit a resolution by July one, 2018 to formally create a community advisory board to advise on implementation of the Equitable Development Initiative. The Council's intent is that membership on the Advisory Board will consist of leaders from communities who have borne the burdens of racial inequity and from neighborhoods experiencing displacement. The resolution should clarify the role of the advisory board in city decision making. And as I mentioned this morning, we've worked with the Office of Planning Community Development and they are supportive of this amendment. So I would move to substitute version D to C for the one that is attached in the underlying agenda.
Speaker 0: It's been moved to second and the substitute version is a D to C or just to see. D2 C4 version one eight has been moved in second as any further comments on just a substitution. All those in favor of the substitution. But I, I opposed. But no, we have a new version. And any further comments on the substance of the legislation. Anyone else. Let's begin again. And under 33. Are we ready to vote? Okay, this is a bill. Please call the roll on the passage of the amended bill.
Speaker 1: Johnson. Suarez O'Brien. Hi, Sergeant Bakeshop. Gonzalez Hi. Harris tally i herbold i president Harrell I nine in favor an unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and show signage. Please read agenda item number 34. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Equitable Development Initiative; establishing a public purpose and authorizing the Director of the Office of Planning and Community Development to execute funding agreements for and on behalf of the City related to implementation of the Equitable Development Initiative. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11202017_CB 119125 | Speaker 0: Bill passed and show signage. Please read agenda item number 34.
Speaker 10: Agenda item 34. Cancel 119 125. Relating to contracting by the Human Services Department, the committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: Very good. Who would like to speak on this item? Customer Herbold.
Speaker 9: Thank you. This ordinance was crafted with input from community providers, the Human Services Department, community based researchers. My fellow city council members. It is a new version of a bill that was referred to us by Mayor Burgess. Results based accountability is utilized at 77% of HST contracts. The ordinance is intended to direct HST and how to utilize our results based accountability in designing their future investments while maintaining some some oversight by the Council before that is done. It's crafted specifically to address potential unintended consequences related to results. Based contracting specifically includes the definition of culturally responsive research. And we did that because culturally responsive research is cognizant of and understands and addresses the cultural context in which the research takes place. This includes the inclusion of community based organizations and other stakeholder perspectives in designing the study, as well as designing the programs themselves. Developing the measures that those programs will be held to to meet. Interpreting the data and disseminating the findings. There's been a lot of discussion around pay for performance. This ordinance does not mandate performance pay, but allows it at the directors discretion.
Speaker 0: Very good. Thank you. Councilman Herbold, any further comments on this particular bill, Councilmember Sean.
Speaker 2: Thank you. President Harrell I made these comments at the Budget Committee meeting this morning, but I knew I should make them again because this is again being voted in for council. First, I want to say that I appreciate this version from Councilmember Herbold and the effort that was put into making the or trying to make the results based accountability contracting ordinance less harmful than the version that Mayor Burgess sent to council last month. However, the idea is fundamentally not beneficial to human service providers, and I intend to vote no. It will create additional red tape that human service providers will need to wade through to receive funding. The larger, well-resourced nonprofits will be able to hire the necessary accountants to make to get through. But community based nonprofits will find it difficult to meet the requirement no matter how excellent their work. It is to me akin to the standardized testing approach that has been shoved down the throats of our public schools by politicians who want to look like they're serious about. Improving education without doing the one thing that education needs, which is provide more funding for education so that class sizes are reduced. This is in the same vein, unfortunately, because our human service providers need more funds, not more red tape. When we talk about results, I think we have to you know, this is missing this. This approach is missing a fundamental reality, which is that how can human service providers possibly keep up with the expanding problem? And more and more people are in need of services because of the inherent situation in our in our city with the rising rents and so on. So I don't know how you can have results based accountability when it's a moving target that human service providers are dealing with. I think the Human Services Department should have the flexibility to approach each contract on its own merits rather than on the results based accountability trademarked framework. Plus, I'm not even clear why this was buried in the budget. It is not a budget legislation. The question I have is where is the task force but the human service providers who have expressed a lot of concerns? Where is the process? Again, I'm glad that Councilmember Herbold made this legislation less bad, but unfortunately, less bad does not necessarily mean helpful. So I will be voting no.
Speaker 0: Incumbents want any of their colleagues want to make any further comments. We'll just vote on it. I thank you for concerns to watch. I'll just say before I vote, I'm supporting legislation. But what she did articulate is probably my highest concern in this, and I just will believe that as we implement this, it is not a stick to thwart out some of these great organization, do some great work, but is to assist them even do the work better. But I'm hoping that the values in our hearts and trying to get this work done is shown in those service providers that we're working with. So we ready to vote? Please call the roll on the passage of council. Bill 119125.
Speaker 1: Johnson Maurice.
Speaker 6: O'Brien Hi.
Speaker 1: Sergeant. No. Bagshaw Hi. Gonzales, I. Harris Talley, I. Herbold i. President Harrell.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Adan favor one opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed and show sign it. Please read agenda items 35 and 36. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to contracting by the Human Services Department; adding a new Section 3.20.050 to the Seattle Municipal Code to provide that the Seattle Human Services Department utilize a results-based framework for designing human service investments; amending Section 3.20.030 of the Seattle Municipal Code to clarify the duties of the Director of the Human Services Department with respect to contracting for human services to carry out department programs; and adding a new Section 20.50.020 to the Seattle Municipal Code to exempt contracts for human services executed by the Director from provisions of Chapter 20.50. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11202017_CB 119116 | Speaker 0: The bill passed and show sign it. Please read agenda items 35 and 36.
Speaker 10: Agenda Item 35 Constable 119116 Adopting a budget including a capital improvement program and position modifications for the City of Seattle for 2018. Agenda Item 36. Excuse me. The committee recommends that bill passes amended and item 36 clerk filed 314 384 City Council changes to the 2018 proposed budget and the 2018 three 2023 proposed capital improvement program. The committee recommends that the file be approved and placed on file.
Speaker 0: Any comments courtesy of Herbold?
Speaker 9: We read 36 into the agenda as well. Yes. I just want to take a few minutes just to do a quick overview. The council passed a number of items that ensured essential services already in place would not be rolled back. These include, but are certainly not limited to support for an emergency shelter serving over 230 survivors of domestic and sexual assault, existing permanent supportive housing services, transitional housing for homeless foster youth, sustained support for a homeless child care program, support for homeless youth employment programs and resources to continue funding the Zero Youth Detention Project. These are the actions, some of the actions, not all of them, but some of the actions that this council took. Simply to maintain existing services. But maintaining services is not enough. And we know that because of the crisis that we've identified, that we can see at our places of business or in our neighborhoods. In addition to the 4600 people in shelter and transitional housing programs, there are another 30 nearly 3900 people living unsheltered in our community. To begin to try to address some of those those those issues. We have identified funding in other key areas, but other things that we did beyond funding human services needs are include several items identified as priorities by by council members. Councilmember Gonzalez identified as a priority funding for public safety coordinator and pedestrian improvements identified by the South Park Public Safety Task Force. Councilmember Harrell identified as a priority funding for the Georgetown South Park Trail. Councilmember Johnson identified funding for positions to increase staffing at Magnuson Park. Councilmember Suarez included a priority funding for planning at Hubbard Homestead Park. Councilmember Johnson also prioritized in his budget, championing the creation of funding for a safe consumption site. Councilmember Bagshaw fought for funding for a new Homeless Youth Opportunity Center. Council President Harrell also added funding for priority hire. I worked to expand the ready to work. Program in southwest Seattle. Councilmember Juarez also fought for expansion of the lead program to North Precinct, as well as to begin taking referrals from the south and southwest precincts and southeast precincts. Councilmember Gonzalez led the fight for funding to support police accountability measures, including staffing for the Community Police Commission and positions of the Office of Police Accountability. Councilmember Swan put her stake in the ground for funding for tenant outreach and support statement services, as well as funding for additional authorized encampments. Councilmember Harris tally secured funding for additional HST staffing support, increased workload in addressing the homelessness crisis. Councilmember O'Brien got funding for a comprehensive Community Youth Diversion program. I also worked to support legacy business funding as well as including in that budget action funding for entrepreneurs who are women and people of color. And Councilmember Harris tally also worked to significantly increase participatory budgeting to allow the members of the public to identify their priorities for support for neighborhood parks and streets. Councilmember Bagshaw led the way to get additional funding for nursing support for public health needs, as well as nursing support for unsheltered homeless people. Councilmember O'Brien also worked to get funding to encourage employers to increase transit use among their employees. And Councilmember Gonzales also gets my thanks for leading the way to get additional funding for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault, including mobile advocacy services and sexual assault protection order legal representatives. I want to thank my colleagues for their time, attention and patience throughout the process. I'm grateful for their bold actions and the rigorous debate in which my colleagues engaged in for the energy the public demonstrated throughout the process. Working together, we've created a budget that reflects our values. I want to also say it was a pleasure working with council central staff over Red Vines and Donuts, and over many long hours around the conference room table, central staff worked tirelessly in their analysis, as well as guiding me in the process, helping me develop options, agendas, speaking points and together with council clerk staff, provided important procedural guidance as well. Many people worked above and beyond the call of duty, and I don't want to get in trouble for singling out some over other, some over others. But hopefully all will agree that Eric Son deserves special consideration and recognition as the council's staff budget lead. In closing, I was honored to have an opportunity to be in the room where it all happens. I'm told that's a Hamilton reference.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Kathryn Herbold, colleagues, I see Castro and Brian to my left.
Speaker 6: I want to say thank you to Councilmember Herbold. Two months ago, this was probably not on your agenda because we didn't know that there would be a vacancy in the chairing the Budget Committee. And for me, this was one of the most intense and chaotic budget clerks, not the right word. Let's just go with really intense budget process that I've been through in my budget processes here on the council. And I can't imagine anyone doing a better job, especially given the circumstances than you do. Councilmember Herbold, thanks to you, your staff and of course, all the central staff folks who were running around scrambling to make sure that we were able to get our job done right today. I also really want to thank there are folks in the audience today and all the people who turned out at any of the public hearings or public meetings who held various rallies throughout the process or contacted us via email, phone or mail. The public engagement in this process is always critical, and this year was especially critical. I'm really proud of a lot of the items that are in this budget. There are some things that I worked on that didn't advance at the moment, but I feel optimistic that then we'll discuss this in a few moments at upcoming resolution, that there's an opportunity for us to move forward and find some new resources in the coming months to again, considerably do an amazing job. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Well said, Councilmember. I've got my left hand back to my right councilman here. Sally.
Speaker 4: Yes, thank you. Committee chair Herbold. I just also I don't I don't have eight years of experience with the budget. This is my first budget in this capacity. But it was apparent to me, having followed from the other side, what the budget process that you added a level of. Transparency in every step of what ended up being a very complex budget process. And for that, I appreciate that is to me one of the paramount parts of democracy working well. And the budget is one of the most critical moments in the council's annual cycle of the choices made. So very much appreciate that, you know, whether we agreed or not on everything as a council, I think the public knew where each of us stood. And that had to do with the leadership that you had of making it transparent and accessible. So thank you for that.
Speaker 0: Well said, Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 6: Thank you. This is the part for speeches, I take it. So I'm just going to take a minute and say thanks, Councilmember Herbold, to you for working so collaboratively with me throughout this process. I'm really proud of a lot of the work that we did in this budget. The work on expansion of the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion Program, which I'm sure Councilmember Suarez will talk about in a minute, as well as some of the work that she and I did on access to those living inside food deserts, which is common in both of our districts. I'm also really proud of some of the transportation work that we did this year on pedestrian izing to block section of our city, connecting the University of Washington to the future light rail campus. Funding for small but important things like waiting pools and green stormwater infrastructure. A small but important remodel of community center. A magnificent park in the appropriate staff necessary to make that facility work well. But I think the biggest and boldest thing that I'm proud that we led on this year was around the creation of a safe consumption site. And that $1.3 million is a. So the $1.3 million is without a doubt going to be controversial. We're seeing cities all throughout the region take up resolutions in opposition to these kinds of concepts. And I want to highlight one of the reasons why I have been such a champion. I got an email earlier in the week from a constituent named Rose, and I asked her for her permission to read parts of the sermon and to permit my indulgence. Council President I want to read to you all why she believes it's so important that we set up safe consumption sites in the city. Rose is a first year medical student at the University of Washington and says all of the available public health and medical data says that safe consumption spaces reduce public drug use, reduce drug paraphernalia in public spaces, and not increase drug use in the surrounding communities. Having a space to go and interact with non-judgmental health care workers and access services has been shown to improve rates of seeking and completing detoxification programs by as much as 30%. Rose's Brothers in Recovery and Clean from Drug Use Disorder for four years. He and his partner, also cleaning and recovery, are expecting their families first grandchild in this Christmas. And Rose says even when he was using drugs and his brain chemistry and body wouldn't let him walk away from using, he was still my brother and I still loved him very much. People suffering from drug use disorders are valued and loved by their families and friends, and they matter to society as a whole. And I'm going to follow the trend of you. Council President Harrell. That is an important line that I feel compelled to repeated twice. People suffering from drug use disorders are valued and loved by their families and friends, and they matter to society as a whole. The country is watching Seattle as we endeavor to join the rest of the developed world in responding to drug use disorders with empathy and scientifically sound evidence based approaches. Properly funding safe consumption sites is critical to establishing their credibility and proving Seattle as a city ready to take on the challenges of the future. I'm really proud of the work I did with you, my friends out in communities, particularly Patricia, Allison and Lisa, and really grateful to my colleagues for support for such an important step in preventing future lives from being lost in our city.
Speaker 0: Well said. Any other words from any of my steam colleagues can spam back shock.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, you have already been recognized by my colleagues. I want to add my thanks to you. I know that you had to dove in this at an opportunity time. That wasn't opportune necessarily, but you did a splendid job. I appreciate that. I also want to recognize people in the audience. And Alison Eisinger is holding the wall up over there. But I remember eight years ago, my first budget. One of the first things we talked about was how are we going to really improve conditions for people who find themselves without a place, without a home? And about the best we could do that year was to open the red doors. And that seems so controversial. I look back on that and think it was just such a scratch on the surface, but it was an important one. So I want to acknowledge the fact that you are here and you and all of the colleagues that have been working with us and in this council for all of these years, you're really making a difference. And I do want to acknowledge the hard work that you're doing. But if I can just take a moment and.
Speaker 1: Acknowledge my other.
Speaker 4: Colleagues as well. Council President here, all you're advocating and increasing.
Speaker 2: For reconnecting.
Speaker 4: Families, continuing our efforts to address the challenges of unreinforced masonry, both in international district Pioneer Square and elsewhere. It's going to make more opportunities for people who right now don't have places to live. And again, I know that it's something that is challenging, but finding that money, finding the resources, making it work is going to make our whole city better. Councilmember Gonzales, I get you. Just make me smile. And the stalwart work that you have done around police accountability, really supporting domestic abuse survivors, the criminal justice reform you've done, and then just over the weekend, gathering resources again for our CRC, our Court Resource Center. Thank you for doing that. Good, good work. Councilmember O'Brien. Obviously, the work that you've done around there championing this work around homelessness, we're going to hear more about that. We are going to see more. One of the things that I so appreciate is like, seriously, two years ago when the emergency was declared, we all expected more work to get done. Progress has been made. And I want to acknowledge all home and our Human Services Department, but now we are treating this emergency like an emergency. I'm very respectful to you for that good work. And Councilmember Johnson, you did mention the fighting for the working families, expanding summer parkways, the waiting pools for our kids.
Speaker 1: And especially what we're.
Speaker 4: Doing around neighborhood greenways and making those connections. So your three daughters in my granddaughter can ride their bikes safely to school and have a way around. So I just appreciate the work you've done. Councilmember Suarez It's always D5 and I just want to acknowledge what you've done on expanding lead as well to the north precinct, vigorously supporting for your food banks and bringing a voice to the seniors in North Seattle. Thank you for that good work. Councilmember So what you and I don't always agree on everything, but I think we agree on a lot more than we don't. And I want to protect and thank you for protecting our unsheltered communities and for helping me expand the number of encampments citywide. Councilmember Harris Talley I.
Speaker 1: Appreciate the fresh, fresh.
Speaker 4: Perspective that you have brought, and I appreciate how fast and how deep you got into this budget process.
Speaker 2: And kudos to.
Speaker 4: You and to your staff. I know you have any members of your staff who are out here, and it's been a real pleasure working with you, and I look forward to working with you in the next few months going forward. And. And thank you too, to Allison McClain and Alberta Black and Brian to my staff and to all of our central staff members. I know we haven't named you all by name, but Eric, you're here. There are a number and I'm sure people who are listening and I just the dedication, the countless hours, the donuts and red vines that Lisa mentioned. We'll get back to eating apples and health food next week. So just following up and finalizing this, my priorities coming in here were around increasing our housing options. Housing First works. It's a best practice. We're going to be able to increase those numbers significantly. I want to thank my colleagues for the work you've done in supporting me around the Firearms Surrender program so that we can protect protect survivors in our community. It's been several years, but we've made big progress there, working with the city attorney and our municipal court as well . And a special thanks and shout out to my friends in D7. We have done a lot. Market to Mohawk has money that we didn't expect before, like Tebay is connecting. The work we've been doing in Seattle sent Seattle Center and finally to our new friends in the Seattle School District. We signed our council president signed an MRU today and we're going to see a lot more of these partnerships and getting our kids educated and getting those kids who are currently finding themselves in a bad situation to get the housing that they need. So many thanks to all of you.
Speaker 0: Excellent. Very good. All right, so we are ready to pass a budget councilmember. So what?
Speaker 2: Thank you, President Harrell. Sisters and brothers. This agenda item and the next agenda item which is tied to it, are the approval of the city budget as a whole. Just like in previous years and consistent with the principles of the people's budget movement, I intend to vote no on the budget as a whole. The previous votes that we have taken throughout the budget process have amended the Mayor's proposed budget in many important ways that I support and in many cases have personally fought for. And in a moment, I want to speak to those victories. But despite these amendments, the budget as a whole remains overwhelmingly the same. Business as usual, a budget that has failed to meet the needs of regular people in Seattle year after year. Every year since I took office in 2014, we have built a people's budget movement to fight for progressive changes to Seattle's business as usual budget. And every year our movement has won important victories that make a real material difference in the lives of regular people. Many of you were with us the very first time in the people's budget, Renee, for the first time in Seattle's history with one city sanctioned encampment. And that same year, we exposed to public light the regular annual practice of corporate council members going to the chamber retreat rather than meeting with community members for the budget. Last year to the people's budget movement. We took the BLOCK, the Bunker campaign, and then we made the Build 1000 homes campaign through which we won $29 million for affordable housing. And I've never been more inspired than this year by the courageous and tireless efforts of activists and the attempt to inject some humanity into the system. I want to take a moment to thank all the individual activists and organizations who have sacrificed so much time and energy to build a movement, to stop the sweeps , to pass the progressive business tax. In other words, the end to fight for adequate funding for housing and homeless services and the demands of renters and regular people. Your efforts have truly shown what it means to be an activist and an organizer. The mass movements of the sixties and seventies that ended the Vietnam War past Roe v Wade and the Civil Rights Act were made up of activists like you. And we are in the process of a historic process of building an activist leader around the nation, not just in Seattle that we have not seen in decades. And I am so proud to be part of that process. And I hope you are, too. You came to Council Chambers dozens of times. You joined us on November 1st and second for an all night peaceful, civil disobedience demonstration consisting of public comment rallies, teach ins, camping outside and inside city hall. And a powerful day in the next morning. That effort of November 1st and second was a political turning point because it put the Seattle's political establishment on notice. It made very clear that regular people do not support sweeps, that it's not a fringe demand to say, stop the sweeps. And it's not a fringe demand. To say that big business should be taxed. We do not support protecting the profits of big business while neglecting affordable housing and homeless services. Regular people in Seattle are horrified by the way the city establishment treats ordinary people, especially the poor. It is council members who are the ones that are standing in the way of stopping the sweeps. It is council members who are standing in the way of the progressive business tax. Because of our movement's efforts. Now, they have had to scramble to make promises to try and rescue their reputations. This is important for the movement to claim as its own victory. So thank you to all the individual activists, the homeless community from the Housing for All Coalition and the many organizations within it from the Neighborhood Action Councils. Real Change The Transit Riders Union Sherill and Nichols Will Nichols about residents socialist alternative stop the sweeps and see camp out activist from the People's Party Democratic Socialists of America, the 43rd, 32nd, 34th and 36 legislative districts of the Democratic Party Tenants Union progressive unions like BFC 1488 who have all played critical role in building this movement . And I am sure I have left some organizations out, but obviously, needless to say, it applies to all of them. Because of these organizations and activists, we have one real material victories that will have a meaningful impact on the lives of ordinary people. We have won funding this year for renters rights resources in organizing millions more in funding on housing and homeless services. Then Mayor Burgess proposed funding for a feasibility study to allow Seattle to take concrete steps to finally create a public bank funding to. Funding to expand, lead and other alternatives to incarceration funding to expand services for survivors of sexual and domestic violence and many important things. But most strikingly, we have built a phenomenal movement to stop the sweeps and past the homes attacks, and we have put the establishment on notice. I strongly agree with Travis Thompson's comments during public testimony that we are far from done here. We will be back. We will be demanding that councilmembers keep their promises. However, just like in other years, those victories are dwarfed at this moment by the overwhelming majority of the budget that continues the same business as usual that has so tragically failed to meet the needs of regular people in Seattle year after year. This year's budget, like last year's, fails to make a serious dent in the crisis of homelessness. This year's budget, like last year's, fails to address the housing affordability crisis. This budget, like in the past, invests hundreds of millions into an approach to public safety that prioritizes locking people up rather than investing in our communities to prevent crime in the first place. And this budget, like in the past, fundamentally depends on taxing the poor and working class people rather than super rich and big business. And just like in previous years, this budget fails to exercise its ability to curtail the inhumane and ineffective sweeps of homeless people. Unlike in previous years, this year, council members actually had the opportunity to vote to tax big business. I mean, technically, they have had the opportunity year after year. But this time they heard loud and clear from Seattle that Seattle wants them to do this. And they still failed to do so. I will be speaking more about the specifics of the progressive business tax when we discuss the alleged resolution later in the full council agenda . But for now, I think it is important to state. There is so much wealth in Seattle that the homeless emergency is totally unnecessary and unacceptable. It doesn't have to be like this. And. The majority of the council. I am sorry you have not treated an emergency like an emergency, because if you had, you would have stopped the sweeps and passed the homes tax. Compare the few hundred affordable homes Seattle bills each year to the House building program conducted around the world under the Marshall Plan. For example, in Britain after World War Two, they built public housing at a rate that relative to their population would be the same as Seattle, building 15,000 affordable homes every year. They did that because it was in the best interests of big business and the political establishment at that time. Compare that to the few hundred affordable homes Seattle is building each year. This is what I mean when I say that this is a business as usual budget, that Seattle could do something big, something really big. And we cannot let the politicians and City Hall pat their backs by tinkering around the edges of the problem. 50 years ago, Martin Luther King Jr. Said, and I quote, If our nation can spend $35 billion a year to fight an unjust, evil war in Vietnam and $20 billion to put a man on the moon, it can spend billions of dollars to put God's children on there to feed right here on Earth. His words. His words from 1967 are, if anything, more meaningful today because there is more wealth in society today. This is a city where a single billionaire is financing his own spaceships, while thousands of people have been driven into homelessness, have overflowed their shelters, and are living on the streets in these brutal winter months. We do not have a people's budget today, but we are building. That movement that can win won in the future. And I'm honored to be with you as part of that movement. I want to thank all of the central staff who were here late every night. And I know that because my staff member was with you late every night and you never left. And I'm so thankful for all the work you did to allow us allow our movement to get to every small victory that we could. And their efforts cannot possibly be overstated. I'm extremely thankful to Ted Walden in my office and Adams in Koski. Ted worked tirelessly on the budget process. Adam worked tirelessly as part of the Housing for All coalition. But I also wanted to thank Rebecca Lieberman, James Parker and Jonathan Rosenblum from my office. We all pulled together and made sure that we gave this budget process our all. Let's have a break in the holidays, but let us come back rejuvenated to to continue the fight. And one thing that's coming up that I wanted to mention is on December 5th, the Rental Housing Association, which is a big landlord lobby association, will be having a big convention on December 5th at the convention center. They're going to have workshops that will teach landlords how to evict tenants, how to make sure that they oppress tenants even further. So Washington Community Action Network and other organizations and my office are coming together to organize a protest action. So please make sure you sign up on the Facebook even let's housing for all together. Be there on December 5th. Thank you, Mayor.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 0: There are no further comments. Thank you, Councilman Swann, for the comments. I think we're ready to vote. Okay. Please call the roll on the passage of council bill 119116 Johnson.
Speaker 1: Suarez O'Brien. So. No. Berkshire. Gonzalez I. HARRIS Tally. Herbold Hi. President Arroyo high eight in favor.
Speaker 0: One opposed bill passed and there was silence. And with respect to the plaque file will be those in favor of approving and filing clerk file 314384. Please vote i. I those opposed vote no. The motion carries and file is approved and placed on file. Okay. So we're going to move to 37 and 38. Please read those items into the record. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE adopting a budget, including a capital improvement program and position modifications, for The City of Seattle for 2018; and creating positions exempt from civil service; all by a 2/3 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11132017_CB 119083 | Speaker 1: Thanks very much. So please read the next agenda item, which I believe will be number three because we referred number two. Correct. So please read agenda item number three.
Speaker 4: Very part of the Affordable Housing Terrorism Finance Committee. Agenda item three Council 1190 83 relating to imposing a tax on engaging in the business of being a short term rental operator. Adding a new Chapter 5.54 Short term rental tax to this year on a speaker and amending sections five point 30.0 ten 5.30 .063 55.0 ten. 5.40 5.0. 45.40 5.0. 60.1 50.1. 65.2 20 and point 230. Salem Speaker The committee recommends will pass as amended.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. And Councilman Johnson, before you introduce this legislation. I do have central staff, Ali, panicky sort of in cue in case we have any questions on what passing the tax piece without the regulatory piece could sort of mean in case there's need for clarification, she's in she's in queue if we need her. And Councilman Johnson, you have the floor.
Speaker 9: So so we have I think everybody has a pretty good understanding of the best piece of legislation in front of us, which is it allows for the city of Seattle to tax short term rentals and sets forward a pathway for which the Facilities and Services Department would set up the collection process for taxing short term rentals. What we have in front of us are two amendments to the legislation, and if you'll permit me. Council President I'll just speak briefly to each of those amendments and then take questions from them and then maybe move each of those amendments in order, and then we'll move the base legislation.
Speaker 1: Sounds perfect.
Speaker 9: Amendment number three, and I'm just going to read it out loud because again, some of these issues are pretty late. Breaking would basically set up a circumstance to allow the city to work with the convention center should they be successful in advocation and advocating in Olympia to collect a short term rental tax. So the language as proposed would change section 11 of the bill, which adds the words the Washington Zoo, Convention Center and Public Facilities District to the list of potential local jurisdictions that could be collecting a short term rental tax and then changes the language to say that in the event any short term rental tax is imposed by any such jurisdiction and the jurisdiction imposing such tax enters into a legally binding agreement with the city to provide the city proceeds equivalent to the city's collections from tax authorized. Under this ordinance, the city may commit in such agreement with the other jurisdiction to spend to suspend collection of the city's tax for the duration of the term of such agreement. That's a lot of legal language, but let me boil it down for my colleagues. If the convention center, the county, the state of Washington or any of those three bodies were to start a collection of attacks on short term rentals, this allows the city to negotiate directly with that entity, allows us to eliminate the , uh, the process that the city would go through to set up a regulatory arm to collect that revenue and enter into an agreement with that body, which would at that point then be collecting the revenue to dispense the revenue that we would have otherwise collected directly to the city of Seattle. So I'm going to give you a hypothetical. If we were to vote on this today and we were to set up a circumstance where we're going to collect $8 million a year starting in 2019, and the convention center were successful in advocating in Olympia to apply a short term rental tax to the convention center. We would this language gives us the ability to set up an analytical agreement with the convention center, to have them collect the tax and pass $8 million over to the city of Seattle to be used as we see fit. So this gives us a framework to continue to negotiate with those folks who are eyeing short term revenue, short term rental revenue for other purposes other than the Equitable Development Initiative and affordable housing bond payments, as we've talked about in the next amendment. Very good. Let me answer questions on that amendment. Should there be any?
Speaker 1: I'll refer to that as amendment number.
Speaker 9: Amendment number three.
Speaker 1: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 7: Councilmember Johnson. I want to clarify one aspect to see if it's a clarification or if there's a distinction here. If we. And to be clear, I'll be bringing amendment number two, which we skipped over. But if we were to pass to change the the tax from a flat $10 to an eight in a $14, depending if it were. A partial unit or an entire unit. The my intent on this amendment, number three, is that we would continue to collect whatever we would be entitled to under that tax structure. So if the number of units in the city grows, that we would be negotiating with the state or the convention center to get whatever that is . The distinction I'm making is if we projected this may collect, as you mentioned, $8 million, but it turns out it actually collects $11 million because there's more units than we thought that we would continue to collect whatever that was on the dollar basis as opposed to setting some sort of lump sum amount that we would get.
Speaker 9: So part of the reason I was hoping this would go back in committee is I think that this language does need a little bit of additional time to be able to answer that question. But I would ask that the council president suspend the rules and allow a penalty for and central staff to answer that question. I can't guarantee you that it is getting what you're asking, Councilmember O'Brien. But Ali may be able to shed more light on the topic.
Speaker 7: And maybe Will Ali's coming up if bend the rules.
Speaker 1: Let's suspend the rules. If there's no objection, Ali, you could set a chair, your comfort zone there to table. We won't put you in the middle there. And you know and as you get just one sec. Ali, as you get comfortable, do you need the question repeated at all or did you were you following Councilman O'Brien's question
Speaker 7: ? I I'll ask a clarifying question on top of X and may kind of be moot our back and forth. Councilmember Johnson, I read this. This whole section, frankly, is not necessary. It feels like more intent language. If we didn't pass this, I assume we could continue to negotiate with them. And this doesn't bind us to I mean, we would have to pass new legislation to implement any sort of agreement to waive it. So I guess my high level question and I'm okay with the intent language, I just wanted to clarify my personal intent on this. Is this really just intent language or does this bind us to any sort of outcome?
Speaker 3: Good afternoon. Council President Harrell, Councilmembers Members, Energy Council, central staff. You are both correct, but yes, it is not binding the future council or the current council to any specific action. It is expressing the current council's intent that there is an expectation that there will be revenue generated for the city's use through this tax. If another jurisdiction imposes a tax on the industry, then the expectation is that there would be an agreement that the city would receive the equivalent amount. It is not binding. It would require a decision to be made to suspend the tax or to take the tax out of the code. It would also it's also silent on exactly what the revenue expectation is, in part because I've talked with many of you about it's a little bit of a moving target.
Speaker 1: Okay. Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 6: It's reassuring that the language is not binding. But I want to speak to my concern that should we pass this amendment, I think it might actually go counter to what would be best for the city of Seattle, which would be that we would continue to collect the tax in addition to whatever tax the state levied, and we would pay the state for their portion of of the tax, much like I believe we do with the be an O tax. Rather than ending our tax and ending our structure. I think it would be better should the State enact a similar tax for us to continue to collect it all and pay them their portion. So I'm not comfortable with this language as written and I am comfortable knowing even if it should pass, that it's that it's not binding. But I don't think I'll be supporting this amendment.
Speaker 1: Um, Councilmember Johnson did suggest, again, a need for clarification. I care. Okay. Councilman Johnson did suggest a need for fine tuning this language again because of this kind of issue. But I guess we won't revote that at least now. Comes from O'Brien. I think you want to respond to cuts from her comment.
Speaker 7: Yeah. I think Section 11 is in the underlying legislation as came out of committee previously.
Speaker 3: Correct.
Speaker 7: And what we're talking about is adding the language that's in the double blue underline and striking the language that struck out. And I think the amendment as proposed, Councilmember Johnson, I think, improves the intent language for me, because I talk specifically about the city being made whole by whatever other jurisdiction. I would also be comfortable, completely striking Section 11 and just talking about our intent if that day ever comes to pass when we get there. I don't know if it would be in order to strike Section 11, because I don't know that that amendment is before us and that may require a suspending of the rules.
Speaker 1: So let's. So you would be supportive of Councilmember Johnson's amendment number three, however. Correct. And then we'll just put a placeholder on where we strike Section 11.
Speaker 7: Well, I don't have enough. Sorry. Yeah, Amendment three is an amendment to section 11.
Speaker 1: So.
Speaker 7: So it.
Speaker 1: Failed. You wouldn't be opposed to completely.
Speaker 7: Correct.
Speaker 1: Eliminating section 11.
Speaker 7: I stated my intent publicly about making us whole and how I would expect that. Just so it's out there in the ether, so that when we get to this point or if we get to this point, I will be continue to argue that perspective. I believe the language is vague enough that it's hard to tell what specifically it is, but I just wanted to clarify my intent and given that I'm happy to support the language. Councilmember Johnson, I know what your intent is on that. If you wanted to say it or not.
Speaker 9: But my objective here is if there is a way for us to reduce the regulatory costs to us, which has been identified time and again by my colleagues as a very high burden, a set of costs for this project has ranged almost to the $5 million mark. This amendment allows for us the opportunity to potentially consider reducing some of those administrative costs by entering into into local agreements with other jurisdictions who may be able to just collect the tax and then pass the revenue on to us without the added significant set up costs or annualized costs. On the revenue collection side, we will have, I would anticipate an annual cost on the regulatory side, but this would reduce some of the expectations about money that we could spend on the revenue regulation side if this were to pass and other things were to happen outside of our control in Olympia in another place. So I will I will be voting for this.
Speaker 1: Okay. Councilmember Herbold, we'll close debate.
Speaker 6: On this amendment. Just a clarifying question, because it more has been revealed that I that I understood with the original Section 11. So you're saying that this the intent of this amendment relates to a new tax that would go into potentially that the state would enact that would go into effect before we have set up the short term rental tax as contemplated by this legislation. So it would be to avoid set up costs, correct? It's not. What I would fear is we'd already have a system set up collecting and we would disband that in favor of a system that the that the the state would set up. And the majority of our costs are associated with the upfront set of costs. So this doesn't deal with the after the fact. It's a it's more focused on, again, the set of.
Speaker 3: Costs before it goes into effect.
Speaker 9: That's my expectation. But certainly it would give us the flexibility if something came up after we had already set up a structure to work with other jurisdictions on interlocal agreements.
Speaker 3: That helps. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Councilman Johnson. I would suggest we just vote on this particular amendment as opposed I know you wanted to talk them all through, but let's just.
Speaker 9: So I'd move adoption of Amendment three to countable 119083.
Speaker 1: Okay. All those in favor of amendment number three as described by Councilmember Johnson. Please vote I. I oppose. Please vote no. Okay. The Amendment three is passed.
Speaker 9: I apologize. Council President. I didn't realize that other members were going to be bringing forward earlier amendments. I had decided not to bring forward Amendment One. I'd like to defer back to Councilmember O'Brien. I didn't realize I was jumping the line. And if he wants to talk about Amendment two, I would happily defer to him in Amendment two.
Speaker 1: So we don't have to go in numerical order. But it'd be nice if if we know which. Ones are exclusive. I guess that's the issue. And if they're not, we can proceed either way. Do you want to go back and do one or two?
Speaker 9: Well, I think amendment and I don't I would defer to Ali Banerjee from Central Staffs for guidance and counsel on this as I read amendments to and Amendment four. They're both intended to achieve a similar outcome, but they have different thresholds associated with them. So I would consider those to be mutually exclusive amendments. So maybe it's best if we talk about them both and then allow members to vote depending on where their conscience lies on those two amendments.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 9: So do I have that accurately, Ms.. Banerjee.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So just to maybe restate Amendment two, they're they're basically they're very similar amendments. Amendment two, which is the would modify the tax rate from a flat $10 per night as it was in the bill that came out of committee to a tiered rate, $14 for an entire unit and $8 per night for a private or shared room. Amendment four would is almost entirely the same, except the rate would be $8 for a private room and $12 for an entire unit rather than $14. Okay. Description of how the intent on how the revenue was spent is this.
Speaker 1: Okay. So the maker of Amendment two, which is 14 and eight, comes from a bribe. Would you like to speak to that?
Speaker 7: Yeah, sure. So I'll go ahead and make a motion to move amendment to the second.
Speaker 1: I'll move it. Keep it alive. I'll second it.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Council President. So I'll just repeat what Ali said. This would, instead of a flat $10, this would have a $14 per night charge for entire units and $8 for a private or shared room. This would increase our projected revenue by $1,000,000 over the base legislation. Again, these are our projections, but the base legislation, as predicted, would generate about $6 million a year. This would move that to about $7 million a year, I believe, compared to amendment number four. I have the numbers right, which is the eight and $12. This is about $700,000 a year more than that amendment. I believe that the additional revenue, the first 5 million going to the Equitable Development Initiative and the anti displacement investments we've talked about there are important may also need to be paying for the regulatory fees out of this and having a $7 million revenue will make me more comfortable that we'll actually have at least $5 million to invest in actual development on an annual basis going forward.
Speaker 1: Okay. Although we have. So in order to keep the conversation like we have emotion in a second, but the amendment number four is close to a length, which is less money. So let's have a chat about that one as well. So council members are fully informed of which one they want to vote for. When you get to that customer back, do you have a question?
Speaker 0: I do. And this is directed to Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 3: Maybe I've got an older.
Speaker 0: Sheet here in front of me, but it appears that two has been deleted and that your name has been.
Speaker 3: Added to Amendment four.
Speaker 0: Was there some discussion there.
Speaker 3: That I missed or we re raising something that sort of last week when.
Speaker 7: We were voting on all of this today? My intent was to do that in support of the other set of amendments. But now that they've been bifurcated and we're moving forward on the tax alone today, but not the regulatory bill, I'm going to go back and support my amendment number two, which was the original.
Speaker 3: Was there some $2 for a.
Speaker 0: Platform fee that was included in one of.
Speaker 3: These?
Speaker 7: And that's on the regulatory side. Okay. And so that would come up on that piece of legislation.
Speaker 1: Okay. Let's talk a little bit about amendment number four, which is the $12 for the entire unit, $8 per room. And who's the maker of that amendment? Maybe he or she could speak to that.
Speaker 9: So that that one is me as well. And the the reason why I was hoping to have the regulatory and revenue discussions together is because, as Councilmember O'Brien just stated, there is a question on the table about a regulatory fee associated with it and then also questions about the boundaries. So when you draw boundaries differently on where the regulations apply, that has an impact on the amount of money that you raise depending on the levels of the fees. So, you know, while I concur with you, Councilmember O'Brien, that there is a $700,000 difference between amendment to an amendment four, that number could change either for the positive or for the negative, depending on where we land with the geography, about where the regulations end of applying as the bill was being discussed in committee not only was other first to discuss both the revenue approach, but I was also the first to bring forward an idea that would set up per night charge at different tiers and a both amendment to an amendment for set up a structure that allows for an individual who's renting a room down the hall to pay less in a per night charge than an individual who's renting out their entire unit. Whether that is an entire home or an entire condo unit or however however, we we've determined that and we define both the guest room and the entire dwelling unit in the legislation, amendments that are in front of us, the $12 per night rental fee for the dwelling units and the $8 per night rental fee for each guest room was consistent with what we thought would be the objective of about a $7 million net proceeds based on the number of nights. So we were trying to continue to make this option not just affordable for families who are choosing to use short term rentals as an option for them when they come into town, either for vacations or or for many of those folks that we heard in public testimony here and in previous meetings for longer term stays as they come to our hospitals and medical clinics, but felt like the 12 and eight approach met our revenue goals of $7 million, while also keeping the option more affordable for those families who are choosing to use short term rentals when they come to town.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Katherine Johnson. So we have two exclusive amendments, one at $14. For the entire unit and $8 per room and the other one is 12 and eight. Are there any further questions we've heard? Councilmember I've got.
Speaker 3: A question.
Speaker 1: Because.
Speaker 0: I do. And this goes back to the $14 per night. If we look at it and consider an $8.
Speaker 3: Tax and.
Speaker 0: Whether this is Councilmember Johnson or Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 3: For one.
Speaker 0: Room and you consider.
Speaker 3: A whole home.
Speaker 0: It strikes me that just per square footage, it makes.
Speaker 3: More sense to ask for a higher tax.
Speaker 0: For.
Speaker 3: The entire unit. But I'd like to know, how did you.
Speaker 0: Arrive at these numbers? Are they are they akin to what a hotel motel tax would be paying at this point? I know that we're we're juggling fees.
Speaker 3: Versus tax, but if either of you could help explain how we went from 12 to 14 or whether it was a compromise.
Speaker 7: So the base legislation again was ten. And so the the I agree with the theory of having two different tiers for a partial unit versus an entire unit. Trying to make it comparable to the hotels is something that I think well, that I was trying to do. It's a little challenging because we are using flat rates as opposed to percentages because of the tax authority we have. And so there are entire units that are over $1,000 a night in their entire units that are a lot smaller. And obviously within the hotel world, there's a whole range of hotels. So trying to make a comparison, then comparing a hotel room to a five bedroom house is another tough comparison. So I don't think there's a real science around the comparison, but I think kind of effort was made. I'll just add while I have the microphone that, you know, the central staff analysis on Amendment four is that that would raise 6.3 million, not 7 million, which is why I'm going back to my amendment number two, to get us to the full 7 million. Councilmember Johnson and I have worked on the spreadsheet and so we can play with a bunch of assumptions and I will acknowledge that our data has is not perfect. The platforms haven't handed over their databases of what exactly is happening. So we are operating in a world of some assumptions and we hope in the next few months we'll get more information. But that's not going to come in the next few weeks. I don't believe there's also an open question as to as we go to collect this, what percentage of the taxes will be accurate, able to collect , what percentage of compliance will there be? And I think as IFRS works this out, how they set up the tax, that's kind of an open question. I feel much more comfortable with the $2 additional on the entire units to have a little more revenue to give us a little more buffer zone. And if the end of the day we have a few extra dollars for either anti displacement work or affordable housing, that's not a bad thing in my mind.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay. I think we're ready to vote on these comes from Johnson you on closing the debate.
Speaker 9: Yeah, if I may. I mean, I think that we're not far off from each other, which is why there was discussion about a compromise language at Amendment four. But generally, I think I'll be voting no on Amendment two and be asking my colleagues to support Amendment Fourth Amendment to were to fail, because I do think it achieves a closer parity to what the hotel motel taxes are are paying. And it also has the tiered approach with I, which I think is a recognition that there is a real difference between those folks who are renting a room down the hall and those folks who are renting an entire unit. And it also, I do believe, because I think that the numbers are closer, as Councilmember O'Brien said, we played around with Ali's Excel spreadsheet, get us to the same policy objective of raising in the neighborhood of about $7 million, depending on where we land in terms of both compliance and the number of nights that are rented. So I'll be asking my colleagues to vote no on the amendment in front of us right now with the knowledge that if it were to fail, I would bring Back Forward Amendment four and ask you to support that in just a moment.
Speaker 0: So just one last clarification.
Speaker 3: But it's still eight per room either way, whether it's two or four, and it's just the.
Speaker 0: Difference of $2 between the.
Speaker 3: Amendment two and four.
Speaker 9: That's my.
Speaker 1: Okay, okay. Printer house. Okay. Are we clear? So I'm going to vote on we're going to vote on amendment amendment number two, which is the 14 and eight breakdown. Are we clear on that? Yeah, it's been already moved in second. And all those in favor of Amendment two, please say I and raise your hand, I. All those opposed to Amendment two, please say no and raise your hand.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 1: Okay. This was. Yes. So 5 to 4. Amendment two passes. Okay. So we won't vote on Amendment four since they are exclusive. Are there any other amendments to the base legislation?
Speaker 9: No, not that I'm aware of. Mr. Newton, did I miss an amendment in the memo?
Speaker 3: No, that's all. I just ask for 5 minutes to go print the correct version of the bill prior to that. Okay. So I'm just noting that for the clerks.
Speaker 1: So she needs more time to prepare it such that I could sign it. Can I then proceed with other agenda items, or do we have to look at each other for a couple of minutes? Okay. So we're going to showcase. So. Yeah. Okay. So we're going to call for the vote and then I'll sign it when it's ready. Okay. So all those in favor of the. We we we already voted on the amendment. Number two. We are we that passed an amendment. Number three passed. So now we're going to vote on the entire bill as amended.
Speaker 9: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: And we're going to do a roll just just one sector and we're going to do a roll call. Okay. So please call the role on the passage of the amended bill.
Speaker 2: Her bill. Hi, Johnson.
Speaker 9: Right.
Speaker 2: Juarez. O'Brien. I saw what I shot. Harris. Tally I. Gonzalez, i. President Harrell. I. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Okay. The bill passed and the chair will sign it upon the new language that will be presented to me in a few minutes. Okay. Okay. Report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to imposing a tax on engaging in the business of being a short-term rental operator; adding a new Chapter 5.54, Short-Term Rental Tax, to the Seattle Municipal Code; and amending Sections 5.30.010, 5.30.060, 5.55.010, 5.55.040, 5.55.060, 5.55.150, 5.55.165, 5.55.220, and 5.55.230 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11132017_Res 31760 | Speaker 1: Okay. The bill passed and the chair will sign it upon the new language that will be presented to me in a few minutes. Okay. Okay. Report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 4: Every part of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee agenda item for resolution 317 60 relating to the state of public utilities. Adopting a 2018 through 2023 Strategic Business Plan Update for Seattle Public Utilities and addressing a six year rate path to support the strategic business plan. UPDATE The committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I'd first like to amend resolution 31760 by substitute doing version three. A four to a 4/2.
Speaker 9: Second.
Speaker 1: It's been moved in second to substitute version three for two a all those in favor of the amendment. Please vote i. I oppose. The ayes have it and Councilmember Herbert deserve the floor.
Speaker 6: All right, so it's been a while since I've talked about this and I was talking about weekly for a while there and briefings, meetings. The business plan is a six year outlook and guiding document for the utility. It's adjusted every three years to reflect the most accurate information about projects and cost and utility rates need to support those costs. The process begins with a nine member all volunteer customer review panel. They're appointed to act as the voice of the utility rate paying customer. During the planning and development stages of the Strategic Business Plan. The Customer Review Panel was appointed last September, met twice monthly with Seattle Public Utilities to work on a final recommendation, which they sent to the Council and mayor at the end of May, when the Seattle public utility started with that proposed combined rate increase that includes water, wastewater drainage and solid waste of an average of 6.8% increase in rates a year for for 2018 through 2023. Since then, they've worked, along with the committee to bring the possible rate increase estimates that they are that that we are proposing down to 5.4% in late May the well that was so that was the first round bringing it down to a consideration between 5.4 and 5.6. Then in late May, the utility sent out a postcard notifying customers of the planned rate hikes. Customers received that card in late June. The committee met three times since that card went out to discuss the the strategic business plan. During the final committee meeting, we considered and passed several amendments to bring the rate path down further, including assuming a more realistic SIP accomplish rate accomplishment rate, saving 1/10 of a percent, as well as requiring the institution of new system development charges to allow us to recoup 100% of the costs for new water taps. Sort of underlying the principle that growth should pay for growth that saved another 1/10 of a percent in rates. Additionally, in consultation with Councilmember Bagshaw and the utility, we we crafted an amendment to direct SPU to prepare an affordability and accountability plan which will be focused on managing future rate increases. Due to the combination of the amendments, the average average rate increase under the final proposal is down to 5.2%, with an expected additional 1/10 of a reduction in efficiencies that is pending an efficiency and productivity study expected next year. The reductions achieved in the final resolution amount to over 45 million and reduce spending by the utility over six years. In addition, the the Council bill that we'll discuss next will apply rate smoothing over the course of the entire six years so that rate payers will not experience a major increase within any given year.
Speaker 1: Thanks very much, Councilman Herbold. Are there any questions about this resolution? We have a bill coming up. We'll talk about that a little bit more there. Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 9: So I just want to flag for members of the public that we've added another section here, which I think is really critically important as we continue to try to do a good job of controlling costs. And I want to thank Director Hara and her team for working with us on this language. Since joining the council, I've supported Councilmember Herbold and several other of us in asking the mayor's office to do a better job of capital improvement, project oversight. And there's specific language in the resolution that we're poised to adopt that asks Seattle Public Utilities to go out and do a third party cost estimate to validate the work that they've done on projects that are greater than a $60 million threshold. And at our are at the 60% design mark. That will allow us to do a better job of basically planning those projects as they come to fruition and I hope will serve as an example to our other capital facilities departments about the kinds of work that we're expecting them to do to make sure that we avoid what has happened in the past, which is departments coming to us when they are 80% through construction of a project, but 100% through their budgeted process, and at which point we have no choice but to approve cost overruns in order to get to the completion of a project. That is an extremely frustrating position to be in as a policymaker, but one we found ourselves in in the past. I believe that this amended legislation will allow for a greater transparency for us as policymakers to better understand what those cost control items could be as we move forward. And just generally allows us to ask not just as Pew, but moving forward as state and city leaders or other major capital facilities departments to give us better data as decision makers. Self control costs.
Speaker 1: Thanks. Well stated. We're ready to vote on the resolution. Councilmember So on. Oh.
Speaker 3: Good. Oh, just a point of clarification. Is the 5.6% per year each year of the six years?
Speaker 6: It's now 5.2%.
Speaker 3: I suppose, over a.
Speaker 6: Six year period.
Speaker 3: Average over six years. Thank you.
Speaker 0: I want you to know my comments are in reference to this agenda item, which is the resolution that adopts the strategic business plan for Seattle Public Utilities and also in addition to items five through seven. And while my votes today will be consistent with how I voted in the past on utilities, strategic plans and rate ordinances, I do want to apologize to Councilmember Herbold, who's the chair of the committee, that I don't I don't believe we were able to let you know about these particular words. I apologize for that. But as before, as in the past, I do support the strategic plan and I will be voting yes on I didn't know, item number four because it funds necessary infrastructure. But as before, I do not support how it is going to be paid for. It is going to be paid for by increasing the burden on working people. So I intend to vote no on the rate ordinances in items 5 to 7, which will increase the rates for working families. Since I've taken office, I voted ons voted against such rate increases because I believe that the Council has an obligation to do everything in its power to put the rate increases on big businesses rather than on ordinary working people. Last year in Ireland, the government and the big business interests they represent tried to implement water charges on ordinary people. And what happened in response to that was an incredible mass movement that was led in part by the Socialist Party of Ireland. This mass movement was successful in stopping these water charges and they forced the government to withdraw them. I think water is a human right and it should be paid for by taxing big business. So I will be voting yes on item number four and no on items five through seven.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Swann. Okay, so we have a resolution in front of us I think we're ready to vote on. So those in favor of adopting the resolution as amended. Please vote i, i. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries and resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Before we introduce the next matter Council Bill 119083, as amended is now available for presentation a signature. And so the chair will sign the bill now that we have the revised language. Please read the next agenda item into the record. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION relating to Seattle Public Utilities; adopting a 2018-2023 Strategic Business Plan Update for Seattle Public Utilities; and endorsing a six-year rate path to support the Strategic Business Plan Update. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11132017_CB 119075 | Speaker 4: Agenda item five Constable 1190 75 relating to wastewater drainage services and public utilities, adjusting wastewater drainage raised amending sections 21.20 8.0 40 and 21.30 3.3 30. Spectra to reflect the adjusted rates and in many section 21.70 6.0 40 of the Senate, Mr. Code suggests credits to low income wastewater and drainage drainage customers. Can we recommend the bill pass?
Speaker 1: Customer Herbold.
Speaker 6: Thank you. This council bill relates specifically to wastewater and drainage services. I mentioned earlier that the strategic business plan covers various lines of business. This particular bill relates specifically to wastewater and drainage and it address address the wastewater and drainage rates in such a way that we allow ratepayers to not experience any unusually large increases over any of the six years. Specifically, the the technique that we're using is to maintain stable and predictable bills using a rates smoothing approach, increasing rates early in the cycle and decreasing them in out years in order to balance the trajectory of increases in the context of this update, rate, smoothing would require changing changing drainage and wastewater rates one year earlier than scheduled, and that makes sure that the very high rate increases can be reduced by 1.6 percentage points in 2020 and 2.3 percentage points I'm sorry, 1.6 percentage points in 2019 and 2.3 additional percentage points in 2020.
Speaker 1: So very good. So quite. So any questions on this council, Bill?
Speaker 9: Councilmember Johnson Not a question as much as a comment again. Councilmember Herbold, I really appreciate your work with me on this ordinance that allowed for additional expenditures to the Green Stormwater Infrastructure Fund. The city does a really good job with green stormwater infrastructure and is recognized as one of the national leaders on that project. But we only spent in the neighborhood of about $30 million over the life of the six years GAAP. The amendments that we adopted in committee associated with this bill, double the amount of available resources for GSI and I think are really going to be critical for us as a city as we really think about those triple bottom line investments that both create, the green pathways that we've all long supported on this dias through many council resolutions, but also create safer walking paths for people, create better jobs because of the maintenance associated with them, but also really do a lot to reduce the city's heat factor and increase the city's green factor. So it was a set of investments that I was proud to work with you on, and I'm grateful to you for your inclusion.
Speaker 1: Thank you. There. Okay. We're ready to vote. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Purple. Hi. Johnson by Suarez. O'Brien. Hi. So I know Big John. Hi. Harris tally I. Gonzalez I. President Harrell all right eight in favor one opposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passed and Cheryl sign it please read agenda item number six.
Speaker 6: For agenda item number six I'm sorry.
Speaker 4: Agenda item six cancel 1190 50. Relating to rates and charges for water services of Seattle Public Utilities authorizing withdraws from the Water Fund, Revenue Stabilization Fund, revising water rates and charges and credits to low income customers and amending certain sections. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to wastewater and drainage services of Seattle Public Utilities; adjusting wastewater and drainage rates; amending Sections 21.28.040 and 21.33.030 of the Seattle Municipal Code to reflect the adjusted rates; and amending Section 21.76.040 of the Seattle Municipal Code to adjust credits to low-income wastewater and drainage customers. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11132017_CB 119050 | Speaker 4: Agenda item six cancel 1190 50. Relating to rates and charges for water services of Seattle Public Utilities authorizing withdraws from the Water Fund, Revenue Stabilization Fund, revising water rates and charges and credits to low income customers and amending certain sections. 21.0 4.4. 30.4 40 and 21.7 6.0 41. To recommend single pass.
Speaker 1: That's why I'm here.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm just trying to get.
Speaker 3: Through this as quickly as possible.
Speaker 6: My apologies, Amelia. This is another bill that I actually need to move to amend. I moved to amend Council Bill 11 9050 by substitute substituting version two. A four. Version one a.
Speaker 1: Second. The second. Is there any discussion regarding the substitution we have to have? I think we're familiar with it. Okay. So I'm going to ask you.
Speaker 8: So this is just one more that. So.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Okay. So ask security. Next time we have an outburst like that, the person initiating is going to be asked to move. I'm going to I've asked you just stared there times where it might be appropriate or not. Right in the middle of our legislation. So you've been warned the next person who says to start channel massive security, have it removed, please. Thank you. So I can remember where I was now. So let's see, Councilmember. We're about ready to vote on the. Where where are we?
Speaker 6: I'm going to say what it is.
Speaker 1: Say what it is.
Speaker 3: Appreciate it.
Speaker 6: So this bill adjust rates to reflect amendments to the strategic plan and adjust the adopted rate path, including decreased rates due to higher wholesale water revenue and updated tap fees and connection charges. So this bill actually represents another dialing down of the rates as originally proposed through the the package of amendment legislation that implements the strategic business plan.
Speaker 1: Okay. So we have an amended and amended amendment to substitute version two, a41. All those in favor of the amendment please vote i. I opposed. The ayes have it. So we have a substantive version. Councilmember verbiage like say more.
Speaker 2: Do it.
Speaker 1: Please.
Speaker 6: I'm good.
Speaker 1: Okay, so we are ready to vote. Ready to vote? This is a council vote. Please, please, please stop. Please call the roll on the passage of the amended bill Herbold.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 2: Johnson. Suarez O'Brien.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 2: So y o bank. Sean Harris tally i Gonzalez I President Harrell I eight in favor one opposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passed and chair will sign it. One more read. Agenda item number seven. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to rates and charges for water services of Seattle Public Utilities; authorizing withdrawals from the Water Fund Revenue Stabilization Subfund; revising water rates and charges, and credits to low-income customers; and amending Seattle Municipal Code Sections 21.04.430, 21.04.440, and 21.76.040. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11132017_CB 119051 | Speaker 1: Bill passed and chair will sign it. One more read. Agenda item number seven.
Speaker 4: Agenda item seven Council Bill 1190 51 relating to water services the of public utilities, revising water rates and charges for service to wholesale customers and amending settings. The Code Section 21.0 40.4 48 in connection there with the committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 1: Council Member Herbold Thank you.
Speaker 6: Council Bill 11 9051 relates to water services of Seattle Public Utilities, revising rates. No changes to the proposed bill. I do want to take an opportunity to thank Director Mommie Hara and Bob Hennessey in the in the audience. I appreciate their their patience with me through this process. And I know that the length of this process has created some uncertainty and consternation on their part. I was really just trying to create more savings to drive the rates down and just really try to leave no stone left unturned. And I really appreciate the cooperation that they gave me throughout the entire process in allowing me to do that. Thank you.
Speaker 1: I just wanted to call that. Thank you for being here, Mr. Hennessy. Mr. Chen. Ms.. Hora. We have superstars over there protecting our ratepayers and making sure that we are conserving and doing all the right things. So thank you for your leadership. Are you ready to vote? Yes. Ready and ready to 23. Please call the roll on the passage of the Bill Herbal.
Speaker 2: Hi, Johnson. Suarez O'Brien. All right, so what? No, thanks. John Harris. Tally Gonzalez I President Harrell. All right. Eight in favor one opposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passed show sign it I believe we've come to the end of our agenda. Are there is there any further business to come before the council? If not, we stand adjourned and we will we will reconvene in 5 minutes. 5 minutes for our passport back. Thank you. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to water services of Seattle Public Utilities; revising water rates and charges for service to wholesale customers; and amending Seattle Municipal Code Section 21.04.440 in connection therewith. | SeattleCityCouncil |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.