meeting_id
stringlengths 27
37
| source
stringlengths 596
386k
| type
stringlengths 4
42
| reference
stringlengths 75
1.1k
| city
stringclasses 6
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
SeattleCityCouncil_01092017_CB 118888
|
Speaker 2: Agenda item five. Constable 118888. Relating to the sale of city real property for multifamily development, declaring the property.
Speaker 6: Located at 12705 30th Avenue, Northeast surplus to the city's.
Speaker 2: Needs and authorizing its sale to the Low Income Housing Institute or his designee, and authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services to execute and deliver the contract for transfer of land, deed and related documents. Committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 3: House Member Burgess Thank you. This is Fire Station 39, the old location out in Lake City. And we have a little procedural matter that we're going to take care of first. Substitute version of this bill, which Councilmember Herbold is going to speak to.
Speaker 1: Concerning her vote.
Speaker 6: I move to amend Council Bill 11 8888 by substituting version eight for version seven.
Speaker 1: Second spot, moved in second to substitute version eight for version seven. All those in favor say I. I oppose. The ayes have it. So we have a substitute bill.
Speaker 2: May I speak to the changes? Yes. Should I wait?
Speaker 1: I assume people knew of it. We've already had it voted. But why don't you tell us what we just voted on? Okay.
Speaker 6: The changes reflected in the substitute recognize the council's role in moving this project forward dating back to 2011. The original bill, as proposed, did not have a recognition of the resolution passed in 2011 Resolution 30862, which directed the Office of Housing and the Finance and Administrative Services Department to look at the suitability of the the property. The 2011 resolution that actually required that was resolution 31292, which required that the Office of Housing consider this particular site as a a site for meeting shelter needs in the city. And then later in 2012, there's reference now in the ordinance recognizing that statement of legislative intent, requesting that the executive develop a proposal for the future development of Fire Station 29. Now, instead of long term shelter, the focus was on long term housing for low income or for formerly homeless individuals or families. And then in 2013, the Council earmarked $950,000 in funding to support specifically the capital costs associated with the the activation of the ground floor space that would be would provide services desired by the community, which then turned out to be child care services. And then finally, the recognition that the city has year after year moved these for these funds forward without reallocating them for for another purpose, with the idea that it might take some time to get the disposition of this property in line with what the the Council and the Executive had hoped this property's use would be would be ultimately determined to be.
Speaker 1: A considerable concern.
Speaker 3: BURGESS Thank you. This legislation specifically declares this property surplus to the city's needs and authorize authorizes its transfer to the Low Income Housing Institute for Affordable Housing and Child Care and Preschool Services. It authorizes the Director of Finance and administrative services to execute and deliver a contract for transfer of the land deed and related documents. Lehigh has agreed to construct a six storey mixed use building with 70 units of affordable housing. These units will serve people with area median income of 60% or less. It will also include 15 one bedroom units 25 two bedroom units, five three bedroom units, five open one bedroom units and 20 studio units. So definitely for many of these units are suitable for family housing, these units must remain affordable, affordable for 50 years. There will be four preschool classrooms in the building on the first floor that will serve up to 80 children. These classrooms will be run by the Refugee Women's Alliance as part of the Seattle Preschool Program. And the idea is that this building will be ready for occupancy in September of 2018. We heard public comment today that the city did not follow its normal process for disposition of property. And so I just want to address that very briefly. In March of 2012, OFAC sent out 1550 neighborhood notices soliciting comments on Fire Station 39 and potential uses for the property as either homeless shelter, housing or low income housing. There were 219 separate comments received as a result of this early feedback from the community. The Director of Planning and Development embarked on a several year process, working with the community to develop an acceptable proposal for a redevelopment of the old fire station 39 site. In March of 2016, FAA sent out additional notices on disposition of the property, explaining the work that had been done and explaining that the property would be used for low income housing for families and a preschool. This notice was sent to all residents and property owners within 1000 feet of the property as well as anyone, any individual organization or agencies who had commented on the earlier notice. The second notice garnered garnered zero responses consistent with the city's surplus property disposition policies. FAA has issued a notice in the Daily Journal of Commerce on December 14 and 15, announcing a public hearing on the final disposition. That hearing was held on January four, 2017, at 930 in the morning. The committee held the public hearing and then voted on this action that we are acting on today. All of the city's normal policies and process for the disposal of surplus property were followed in this case.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Any further comments from any of my colleagues? Councilmember suarez.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I just want to add some comments and thank the council member for Council Member Licata and of course Council member. I just forgot Lisa's last name. Herbold And the people that worked to this, of course, Councilmember Burgess. I'm incredibly excited to vote to approve the transfer of Fire Station 39 to the Low Income Housing Institute for Development of Affordable Housing and a new preschool. The homes created on this site will house 70 families making at or below 60% of the area. Median income people making 60% of AMI are often people in our service sector, grocery workers and other food service employees, nonprofit professionals like the preschool teachers who will be running the programs on the ground floor of this building. These are the people that make the comforts we value most in our communities possible. The preschool on the ground floor of the building will be funded using the Seattle Preschool Levy dollars and will provide for classrooms serving up to 80 children. I'm very happy to see that the Refugee Women's Alliance Rewa as a provider for this new school as North Seattle becomes a hotspot for growth, having affordable housing like this new building will ensure that people can work, play and live in the communities of their choice. As in North Seattle, particularly District five has become more diverse in recent years. Having organizations and having organizations that are culturally responsible. Responsive, I'm sorry. Like where you are physically located in the community is more important than ever. At the recent North Scale Human Service Summit, the first of its kind in the North End on December 6th. The providers talked about the need for place based services and services that reflect the community. I'm sorry, services that reflect the community. This is a great example of the city making investments to support the establishment of the very resources we know people want and need. The most high quality preschool has been proven to be the deepest impact on children and children's leaders success and stability in life. This is an asset that will continue to pay back pay back to the public in ways we may not even realize today. This is a great use of public land, and I'm happy to vote yes on this bill today. And as a resident of the North and particularly Lake City way for 30 years, I can say that the neighbors, the communities were aware of the growth and the planning that went into and are happy and are welcoming of this facility in Lake City, way in District five. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Whereas Councilman Burgess, more comments. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Just finally, this is, as I said in committee last week, this is a win win. We have a great new fire station right next door and that's serving of the Lake City area in northeast Seattle. We have affordable housing going in an area where it's clearly needed. But it's really gratifying to me that the city pressed hard to make sure we had preschool classrooms here. We have a shortage of preschool classrooms in North Seattle. This is going to address that. But this is a model that I hope the city will take to other parts of the city where we are able to serve a variety of public purposes, from affordable housing to taking care of our kids and making sure that they have the strong and fair start that they deserve. So to others in the city government who deal with disposition of city property, please look at this as a model for what we might do with the other parcels in the city that we don't need for our basic core city services, but could be used for something like we're seeing here at the old fire station 39 site.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Any further comments? Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I just want to thank Councilmember Burgess Town Council central staff for working with me to revise a few of the recitals. I just think it's really important that the city tell the full story of projects like this. This was a project that took six years from from inception to bring to fruition. And I also want to thank my former boss, former Councilmember Lakota, for his vigilance on this project. He went to countless community meetings and heard many, many concerns. I had a lot of fun reading from a 2012 Urban Politics, his his newsletter, where he very wisely stated that facts alone were not going to change the minds of people who had concerns. And he was right. It was involvement of the community in in the process of of making this final decision that really, really made a difference. So with that, I also want to thank the seven or eight different city departments that were that were involved in bringing this forward. And again, thank both the previous councils, as well as the executive in making sure that we continue to earmark the funds that were later that will be now used for the implementation of the child care facility downstairs. Funds that the Council had. Many years before, and I'm sure there were many uses that would have been great uses for that. But we stayed true to what our original goals were, and that's fantastic when the city can do that.
Speaker 1: Very good. Please call the role on the passage of the amended bill. 118888.
Speaker 7: Swan I.
Speaker 2: Burgess.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Gonzalez. I. Purple High Johnson. Suarez O'Brian.
Speaker 6: High President Harrell.
Speaker 2: High seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passes and the chair will sign it. And before we go to the next agenda, item number six from Councilman Burgess. Councilmember Johnson had a personal family situation that he forewarned me is going to have to do with 315 not knowing when it was going to occur. He knew he had to leave. So he will be missing the remainder of this. And we wish him well on his personal obligation. Please read. Agenda item number six into the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the sale of City real property for multifamily development; declaring the property located at 12705 30th Avenue Northeast surplus to the City’s needs and authorizing its sale to the Low Income Housing Institute or its designee; and authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services to execute and deliver the contract for transfer of land, deed, and related documents.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_01032017_CB 118880
|
Speaker 0: Get the bill passed and Cheryl sign it please read the report of the Parks Seattle Center, Libraries and Waterfront Committee.
Speaker 3: The Report of the Park Status on our Libraries and Waterfront Committee Agenda Item one Constable 1188 880 relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation authorizing acquisition of real property coming soon as 4451 33rd Avenue West authorizing acceptance and recording of the deed for open space, park recreation purposes and my phone confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, councilmember suarez.
Speaker 3: Thank you. As I shared this morning, this is through the department of parks and recreation is seeking to acquire a 4400 square foot property for sale of $150,000. And I added that this is an environmentally significant area that is home to Blue Herons and the committee recommends the full council pass the bill.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Are there any further comments on this bill or questions? If not, please call the rule on the passage of the Bill O'Brien Salon.
Speaker 2: I beg Sean Burgess Gonzalez Morris Herbold Item President Harrell eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you to bill passed and chair assignment please read the agenda item number two.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation; authorizing the acquisition of real property commonly known as 4451 33rd Avenue W; authorizing acceptance and recording of the deed for open space, park, and recreation purposes; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_12172018_CB 119430
|
Speaker 5: The report of the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee. Agenda Item one Council Bill 119430. An ordinance amending ordinance 125493, which amended the 2018 budget, including the 2018 to 2023 Capital Improvement Program. The committee recommends the City Council pass as amended the Council bill.
Speaker 0: Great, cause we're in big shock.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. I'm pleased to bring you the fourth quarter supplemental budget. This is an ordinance that provides expenditure authority for us to use the grants that we have accepted and for other budget revisions that are requested by various departments. The net operation appropriations increase in this quarter is approximately 85.5 million, of which 18 million is of general fund. Of the amounts, about $12 million is backed by four new grants, and about 788,000 is backed by reimbursement for other new revenues. And in addition to providing appropriations for previously described grant funded projects, the bill would authorize increased operation appropriations totaling $39.7 million. I know you guys were all excited about that.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: Is that all you'd like to say?
Speaker 4: That's all I'd like to say. I have a hundred pages more, if you'd like that, but I thought you'd appreciate just the summary.
Speaker 0: We appreciate any comments or questions concerning Herbold.
Speaker 6: I just want to make note of one of the projects in the first quarter up on the earth. Third course, fourth quarter supplemental is the Duwamish Waterway Park Improvements. And this is something that came up a couple months ago because of anticipated funding from the Parks Department not coming through of about $100,000. This is a grant except well, for later on, we'll be talking about a grant acceptance associated with this inclusion in the fourth quarter supplemental. But I also want to just make note, because of the concern a couple of months ago about not receiving the parks fund funding, that we looked into this and found that the $950,000 associated with this project does not require a match from the Parks Department. So a lot of people were nervous that not getting the funds from the department was going to slow up this project and have an impact on our ability to accept these grant funds.
Speaker 0: Thanks for making that point. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Herbold Councilmember Herbold, was there any further follow up action you needed from parks or from another department to make sure that?
Speaker 6: Thanks for checking about that. I know that the Parks Department and some other departments are continuing to work to fully fund the budget associated with this this project. I'm confident that that will happen. My main concern was that we might I was people were worried that we may not be able to accept this funding without the funding from the Parks Department. I'm determined that's not the case. So I'm just speaking to this allowed in case there are folks listening so that they can they can have that reassurance that they can continue to work with the city for the rest of the funding.
Speaker 4: Nice.
Speaker 0: Very good. Okay. No further comments. Please call the rule on the passage of the Bill O'Brien.
Speaker 1: Lakeshore High. Gonzalez Herbold. Hi Johnson. Whereas I President Harrell high seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passes and the chair of Senate. So at this point I would excuse Councilmember Walsh from the remainder of today's meeting. So I'll make a formal motion that we excuse Councilmember Waters for the remainder of today's meetings and their second. Any comments? All those in favor of the motion. Please vote. I opposed. The ayes have it. Councilmember worse. You are officially excused. Thank you for participating.
Speaker 1: I think I'm just going to sit here and watch you guys on TV. It's kind of fun.
Speaker 0: Okay, you can do that.
Speaker 2: You can't vote.
Speaker 0: You can't vote anymore. Okay, please call the next agenda item.
Speaker 5: Agenda item two Council Bill 119421. An ordinance relating to city employment, commonly referred to as the fourth quarter 2018 Employment Ordinance. The committee recommends the bill pass transparent back.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 125493, which amended the 2018 Budget (Ordinance 125475), including the 2018-2023 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various funds in the Budget; adding new projects; revising project allocations for certain projects in the 2018-2023 CIP; creating exempt positions; lifting a proviso; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_12172018_CB 119421
|
Speaker 5: Agenda item two Council Bill 119421. An ordinance relating to city employment, commonly referred to as the fourth quarter 2018 Employment Ordinance. The committee recommends the bill pass transparent back.
Speaker 4: Thank you. This is another one of those items that comes before us regularly. This time we're designating nine positions as exempt from the civil service system. A number of those positions have already been filled and multiples in our OSCE, we talked about during budget, the Human Resources Department, a couple of the strategic advisors are already filled and we recommend do pass.
Speaker 0: Okay, good. Any questions or comments that please call the role on the passage of the Bill O'Brien.
Speaker 1: Right. Bakeshop. Hi. Gonzalez Herbold. Hi. Johnson President Herrell I six in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passes and chair of the Senate. Please read agenda item number three. You can shorten the title if you like.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment, commonly referred to as the Fourth Quarter 2018 Employment Ordinance; designating positions as exempt from the civil service system; and amending Sections 4.13.010 and 4.24.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code; all by a 2/3 vote of the City Council.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_12172018_CB 119429
|
Speaker 5: Agenda item for Council Bill 119429 An ordinance relating to fees charged by the Seattle Animal Shelter and amending Chapter nine point to six of the Seattle Municipal Code to make technical corrections. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 4: You will not believe how easy this is compared to the last one. The legislation makes technical corrections to the tight budget that we passed last month and will make penalties consistent across all species. Dog. Cat. Miniature pig, potbellied pig. And round the cat. License fees up to $26 instead of down to $25 and make the gold flash card discount consistent 50% off rather than rounded to the nearest dollar.
Speaker 1: That's it.
Speaker 0: Okay. Any comments? All right. Please call the roll on the passage of council. Bill 119429.
Speaker 2: O'BRIEN Hi.
Speaker 1: Bagshaw Hi. Gonzalez Herbold. Hi. Johnson President. Herald All right. Six in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Very good. The bill passed and show the Senate. Finally, something to sign. Okay. Please read. Please read the next agenda item.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to fees charged by the Seattle Animal Shelter; and amending Chapter 9.26 of the Seattle Municipal Code to make technical corrections.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_12172018_CB 119414
|
Speaker 5: Agenda item five Council Bill 119414. An Ordinance relating to Historic Preservation Imposing controls upon the University of Washington Canoe House, ASU Double Shell House, 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. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. So the University of Washington can you house. Also known as the AC UW Shell House built in 1918. The original building was part of the naval training station on the UW campus during World War One, and it later served as the Shell House for the UW Rowing from 1918, where it was used in til 1950 to house the UW powerhouse and Olympic gold medal winning rowing team. 1948 London Olympics. I am very pleased to be able to nominate this and as many of you know, the book Boys in the Boat has an opportunity once again to be filmed here at the University of Washington. And having the Shell house in that area as part of the movie is something I hope we can accomplish. So we recommend moving forward with this landmark designation.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any questions on the Council bill that please call the rule on the passage of the Bill O'Brien.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Bagshaw. Hi. Gonzalez Herbold. Hi. Johnson by President Harrell. I six in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read the next agenda item. The full agenda item slowly.
Speaker 5: Agenda item six Council Bill 119418 An Ordinance relating to Historic Preservation Imposing controls upon the Japanese Language School, 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.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to historic preservation; imposing controls upon the University of Washington Canoe House/ASUW Shell House, 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_12172018_CB 119422
|
Speaker 5: Agenda Item number seven Council Bill 119422 An Ordinance relating to historic preservation, imposing controls upon the Idris nurse's home, 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. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Councilmember, please. We're getting something. Okay, very good. Thank you. So this is a beautiful building up on Queen Anne. It was built in 1923. The property first house, the nurses home from the Children's Orthopedic Hospital Hospital was founded in 1907 by the Women's Hospital Association to provide medical care to children regardless of their ability to pay. This is a building that is still being used. I believe it's housed in the American Cancer Society since the 1980s, and we recommend that this be added to the landmark status.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the Bill O'Brien Lecture.
Speaker 1: Hi. Gonzalez. Herbold. Hi. Johnson President Harrell. Hi. Six in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read. Agenda items eight through 17.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to historic preservation; imposing controls upon the Edris Nurses Home, 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_12172018_CB 119412
|
Speaker 5: Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee Council Bill 119412. An ordinance relating to Seattle Public Utilities, excepting easements granted to the City of Seattle for installation, operation and maintenance of hydrants, water mains, domestic meter vaults, fire service meters and AP contents is necessary for water utility purposes at various locations in Seattle, placing the property rights and interests conveyed by the local easements under the jurisdiction of Seattle public utilities and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I'm enjoying how slowly we're all talking. So the first bill counts. The bill, 11 9412 accepts easements granted to the city of Seattle for installation, operation, maintenance of hydrants, water mains, domestic meter vaults, fire service meters and other appurtenances necessary for water utility purposes at various locations throughout Seattle. And the legislation itself does not have a fiscal impact at no cost to the city. And so with that, I move passage of Council Bill 11 9412. But.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any questions or comments on this bill? If not, please call the role on the passage of the Bill O'Brien Lecture.
Speaker 1: Gonzales, Herbold II. Johnson, President Harrell I six in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed and chair Senate.
Speaker 6: In Council 11.
Speaker 0: 9497 read into the record.
Speaker 6: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you read the both in the record together. My apologies.
Speaker 0: Please read the item number 19 into the record. And let me. The bill passed in. Show us. Please read religion 19 a record. Rhythms of today's.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; accepting easements granted to The City of Seattle for installation, operation, and maintenance of hydrants, water mains, domestic meter vaults, fire service meters, and appurtenances necessary for water utility purposes at various locations in Seattle; 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_12172018_CB 119419
|
Speaker 5: Agenda Item 19 Council Bill 119419 An ordinance relating to Seattle Public Utilities declaring certain real property rights related relating to sewer and storm drain easements within Seattle as being surplus to city utility needs. Authorizing the director of the Seattle Public Utilities to relinquish such easement rights and to accept new easements, 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. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 6: Thank you. So Council Bill 11 9419 authorizes Seattle Public Utilities to relinquish five drainage utility easements and accept five easements, again at no cost to the city to operate rescue facilities such as storm sewers, storm sewers or sewer lines within private property. The city requires easements for access, operations and maintenance. With that third and fourth questions, I move Council Bill 11 9419.
Speaker 4: Second. Okay. I think that our council president is coming back.
Speaker 1: To call the role.
Speaker 0: Comments or concerns are ready to vote. Okay, please call the role on the passage of the Bill O'Brien.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: BAGSHAW Hi, Gonzales. HERBOLD Hi. JOHNSON President Perot. All right. Six and favorite and opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes in the Senate. So please read agenda items 29. Number 20.
Speaker 5: Agenda item 20 Appointment 1173. The appointment of Delia Conner as member Seattle Woman's Commission for a term to July 1st, 2020. The committee recommends the appointment be confirmed.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; declaring certain real property rights relating to sewer and storm drain easements within Seattle as being surplus to City utility needs; authorizing the Director of Seattle Public Utilities to relinquish such easement rights and to accept new easements; 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_12172018_CB 119431
|
Speaker 5: The Report of the Gender Equity Safe Communities, New Americans and Education Committee Agenda Item 26 Council Bill 119431 An ordinance relating to the Seattle Fire Department authorizing the fire chief to execute and administer for one for and on behalf of the City of Seattle and Interlocal agreement with 29 agencies that operate independent fire departments within King County to provide one another with automatic emergency response services under certain circumstances. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Kathryn Gonzalez.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Council President This ordinance authorizes the fire chief for the Seattle Fire Department to execute and administer an interim local agreement with 29 agencies operating independent fire departments within King County. This ALA allows the individual fire departments listed in the agreement to provide each other with fire, rescue and emergency services during emergent situations when those jurisdictions are stretched beyond their capacity. One example of this situation occurred on November 10th, 2018, when there was a four alarm fire at a lumber yard near the ship canal in Queen Anne. During that incident, almost all Seattle Fire Department resources were on the scene, and Chief Scoggins was able to call on partnering jurisdictions to have some of their trucks and firefighters backfill in neighborhoods throughout Seattle and respond to the various other nine on one calls so that the fire department could address the four alarm fire. Fire chief has been in discussions with the other 29 jurisdictions on this agreement for the past year, and this new ALA would supersede existing automatic or mutual aid agreements that have been in effect between these fire agencies and the committee by unanimous vote recommends that the full council adopt Council Bill 119431.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the Bill O'Brien.
Speaker 1: Make sure I Gonzales, i herbold II Johnson, President Harrell II six in favor of an opposed bill.
Speaker 0: Passed and shared with Senate. Please read items 27 through 37.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Fire Department; authorizing the Fire Chief to execute and administer, for and on behalf of The City of Seattle, an interlocal agreement with 29 agencies that operate independent fire departments within King County to provide one another with automatic emergency response services under certain circumstances.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_12102018_CB 119426
|
Speaker 6: Agenda item two Council Bill 119426 An ordinance relating to land use and zoning granting conditional approval of the University of Washington 2018 Seattle Campus Master Plan and amending Chapter 23.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code at Pages 61, 62, 63, 77, 77, 80, 80 and 81 of the official land use map. The committee recommends the bill pass as amended.
Speaker 0: That's from Johnson.
Speaker 4: Okay. So this council bill in the next court file following it are related to the two and a half year major institution master plan process that the University of Washington Seattle campus has been undergoing with us. We as a council have a and the city have a particular agreement with the University of Washington. And we've been doing this dance on that agreement to today. And today is the final set of actions that are necessary in order to get our version of this council bill across the finish line. So I want to start by just talking about what is in here and what it will do, and then ask people if they have any questions or thoughts and then will conclude from there. So in response to the rapid growth of the city, the University of Washington submitted to this council a draft master plan and following input a final master plan which then went to the city's hearings. Examiner and the City University Community Advisory Committee. All those bodies of individuals, including the Department of Construction and inspections, weighed in on the proposal and the hearings. Examiner held a hearing with all the parties of record, which included several folks from the community. The hearings examiner then recommended adoption of the major institution master plan to the council with some conditions, and then the Council added some important conditions. One of those was requiring the University of Washington to provide 300 units of affordable housing at 80% ami on top of 150 units that the hearings examiner had conditioned to reduce the drive alone rate to the University of Washington from 15% to 12%, with some interim goals tied to the opening of light rail stations to include parking associated with residence halls and caps on parking spaces, and to lower that parking cap to require showers, bike parking and trail widening and pedestrian separation on the human trail to work on exempting child care space from gross floor area cap some individual zoning of some individual parcels that are close to the light rail stations, the support of using priority hire and contracting, exempting small businesses from floor area caps and encouraging the diversity of retail ownership on campus as well as best practices for reducing stormwater runoff. That was in our resolution that we adopted in September. That resolution then allows for a sort of back and forth between all the parties of record. And then a bunch of additional comments came to us in December for consideration and a committee last week. The Committee of the Planning Leaders and Zoning Committee recognized that the University of Washington is planning to provide those 450 units of affordable housing. Nearby Transit asked that the University of Washington build affordable housing and included a range of unit types and commit to a long term affordability within those units of affordable housing. Request the child care be incorporated into those units. Request that the bicycle parking and childcare voucher programs be analyzed by the University of Washington and request an annual report on topics of interest to the Council and other stakeholders. We also had some additional discussion and debate on some heights of buildings, again by the light rail station. With all those changes made. The committee voted unanimously to approve the master plan process. And following that approval, the this then goes to the University of Washington Board of Regents for their approval should they approve. We are done. So do not approved. No one has any idea what happens next. But let's return from our council. Central staff has ably navigated us through this quasi judicial matter for the last two and a half years. And as a. Read literally thousands and thousands of pages of documents. And to him, we are eternally grateful because quasi judicial processes don't allow for us to have any negotiation with any parties of record, including the University of Washington or any of the appellants, which mean that we have to have all of our conversations out here in the public audience, which requires a lot of time and energy on this part to make sure that we are doing all of that appropriately and also really understanding all the issues that are on and off the record. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions that folks may have opening up for other comments that people might want to make, and then happy to add a few final closing remarks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Katherine Johnson. Any comments or questions from any of our colleagues on the council? Okay. Customers want.
Speaker 3: Thank you, President Harrell. I will be voting in favor of this ordinance because I do not oppose the expansion of UW and there are some smaller benefits for the public built into the plan as the University of Washington negotiated this expansion. However, what has been most noticeable is the total disinterest on the part of the YouTube administration and the state politicians that they report to to invest in the needs of the workers in the community that make YouTube run. When our movement one of $15 an hour minimum wage four years ago, the YouTube administration first tried to say that it did not apply to them until students and workers of YouTube build a movement to force them to back down, which they succeeded in. Now the YouTube administration is attempting to privatize the hospital laundry, eliminating over 100 good unionized jobs. And we have to note that most of those jobs are being held right now by immigrant people, many of them women of color. I attended an electrifying rally of hundreds of workers at YouTube last Thursday where workers told you the president un-American to say in no uncertain terms that they will no longer tolerate her near million dollar salary while she guts their jobs and continues to hold their pay hostage in such a way that many of them have had stagnating living standards. The administration forces the workers to go on strike, as they said very clearly at that rally, to get a decent living. Then I will be standing with them. And it was also important that UAW Local 4121, the Union campus union that represents the graduate students, were also there in solidarity with the Rosie unions and said that if the U.S. unions went on strike, they would honor the picket line. The Europe administration has also totally disregarded the need for affordable housing for students and workers. This legislation authorizes YouTube's next phase of growth over the next ten years. It authorizes 6 million square footage of development with an additional 35,000 students, 1900 staff and 840 faculty. So you would think they intend to build tens of thousands of units of affordable housing to accommodate that growth. And you would think the city of Seattle would demand something on the scale of thousands. However, the university is even resisting developing 450 new units of affordable housing, which is really a paltry number when you consider the actual need. The university currently employs close to 29,000 workers and has more than 43,000 students. When the UAW surveyed academic student employees last fall, they found that fully 82% of them were rent burdened, and on average they were spending 44% of their income on housing. We know that other workers, like the thousands of youth, laundry workers, food service workers, office staff, gardening staff are adjunct and part time faculty custodians and many other workers are in similarly perilous economic straits, even though this is a supposedly world class university with, you know, really fabulous salaries to the executives at the top. The university is failing its students and all its tens of thousands of staff, and even more so, it is failing to meet its social obligations to the entire Seattle community. Many youth workers and students are forced to make choices between rent, food, medicine and other necessities. The growth and expansion of this public university is very good. Our society needs a greater commitment to education and human knowledge. However, if it is not accompanied by a massive commitment to affordable housing, that education will not be available for all. An institution like U Dub with a budget of 8 billion per year with 400 executives, can build more than 450 units of affordable housing over ten years. I should also mention that the behavior of the UTEP administration is actually no different than the majority of the city council and the mayor of the city who have failed to address the problem of affordable housing. And in this preceding budget, the majority of this Council voted against 11 separate amendments for affordable housing that were brought forward from my office and the people's budget movement. I will be voting yes on this UTEP expansion because the expansion of public education is a good thing. But I also urge workers at UW and ordinary people in Seattle who want to have an affordable city and an affordable campus community to continue building, building a movement to demand affordable housing for all, to save the youth laundry workers jobs, to fight for a decent contract for all the unions at your dub, and to stand in solidarity with the unions if they decide to go on strike.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman, for those words. Any other comments from any of my colleagues, Councilman Johnson, you want to. So some closing words.
Speaker 4: Just briefly, all I wanted to remind my colleagues of a couple of things that we've done leading up to today. A couple of years ago, we adopted the mandatory housing affordability rezoning in the University District, which is both resulting in new market redevelopment that is desperately needed in the neighborhood, as well as new funding for affordable housing . The $13 million that the city is planning to distribute through our notice of funding availability that has resulted from a major at least 4 million of that has come from projects in the University District. More of those projects will come online, which will mean more units and more funding for affordable housing. We've got a one light rail station open in the neighborhood now. We've got one set to open in the next couple of years, and we've got a university that stands out as not just a state's flagship university and as an educational driver, but an economic driver here, too. I believe this master plan lays out a bold vision for how we can continue to expand economic opportunity for folks at all income levels and recognizes the impact that the university has on its neighbors and asks them to be equitable in sharing those responsibilities about things like affordable housing, infrastructure, investments like the protected bike lanes, and reducing its single occupancy vehicle rates from something far below what it is today. You know, for me, I am really proud to have spent so much time and energy working on this, but it's a team effort. We already highlighted the work of Woodson, but I think I should also mention Spencer Williams and his successor Noah on for helping us to shepherd this issue across the finish line. This continues to be a quasi judicial matter. So even after the council votes on this today, we are required to continue to maintain a quasi judicial ex-parte communications until all of the potential avenues for appeal are concluded. So we may have many folks in the audience celebrating action today. We are prohibited from celebrating along with them until all the avenues are closed. And I know that nobody other than a very small Venn diagram overlap here of folks that care about land use and care about football would say this or maybe would care, but hopefully this passage today is a good omen for things to come when the Rose Bowl happens in just a couple of weeks. So with that, I'm happy to ask for my council colleagues to support Council Bill 119426.
Speaker 0: Very good. No further comments. Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Macheda O'Brien Swan I. Bagshaw High Johnson President Harrow High six in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read the clerk file into the record.
Speaker 6: Agenda item three Clerk File 314346. Application of the University of Washington to prepare a new major institution master plan for the University of Washington Seattle campus at 4015 Avenue. Northeast Project Number 3023261 Type four. The committee recommends the application be granted as conditioned.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; granting conditional approval of the University of Washington 2018 Seattle Campus Master Plan; and amending Chapter 23.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) at pages 61, 62, 63, 77, 78, 79, 80, and 81 of the Official Land Use Map.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_12102018_CF 314387
|
Speaker 0: Bill passed chair of Senate. Please read agenda item number eight.
Speaker 6: Agenda item eight. Clerk File 314387. The petition gives me the petition of Seattle City Light for the vacation of a portion of Broad Street between Harrison Street and Taylor Avenue North. The committee recommends the petition be granted as condition.
Speaker 0: Jasmine O'Brien.
Speaker 4: Thank you. So this is the opposite end of the street vacation process. The one we just did was at the very end where we pass an ordinance to finally approve everything that's been done. What we're doing on this agenda item for Seattle City Light is before they've done any of the actual work, we're granting conceptual approval to what they propose to do so that they could get the street vacation. This is a relatively small portion of a property often known as the Broad Street Substation. It's near the Seattle Center satellite. See Light has a substation there and Broad Street runs adjacent to it. All of Broad Street is being vacated in different pieces as we that street is no longer used as part of the redo from Mercer Avenue and the new tunnel that's going to be opening. This is a little portion adjacent to the substation that they would like to use to expand the facility a little bit. In exchange, they're proposing to provide public benefit in terms of upgrading some of the public right away to have a little more pedestrian friendly environment and some more green space there.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any questions on this, this file? If not those in favor of granting the position the petition. Please vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries, the petition is granted and the chair will sign the conditions of the City Council. Please read agenda items nine through 14 together.
|
Clerk File (CF)
|
Petition of Seattle City Light, for the vacation of portion of Broad Street, between Harrison Street and Taylor Avenue North.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_12102018_CB 119359
|
Speaker 6: Agenda Item 16 Council Bill 119359 An ordinance relating to the satellite department authorizing the general manager and chief executive officer of satellite to execute an agreement with the City of Bothell for relocation of approximately 87.87 mile of existing fiber cable 157 along S.R. 522 from Ariel to underground as part of the City of Bottles. S.R. 522 Stage three Improvement Project, including the execution of other agreements or amendments necessary or convenient for the completion of the Joint Utility Trench. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Cassowary Mosquito.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. And I was remiss in not mentioning as well the work of Asha and Patricia from central staff who really helped to pull together this final piece of legislation. So if you're still listening. Thank you, Asha. Patricia, on the previous item on this piece of legislation, council bill 119359. This legislation authorizes the city light to participate in an agreement with the City of Bothell and seven other utilities moving arterial communication lines to below green as part of the beautification efforts that Bothell is making alongside State Route 522. The total cost to City Light for their share of the work is approximately $282,000. I would encourage the Council to vote yes as we've vetted this and discuss it in committee.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Any questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Well, Sarah, I. O'BRIEN All right. So why don't I make sure. JOHNSON President Harrell high six in favor and then oppose the.
Speaker 0: Bill pass and show sign it. Please read a June item 17 through 22.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; authorizing the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of City Light to execute an agreement with the City of Bothell for relocation of approximately 0.87 mile of existing Fiber Cable 157 along SR 522 from aerial to underground as part of the City of Bothell’s SR 522 Stage 3 Improvement Project, including the execution of other agreements or amendments necessary or convenient for the completion of the joint utility trench.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_12032018_Res 31857
|
Speaker 5: The Report of the City Council Agenda Item one Resolution 31857. A resolution granting conceptual approval of a significant structured term permit to Seattle Arena Company LLC to construct, maintain and operate a tunnel under and across Thomas Street, east of First Avenue, north and west of Warren Avenue North, to enable the renovation of Key Arena at the Seattle Center, introduced November 26, 2018.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. I'll sort of introduce the matter and if any of my colleagues have has anything to add, please just sort of jump in. So this is a resolution, as you may recall, we had a select committee on Civic Arena is meeting just this morning to sort of talk about it. In short, gives a conceptual approval for what's called a significant structure term permit to the Seattle Arena Company. And I think if you're following the news at all, we know that what's happening in a key arena is an exciting project. And this basically allows the the developers and the city to proceed down a path of conceptual approval for a tunnel that will be used for the final structure. There will be another ordinance forthcoming tentatively scheduled around the first quarter of next year that will actually the permit part of the process. And between then and now, the city will be involved in the development of that with the Seattle the Seattle Arena Company, LLC. So basically, again, it's just a conceptual approval to keep going down that path. And as one of the co-chairs of the Civic Arena Committee, we recommend approval of the resolution. Any questions or comments? I'm going to have to make a an amendment to it. That's just a technical name. And I'll do that in a second. Unless there's any questions. Any questions on the base resolution? No, go ahead, Councilmember.
Speaker 2: I'll just I want to tell you how supportive I am of this. Thank you all for being here, all four of my colleagues. Thank you. To those of you who have been working on this for over a year and a half, I'm very pleased that our neighborhood has come together. The work that Oak View Group has done to reach out to the neighbors in Uptown and Belltown and Queen in South Lake Union. This is going to make a big difference. So I appreciate the fact that you're moving forward. I believe tomorrow we are hoping to hear from the NHL board of governors. Is the event in the morning open to the public? So tomorrow morning, I believe at 8:00 in the morning, there is going to be a get together of hopeful hockey fans in South Lake Union, Henry's Tavern. And as I understand, it's open to the public. I'm intending to be there. Nothing like starting your morning off in a bar, but I'll be there at 8:00.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Thank you for that. Okay. So I'm going to move to amend resolution 31857 by substituting the fourth recital with the following language entitled quote. Whereas on November 2nd, 2018, Oak View Group, LLC and Seattle Arena Company, LLC entered into an agreement titled Assignment and Assumption of Seattle Center Arena Project Permits and approvals by which Seattle Arena Company LLC was assigned and assumed. Oak View Group LLC Rights and Obligations related to Oak View Group LLC. Application for a significant structure, term permit and end of quote. And basically because you have to be a lawyer to understand what's going on there. But we're just separating the correct names of the parties as a technical correction, as we discussed this morning in committee, any questions on the amendment? We're just going to vote on the amendment. I will move that amendment. Second, all those in favor of the amendment, please vote I. I opposed. The ayes have it. And I think we have an imminent resolution. And I could just do that as a resolution. All those in favor of the resolution as amended. Please vote I. I opposed. The ayes have it. It was unanimous and the chair will sign it. And please read the next agenda item into the record.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION granting conceptual approval of a Significant Structure Term Permit to Seattle Arena Company, LLC to construct, maintain, and operate a tunnel under and across Thomas Street, east of 1st Avenue North and west of Warren Avenue North, to enable the renovation of KeyArena at the Seattle Center.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_11262018_Res 31854
|
Speaker 2: The report of the City Council Agenda Item one Resolution 31854. A resolution rejecting the federal administration's proposed public charge rule change as applied to legal permanent residency applications by immigrants. Because of the harm to negative impact on and chilling effect on immigrant communities, access to vital services and cost saving initiatives that keep families healthy and on the path toward economic self-sufficiency and success. Introduced November 19th, 2018.
Speaker 0: Counselor Juan Gonzalez.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I move to adopt resolution 31854.
Speaker 0: It's been moved in a second, and we have a resolution to consider.
Speaker 5: Thank you so much. Colleagues, as I mentioned this morning during council briefing, resolution 31854 allows the Seattle City Council to formally oppose the Trump administration's proposed rule change to what is commonly referred to as the public charge rule. As you heard, folks struggling already seeing public charge rule change five times really fast. On September 22nd, the Trump administration announced a proposed rule change that would negatively impact certain immigrants and immigrant families who access public services and benefits that help them stay healthy or pursue education and economic stability. Under current policies, when someone applies for a visa to enter the U.S. or for lawful permanent resident status, a U.S. government official looks at that person's life circumstances to see if the person is likely to depend on the government for support in the future and thus be a person that is likely to become a public charge. If they are deemed likely to become a public charge in the future, their application can be denied. The government is proposing to change the public charge policy dramatically to make it more difficult for low and moderate income families to come to and stay in the U.S.. This policy change is yet another way that the Trump administration is attacking immigrant communities in Seattle, in Washington state and across the country. This is an issue that directly impacts our public health community and those seeking to access it. In an op ed dated October 3rd, 2018. Dr. Ask, while getting a medical director of the Seattle based International Community Health Services, stated that the proposed rule change would directly impact patients at Ice Age, which sees approximately 17,000 Medicaid based patients, half of whom are non-U.S. citizens that are low income and have limited English proficiency. Doctor gets not provides us with with recent chilling real life examples of the impacts of this rule change where she writes quote, A patient from Eritrea refused enrollment in medical programs because he heard the government is, quote, unhappy, close quote, with immigrants receiving benefits. And immigrant father asks his wife and kids be terminated from their entitlements out of fear of deportation, despite the fact his child was not thriving and needed medical attention. These are, of course, anecdotal examples of impacts of a rule that has yet to be adopted and implemented. But let's imagine the consequences if the rule does pass and is not overturned by a court. Passage of this rule will undoubtedly cause fear and terror among our immigrant communities in Seattle. But the consequences are graver than that. In Washington state, food and nutrition advocates have expressed concern about the impact of this proposed rule on women, infants and children. In particular, programs like the Women, Infants and Children or Wik Food and Nutrition Services could be lost for mothers and their young children, which is a program that helps low income families access healthier foods and is considered a preventative health strategy that results in a more nutritious diet. Increased rates of immunization, a 44% reduction in rates of low birth rates, lower rates of childhood anemia, and an increase in a child's readiness to learn. In a Crosscut article published today in Nutrition Services, Supervisor at Ice Age reported a 10% drop in week enrollments at Ice Age clinics and as much as a 25% drop at its Shoreline Clinic. This is a shocking early trend, and we have no reason to believe that it will not worsen if this rule is adopted and unchallenged. And in fact, in Washington State, at least 244,800 people could be negatively affected by this rule change. This, of course, is unacceptable. Passage of this resolution will lay the framework for the city of Seattle to submit public comment to the Department of Homeland Security. And it reaffirms the city's commitment and support to the immigrant community and their health and access to vital city services, including to the Seattle King County Public Health System. With passage of this resolution, the city of Seattle joins more than 80,000 people and organizations, including Neighbor Care, Health, the Washington State Association of Headstart, ICAP and the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance. Washington Government Governor Jay Inslee and a bipartisan coalition of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, including Mayor Durkan, to call upon the federal government to abandon this proposed rule change. So I want to also encourage members of the public to join us in submitting comment in opposition to this proposed public charge rule change by no later than December 10th, 2018. If you are interested in submitting a public comment, you can use the form that is available at Protect Immigrant Families dot org, which my office will make available via our Facebook, Instagram and Twitter accounts. I want to thank my colleagues in advance for their anticipated support of this resolution. I also want to thank the Protecting Immigrant Families Coalition for their work here in Washington State to educate, mobilize the public to call for this proposed rule change to. Be rejected. And I'd also like to thank Locally Children's Alliance and Romano's. We heard from Eric earlier today. When America is Crazy Moms Raising Columbia Legal Services, Latinos promoting good health and Northwest health advocates for their commitment to Washington families and their leadership on this issue. And we look forward to making sure that we can get as many public comments as we can by December 10th of 2008. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Gonzalez. Any comments before we vote? I just want to think. Well, thank you and your testimony and Kathryn Gonzales for your leadership. Again, I think this morning during the briefing, when you describe it, you said it's a little wonky, but it's that kind of work that we have to do to establish the record. And sometimes the narrative is that we're trying to protect immigrants and refugees. Yes, we're trying to do that. But I think we're trying to protect our country by being embrace of. So thank you for your leadership and thank you for your advocacy. And having said that, it's been moved in second and already those in favor of adopting the resolution please vote i i those opposed vote no. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted and Cher will sign it. Okay. Is there any further business coming for the council? Yes, Councilmember us. Thank you.
Speaker 1: I would like to be excused from council December 3rd, December 10th and December 17th.
Speaker 0: It's been moved in second to excuse Catherine, whereas from December 3rd, 10th and 17th. Any comments? All those in favor say i. I. All those opposed. The ayes have it. Is there any further business giving for the council? No. Okay. We stand adjourned and everyone have a great rest of the day. Thank you. Okay.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION rejecting the Federal Administration’s proposed public charge rule change as applied to legal permanent residency applications by immigrants because of the harm to, negative impact on, and chilling effect on immigrant communities’ access to vital services and cost-saving initiatives that keep families healthy and on the path towards economic self-sufficiency and success.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_11192018_CB 119390
|
Speaker 3: . And then again, if I'll recognize folks and sort of turn to my colleague, the budget chair, if statements need to be made, but if it's perfunctory, we'll sort of flag that. And many of these items are okay. So read items one and two, the short titles, and then we'll vote on each one.
Speaker 2: The Report of the Select Budget Committee. Agenda Item one Cancel 119 390 authorizing and 2018 acceptance of funding from non city sources. Agenda item two Accountable 119 391 Amending Ordinance 125 439, which amended the 2018 budget, including the 2018 through 2023 Capital Improvement Program Committee, recommends that these bills pass as amended.
Speaker 3: Okay, so we're going to vote on these individually transparent bags, so I'll keep turning to you for these items. And so.
Speaker 1: No, I have nothing particularly to add till we get to item 34.
Speaker 3: Okay. So any questions on Council Bill one, which is simply the acceptance of the funding from non city sources? Okay. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 0: Gonzalez Herbold by Johnson Suarez Mesquita I O'Brien so on I Lakeshore High President Harrell High nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 3: Bill passing sure sign it. Any comments on agenda item number two? Just a minute, DCP. Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 0: Gonzalez Herbold Johnson Suarez was Darragh O'Brien so on special I President Hero nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 3: Bill passage or Senate. Please read items three and four.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE authorizing, in 2018, acceptance of funding from non-City sources (commonly known as the 3rd quarter grant acceptance ordinance); authorizing the heads of the Executive Department, Department of Education and Early Learning, Seattle Fire Department, and Seattle Department of Transportation to accept specified grants, private funding, and subsidized loans and to execute, deliver, and perform corresponding agreements; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_11192018_CB 119381
|
Speaker 2: The committee recommends the bill pass as amended. Cancel 119 384 relating to regulatory businesses and professional license fees. Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 3: Okay, we have five through eight. I think you see the synopsis that you've all worked on. Is there any interest to any need to say anything about any of these bills? Well, good. Okay. On number five, please call the role in the passage of Council Bill 119381.
Speaker 0: Gonzalez I Herbold II Johnson Suarez Mosquera. I O'Brien. So want I make sure I. President Harrell I nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 3: And just for the viewing public. Many of these bills that we will pass of that exceed 30 their individual actions taken that I'm assuming many council members would speak to toward the end of the budget process as opposed to individually. Many of them worked on several pieces of the legislation that are embedded in this. And so I anticipate that words will be shared with you all and feelings hopefully when we get to that end. So this is the factory part, so please call the roll on council. Bill 119382.
Speaker 0: Gonzalez I. Herbold I. Johnson Whereas mosquera i. O'Brien I so want I make sure i. President Harrell I. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 3: Bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please call the rule on council. Bill 119385.
Speaker 0: Gonzalez I. Herbold I. Johnson Suarez Mesquita I. O'Brien so on. Make sure High President Harrell High nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 3: Passes and show sign it and please call the roll on the passage of council. Bill 119384.
Speaker 0: Gonzalez I. Herbold, i. Johnson Suarez. Well, Sarah, I. O'Brien Hi. Sergeant Bagshaw. Hi. President Arrow. Hi. Nine and favorite unopposed.
Speaker 3: Bill passed and show sign it. So let's go with nine through 13. Please read nine through 13 into the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Center parking charges; amending Section 17.19.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_11192018_CB 119349
|
Speaker 3: The bill passes and show sign. Please read agenda items 14. Through 18 short titles.
Speaker 2: Agenda items 14 through 18 council 119 349 relating to Seattle City excuse me said city light department committee recommends the bill passes amended council bill 119 350 Wellington City like department and many Section 21.40 9.0 86 of Seattle. Mr. Codes Committee recommends the bill pass Council Bill 119 394 relating to the electric system of the City of Seattle. The committee recommends the bill Pass Council Bill 119395 link to the drainage and wastewater system of the City of Seattle. The committee recommends the bill Pass Council Bill 119 396 related to the missile municipal water system of the city of Seattle. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Any comments on any item 14 through 18? Otherwise, I'm going to proceed to read them. Please call the roll on council bill 119349.
Speaker 0: Gonzalez Herbold. Johnson Suarez Mesquita O'Brien. Sergeant Bagshaw High President Harrell Hi nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 3: Bill Pass and Chair will sign it. Please read the roll call on Constable 119350.
Speaker 0: Gonzalez Herbold Hi. Johnson Suarez. Well, Sarah O'Brien. Sergeant Bagshaw. Hi. President Herrell. Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 3: Bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read the roll call on council. 119394.
Speaker 0: Gonzalez I. Herbold I. Johnson Suarez Mosquera. Hi. O'Brien Sergeant Bagshaw. President Harrell.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 0: Nine in favor. Nine in favor of the bill.
Speaker 3: Pass and show sign it. Please read the roll call on council. 119395.
Speaker 0: Gonzalez I. Herbold I. Johnson Whereas mosquito I. O'Brien All right. So on I. Thanks to President Harrell I nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 3: Bill passed can show sign it and please read the roll call on constable 119396.
Speaker 0: Gonzalez Herbold. Johnson whereas. Mosquito. Hi, O'Brien. Hi, Suzanne. I make sure. Hi, President Herald.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 0: Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 3: Bill passed and chair assignment please read agenda items 19 through 23 into the record a short titles.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; amending rates, terms, and conditions for the use and sale of electricity supplied by the City Light Department for 2019 and 2020; and amending Sections 21.49.020, 21.49.030, 21.49.052, 21.49.055, 21.49.057, 21.49.058, 21.49.060, 21.49.065, and 21.49.085 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_11192018_Res 31848
|
Speaker 3: The motion carries and resolutions adopt and cha will sign it. And let's go to items 24 through 29.
Speaker 2: Ten items 24 through 29, Resolution 318 48 Adopting revised financial policies for the cumulative reserve sub fund of the General Fund, the committee recommends a resolution be adopted. Cancel 119 376 relating to the taxation of sweetened beverages. The committee recommends the bill pass cancel 119406 relating to the School Safety, Traffic and Pedestrian Improvement Fund. The committee recommends the bill pass cancel 119405 relating to business licenses, taxes, tax certifications and business license as committee recommends a bill passed. Cancel 119378 2 billion to the Neighborhood Matching Fund Program. The committee recommends the bill pass and Council Bill 119 375 relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. We'll take these one at a time. We have the resolution revising our financial policies on seven and he comments on that. Those in favor of adopting the resolution please vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted. The chair will sign it. Nexus accounts will 119376. Any comments on that council bill please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 0: Gonzalez I Herbold I Johnson Suarez Mascara O'Brien Salon I bakeshop President Harrell I nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 3: Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please call the roll call on the passage of Council Bill 119406.
Speaker 0: Gonzalez I Herbold II Johnson Suarez Macheda O'Brien II Sergeant Bagshaw, High President Harrell I nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 3: Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read the rule on council 119405.
Speaker 0: Gonzalez I Herbold I Johnson Suarez Mosquera I O'Brien II Sergeant I Bagshaw President Harrell I nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 3: The bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please call the roll on council 2119378.
Speaker 0: Gonzalez I herbold i. Johnson Suarez Mosquera I. O'Brien Sergeant Beg President Harrell I nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 3: Bill passed and share of Senate. Please read the roll call on the passage of Council Bill 119375.
Speaker 0: Gonzalez Herbold I. Johnson Suarez Mosquera I. O'Brien Hi Sergeant Bagshaw i. President Harrell I. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 3: Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Let's take the resolution 30 by itself, so go ahead and read that into the record.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION adopting revised financial policies for the Cumulative Reserve Subfund of the General Fund by amending Exhibit A of Resolution 31083.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_11192018_CB 119407
|
Speaker 3: Please read item number 31 into the record.
Speaker 2: Jan item 31 Cancel 119407 in relation to monitoring, inspecting vacant buildings for compliance with the requirements of the Housing and Building Maintenance Code, the committee recommends the bill passes amended with a divided report with councilmembers Harrell Herbold, Juarez, Michelle O'Brien and Swanson favor and councilmembers back shall Gonzalez and Johnson opposed.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Any comments on this council, Bill? Councilmember Johnson, you have the floor where.
Speaker 5: I'm quite a role, so I won't belabor the point and just say I'm planning to vote the same way I voted this morning, which is in opposition and we've got a good role. So if anybody wants to know why I'm voting no, you can go back to the 1030 meeting and check out the tape.
Speaker 3: Thank you for that. Any further comments on this council bill before take the role? Okay. Here we go. Please call the roll on council. Bill 119407.
Speaker 0: Gonzalez No. Herbold I.
Speaker 4: Johnson No.
Speaker 0: Whereas Macheda. O'BRIEN All right. So want. Make sure.
Speaker 1: They.
Speaker 0: President Harrell, I. Six in favor. Three opposed.
Speaker 3: The bill passes and shows. Sign it. Let's go to item. Let's read items 32 and 33 into this one.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE related to monitoring and inspecting vacant buildings for compliance with the requirements of the Housing and Building Maintenance Code; amending Sections 22.206.200 and 22.208.090 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_11192018_CB 119392
|
Speaker 3: The bill passed ensures Chair of Senate any comments on resolution 31853. Those in favor of adopting the resolution. Please vote i i those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the resolutions adopted in the show assign it. Please read Agenda number 34 into the record.
Speaker 2: Agenda Item 34 Cancel 119 392. Adopting a budget including capital improvement program and position modifications for the City of Seattle for 2019 and creating four positions exempt from civil service all by two thirds vote of the City Council. The committee recommends that the bill passes amended with a divided report with council members back shall Gonzalez, Harrell, Herbold, Johnson, Juarez must gather and O'Brien in favor and councilmember silent opposed.
Speaker 3: Just from the clerk's perspective, I might have sort of mis described sort of the numbers earlier because we have several budget items after 34. So should we treat 38 as the final approval of the budget? I think that may make sense. This is actually the CFP piece of it. So if everyone is, I'll let.
Speaker 6: Sorry. Could you explain? Sorry.
Speaker 3: So 34 is okay. So, so okay. So I did accurately describe it. So let's treat this as the final budget action for 2019, not the endorsed for 2020. So this this one here is where I will we will have to suspend the rules. I'll suspend the council rule relating to the circulation of a city council amendment, which requires 2 hours before the meeting to allow the Council to consider two amendments that would be accountable. 119392 in resolution 31849, which are forthcoming. And what I need a vote on that as well. Or is that just within my discretion? If there's no objection, we will suspend those rules to allow those amendments. Hearing no objection. Seeing no objection. Consider the rules. The Council rule relating to the circulation suspended but also council president.
Speaker 1: I have a.
Speaker 3: You have you want to make an amendment? Sure you got.
Speaker 1: It. I want to move to amend council bill 119392 by substitute substituting version three for version two of attachment and by substituting version three for version two of attachment B second.
Speaker 3: Okay. And just for the viewing audience, these were the changes that were recently made in open session and debated. And so we want to make sure that our record is clear. Any comments on the amendment? Those in favor of the amendment as described by Councilmember Bagshaw, please vote i. I those oppose vote no. And those substitutions are made. We'll wait to get to 35 before we do that when there will be amendment there as well. Okay, so there you have it. So any comments on council bill? 119392. I'm sure we will have a few if I just do that. Awkward pause. I sometimes do. That's. But I'll do that after comments. Okay. I will move to pass Council Bill 119392 as amended. Okay. Now we have some comments.
Speaker 0: We're like.
Speaker 3: I'll do like we did in law school. I'll start calling on you in a minute here. Okay? Okay. Please call the role on the honor. I know. We know. I would like. You know, it's not a clean up, so I'll take that. Okay. But I think everyone's realizing part of your customers wants, so you may have to go.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 6: Friends and fellow activists. This agenda item and the next agenda item were just I do it for the approval of the city budget as a whole. Just like in previous years, I intend to vote no on the budget, even more so than in previous years. This year's budget is an austerity budget, a budget based on the interests of big business, which makes further cuts to the needs of working people and the services they rely on. Every year since I first took office in 2014. We have built a people's budget movement to fight for progressive changes to Seattle's but business as usual budget. And every year our movement wins important victories that make a real material difference in the lives of regular people. On November 7th this year, we held an inspiring people's budget town hall on affordable housing at the Yes Community Center . And I want to thank the activists and the organizations, including labor unions, that made that such a powerful event. And I've had the courage to fight back against this austerity budget. As a representative of working people, it is my job to talk openly about the realities and challenges and setbacks we face. Our movement faces and to not define things. We have to be clear about what is happening in the movement for affordable housing. Last summer, when Amazon issued its threats and big business fought back against having to pay even the modest tax, the Amazon tax, the majority of the council marched in step behind the chamber's drum and betrayed working people by repealing the Amazon tax in a quintessential backroom deal. They robbed the movement in Seattle of the right to fight it out at the ballot box. To answer big business lies by going to the doors of working people around the city. Fortunately, in several other cities around the country. The talk of taxing big business to address the growing national affordable housing crisis was carried forward, inspired in part by the tax Amazon movement here in Seattle, in California, San Francisco, East Palo Alto and Mountain View. All put big business taxes on the ballot and in some cases, far bigger ones than we had in Seattle. And in every city, they passed by large margins here in Seattle, I promise you, we will be we will continue to fight to tax Amazon and big business to fund housing for working people, our people's budget movement. One important victories this year. Thanks to our collective organizing, it is important to recognize these victories of social movements, even though they are less than what is needed, because they underscore an essential message that when we organize and fight back, we can win. The LGBTQ community did fantastic organizing and won funding for LGBTQ senior services to backfill the trans services, funding unacceptably cut by the mayor, and funding for the LGBTQ Health and Wellness Center at Noble High School. The People's Budget Movement Activism made sure that the residents of share and real shelters can continue to keep their shelters open this year, despite the ongoing IT terms of the establishment to shut it down. And I don't think we've seen the end of it. This is the second year in a row that the mayor tried to close their doors, driving them to the streets. And this is the second year that they have organized and that we are one we successfully won the first ever eviction. City funded eviction. Defense attorney to help Seattle residents facing evictions to defend their rights. This is an important precedent and we will be back to fight for more attorneys so that in the ongoing assault against tenant rights, where the rampant evictions in this city, working people have access to legal help, we need to fund the right to counsel so no one is expected to go to eviction court unprepared. And we will be pushing next year to overhaul the predatory tenant eviction system. Renters have far more right in eviction court in other cities and states, and that needs to change. Here in Seattle, the indigenous community finally won stable funding for the annual Indigenous People's Day celebration. Our movement has fought for this every year since we first forced the establishment to end Columbus Day and create Indigenous Peoples Day in 2014 . And this time we have won the funding in an hour movement one funding for many other things that will make a real difference in people's lives. We also won what are called statements of legislative intent to continue to push forward the process of creating a public bank in Seattle and to demand progress from the mayor in choosing a location for a safe consumption site. But while all these victories by our movement were important on the burning crisis of affordable housing facing working people, the establishment was completely unwilling to match its flowery rhetoric with action. When she delivered her State of the City address in February, Mayor Durkan said, quote, Our first priority, though, must be to build a more affordable Seattle. Number one, we have to build more low income and middle class housing as quickly as we can. End quote. But the reality is those words are a lie. Building code, more low income and middle class housing, unquote, was not the mayor's number one priority. It was not her number two priority or even her number one priority. It was less than 1% of the budget that she proposed for affordable housing, and that included only funds that legally could go nowhere else. Not one new dollar was proposed for affordable housing by Mayor Austerity Durkan. And we have to be honest. The majority of the Council has also completely failed to do anything substantially different. The people's budget movement put forward 11 different options to fund building, more affordable housing, and made it clear that we would support other ideas also. The majority of the council voted down all of them while proposing no alternatives. The majority of the council voted against funding affordable housing again and again and again. They would not authorize a bond for affordable housing. They use bonds again and again to benefit big business approved projects in addition to the billions of state funds to dig the tunnel. They are investing hundreds of millions of city funds to build the waterfront, to make millions for the big developers and increase property values of super wealthy people downtown. But they will not bond for housing. They refuse to bring back the Amazon tax. This is not surprising, but neither did they put forward any alternative ways to tax big business or the rich in this increasingly unequal city in this state which has the most aggressive tax system in the nation. But the burden of taxes falls overwhelmingly on working people instead of on the richest man in the world and his billionaire friends. They would not fund affordable housing with revenue from not opening a new big business tax loophole for Big Pharma's drug research. They prioritize spending 1 million on studying how to create new downtown street tolls, which are yet another regressive tax. Instead of using that money for affordable housing, they funded sweeping homeless encampments on one corner to another, rather than using those funds to build affordable housing. In fact, we have now heard most councilmembers extoll the virtues of the euphemistically named navigation team with zero evidence. After hundreds of sweeps last year and hundreds every year before that, the city has failed to provide evidence of even one person transition to permanent housing by the navigation team. They measure every other homeless service based on transitions to permanent housing or even hygiene services, which are only meant to provide shower, bathroom and laundry services to homeless people so that they have a lifeline to be able to get to their jobs, are asked to drag their transitions to permanent housing. But the sweeps, which are 100% about moving people are never asked where do people actually go and how many get permanent housing? Council members talk about data and in the same breath they support the sweeps with zero data. Councilmembers talk about race and social justice initiative, which is based on asking affected. Community is what is needed. But then they ignored what we have never heard one single homeless person say, which is that the navigation team actually helped them get permanent housing. In my committee we have heard testimony from someone who has been swept eight times. It has been such a cruel and ineffective waste of money, but councilmembers would not support using these funds for affordable housing instead, which is the real solution to homelessness. We proposed funding affordable housing by collecting the costs of staffing special events. Council members voted no. Council members voted against redirecting funds to affordable housing instead of prioritizing new computers in police cars. Council members voted against capping city executive salaries or reducing the number of city executives, or slowing police hiring to fund affordable housing. Council members voted against reducing their own salaries to the area median income of $17,200 in order to fund some affordable housing. In fact, when there was money left over from the balancing during the Budget Committee meeting last Wednesday, council members voted against using that extra money for affordable housing. Budget Chair Bagshaw said that at that time that she suspected Gordon there would be another need for that funding and so she couldn't support using it for affordable housing. In other words, this political establishment has spent interminable hours talking about affordable housing, but those words could not be more empty. This budget increases the police budget by over $70 million, but it cannot find $1 more for affordable housing. We need to be crystal clear the housing crisis in Seattle is not because of a lack of ideas or creativity. This crisis is purely a result of a lack of political will to stand up against Amazon and big business. The political establishment has made it clear working class people are not welcome in Seattle. If you are Amazon, if you are downtown real estate interests, Seattle will give you whatever investment you want paid for with the ever increasing regressive property and sales taxes on working people. But if you are a hard working Seattle struggling to pay rent, they are happy to push you out of your home, your neighborhood, and possibly out of the city. Remember, not only as homelessness continued to rise, but for working renters that are housed, almost half are rent burdened who are making ever greater sacrifices in other aspects of their lives to be able to stay housed. So like in previous years, our people's budget movement one important victories. But big business interests continue to dominate the large swaths of the city budget. What we are able to win depends entirely on the strength of our movements. That is why the same council voted against the Amazon tax first, then in favor of it, then repealed it all in the course of a few months. Their votes were not based on facts or evidence or data. Their votes were certainly not based on principles. They were being pushed by the balance of power in society between big business and the affordable housing movement. When the movement has a greater balance of power, then we will see the right votes. The way will push them back again is by building our movement. 50 years ago, Martin Luther King Jr said, 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 and quote his words from 1967 are, if anything, more meaningful today in a city. But 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. We did not win a people's budget today, but we are building the sort of movement that can win one in the future. And I am proud and honored to be part of that movement. This movement is not limited to Seattle either. It is building in other cities also, including in Queens, New York, where working people are right now protesting in their outrage at the sweetheart deals given to Jeff Bezos, while New York housing and its transportation infrastructure are in crisis. I also want to thank central staff director Kirsten Armistead and her staff Greg Dawes, Don Edo, Patricia Lee, Ali Banerjee. Asha Benko Drummond. Lisa Kay, Tracey Ratcliffe, Adam Lee, Eric Son. Brian. Goodnight, Jeff Sims and Kelvin Zhao, who all were directly instrumental in helping my office prepare the budget amendment. Particularly, I want to thank them for putting together the 11 different amendments with 11 different ways to fund affordable housing, which can seem like a thankless task, particularly when the majority of the council rejects all of them. However, I want general staff to know your work has given hundreds of regular people throughout Seattle a concrete solution to the affordable housing crisis to fight for and to also show that it is not this or that technicality that the Democratic establishment objected to. It is the very idea of standing up against big business by taking action on the housing crisis. And we have seen that while we have won some things today, even the budget amendments we lose are a starting point for people to organize to win changes in the future. Like happened with the Amazon tax last budget. So thank you all again for everything you do. Let's keep building this movement. Thanks to all the hundreds of working people who came together this year to fight for a people's budget. You have collectively, yet again, set an example for working people around the country fighting for an alternative to austerity, inequality and the bankruptcy of corporate politics . I will vote no on this austerity budget today.
Speaker 3: Three. Thank you. Cancer Research Council member Beck Shaw as chair. Would you like to say a few words?
Speaker 1: Good. Thank you so much. Thank you again, all of you, for being here. I want to talk a little bit about the budget that we balanced, and it's taken us a couple of months to get here. But it reflects our collective commitment to invest in areas that we believe need our attention most. And we did this with revenues that we have in hand, those that were estimated to come in. And our balanced budget is focused on making our city a safer and more welcoming place for everybody who is in Seattle. And while we've taken many steps to accomplish these goals, what we all know is that we're going to have to have sustained efforts in 2019 to implement what we're doing and to really look at the regional housing that we've been talking about. So when I started off with this budget, I identified what available revenue sources we had so that we didn't overcommit or that we didn't expend money in areas where we couldn't continue next year and into 2020. I really wanted to focus on an action oriented budget as well, which meant I didn't want us to be spending money on more plans that we'd already been planning. Let's build on what we already know and get some things done. We identified individual council members, top requests and their values, and I did what I could to make sure that people were able to get and to put in for their own districts or their own most important items the money that they needed to accomplish their goals. And also, I wanted to prioritize, and we did the kind of coordinated investments that we can make with King County and with our other counties going forward. So I've got a number of thank you that I want to make, but I do want to just express that through this budget we have managed to expand services for our most vulnerable populations, things like treatment on demand and services to address substance abuse abuse disorders. Many of you have heard me talk over the years about wanting to have expanded buprenorphine systems, places where people could get methadone. We have organizations like Evergreen Treatment that will now have more money and resources and more capital money. We're also going to be reforming our criminal legal system. And I want to express my thanks first to Councilmember Gonzales, who's been my vice chair throughout this. But working with her over the next year, there will be a lot of things that we can do where we're coordinating with our municipal courts, with our city attorney, with our prosecuting attorneys, with our defenders. There is much that we already know, but the coordinated effort is something that's going to not only save us money, keep more people out of jail, and make sure that we are providing to individuals the services and the help that they need. I also want to extend my thanks for the help in improving some of the systems that we have identified specifically. One of my top goals this this year, which we have managed to accomplish, is to create a low acuity response team. And this was something that we modeled off other cities Colorado Springs, Mesa, Arizona, for example, have what they they call a care program. What we're going to be doing is responding and helping our first responders to people who are chronically ill. Those people who are oftentimes on our streets or were calling or the people are calling on their behalf over and over again, whether they have behavioral health or mental health problems or chronic illnesses, rather than sending out multiple ladder trucks, multiple ambulances. We can have a system set up to ensure coordinated and effective responses that were our first responders with behavioral and mental health folks can arrive in something less than ladder trucks, but with the supplies that they need to be helpful. I also want to acknowledge that we have increased funding for mental health outreach, our expanded treatment for individuals with substance use disorders. We made whole the navigation team. I want to say thank you right in advance, Councilmember Mosquito for working with me on that. We have made sure that the 217 beds were protected, the additional beds for emergency shelter. From the beginning we agreed that that was not going to be cut and we have some additional day center work. And I want to acknowledge that we have additional services that will help Native American and Alaska Native women. More on that in a moment. So also, we have made some great capital improvements in neighborhood investments, such as in South Park that Councilmember Herbold had brought up. And again, something I'm excited about for 2019 is a child care facility. We put $100,000 into the budget to make sure we've got a child care center here at City Hall that will be dedicated first for our city employees and open to the public if there's spaces left. I'm anxious to. 2019 to make sure that that happens. I also want to say thank you to my Parks Department, Christopher Williams and crew who are here. Thanks for your good help around the U.S. or Crescent. The help that we have for some additional capital money to really make some effective safety health and just really public vitality improvements between city hall and the courthouse next door and then towards Pioneer Square. And really, before I get into individual thank you. I want to acknowledge what I really believe is that we've made some important investment here that are going to improve people's lives. But in no way do we have the ample resources that we need to make that big jump. In part what councilmembers want just talked about. I believe that we need to make significant investments in our regional programs as well, that the city taxpayers cannot do it all by ourselves. But we need to coordinate with the county and with our other cities within King County. Mayor Durkan has already gotten this started. A number of our council colleagues, including Councilmember Johnson here, Councilmember Claudia Balducci across the street, have been working on this. 2019 will be a year, I believe, where we're going to make some big progress. So to Mayor Durkan and her departments, I really want to acknowledge that we took their budget and built on that and spent it just extending my thanks to all the departments that continue to work with us and once again acknowledging the good work that our council central staff had. The clerks. Thank you to Amelia, Jody, Linda, for your constancy and your help. And you're creating scripts that would help me get through substituting motions once again. And then I just have some very direct, personal thanks to my colleagues up here and just starting from my left at the end, Councilmember was always the advocate for D5. Thank you for the good work that you did in bringing money forward for the food banks and the additional shelter Mother Nation, God's Little Acre Aurora Commons. They'd never seen the kind of help that you brought to them this year. So thank you for that. The Lake City Community Center, I know, is thrilled that that is going to be a place that will be really extended and expanded. So thank you for that. Councilmember Mosquito, since I'm just going to state coming down the row here, your 2% increase across the board for our human services providers. Thank you for taking the lead on that. It was wonderful today to be with you as you were bringing some workers forward and just tell me what a difference that's going to make in their lives, small but mighty and symbolic. And I also want to thank you for working with me on the idea of getting a child care center here in city hall. And. One thing I just have to say. Councilmember Mosquito, I appreciate you about you so much is just the amazing good cheer you bring every day to this dias. I'm very thankful to be a colleague working on these things with you and just the ways you seek compromises. It means a great deal to me. So thank you so much for that. Councilmember Sawant, I want to thank you for working on the basic shelter, the 217 bed, something that you and I agreed on from the very beginning. I appreciated your advocacy for the eviction attorney and of course getting some stable money for the Indigenous Peoples Day. So thank you for that. Councilmember O'Brien, it's always a pleasure. Thank you for working on the green jobs, for expanding lead, for expanding the evergreen treatment hours that we know so important. The work that you did on the Equitable Development Initiative and frankly recognizing the importance of our Office of Sustainability and Environment Climate Director. So, you know, you led those charges, and I thank you for that. Council President Harrell sitting right next to you. Thank you for helping me through all this. But for your investments in historic Seattle and Northwest African American Museum. Of course, you did a lot around our community outreach, but also the money that you were able to add at the last minute around the central area community PDA so that we can get more more affordable housing in that area and apprenticeship programs. Councilmember Gonzales, it's just been a real pleasure working with you. Thank you for your help. Helping me through as my vice chair on this. I think it was a very effective process having you there, helping and focusing and reminding us about the needs of many communities that you're very close to. So I appreciate that. And you know what? You did what you did with helping us get defense services for sexual assault survivors and immigrant and refugees, the LGBTQ senior community services, it's all going to make a difference. Councilmember Johnson, you've done a lot for your district around Magnuson athletic fields, getting those advance in the Sippy and the Magnuson Community Center. Ours open more investments in our community health engagement locations, as well as increasing dollars for food delivery services and some very important small but very important visual things such as your suicide prevention signs on the bridges. That was something that hadn't been brought up before. Thank you for that. And Councilmember Herbold, already one advocate. I'm very grateful to you for all of the things that you brought forward, whether it was a South Park public safety coordinator or increasing the pool hours in your community and getting additional funds for your school. But you've done a lot around making sure that 35th is paved. And you really brought home many of the things that I know the people in your community have needed. So I just want to recognize you and recognize you all for being super colleagues. And I know that there's been some stressful moments, but I appreciate the fact that everybody's worked together to reach that compromise. And again, thanks to all of you in the community who've been willing to come forward, provide your comments, your thoughts. Jonathan, thank you for wearing the walk with not by sweatshirt. I appreciate what you're doing as well. So to all of you, to those of you that are representing share, that are living in our community. You are always welcome here. And I appreciate so much the words that you brought to us. It helps us.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Chair Becky Shaw and Councilmember Bagshaw. Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 5: I just want to say a big thank you to you, Councilman Bagshaw, for helping to get this across the finish line. You stole most of my speech with a little couple of three things that you had on that I'm proud to fight for. But, you know, in addition, there are many advocates who spend a lot of time and energy in city hall over the last several months as we debate and advocate for individual priorities within our purview is and one of those is still hanging out here. And I want to say thank you to her. So for the folks from the Public Defender's Association who fought so hard for the work around community health engagement locations, the additional $100,000 that we put into the budget this year brings our city investment to $1.4 million. When you couple that with the money from the mid coming from the county, we expect that number to be about $3 million. That should be plenty for us to make sure that we site an open a safe consumption site this year, which I think is critical for our city to continue to make sure that we focus on people who are alive, staying alive and thinking of our people as people. Because I don't believe that any human being is a lost cause.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Okay. We have a bill that's been amended. Councilmember Skeeter, you have the floor.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to start by thanking the budget chair, Councilmember Bagshaw. You have welcomed me into this budget making process and made me feel very welcome. Thank you for working with my team and my office throughout this process to make sure that our proposals could jointly be more successful. I also want to thank your staff member, Alison, as well. She has worked with us to make sure that this budget stayed on track and helped to juggle nine of our different priorities up here. So I really appreciate her work along with our central staff. Thank you so much for all your work throughout the last few months here. I do want to thank my staff. This was our first time at going through the budget process. So a huge thank you for SAGE, for her leadership in helping all of us get through this process. Thank you to Michael and Ruthanne Friday for all your incredible work as well. And we know that today we have made some significant down payments on some really pressing issues in our city. It goes without saying that we have a huge task in front of us. And today we make some inroads into trying address trying to address monumental tasks like taking on homelessness, creating more affordable housing, dealing with mobility needs for transportation throughout our cities. And we're doing this with no new revenue. So what we've been able to do in front of us really is an effort to try to address some of the most critical elements that we see in our city. And what you've heard from us is a commitment to come back and find additional revenues so that we can address these pressing issues with urgency and integrity. And I think that we all understand the significant revenue restraints that are upon us, whether it's through the types of revenue or the limitations on how we can spend that revenue. There's compounding issues also at play at the state level, multiple imon initiatives. The fact that the state is the only well, it's one of the most prosperous states without an income tax, without a capital gains tax, without a corporate income tax. We have a lot of issues in this whole state and as a region that we can continue to address to make sure that we're really getting at the heart of the regressive nature of our tax structure. In addition to that, though, as we talk about needing additional dollars for housing, you've continued to hear us call for us to more equitably invest in developing housing throughout the city and outside of the budget. I know myself and Councilmember Johnson and a number of other council members are committed to addressing the fact that 86% of our residential land is still zoned for single family use. When we have such a huge housing crisis, the need for apartments, first time home ownership options, the need to live near transit facilities and child care and jobs. We have to address the zoning limitations as well, and that is something that we will continue to address. And as we do, we also, I hope what you've heard from us in this budget is we're lifting up the words of renters. As a renter, we all know it's important for us to remember that over half of the residents in Seattle are renters. And as we create more house options that are affordable, we also have invested in this budget in tenant protections and tenant rights, which I'm really proud of. So I think I think my colleagues and the community for making sure that we were able to get some of these investments in there. And I will I am committed to continuing to work with you all to make sure that we have the funding that we need for housing, addressing the homelessness crisis, investing in health, and making sure that our communities are kept whole. Part of this work, I think, is going to be done in our efforts to look at the reset of Move Seattle so we can address the need for more transit options. Part of this work is going to be done through the Select Committee on Homelessness and Housing Affordability, which I'm happy to co-chair with my colleagues to make sure that we're not just looking again at what the route is, but trying to figure out how we can invest in the solution. And in order to do so, we need revenue. We also know that our interest in scaling up some of these easements is going to require us continuing to lift up our voices again. And much of what you have done in this budget is because you came to testify, you shared your stories. You were here every day over the last three months, let alone the last year that I've been here. It's almost been a year. And here's what we I am excited to lift up. In addition to what Chair Boxer mentioned, I just want to highlight a few pieces that I'm really proud about and want to thank you for your leadership in this child care facility, in this building, making sure that we're eliminating funding for jail beds that are not being used and continuing to scale down the number of people that are going into incarceration. We're funding a study for looking at air and noise pollution and Beacon Hill, and we're making sure that our zip code does not contribute to our life expectancy and our health outcomes. We're funding a home zone pilot project to calm down traffic. We're investing in the Thomas Street Greenway. We're stopping our efforts while we're trying to curb our efforts to contract out so many positions, we are looking at how we can get rid of the tax on tampons. We are trying to create a more equitable tax structure, even though it's one of many issues that we need to take on. We're also addressing the need for us to have a more public health response in our communities. And we're scaling up our communicable disease response with our partners in public health. We're investing in creating an accurate census so that every resident in Seattle can get counted and make sure that every federal dollar follows that resident and that we're not leaving any of our community members behind. We've created a racial equity toolkit so we can analyze our Seattle growth strategy and do proactive work before the next comprehensive plan. And as you heard today, we're investing in the frontline workers, the mental health providers, chemical dependency counselors, those who are helping individuals with case management to keep jobs, find jobs, stay in the schools so that they don't go back out into the streets so that we can create true housing stability and hopefully one day build the housing so that we can help move people in. I know that this was not everything that we all wanted because we don't have the sufficient revenue need that we need. But I know that working together, we can continue to make sure that we are addressing these pressing challenges in our city. The pressing challenges that we have are not unique to Seattle, but I think that in the next six months to a year, we will come back to you with additional options for helping to invest in our families, our seniors, our children and our local small businesses. And with that, I thank you, Council President and Madam Chair, for all the work that you put into this year's budget.
Speaker 3: Thank you, councilmember skater. Councilmember Suarez.
Speaker 0: Q I wasn't going to say anything, but I will be very brief. This is my third budget. Here in Olympia, I sat through five budgets, and it was it's definitely a different process in the state of Washington. First of all, I just want to really and I really do mean this I really want to thank council member , our chairperson Sally Bagshaw, for doing a great process and taking the time to listen.
Speaker 1: And.
Speaker 0: Talk and agree and disagree and be okay when we don't agree.
Speaker 2: I appreciate that.
Speaker 0: I want to thank Alison.
Speaker 2: Alison, you were amazing.
Speaker 0: Thank you again for taking the time to come in our office and talk to us and work through difficult issues. And of course, a big thank you to director Kirsten Armstead and central staff and all of the people who help us and do the charts, work late at night, work on weekends, call us on Saturdays and Sundays . I don't think people.
Speaker 2: See what goes on behind the scenes, but I really.
Speaker 0: Want to thank them. And most of all, I really, truly want to thank my colleagues, all the people up here. We all work together. We work hard. We don't always agree.
Speaker 2: We don't always get what we want.
Speaker 0: I think there's a song about that.
Speaker 1: But we try to work together.
Speaker 2: With the limited resources that we.
Speaker 0: Have. I think every year I'm always I'm always awestruck and always still thinking about how we can make our city better. And for 2019, I look forward to a regional response to our most critical issues, and that is.
Speaker 2: Sheltering the unsheltered food.
Speaker 0: Scarcity, addressing the opioid addiction, and also addressing missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. I think one thing that I've always known in living in the city is that Seattle.
Speaker 2: Is a big city with big city.
Speaker 0: Problems, and sometimes I think we don't see.
Speaker 2: It that way that we aren't this small little town, provincial town anymore. We actually have big city problems which require us to reach.
Speaker 0: Out and across the aisle and certainly to have a regional response to the issues that are affecting.
Speaker 2: All of us. As my Uncle Billy used to say, if a stream is polluted or a watershed.
Speaker 0: Is polluted, it isn't Pierce County that just get sick, or King County or Thurston County. We all get sick. So it's all.
Speaker 1: Of our jobs to keep the environment clean, to have jobs.
Speaker 2: To look at health, to have a safety net for those that don't have what.
Speaker 0: Some of us are so lucky to have. And so with that.
Speaker 2: Again, I want to thank my colleagues for.
Speaker 0: All of us working together. And with that. Again, thank you, Councilmember. Our chairperson Bagshaw.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman. Worse. Okay. Thanks for those words. Colleagues and I think we are ready to vote. So having said that, please call the roll on the passage of council bill 119392 as amended.
Speaker 0: Gonzalez I. Herbold I. Johnson Whereas mascara i. O'Brien Sergeant No. Bagshaw High President Harrell High eight in favor one opposed.
Speaker 3: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And let's go with the resolution. Please read 35 into the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE adopting a budget, including a capital improvement program and position modifications, for The City of Seattle for 2019; and creating positions exempt from civil service; all by a 2/3 vote of the City Council.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_11132018_CB 119368
|
Speaker 2: The bill passes in the chair assign it please read the first agenda.
Speaker 3: Item three part of the City Council Agenda Item one Council Bill 119 368 related to the city employment authorizing the execution of the collective bargaining agreement between the City of Seattle and Seattle Police Officers Guild to be effective January 1st, 2015 to December 31st, 2020. The many Ordinance 25 493 which amended the 2018 budget by increasing appropriations to the Seattle Police Department and.
Speaker 5: The Police Relief.
Speaker 3: And Pension Fund and ratifying confirming certain prior acts all by three fourths vote of the City Council.
Speaker 2: Okay. So this is actually an action that's come out of the Labor Relations Policy Committee, which I chair, but it's a public safety police department matter. And certainly Councilmember Gonzales is the lead there. So, Councilmember Gonzales, we'd like to introduce the matter and speak on it.
Speaker 5: I have one minor amendment to make that came to me from the law department. So I'm going to first put the council bill on the table and then I'll need a second and then we can discuss the amendment, vote on the amendment, and then we'll have a bill amended bill to discuss.
Speaker 2: Okay, so that was your motion.
Speaker 5: I moved to pass Council Bill 11936 8 seconds.
Speaker 2: So just so people understand, this sort of this amendment is being moved in second for the bill to be amended. And Catherine Gonzalez, can you explain that a little bit?
Speaker 5: Yes. So I moved to amend Council Bill 119368 and of Section two by adding the following language, quote, Any portion of the above appropriations shall not lapse at the end of the 2018 fiscal year, but shall automatically carry over into the 2019 fiscal year until fully expended, abandoned or reappropriated closed quote. So the effect of this particular amendment is to add language that allows the appropriations represented in Council Bill 119368 to effectively carry over into the 2019 year as opposed to ending on December 31st, 2018. So this was an error in the originally transmitted bill from the mayor's office that we were asked to correct in order to appropriately reflect the appropriation actions we are going to take upon vote of Council Bill 119368.
Speaker 2: Thank you. So just to be clear that this is a technical amendment. This is not the controversial piece of it at all. This is a more of a fiscal note. So this is just the amendment. This is not the base legislation. So you're just amending it, the technical piece, and you can still reserve your right to vote on the base legislation either way. So any questions about the amendment? Okay. It's been moved in. Second, on all those in favor of the amendment as articulated by Councilmember Gonzales, say I, I oppose the ayes have it. The base legislation is amended. And Councilmember Gonzales, you could proceed.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Council Bill 119368. So I wanted to just make some remarks. I would love to be able to sit up here and say that they are brief, but they will not be brief. So buckle up. So before becoming a council member, I was a civil rights attorney for ten years. My law practice included many types of cases, but the foundation of my practice was representing people whose civil rights were violated by those in power, including by police officers. Many of my clients were monolingual Spanish speakers, women or people of color. I had the honor to advocate for their civil rights as a constitutional lawyer in federal and county courtrooms across the state of Washington, including here in Seattle. But my advocacy for people's civil rights and my commitment to advocate for police reform extended well beyond the courtroom. For example, in 2008, I was appointed by then Mayor Greg Nickels to serve on a blue ribbon panel to recommend changes to the city of Seattle's police accountability system. After eight months, the task force recommended almost 30 changes to the police accountability system, many of which needed to be negotiated with the city's police unions. Some of those changes were successfully negotiated while others were not. So I understand that disappointment that comes along with not getting everything you want in labor negotiations after advocating for them for so long. My work as a civil rights lawyer was fueled not just by my law degree, but by my lived experiences as a Mexican-American woman growing up in central Washington as a migrant farm worker. I have unfortunately personally experienced what it means to not have public confidence in the police. And as recently as this past July, I witnessed one of my own brothers be pulled over and treated unfairly and disrespectfully by my by law enforcement in front of the house I grew up in. So for those people that are passing judgment on me for supporting this contract on the basis that I somehow don't get what is at stake here, let me disavow you of that belief. I do get it. Not because I have heard a recent story about police brutality, but because I've seen my own brothers and family members experience racial profiling and unconstitutional policing. I have sat in rooms with black and brown families as well, with men who have been stripped of their dignity by a man wearing a police uniform. I've sat in a room holding a woman's hand while she sobbed and cried about being tased and physically assaulted by an officer and then been unfairly prosecuted for assaulting that same officer. I've sat in a room listening to a mom or grandmother telling the trauma of having lost her son or grandson after an encounter with an officer. I became a council member to put those lived experiences, my legal experience and my subject matter expertize in the specific area of constitutional policing, police reform and accountability to work. And I certainly did not sign up for this job to take a step backwards on police reform. That's why in 2017, I was honored to work with my friends on the Community Police Commission to chart a path forward on passing a belt and suspenders ordinance that would laid out our pie in the sky vision for the police accountability system in Seattle. There is no question that our goals were lofty, and along the way we each knew that many aspects of the accountability ordinance that so many of you have cited here in this room today would need to be negotiated in good faith with the Seattle Police Management Association and the Seattle Police Officers Guild. Indeed, that is why in section 3.29.510, the accountability ordinance we lay laid out our collective understanding of how and when the accountability ordinance would or could be implemented into effective law. The language of the accountability ordinance clearly provides that the accountability ordinance is in limbo until two things occur. One, collective bargaining is completed. And two, the court overseeing the city's compliance with the consent decree reviews the collective bargaining agreement and the ordinance, all to determine compliance with the spirit of the consent decree. The accountability ordinance also clearly provided that until these two things occurred, quote, the current accountability system shall remain in place to the extent necessary to remain consistent with provisions of the consent decree in the matter of United States of America versus city of Seattle, close quote. Shortly after passage of the 2017 Accountability Ordinance, the city attorney's office filed our legislation with the federal court seeking approval of it and requesting permission to immediately implement the accountability ordinance. The Court, in an order dated September seven, 2017, declined to approve the accountability ordinance, thereby consistent with the accountability ordinance leaving the current accountability system in place. And in that September seven, 2017 order, there were three different areas in that order in which the court not only invited, but in fact ordered the city to submit to the accountability ordinance and the collective bargaining agreements. At the end of the collective bargaining process to the court for judicial review. And I'm going to take a moment to read directly from the Court's order on the first on page three, lines three through eight, the Court indicated that the court declines to rule on the entirety of the ordinance as it relates to the speedy accountability system at this time, until the collective bargaining process is complete, the court cannot be assured that the ordinance, as it stands today, is a final product. The court declines to rule on a variant of the ordinance, but will await the final version that is ultimately implemented following collective bargaining. Also on page three lines 14 through 18, the court stated the court simply declines to place its final imprimatur on what is essentially a work in progress. The court cautions the parties who either are or will be engaged in collective bargaining over provisions of the ordinance that the United States Constitution and the right of the city's citizens to have constitutional policing ultimately trumps all other concerns. At issue here and on the final pages, page four, lines eight 311. The court conditionally approves the creation of the Office of Inspector General and also some of the provisions related to the Office of Police Accountability, but cautions that its approval is conditional. And states, quote, If these provisions change in any way as a result of the collective bargaining process or otherwise, the parties, meaning the city of Seattle and the Department of Justice, must so inform the court and resubmit the provisions to the court for further review. On November 5th, 2018, Judge Ro Bar held a status conference to learn more about the tentative agreement and the city's next steps. It was clear to me during that hearing that Judge Robart had some concerns that aligned with some, but perhaps not all of the Community Police Commission's concerns. I also heard him state that he would not that he could not and would not weigh in on those concerns until this city council voted to approve the tentative agreement. Colleagues, I would suggest that it is incumbent upon the city council to now take that step to approve this contract and to petition the court to, with the city's guidance, evaluate whether the deal represented in this contract meets the mandates of constitutional policing. I believe that the city's best interest in our ongoing journey of reform is best served by pursuing a legally viable path through the judicial process. Some have argued that rejecting the accountability ordinance aspects in this contract and heading back to the negotiating table on those issues is the more viable option. Unfortunately, I disagree with that position. Rejecting this contract will send the parties back to their respective trenches, where each side will begin the process of orchestrating their legal positions and likely litigation that will consume whatever reservoir of good faith is left between the parties. And that is unacceptable. Again, I believe that it is now the City Council's turn to approve that tentative agreement, as we did last November with the Seattle Police Management Association. This is the next step in what has been a very long journey of progress towards the long term and sustainable police reform, accountability that we all seek. As one of the authors of the Accountability Ordinance. Let me assure you that there is perhaps no one else on this dais that is more vested in protecting the integrity of the legislation that the City Council unanimously passed in May of 2017, together with community partners and our former colleague, Tim Burgess. We clocked hundreds of hours and insights and yes, in some cases literally shed tears and sweat to craft this legislation. I care deeply about the accountability ordinance and about this city's ongoing and iterative work of constantly reforming the Seattle Police Department. The accountability ordinance, however, is not the Constitution of the United States of America. It is an important piece of legislation that aspires to meet the mandates of constitutional policing. It is also an important piece of legislation that, as I've previously discussed, the Federal Court has declined to approve. Intel Collective bargaining with our police unions is final. That moment has come. And on balance, I believe that the contract is a better deal for the city than the contract that expired on December 31st of 2014. And today is one of those days where I find myself in the unfortunate position of agreeing with some of the observations made by my friends at the CBC while disagreeing as to others and fundamentally disagree. Disagreeing as to one, the impact of this contract on our ongoing police reform efforts and to the appropriate next steps to take to continue making progress on police reform. I believe that friends can remain friends, even in the midst of disagreement on substantive issues. And just because I have come to a different conclusion than the Community Police Commission, that does not mean that I do not have profound respect for their work and role within our accountability system. And there have been many remarks made publicly and privately to me about the CPC that I find incredibly troubling. So let me be clear. I believe that the CPC is doing exactly what it should be doing for those, it's not easy to lift up concerns that are not politically expedient for those that question the cpc's legitimacy within our accountability system or the depth of their representation of community. I ask you to reevaluate your position. For years, communities that have been disproportionately impacted by unconstitutional or unlawful policing have not had a voice within the morass of government. And the CPC was specifically created by the consent decree to address and lift up those concerns of those community members. So accordingly, the CPC has taken its charge under the consent decree seriously and we must continue to support the spirit of what CPC was designed to do. Second, I am recommending that my colleagues approve this tentative agreement for three basic reasons. One chief, Carmen Best, who's with us in chambers today, has clearly stated that approval of this contract is necessary to increasing department morale and to her basic ability to hire and retain additional officers. The contract brings the compensation we offer to our officers up to a competitive level with cities that we ordinarily compete with for recruits and lateral hires. Currently, Seattle is dead last in this wage comparison. This contract would bring Seattle officers wages to the middle of the pack of the seven comparative cities on the West Coast that historically have been used as a benchmark for compensation comparisons. Second City sanctioned public safety service continue to tell us time and time again that virtually every single neighborhood in the city of Seattle believes we need additional officers to effectively deal with neighborhood specific public safety concerns. That is an important aspect of the evaluation for this city council in determining whether or not to approve this contract. While I am not satisfied with every term included in this contract, this contract does advance some critical refer reforms to our accountability system that we will lose for years if this contract is not advanced and reviewed by the judge overseeing our compliance with the consent decree. So I'm going to spend time on that last point. And while I don't have time to go through every single aspect of the contract that could fairly be characterized as progress, I do want to spend some time to highlight a few that are important to me. One, I believe that this contract allows the City of Seattle to increase civilian oversight of the police department in order to strengthen public confidence in our police department. It does this in a few critical ways. It increases the number of civilians in the Office of Police Accountability, which investigates complaints of misconduct lodged against officers. Many have criticized that the civilian ization of the Office of Police Accountability doesn't go far enough. But and they cite the accountability ordinance as requiring complete civilian ization. But my reading of the accountability ordinance simply provides that there be a mix of civilian and sworn investigators. And this advances us in the direction of increasing the number of civilians within the Office of Police Accountability. Secondly, it legitimizes the entire existence of the of the Office of Inspector General as the third leg of the city's accountability system, with full and unfettered access to information from CPD and OPA. Let me say that again. This contract legitimizes the entire existence of the Office of Inspector General for Public Safety, which has the responsibility to do full system wide audits of the Office of Police Accountability and the Seattle Police Department to ensure the health and the fidelity of our police reform efforts as it relates to the consent decree and the need to continue to engage in ongoing, sustainable police reform. Without this contract, the Office of Inspector General effectively would sit on a shelf and have no power to do anything. Thirdly, this contract abolishes the disciplinary review board, otherwise known as the Derby, as the third venue for officers to pursue appeals of disciplinary actions. In my experience, that is the area in which we saw many disciplinary proceedings be dismissed or be reversed in favor of police officers and in contravention to those filing complaints about this about discipline and excuse me, about misconduct. In my view, abolishing the Derby goes a tremendous way towards increasing the public confidence in our disciplinary system. At the Seattle and at the Office of Police Accountability. And lastly, this contract would allow for full implementation of body worn video cameras to be worn by all uniformed officers. Body worn video cameras are seen as a tool for improving police services and public confidence, and I believe it is time for us to fully deploy that as a tool. So from my perspective in this thing, we call in a gauci ation. It is fair to say that there was an appropriate amount of give and take to balance the needs of bringing wages up to a fair and competitive level and cementing key aspects of the accountability ordinance. The question for us is whether we are willing to forego not just pieces of police reform, but all of it while we continue to wade through the legal battles that will ensue if we reject this contract. We cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater. We should not leave aspects of the accountability ordinance that are included in this contract on the table. We should take what we've been able to achieve and commit to continuing to work for more, both through the judicial review process and through the impending labor negotiations that are going to come to us very soon and through the various re-openings that are included in this tentative agreement. This contract is not perfect, but it is progress and it continues the reform process that we began in 2012. Our labor negotiation process on this contract in particular has been tough. It's been tough on us as management. It's been tough on community. And it has been tough on the men and women of the Seattle Police Department who have been working in 2018 under 2014 conditions. But ultimately, we have before us a contract that recognizes the collective bargaining rights of SPARC members under Washington state law, while also prioritizing the need to ensure that the public can continue to have confidence in our police officers. And I believe that rejecting this contract now would be a mistake. This being said, I believe that there are aspects of this contract that worry me. This is why I'm advancing a resolution that we will consider after this bill that would request that the city attorney's office petitioned the federal court to review the tentative agreement and the accountability ordinance, as he indicated he wanted to do at the recent status conference on November 5th, 2018, and in his September seven, 2017 order in which he declined to approve the Accountability Ordinance pending City Council action on a contract with our police unions. I believe that this that that that is the appropriate venue to address concerns about the standard of review when discipline is being appealed by officers adjustments to the 180 day investigation rule and the narrowing of the subpoena powers of the Office of Police Accountability and the Office of Inspector General, as reflected in our original accountability ordinance. It will be up to the Federal Court overseeing the consent decree to pass judgment on those aspects of the contract and the accountability ordinance that bump into the consent decree and the Constitution and colleagues. With all of that being said, I. I would urge you to join me in voting in favor of ratifying this contract and then saying yes to the resolution. We will discuss shortly.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Gonzales, for your explanation. I'm sure many of my colleagues will have things to say. I have a few things to say to you, but I'll wait for a moment until I see Councilman Mesquita grabbing that. Mike Kaspersky, as you like to say a few words, my comments.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. So, as Councilmember Gonzales so eloquently explained.
Speaker 5: Really, we're.
Speaker 3: Being asked to vote on two issues today. First, should we approve the collectively bargain negotiated wages and benefits for workers who've been without a contract for years?
Speaker 5: And what we've heard.
Speaker 3: Today is.
Speaker 5: Unanimous agreement.
Speaker 3: Yes. On the comments that we've heard.
Speaker 5: From people today and the many emails and calls we've received over the last few months, the answer is yes. And it is my commitment that anyone who works for the city.
Speaker 3: And anyone who contracts with the city. Should be paid.
Speaker 5: A fair wage.
Speaker 3: So that we can afford to live in the city that we work. And I will continue to advocate for that in the budget that's coming up in the next week. Second, should police reform long demanded by black and brown communities by the Latino and African-American and the API communities be realized?
Speaker 5: And the answer here is also clear. Yes.
Speaker 3: Today, we are being asked to vote on both of these issues at once. And unlike regular legislation, our options today are limited for amendments that would help clarify the points that Councilmember Gonzalez has just raised. I know that we all agree we need good living wage jobs.
Speaker 5: And we also need to.
Speaker 3: Make sure.
Speaker 5: That there is accountability in the system and that.
Speaker 3: We make improvements centered on racial justice. I deeply respect the collective bargaining process. I also deeply.
Speaker 5: Respect the individuals and the.
Speaker 3: Organizations that have raised questions and concerns. And my hope is that with judicial review by a federal judge, we will be able to.
Speaker 5: Get the answers.
Speaker 3: To the questions that have been raised and.
Speaker 5: Clarity on a path.
Speaker 3: Forward. The resolution that accompanies this collective bargaining agreement makes sure that if the federal judge tells it that there is a violation or a misstep on any aspect of the contract, we will be back at the bargaining table and we will be bargaining in good faith.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Mesquita. I customer and jobs feel like safety.
Speaker 0: Just briefly, I know that other folks will probably speak for longer about this topic than I, but I just wanted to offer a few thoughts. You know, when the consent decree was signed two years ago, I think that the officers and leadership of MPD have made really great strides towards reform, and I recognize that there are differences between the negotiated contract and the accountability ordinance that was passed last year. Those have been outlined very well by my colleagues. I'm looking forward to hearing more from the judge about Judge Robart, about how the new contract affects compliance with the consent decree. But fundamentally, I believe that Seattle's police officers work really hard to serve our city and keep our neighborhoods and communities safe. I believe they deserve a living wage. I believe and respect that the city should bargain in good faith, and the collective bargaining process is something that we should respect. So I'm looking forward to voting yes on this bill today.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Johnson. I'll say a few words since I did chair the LPC and then I'm certainly not meaning to be last. I don't have notes. You guys had notes, so I just sort of keep it real as my kids say, you know, I sort of grew up in a city born here where if you didn't believe in accountability and you didn't believe in reform. You are a Uncle Tom. You're a sellout. You. You're lost track. You are. It's one of the worst characteristics you're going to have in the streets that I grew up in, in Seattle in the sixties. And I see your signs. We're rolling back reforms. And I heard a lot of testimony to that effect. So what I did was I tried to listen and I dug deep to see exactly what reforms we were rolling back. And many of you who testified and said, hey, man, you're rolling back reforms, you are losing police accountability. I say as an attorney, as a person that is committed to my community, that we are not. That if you look specifically at the suggestions that are made, and I'll take them one by one from the subpoena power of the inspector general to the clause in the contract that says if there's a conflict between the accountability ordinance and the SPA contract, that this contract will prevail. I'll take that as an example. That does not roll back reforms out of standard contract union language that we there's no clause in there that where there's a contradiction, we are rolling back reforms. I'll tell you, my introduction coming out of Garfield High School of dealing with the police officers was very simple. It was testifying in superior court on behalf of Pastor Witherspoon from Mount Calvary Church against his brother, looking at an officer. And basically the officer gave testimony one way, I gave testimony another. And I realized right there that. Let me just put it this way. There was a lack of trust in that situation because I know exactly what I saw and it was different from what the officer saw. So when I. Tell you at the ripe age and how old I am is none of your business. But at my ripe age that we are committed to reform. We are and it is in this contract. So if you go through each one of these these clauses where we're saying that not one person said, how in the hell we're rolling back reforms, that one person said that they just repeated this rumor. And I got to tell you, rumors usually have more wings than a truth. So if you go back to the first one, it says and by the way, KUOW did a very nice piece on looking at the highest criticisms, the first one about the contractual language, about if the SPARK contract, there could be a clause where the spot contract could supersede the accountability. What clause is that? Where are we losing what we fought for? In fact, if you remember, in 2017, we passed a racial bias law. We gave private people a right to sue the city, one in a few cities in this country that allowed citizens to sue for racial bias policing. One of the concerns I had is who gets stopped by the police. I want to see that demographic. Because I could tell you experiences about that demographic. So we are required the department is required to keep those demographics such that attorneys can look at that and see if they do see a pattern. Who said, who are these folks that seem to get more Terry Stotts than others? Okay, so you go back through the data and like I said, I could go through each one. This notion of somehow the. The investigation on bad offices is thwarted. We are giving the inspector general a position. We created unfettered access to these files and we are staffing that through our budget. We are giving them more resources to do their job. And if you look at who the inspector general is hiring for these positions, these people are not sellouts. Let me tell you, these people are committed to protecting the rights of people who routinely and historically have gotten the bad end of the deal on policing. So don't tell me we're rolling back reforms. That is an insult. I understand what the CPC is. I understand where your hearts are. But trust it. When we go through this thick binder. We're going through it to make sure we get the reform to protect our community. That's what we do. So when I hear that, I understand and many of you are my friends are my good friends. And there's an old saying that fake friends believe in rumors and real friends believe in you. And I will vote for this contract. And I will say that we have not rolled back any reforms. And today, tomorrow and the next day, I'll protect my kids and my grandkids for misconduct from the police. And one last thing about the police. I believe in leadership. You change the culture by changing some of the people. I believe in Chief best. I believe in Andrew Meyer Burge as an inspector general. I believe in as a as an opiate director. I believe in at least a judge. I believe we are changing people to change the culture. And there have been times where I have mistrusted officers and there's been times where I've relied on officers to protect me and my family. And I believe we are achieving both in this contract and I make no excuses about supporting this contract. I will support it. I'll say whatever I have to say when I vote for, because I think it's a darn good contract both to achieve accountability. And to protect the people that needs to be protected in this city. I yield the floor. Council members sworn you had the floor, man for you.
Speaker 1: When do you get to go?
Speaker 2: And my blood pressure high up in here.
Speaker 6: I will be voting no on this proposed contract between Seattle police and the city of Seattle, which I cannot support in its current form. I am a rank and file member of a public sector union. I want to be clear that I support the right of all public sector workers to negotiate raises, including the police. Though it is deeply unfortunate that few public sector workers get raises as substantial as these, including EMT. I also want to be clear that I support the right of the police to their union and to collectively bargain. However, I am completely opposed to the serious and unacceptable rollback of police accountability measures in this contract. I do not share the view of the establishment that the accountability measures passed in last year's ordinance were, quote unquote, landmark legislation, because I believe that they did not go nearly far enough, but they were extremely important and they were hard fought by years of activism, by working people, especially led by communities of color like the black and brown communities and the indigenous community. And now this proposed contract between the city and Bog would dramatically undermine even those steps forward, unanimously approved last year by the same city council. As I have said before, it is my view that the Seattle police have had a long record of police brutality and racial bias and that this is an ongoing problem. This is also a nationwide problem and in reality is part and parcel of the capitalist system which relies on structural racism and inequality. Council president. Carol, I think it is disrespectful for you to say that community members are going by rumors in the last week. More than two dozen community groups have come forward to oppose this rollback of police accountability, including the Seattle King County and ACP, the Church Council of Greater Seattle. One America. Casa Latina. Not this time. El Centro de la Raza. The Northwest Immigration Rights Immigrant Rights Project. The American Civil Liberties Union. Creative Justice. Africa Down. Models for Police Accountability, Asian Counseling and Referral Service. Latino Civic Alliance. Real Change. See more. And last but not least, the experts on this issue, the Community Police Commission, who unanimously voted to reject the contract. I joined these groups, along with more than 40 of my fellow union members who have signed a statement opposing this contract in its current form and calling for it to be renegotiated with all police accountability measures restored. The labor movement has a proud history of standing with working people facing racism and oppression in its best traditions. The labor movement has fought against how the ruling class uses the police to oppress and divide sections of the working class against black and brown workers in particular, but also against the community homeless community members, impoverished people, and against protest and picket lines. Also, as Naomi Finkelstein said in public comment, an injury to one is an injury to all. It is with this proud tradition and with my fellow union members in Seattle who are opposing this contract in its current form that I stand in calling for the contract to be renegotiated and all police accountability measures restored. Our statement from the union members says, quote, The right of community members, as enshrined in the 2017 law, are not bargaining chips to be traded away, unquote. In 2011, public sector workers in Madison carried out a courageous occupation of the Capitol building and met in Madison to prevent rightwing Republican Governor Scott Walker from ramming through legislation to strip all public workers except police and firefighters of their right to collective bargaining. Hundreds of thousands of people at that time occupied the Capitol. Enough teachers and students called in sick that many schools were forced to close during the protests, and there was even widespread discussion of a general strike among public sector workers. Of course, I am greatly happy to say that Scott Walker will no longer be Governor Walker, but. At that time, as always happens when there are strong progressive movements. The police forces were mobilized to attempt to quell the protests. However, we also saw many of the individual rank and file officers had personal or political sympathy for the other public sector workers who were protesting with signs reading cops for Labor. Some of them even marched with other protesters. Police were given orders to guard the doors of the Capitol building and while they did, stationed themselves there as ordered, many did not obey their superiors orders to physically stop the public sector union members from entering. Unfortunately, this break in the chain of command out of sympathy with fellow workers is not usually the case with the police . But on that day it was for many on the left. The police are the force that physically stops you from exercising your free speech rights. The force that defends the interests of billionaires and those in power against everyone else. And the reality is, that is how big business and corporate politicians use police forces around the world. Workers are arrested if they steal $10 out of desperation or poverty. But when bosses are, banks steal billions from workers, they are rarely held to account. When mass movements break out and big business and the political establishment attempt to use the police to put down the movement. Police officers connection to the labor movement to their unions can sometimes be the difference between the violent suppression of the movement and an uncommitted police response like in Wisconsin. I raised these examples to explain that if this police contract was fundamentally a labor issue, if it was fundamentally only about wages and benefits and working conditions that do not infringe on the rights of other workers, then it would be my position as a socialist and union member to vote yes. However, what this contract in its current form, I feel this is clearly and fundamentally an issue of police accountability. It is working people who are the most impacted by crime and a lack of public safety. Well, there is no doubt that the police frequently play a useful role in apprehending violent people and preventing violent attacks. It is also, unfortunately, the case that the police are too often a source of harassment and at worst, terror among particularly communities of color, homeless community members and poor people. I do not agree with the union representative who said that these are outside groups that are trying to influence the police contract. What about our own union members who are black and brown? While we do not believe that all police officers behave the same way? There are far too many examples and far too systematic a record of people being wrongfully arrested. There have been far too many people of color who were killed for no reason at all. Like Charlene, who lives in Seattle, an elderly black man, William Wingate, was arrested walking with a golf club. And then after it was proved that it was racially biased policing, the officer faced no disciplinary penalty because a 180 day investigation window was closed. Such abuses must stop. When the details of this contract were released to the public, it was met with unanimous opposition from the members of the Community Police Commission and later a letter of opposition from the 24 organizations that some of whom I mentioned, which represent tens of thousands of workers who are concerned that this contract would harm their human rights. Today this morning, we saw the ACP, not this time. Nikita Oliver and others say loud and clear that the black community and others facing the brunt of police brutality strongly reject this contract. That is not a labor issue. It's a police accountability issue. Other council members have argued that the accountability changes in the contract are inconsequential or somehow even positive. This is appallingly dishonest and inaccurate. What are some of the specifics of why so many have objected to this contract? And I'm guided here by the CBC's expert recommendation, not rumors. First, the proposed contract states that in any conflict between the accountability laws and the language of the contract, the contract language takes precedence. If, as the mayor and some council members have claimed, this contract does not reverse important accountability measures. Then why was this this clause deemed necessary in the first place? Next, the contract language reintroduces the 180 day accountability loophole that dubs officers Cynthia writ large from facing consequences for the racist arrest of William Wingate for walking with a golf club. That is an illustrative example because it also points to another problem. That is, the language also hampers the ability to investigate reports of police brutality, racially biased policing, etc. It puts extreme limitations on civilian investigators. Again, the SBT will be investigating. The SBT and the rest of society is just expected to accept that they are policing themselves fairly. It prohibits. It prohibits accountability in investigations from coordinating with criminal investigations into the same incident. It removes some of the subpoena powers of the investigators, meaning that investigators again need to rely on the information that is volunteered. In other words, this contract reverses many of the hard won and yet limited police accountability reforms to defend the rights and in some cases, the actual lives of regular people in Seattle. This is completely unacceptable. Even Judge Roberts, in reviewing this contract, has questioned the city's contention that the contract is consistent with a consent decree, saying he doesn't believe that to be, quote unquote, accurate. He also responded sharply to the addition of what he called a quote unquote bribe to pay officers for wearing body cameras when in fact, they have already been ordered to do so in the context of the 2012 Department of Justice consent decree. I have stated as I have done so right now and in the past, that the accountability bill passed last year is not sufficient to create genuine accountability, to end discrimination and violence from the sort from the forces that are given the immense power over life and death that the officers are given. Really, we need to go much further in passing serious reforms. We need an elected community oversight board with full powers to hold police accountable, including the right to subpoena. This would also include the right of police to have union representative if being interviewed or disciplined. In this contract, we can see that when police negotiate with the political establishment, there is no one in the room that cares about how police officers impact communities of color and other working class people. This blog is advocating for their members, but the political establishment is mainly interested in maintaining the police as a force to reliably defend their power. What elected officials here is defending the rights of Sharlene Elias. Winning real change and serious police accountability measures will require that we all those of us who care about our members of the community, who are impacted by police brutality and racial profiling that we all together join to bring a stronger build a stronger and broader movement. As I've said so, for the last five years, social movements and class struggle are how change will be won in Seattle, not by putting any confidence in this city's Democratic Party led political establishment. We can take, as an example the inspiring block the Vanguard movement right here in Seattle, which forced this establishment very much against its will to halt the construction of what would have been the most expensive police station in the nation. While the city languished and still languishes in a deep housing affordability crisis that are gentrifying the working class and communities of color out of the city. This housing crisis is a central part of the deep and growing inequality in the city deep inequality, which is itself at the root of crime and public safety problems. We can also take as an example the movement that demanded and finally won justice for Laquan McDonald in Chicago, but doing more far reaching and urgently needed reforms. We will need a far stronger movement that brings together different sections of the working class and the labor movement, together with the oppressed, to fight together. I want to be clear. I support the wages and benefits negotiated in this contract, and if they were proposed without reversing any of the city's accountability legislation, I would be voting yes . For people who consider this fundamentally a labor issue. I would ask you to also consider the rights of other union members and working people in Seattle when they are negatively impacted by the police force. Think about your fellow union members who are stopped by the police simply for driving while black. I have read in the news that some have said that voting against this contract would lose me their support in the next election. However, at the end of the day, I am not a career politician. I am here to fight for all those who are left out in the corporate politics of City Hall and its backroom deals . If I wasn't going to consistently stand up for working people and oppressed communities, there would be no point in my being here. In closing, I also want to point out that the upcoming resolution that council members are claiming is somehow some sort of evidence that this police accountability will be upheld. I just want to let you know, I will have my comments later. But that does not the resolution does not address anything. I would hope that council members would today send this contract back to the mayor and the Labor Relations Policy Committee to restore all accountability measures and bring back a new version that the movement and I can support, one that does not increase the discrimination people face everyday or the danger of military mistreatment at the hands of the Seattle police. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Stewart.
Speaker 2: Councilmember. Councilmember O'Brien. You have the floor, sir.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I want to thank all the folks who came out to testify today. I really appreciate hearing passionate. Dedicated testimony on two different sides of an issue, but in a respectful way of the whole system. We what I heard today broadly was agreement in the room that we want to see. Fair wages for our public servants and their right to collective bargaining. And I also heard a commitment that we want to see police accountability. Unfortunately, it feels like the vote today has made those two mutually exclusive, but I do not believe that they are mutually exclusive. I do believe the reality of what we're facing today is particularly challenging and is one of the public commenters said it's an unfortunate place we're in where it feels like we have to pick between those two. I am 100% dedicated to making sure that all workers have the right to collectively bargain and that certainly public servants have a right to a fair and living wage. I also am 100% committed to the police reform work that's necessary. The decision before us today with the contract we have could go further. I think it could be a better document. But I'm going to support and vote yes on this today. I think that when I look at the options that are going to play out before us and the options I have by voting yes or no, I believe the best path forward to getting the reform we want is a yes vote on this contract. I know that the contract is not as strong as the legislation we passed earlier this year. That legislation that we passed was a unilateral decision by this council, as opposed to a bilateral negotiation. And the idea that we would get everything we wanted in that legislation in the contract. That would be ideal. But it's maybe not the reality that we could do. I think that when I look at the contract and what's in there, there are some good things that will allow us to move forward and improve police accountability. There are some things that folks have raised questions about that may prove to be challenges or they may not be. We're going have to look at those. And there are probably also components of this legislation that we have not focused on much. And yet when we move forward, we'll find them to be challenges that need to be worked on. The reality is that police accountability work is an ongoing exercise, that we're going to continually be moving in the right direction. And I believe what we have today and the choices before us that the most prudent thing to do is move forward. Council President Harrell, you spoke a little bit about your experience growing up in the city and I was also born and raised here. But my experiences are very different. My interaction with the police are very different, and that's largely because I'm white. And I think as we move forward on police accountability, it's critically important that we center race and thinking about how police accountability works. Unfortunately, the color of your skin is a huge predictor about getting involved in the criminal justice system today, and it shouldn't be that way in our city and our country today. And yet it is the reality. I'm proud of what's in this contract. Many aspects of it. I'm also disappointed that we weren't able to go further here. But I think what's going to be necessary, the next step is to live with this and learn from it and be ready to continue to revise it and move forward going forward. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Brown. Councilmember Herbold, I believe you have the floor.
Speaker 5: So to start off, I just want to make note so I don't forget that I'll be making a motion after consideration of this legislation and after Councilmember Gonzalez's resolution to move the clerk file that I mentioned earlier in that relates specifically to some needed transparency about the documents referenced in this contract. I want to vote for a contract way to raise officers wages and pay them their four years of fairly negotiated back pay. I also want to defend all of the reforms contained in the historic ordinance the Council passed in 2017. Many of these reforms are outside of the consent decree, but that doesn't make them any less important to me. 1300 Seattle police officers, detectives and sergeants provide critical public safety services to the residents of the city of Seattle, and they've done so without a labor contract since January 2015. Officers have implemented police reform. The Federal Monitor's report on use of force from 2017 said. At the same time, the force that MPD officers do use is by and large reasonable, necessary, proportional and consistent with the department's use of force policy. Credit for this major milestone goes first and foremost to the men and women of the Seattle Police Department. I've also heard very compelling principles from Labor about the importance of preserving the sanctity of bargaining in a post Janis reality. The Janis decision has put public sector unions in a challenging position, so they need to show that they can be effective in representing their members. The bargaining process is paramount as unions face a nationwide struggle in the wake of a Janis decision. We've heard strong critiques of this agreement from the Community Police Commission and from a number of community leaders, some of the same leaders whose original complaint to the DOJ in 2010 led to the DOJ's findings in 2011 and the consent decree in 2012. I've heard a lot of reassurance that reform is a result of incremental change. And to be really honest, I find that reassurance, really cold comfort. I was working on the council in 1999 when the OPA was created. I'm really well familiar with the incremental reform that we've eked out since that time, and I don't feel that incremental form is acceptable for policing today because I feel we need transformational reform. The public believes in the need for transformational reform with a statewide passage of i. I. 940 lives lost here and nationally proven that we in Seattle need to pave the way here and not incrementally. I believe we in Seattle need to pave the way for the nation because we have a president that in 2017 told officers, when you guys put somebody in the car and you're protecting their head, you know, like don't hit their head and they just killed somebody. I say you can take the hand away. Okay. We need to pave the way, like we said we were going to do when we passed legislation in 2017 that was heralded by this council as historic, that was unprecedented in other cities. So acknowledging this urgency in 2013, the Community Police Commission was formed by agreement between the City of Seattle and the Obama Justice Department, nod to Mayor Durkan and asked to inventory the accountability system, which had been incrementally revised over 14 years and to propose a complete revamp. This work was co-led by ideologically diverse participation from the downtown Seattle Association director Kate Junkie's Spark, then vice president Kevin Stuckey and Mothers for Police Accountability founder Harriet Walden. The proposals that the CPC had drafted before the last contract expired in 2014. In order to be available to the city for bargaining without constituting an you LP were put forward in the midst of a major scandal, as a large number of disciplinary findings were reversed contrary by SPD leadership, contrary to OPA recommendations in 2014 and at the high watermark of the Black Lives Matter movement, this law was not created upon ideology. Every sentence of the 71 place page plus page ordinance was crafted with the experience of 18 years of experience with the OPA. We have today. Each sentence addresses cases that were overturned or on sustained and identified by our auditor or community leaders as justice not served. But that could, in the future, with reform, be fixed. The changes and appeal process were made in the ordinance because of a group of disciplinary findings revealed to be overturned on appeal in a deal by CPD management contrary to OPA recommendations. The changes in the 180 day timeline were recommended because of a high profile case mentioned earlier today by my colleagues in which an officer who was fired by Chief O'Toole for bias and making an unlawful arrest was given backpay and allowed to resign in lieu of termination because the 180 day limit made her termination vulnerable to being overturned on appeal. And also because OPA faced repeated challenges in competing completing quality investigations due to the time limit. The prohibition on using unpaid leave to serve suspensions came after repeated public frustration at the idea of officers who had been found to have committed serious abuses being paid to sit at home. These are all specific, necessary changes resulting from actual cases that will not be made with passage of this contract. I think it's really important for us to recognize this. You know, don't clap. I'm sorry. I'm going to be letting you down. But I want I want this all to be on the record because it's really important to me, because I believe that we should not miss the chance to do what happened at the state level last January when backers of Initiative 940, knowing that they were overwhelmingly likely to win at the polls, still chose to sit down with statewide law enforcement leaders and find language that police groups found more palatable than the original version of I-94. That process of finding a win win Third Way actually built lasting relationships of trust, that foster harmony between police and community. And I hoped that we could do the same here locally by by choosing another approach rather than forcing through the contract that is before us. Based on the requests from the CPC and the 24 community organizations writing to council last week. I was very interested in proposing today a one week delay on voting on the contract and immediately moving next week to pass a separate piece of legislation. A proper appropriating spouse. Three years of backpay of $65 million with a request that Spag and the Executive bring back a contract in December and one in less than one month . With all of the points of agreement in that contract, including Spock's economic package, a back pay and raises body cameras and other points of agreement, such as the authority of the new OIG with a re opener for only the identified items of agreement. Was this a viable path? Officers would be paid their new wages begin to receive their 6065 million in three years of three years back pay beginning in January. That approach was intended by me to ensure that this Council expressed today a good faith to SPOHN, that this Council would support passage within a month of a contract with their wages in their back pay. Even without agreement on reform elements and with a desire to bargain those reform elements, however long it took without exerting the leverage held by management around wages. Yet good intentions aside, I understand that the Council unilaterally expressing an interest via legislation and doing what the Union, what Spargo or any other union wants outside of bargaining flies in the face of what unions are for. If the Council stated, as a matter of course started saying, Yeah, we'll pay you what you want, you don't have to bargain it. Unions would have a more difficult time demonstrating their worth to their members. This approach and this affects all unions and that the city bargains with this approach that I would have liked to pursue has been explained to me to be in violation of those very principles that I referred and referenced earlier as so important to a post Janice world. For this reason, what I had hoped was a win win proposition is actually not a viable path forward. I also proposed an amendment this morning that would move the ordinance effective date to sometime after the Federal Court has ruled on whether the elements identified in Councilmember Gonzalez. This resolution, which we hear about later, conflicted with the consent decree. Upon light advice of legal counsel, I'm not moving that amendment forward. So I'm left with a difficult decision where there's no clear path forward to vote for a contract, to both raise officers wages and pay them their back pay and guarantee our ability to defend all of the reforms contained in the historic ordinance the Council passed in 2017. And so since there's no path forward to do, both of those things are to work even towards both of those things, recognizing that we wouldn't necessarily get all the reforms in the ordinance. I have to actually weigh the relative value of what reforms this contract does guarantee with my desire to vote in favor of the economic terms of the contract. So to help me make that decision, I turn to the three legged civilian accountability system that has been created in part to guide our policymaking around issues of accountability. We've heard and discussed a lot the KPCC's view of this contract, and I value and deeply respect their experience and expertize that they carry on these issues generally. And the 2017 Accountability Ordinance specifically, Councilmember Gonzales requested that each the OPA director and the Inspector General on the contract requested their input on the contracts ability. On the contracts impact on their ability to do their job. So I appreciate that I have their perspective to consider in this balancing act. The EPA director has said there were improvements included in this agreement, the elimination of the Disciplinary Review Board, which included a SPA member civilian association of two OPA inspectors, changing the triggering event for the start of the 180 day clock, simplifying classification notifications, adding flexibility around OPA transcription, due dates and initial complaint notification around timing requirements and finally implementing a rapid adjudication pilot pilot. These also, much like I identified the reforms that aren't moving forward. These also are actual things. They're actual things that have arisen as needs for change to our accountabilities accountability system because of justice. That was not done in other cases. But I have to say, those identified improvements against his concerns that expressed that reservations around elements of the agreement that deviate from the accountability ordinance, such as his concern that we we're limiting the EPA's authority to coordinate criminal investigations. His concern that we were placing screen constraints on options, ability to allocate staffing and resources as it sees fit, and further complications around the 180 day timeline. Even as we we we remove some complications in one area, we are adding additional complexity around the 180 day timeline that are actually more restrictive in the SPA contract that then are in the SPM contract. The Inspector General similarly noted that the agreement legitimizes the Inspector General's authority within the labor structure and solidified the ability to function effectively. But again, I have to weigh those identified improvements against her stated concern that expressed reservations about elements of the agreement compared to the accountability legislation regarding access to information, in particular restriction of subpoena power, and the standard burden of proof about which Judge Robert has also raised concerns. She also identified issues around the ADA calculation and changes in finding or discipline. Neither the EPA director nor the Office of Inspector General has said that they can't do their job with this contract, but they do not dispute the CPC observation that on some very key points the contract would actually set us back as compared to what was promised in our Historic Accountability Ordinance passed in 2017. So I'm left with the impression that OPA and OIG are looking at this contract as it relates specifically to accountability as a glass half full, not half empty. Secondly, I have expressed over and over again to my constituents who write to me daily about public safety, that I support the speedy hiring plan that seeks to add additional officers. And I feel today that if I were to vote no, I don't know how I could say with a straight face to my constituents. Understanding how dire the recruiting picture is for CPD right now. I don't know if how I could say with a straight face that I support adding to the size of our police department because recruiting is so necessary to hire both for separations related to lateral hires and retirement, as well as to add to the size of the force. Maybe many in our labor community have promised us today that they're in this for the long haul, in the long haul for labor conditions for our workforce, but also in the long haul for law enforcement oversight. And I'm really going to count on that, and I look forward to working with everybody in this room, including having the leadership of labor moving forward in the contract negotiations that will begin with the reopenings in this contract and then later in negotiations for a new contract in 2020. And I just want to, in closing, say I really appreciate that so many of the folks who are before us today who have been actually urging us to vote no , have also said that they support our acting today to approve increased wages. Unfortunately, I feel like the negotiation process at this juncture does allow us to do both. It only allows us to act on the shared value as it relates to the economic package. It doesn't allow us to continue to work on the identified shortcomings, on the accountability. So consequently, I regretfully intend to vote yes today.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Herbold I think we've heard from most. I will say that every now and then, facts do matter. We've had 285 officers, police officers go through crisis intervention training and de-escalation training and and anti-bias training, all who have left the department. And we do concern ourselves with the department we were trying to build. I'd also say that the criticisms about the 180 disciplined timeline that seem to stimulate some applause because it seemed as though we didn't do anything, we actually improved that. The Wingate matter that Councilmember Swan mentioned.
Speaker 5: And others.
Speaker 2: I know very well, because he goes to my church and he's in my day right out in my office right after that unfortunate incident happened. We actually if there's material new evidence, it can trigger that day. So we did look at that and last I'd say that the OPI directors. Ability to, quote unquote, coordinate a criminal investigation that apparently we lost. The intent of that provision always to make sure that the director is not in the dark, that he or she knows what's going on in there. And so we look very closely at that and made sure that he continues or whoever is in that position continues to be in the loop. They can't affect the outcome of that investigation, but they are to be apprized of that process. So what's the bottom line there? The bottom line is there's that when we negotiated over years and looked at our negotiated and says we will not cave in on some very critical aspects of accountability. And the finance piece was, as in any union contract, was always leverage when we look at what we're willing to pay to to build, to find apartments, to make sure we get what we what we, what we needed to achieve. So. Councilmember Gonzalez, if you're prepared, maybe you can close debate and then we can vote.
Speaker 5: Great. I did want to, just in closing, highlight a couple of things. One is I will go through some of the key police accountability reforms that were achieved in this collective bargaining agreement. And then lastly, I just wanted to clarify that my reading of the Office of Police Accountability and Office of Inspector General Letters does not indicate that we are taking a step back from reform by virtue of the differences that are in the tentative agreement. And so I just wanted to clarify the record from my perspective in terms of what I thought I heard Councilmember Herbold say. And so the Office of Police Accountability, Andrew Meyer Berg wrote in his letter to the City Council that, quote, I recognize, however, that the conceptual argument surrounding the T.A. cannot be divorced from the reality that officers, detectives and sergeants have been working without a contract for the last four years. We have done so while implementing the reforms under the consent decree and acting as the engine to move the department to full and effective compliance. I firmly believe they deserve a contract. I share the concerns raised by many others that department morale is low and if the tape is rejected, it would it could undermine the oversight system and further erode the trust in mind that OPA has been working hard to undermine it has been working hard to undermine. To build. Sorry. These concerns must be balanced against the city's prerogative to negotiate lasting reforms that will ensure accountability and equitable policing moving forward. Labor contracts consist of a bargain of a bargain for exchange. Whether the trade offs included in the TO and the non inclusion of several provisions contained in the accountability ordinance are acceptable is not a question for you to answer. That is for City Council to decide. Similarly, I cannot speak to whether the TIA is consistent with the consent decree as this is a question for the parties to the decree and ultimately District Judge Roberto, regardless of the Council's decision. OPA will continue to carry out its mission and effectuate its purpose under both the accountability ordinance and the consent decree and the Office of Inspector General likewise issued in its its letter to us its conclusion, which provides that on balance, the Inspector General is empowered to perform accountability duties under the terms of the tentative agreement with with potential limitations. As highlighted above, OIG will have a role moving forward as the objective check on the system to review, audit and evaluate the systems as they play out under the tentative Agreement and Accountability Ordinance. OIG can use that information to help the city's oversight partners advance recommendations that improve the system and serve as guidance for what is needed to sustain public confidence. And then lastly, I just wanted to highlight some of the things. There's been a lot of talk in the room today and an email and otherwise about this concept that somehow we're rolling back police reform. And I think that because of those comments being stated in public, it's important for me to highlight what what I think we actually were able to achieve and move forward in terms of accountability reforms in agreement with the members of the Seattle Police Officers Guild and with the leadership of Chief Best. And so if you will just indulge me for another few moments, I would like to highlight those now. So Article 3.3 regarding indefinite suspensions expands the ability of the chief of police to impose an indefinite suspension. In addition to felonies, the chief can now suspend an officer without pay pending investigation for a gross misdemeanor involving moral turpitude or sex or sex or bias crime, where the allegation, if true, could lead to termination. Article 3.5. Due Process Hearings. The Office of Inspector General for Public Safety is now allowed to attend Article 3.5 Disciplinary Review Board abolishes the Disciplinary Review Board as an avenue for appealing a disciplinary action. Community members consistently express concerns about the fairness of Derby to those alleging this. Act. Article 3.6 B2 regarding criminal investigations modifies existing contract to clarify that the 180 day clock is told when a county prosecutor is reviewing a matter and not just a city, state or federal prosecutors. Article 3.6 F5 Interviews The Office of Inspector General for Public Safety is now allowed to attend all interviews. Article 3.6 Statute of limitations is extended from 3 to 4 years, with a relatively broad interpretation of what constitutes concealment of acts of misconduct. Article 3.6 Age related to open investigative file access allows the Office of Inspector General for Public Safety to access all open files. Article 3.6 AL Files Retention Sustain files will now be retained for the duration of an officer's employment plus six years. Not sustained files may be retained for three years plus the remainder of the current year. Article 3.7 related to criminal investigations establishes that the Office of Police Accountability may communicate with those conducting criminal investigations about the status and progress of the investigation, but but may not direct or influence the conduct of the criminal investigation. The current collective bargaining agreement prohibits any coordination between the Office of Police Accountability and the Criminal Investigators. Article 3.11 Rapid Adjudication. It establishes a new system allowing for the rapid adjudication for matters in which the officer agrees to waive formal investigation and accept discipline. While either the office or Office of Officer or Office of Police Accountability may initiate the process. Both the OPA and the officer must agree before the process is actually utilized. Article 4.2 A regarding personal files will allow the OIG to access personnel files. Article 4.2 C Written Reprimands. This deletes the requirement in the collective bargaining agreement that after three years, an employee may request that written reprimands be removed from an employee's personnel file. So I have just quickly went through 12 additional things that we have been able to achieve through this labor negotiations process that I think we should feel proud of. Does that mean that we can stop and that we can throw our ticker tape parade and say mission accomplished? Of course not. This process is iterative. We have to continue to be vigilant. We have to continue to test the systems. And let me tell you, we I feel very proud of the fact that we will have an office of inspector general who's going to be in a position to have full and unfettered access to help us monitor from a systemic perspective whether or not we are fulfilling our obligation to keep our officers safe and to keep the people that they are intended to keep safe, also safe. And so I just I want to make sure that folks understand that we have been able to accomplish a lot through this contract. That doesn't mean that our work is over. It does mean that I think this council can be proud in taking a vote today, in supporting this collective bargaining agreement and in taking the next step to making sure that the judge is also in agreement with some of the policy decisions that we have made today.
Speaker 2: Thank you. That's very bizarre. Okay. Having said that, and you see, I was being polite. I could have reminded you had.
Speaker 0: Translated transcripts out there like.
Speaker 2: That. So we're going to keep voting, if you can hear me. Thank you for that. Please call the roll on the passage. First of all, let me move to adopt counts bill 119368 as amended is removed. And second, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: By John Gonzalez.
Speaker 5: Herbold. By Johnson.
Speaker 3: Suarez Macheda. O'BRIEN All right. So I don't know. President Harrell I in favor one opposed.
Speaker 2: The bill passed.
Speaker 1: Chair assignment please read your clap back.
Speaker 2: And. We thank everyone for coming out, whether you got what you wanted or not. Thank you for your testimony and participation. Please read the next edition item into the record.
|
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 Officers’ Guild to be effective January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2020; amending Ordinance 125493, which amended the 2018 Budget (Ordinance 125475), by increasing appropriations to the Seattle Police Department and the Police Relief and Pension Fund; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_11132018_Res 31855
|
Speaker 2: And. We thank everyone for coming out, whether you got what you wanted or not. Thank you for your testimony and participation. Please read the next edition item into the record.
Speaker 3: From the amended agenda. Resolution 318 55. Recognizing the service and dedication of the Seattle Police Department's police officers, detectives.
Speaker 5: And sergeant are requested. The United States District.
Speaker 3: Court for the Western District of Washington to conduct a judicial review of the collective bargaining agreement reached between the city of Seattle and the Seattle Police Officers Guild.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 5: This is a resolution that would advance the tentative agreement that we just voted on it to the city attorney's office for a for consideration by and review of judge. In terms of making sure that there is compliance with the consent decree and the United States Constitution.
Speaker 2: Good. Very good. Any comments about the resolution? Council members who want. Council members.
Speaker 0: Have.
Speaker 6: Gotten worse.
Speaker 5: So I just want to speak that to the fact that I had concerns that though the resolution asked, the city attorney joined the city council in requesting judicial review. And I appreciate the city attorney's expression of his willingness to do so. I had concerns that the executive might have a separate interest in might want to argue in court that these items fall outside.
Speaker 3: The scope of the court.
Speaker 5: In opposition to their request in this resolution. Council central staff director has consulted with the Executive on my behalf and she has confirmed what Councilmember Gonzales has assured me this morning that the executive will not be arguing before the court that these six items are outside the scope of the judge. That said, though, I absolutely support us asking. I do have serious reservations that in short shrift Judge Roberts will be telling us that the six items in the resolution for which we are asking the court review for consistency with the consent decree are outside of the scope of the court, and we will be stuck with those terms until they are bargained out. And I hope that I'm wrong.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Concerning Herbold, council members who want.
Speaker 6: Thank you, President. Hope this resolution does nothing but deflect responsibility for the attack on police accountability in this contract that was just voted in. And councilmembers know that voting yes on the contract undermines police accountability, even though they say it doesn't, because this resolution lists six distinct restrictions on accountability in the contract. If council members know that these are problems, they should have voted no on the contract and sent it back to the mayor to renegotiate to fix these six problems. Instead, this resolution is an attempt to hide from their responsibility, asking Judge Robert to do the councilmembers job and to review the contract to see if it violates the consent decree. This is particularly absurd given that Judge Robert announced last week that he intends to do that review already. So this resolution literally does nothing, but it is being used as a clumsy attempt to direct the movement for police accountability into ignoring that they have just been betrayed. I also would like to point out a particularly imaginative whereas clause which describes the Seattle Police Officers Guild as quote, strong partners in ongoing efforts to implement lasting police reforms and accountability structures. And, quote, over 100 Seattle police officers sued to try to block the consent decree. The Seattle Police Officers Guild as a whole opposed I-9 40, the De-escalate Washington initiative that was just overwhelmingly passed by voters last week. And for the past months, they have been swarming the city to attempt to block elements of the accountability ordinance. And this resolution calls them, quote unquote, strong partners on accountability structures. I have no problem with Judge Robert reviewing this contract. He should and clearly will do so. However, I will not be party to this attempt to distract and disorient the movement for police accountability. So I will be voting no on this resolution.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much, Shaun. Okay. Any other comments before we vote? I see. No. Let's move forward. So I will move to adopt resolution 31855 their second. To those in favor of adopting the resolution, please vote i. I. Those oppose vote. No.
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 2: The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Please read the next agenda item.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION recognizing the service and dedication of the Seattle Police Department’s police officers, detectives, and sergeants; and requesting the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington conduct a judicial review of the Collective Bargaining Agreement reached between The City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Officers’ Guild.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_10292018_Res 31844
|
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Just one moment. Okay. Let's move to our first agenda item, please.
Speaker 2: The report of the City Council Agenda Item one, Resolution 318 44 proclaiming the yet that Seattle affirms the United Nations declaring declaration on human rights defenders in the wake of increased targeting of local activists.
Speaker 0: Cast member Herbold Thank you.
Speaker 1: As we have heard, this resolution is the result of a broad community effort specifically designed to address the targeting of local activists and leaders. Danny, a skinny one such activist and the former director of the Gender Justice League, a local gender and sexuality civil rights organization, reached out to the city council a number of months ago about several concerning threats and experiences of harassment. This harassment ranged from specific detailed threats via email to property destruction and physical in-person person threats. Much of the harassment targeted at Mrs. Kinney included specific anti-transgender language, and we know that the violence experienced in this instance is not isolated. We have heard similar concerns from other LGBTQ leaders and leaders of color in Seattle. This resolution was introduced or we started working on this introduce this resolution before the Trump administration's memo targeting transgender people. This resolution, in support of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders is now Sunday. Since that memo even more poignant in the face of continued federal erosion of civil rights protections, we worked with the four Office of Civil Rights Commissions, the Human Rights Commission, the Women's Commission, the LGBTQ Commission, and the Commission for People with Disabilities. In putting together this language. And in it, we proclaim that Seattle affirms the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. We describe it. The resolution describes the declaration and its history. It outlines Seattle's support of local human rights defenders and recommends that local law enforcement examine current practices with regards to supporting human rights defenders and activists who are experiencing threats and harassment. And as an aside, my office did share this resolution with the police department, and we have heard back from the police department and understand that they have no problems taking a look at what their practices are and making some some joint effort towards addressing the fact that there is very little, if any, enforcement related to cybercrimes. I want to thank the LGBTQ commission, the Human Rights Commission and the Women's Commission and the Commission for People with Disabilities. And Shannon Perez Darby from my office for their work on this resolution. And I would just like especially to thank Jessie Murray, the LGBTQ commission co-chair, for her leadership on this issue. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Kathryn Herbold. With any of my colleagues like to make any other remarks on the resolution. I think we're good. I don't think all of those that came out to testify and think, do you consider honorable for your leadership? Okay. I will move to adopt resolution 3184 for second, somewhat and second it should adopt RESIDENT 331844. Those in favor of adopting the resolution. Please vote i i those oppose vote no. The motion carries and the resolution is adopted. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 2: Agenda item two Resolution 318 45 Setting the public hearing on the petition of Seattle City Life for the vacation of a portion of Bridge Street between Harrison Street and Taylor Avenue North.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION proclaiming that Seattle affirms the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders in the wake of increased targeting of local activists.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_10292018_Res 31850
|
Speaker 0: Yes. Just one moment here. That coming at me. Thank you. Okay. As provided under RTW 42.17 8.555. The City Council will now consider the adoption of Resolution 31850. I'm reading the correct one. Yes. And at the conclusion of the Council member comments, the Council will hear comments from the members of the public who wish to speak on the resolution which endorses statewide Initiative 940, which concerns law enforcement on the November six, 2018 general election ballot. An approximate equal opportunity to speak. To speak will be given to members of the public. Having said that, will the clerk now please read agenda item number three?
Speaker 2: Agenda item three. Resolution three 2050 Supporting Washington Initiative Measure 940 and urging Seattle voters to vote yes on Initiative 940 on the November six, 2018 general election ballot.
Speaker 0: Okay. Just to as a matter of process, and we'll have some speaking opportunities here in a second, I'd like to formally move it first. And then there may even be an amendment I move to adopt Resolution 31850. Okay. Is the move in second to adopt the resolution? So we'll now hear comments from council members on the resolution. I'll begin the comments that basically, if you aren't following the issue and I want to thank Councilmember Gonzales for co-sponsoring that with me. This is a resolution that supports Washington initiative Measure 942, which urges Seattle voters to vote yes on Initiative 940 on the November six ballot. What does this do? The goal of the initiative is to decrease the use of deadly force by police in Washington State. On March 8th, 2018, the Washington State Legislature adopted this initiative, as well as House Bill 3003, which modified the initiative as a compromise between, quote, De-escalate Washington, an organization, community leaders and law enforcement agencies. But the Washington Supreme Court held that the initiative required a vote of the people. Personally, I believe the systemic racism and I think the history which would validate this implicates all facets of society. And our history has shown deep racial disparities in policy and the criminal justice system. Numerous reports reflect the fact, as an example, that black men age 15 to 34 are significantly overrepresented in police shootings relative to other demographic and age groups. The current standard under RC W 90.1 6.04 to determine whether law enforcement is criminally liable for using deadly force is a standard requiring proof of, quote, malice, unquote. Washington state is the only state that requires this extremely high malice standard for criminal liability in the use of deadly force. Initiative 940 would change the standard for when a law enforcement officer may justifiably use deadly force to quote good faith, unquote, a standard that has been adopted by other states. Initiative 940 would also require law enforcement officers in Washington to take violence, de-escalation training, mental health training and first aid training. A few other points of this resolution that I believe are noteworthy. That initiative 940 would also require investigations to include tribal governments where their members are involved. In short, I believe this is good policy. This is good policy for the residents and people of the city. This is good policy for the police department and a strong proudly to support initiative. 940 and would invite members of the from the diocese also speak to it. I'm aware of at least one amendment that will be advanced by council members who want which it basically takes out two. Whereas us I support this and look at this actually as a friendly amendment in that the issue in front of us is whether we are supporting. Initiative 940, which I believe we are, and as our own police department is still on an evaluation period. We are hoping many of us are hoping that we we we stay in compliance. But I think it is worth noting that accountability is something that you never sleep on. Accountability is a value that is at the forefront of good policing. So I think the initiative I so I welcome Councilmember Swan's comments and her basically amendment. And before we get into that, this s in general words about the base legislation and then we'll take any possible amendments that I became became aware of. So I'll give you all a minute to get your notes ready.
Speaker 8: And then, Harold, can I just ask one question? Yeah, sure. I'll wait for you to call on me to move the amendment, but I want to. I have a few general comments about the resolution as a whole, which I'd like to do after absolute.
Speaker 0: Very good. Councilmember So you're going to speak generally and then we'll come back to you on the amendment. Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 8: Not the other way around.
Speaker 0: Okay, that's fine. Councilmember Belcher.
Speaker 3: I'll just say this, is that I will support your recommendation to remove those two warehouses, and I certainly support moving forward with this resolution.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Gonzalez, you'd like to speak? Sure.
Speaker 1: Well, I want to thank you, Council President Harrell, for meeting us as a council on this important resolution to support Initiative 940. There's a lot of initiatives on the ballot this fall, so I think it's important for the city council to follow through on what I have been hearing a lot of our constituents express, which is a very strong favourability for this particular initiative. So with this resolution, we'll have an opportunity to state publicly our support for this as a city. And I'm looking forward to taking a vote on this. I just wanted to comment on a couple of things that I think Council President Harold, you did a really great job of describing the overall components of Initiative 940. I wanted to emphasize a few things. One is that I think it's absolutely critical for the public to understand that in order for us to be able to save lives of people who come into contact with police officers, we need to make sure that those police officers and that all law enforcement receives improved training to both de-escalate the situation and to also make sure that law enforcement, if they do have to use excessive force or deadly force, that they receive mental health treatment in order to prevent a tragedy from occurring again in the aftermath of those critical incidents. This initiative would also provide a fair process when a tragedy does occur for all those involved, but in particular for families and the communities that that those individuals come from. And, you know, I think it's really important for us to acknowledge that this the state of Washington has the harshest rules and the hardest burdens to meet when it relates to officers who have been who have engaged in deadly force. And there has been a lot of study done in this issue. The Seattle Times published a report, I think it was about a year ago, that talked about how out of the over 200 incidents across the state that involve deadly force, only one had been brought to prosecution in a court of law. And I think that that is an incredibly unjust outcome as a result of this law. And I think that the impact that it creates on our families and our communities, on our black and brown communities in particular, when they be they, first of all, lose a loved, loved one. And then on top of that, to add injury, to insult, we, we end up creating a situation where they can even pursue any form of justice in our criminal court system. And so I really think that this is an important initiative for our residents to support. And I would urge all of our colleagues up here to join us in in voting in favor of this resolution and supporting initiative. 940 And, and like you, Council President Harrell, I also do not have an objection to Councilmember silence amendments and see them again as friendly amendments.
Speaker 0: Very good. Councilmember Swan, before you proceed, let me sort of walk us through the process because it's a little confusing when we're going to hear from public comment as well. So Councilmember Swan will speak to the Bass legislation and her amendment, but we're not going to vote on it. Then we are going to hear from public comment. And then we're going to come back after public comment and then vote on both the base legislation and the amendment. Okay.
Speaker 8: Do you want me to move the amendment before public comment or.
Speaker 0: Why don't we do that? Because I think I think if we get into a colloquy after, then I have to open it back up for public comment. So it's a closed public comment and then we're supposed to vote. But can she move it before without the vote? It wasn't. So I should vote on the amendment before public comment. Yes. Okay. So I stand corrected. So we'll take your amendment, vote on it, but we won't vote on a piece of legislation. And then I also want to make it clear, I see Mr. Zimmerman as one of the persons that spoke on this agenda. My intent was not to deprive him an opportunity to speak on this agenda item. If I don't know where he is, but he is allowed to speak on this agenda item, at least per my request . Unless there are other issues that I don't know about that security may be aware of. So having said that, Councilmember Sawant, you have the floor on both the base legislation and your potential amendment.
Speaker 8: Thank you, President Harrell. First, I move to amend Resolution 31850 by removing to various clauses would say, quote, Whereas the Seattle Police Department has led the nation in implementing the reforms on its use of force, particularly in the area of crisis intervention. And. WHEREAS, the Seattle Police Department has reached full and effective compliance under a consent decree with the Department of Justice and continues to seek best practices in the investigations and reviews of officer involved shootings and other uses of force. And that's the end and good. I will wait for a second.
Speaker 0: I'll second.
Speaker 3: Thanks.
Speaker 8: Thank you. The resolution as a whole supports statewide initiative 940, which I am very much in favor of. And I appreciate the comments made by President Howland Councilmember Gonzalez on the amendments already. This is a statewide initiative. And so, first of all, I do not think it is specifically about the Seattle Police Department. And so whereas clauses about the Seattle police are unnecessary. But while referencing the Seattle police is unnecessary and this resolution should also be clear that this initiative was a grassroots citizens initiative initiated and organized by the families and communities of John T Williams and Shea Taylor, both of whom were shot and killed at the hands of the Seattle Police Department. And this amendment, I am only proposing that we remove the references to Seattle police not proposing to add anything. Although ideally I think the narrative of the communities that have been impacted by Seattle police could also have been added since they could not prove malicious intent when SBT officers shot and killed their loved ones . And because, of course, you cannot prove intent. These community organizers gathered hundreds of thousands of signatures to put Initiative 940 on the ballot so future families do not face the same injustices. I fully support 940 and will vote on yes on the resolution, but I also think that these two various glosses would be completely contrary to supporting the people who have suffered violence at the hands of police officers. So I think we should remove these and I appreciate the support that has already been given to the amendment. I also wanted to add a few points on the resolution as a whole. It takes a particular type of courage to respond to a personal tragedy by organizing to prevent other people from having to face those same. So my deep appreciation to the families of those who have been killed at the hands of the police for their leadership in the United States, police departments use deadly force at a rate far beyond most other parts of the world. Just for one example, in one year, all the police forces of Finland combined combined fired a total of seven bullets total. That is fewer bullets than Seattle police officers fired into Charlie Knolls alone. Across the country, officers have killed 798 people so far this year. And for an officer to be held accountable for this, to be prosecuted, to be found guilty is almost unheard of. The conviction of Jason Van Dike in Chicago for the murder of Laquan McDonald earlier this month was the first time in half a century that a Chicago police officer was found guilty, and that was only made possible after a liberal conspiracy to cover up video evidence of the murder involving the heights of Chicago's political establishment was uncovered. Officers need to be held accountable for excessive force, particularly when people are killed. And we should very much support 940 and urge voters to pay attention to this ballot initiative on their ballot. It will, if passed, remove a frankly impossible burden of proof to hold officers accountable. I would also add, though, that while winning this initiative was extremely important and critical, we should not expect that discrimination and violence at the hands of police officers would end by this important step, which is only one step. It has required incredible dedication of thousands of activists and organizers, and it deserves our full support. But after November, the fight for justice in policing must continue. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Swann. We have a live amendment to delete to, whereas is on the floor. Would anyone like to speak on either the amendment or the base legislation? General comments on the legislation. If not, we're going to just vote on the amendment. Okay. It's been moved in second to amend the legislation as described by council members. So what all those in favor say I, I oppose. The ayes have it. So the base legislation is amended by deleting the two whereas this. And now are there any further comments before we take it to the public council member?
Speaker 1: HERBOLD Thank you. I just want to echo Councilmember Swann's gratitude to the grassroots efforts and the and the many, many people who have come together to work for a correction of a grave injustice in our state. Last year, more Washingtonians were killed in encounters with law enforcement than in 45 other states, and a third of those showed signs of a mental health crisis. I agree with Councilmember Sawant that it takes an incredible amount of courage to be a family member or a loved one who has lost someone and has had the fortitude to work tirelessly to make sure that there is redress from their government in the future. I do, in light of the amendment that we just made, want to recognize that there have been a number of law enforcement endorsements of this measure. And I want to thank the Black Law Enforcement Association of Washington, King County Sheriff Mitzi. Janette King County Sheriff John Urquhart, former. The Law Enforcement Action Partnership. The National Black Police Association. Retired Police Chief Jim Pugel and retired Police Chief Norm Stamper. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you for those comments. Councilmember Herbold. Okay. So at this point. That will conclude comments from council members and we'll hear from comments from members of the public who wish to speak on the resolution. And the time allotted for these comments will be, I'll say, 20 minutes and the speakers will be called an order which in which they signed up and they can go in two minute segments. First, we have Mr. Alex Zimmerman, who I believe has left the building. And Yochi, your second, Yochi Markovich. I was struck with your name. I apologize for that thing I have by now. And then Allie Lee will follow. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Hi, my name is Sochi. Make You Rich. And I'm with Washington Community Action Network. We are on the leadership team for De-escalate Washington. So I'm just here on behalf of the coalition to say thank you for putting forward this resolution in particular Councilmember Gonzalez Council President Harrell for introducing this. And we just wanted to express gratitude for all of the support that each of you have given to this cause. If it wasn't for the early support that many of you gave during the signature gathering, we wouldn't have gotten to this point. And so we just wanted to express thanks and we're looking forward to a likely unanimous vote.
Speaker 3: So that's all. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And our last speaker was Allie Lee.
Speaker 3: Hello. Um, I wanted to thank you for your support on the endorsement of 940. We're helping as a leadership team member of De-escalate Washington and served on the Community Safety Task Force after the death of Donnie Chin. Discussions on training for de-escalation for state in mental health have always been at the forefront for safety in our communities . We need to remember that teachers as well go through de-escalation, first aid and mental health training. Why would we not ask the same of our law enforcement? I am so proud and honored to serve in a leadership team that puts impacted families and communities first in our community strong that have all supported. I want to thank you again for your support and hope for yes on 940.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public who would like to speak on Resolution 3185 of dealing with. Nine 3940. I'm sorry. Any other members of the public? No. Okay. So we are ready for a vote. Any further comments from my colleagues? I hope that we're ready for those in favor of adopting Resolution 31850 as amended. Please vote i. I those opposed vote no. The motion carries a resolution is adopted as amended, and then Cher will sign it. And before I move to our Jane, I want to also thank the mayor and her team for preparing the legislation. I should have made that I want to thank them for their work and their support on this as well. Let's move to our last agenda item. Please read it into the record.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION supporting Washington Initiative Measure 940 and urging Seattle voters to vote “Yes” on Initiative 940 on the November 6, 2018, general election ballot.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_10222018_CF 314388
|
Speaker 0: Bill pass and show senate. Please read items one end to.
Speaker 4: Three points City Council urgent times one in two quick 531438 full unit lot subdivision of a UTP LLC to subdivide one person 287 Unit lots at 20 101 Northeast 80th Street Constable 119 366 are property my sues me approving confirming the plant of Ravenna north in portions of the southeast quarter and Southwest Quarter, Section 33 township 26 , north range four East AM in King County, Washington.
Speaker 0: So this a clerk file and a bill that comes from Johnson scribe this morning so I'd from Johnson City described them both and after his words unless they in other words we'll just take both of the matters and vote on them together. So, Councilmember Johnson, thank you.
Speaker 2: Council President to refresh the memory of those who missed council briefing this morning, this is an action that we are required to take by state law. So the action comes straight to full council. As a result, it's the confirmation of a four unit lot subdivision at 2101 Northeast 88th Street, the formerly university trailer park, which is now a set of townhomes. The action here would effectively facilitate the subdivision of that single person onto 87 lots for sale or lease of 87 townhomes. The Department of Construction and Inspections, Department of Transportation and our Council central staff have all confirmed that the PLAT would meet all applicable conditions and recommend final subdivision approval. The hearing examiner also reviewed these findings and we concur with the hearing examiner's preliminary plat approval from April. So a couple of years ago we as a council authorized $190,000 through the city's Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance to the low income residents of the trailer park who qualify. This is in addition to the state assistance that many of them qualified for as well. So the trailer park has been relocated. Those that could be relocated were those who needed the access to the state and local funds. Got it. And the construction of these townhouses is already complete. So the action that we take today is to simply affirm that the conditions have been met. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions that there may be. But if there aren't any, I'm not seeing anybody rushing to a microphone. I guess I would move to a place on file clerk file 314388.
Speaker 0: Okay. Any comments about the Clarke file that we're about to put on file? It's been moved in second to place the Clark file on file. Those in favor of filing the Clark file, please vote i, i. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries and the Kirk file is placed on file. Any other words about the bill itself?
Speaker 2: Councilmember Johnson No, sir. I would just moved up. House Counts Bill 119366.
Speaker 0: It's been moved it's been moved in second to pass counts bill 119366. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 4: Mosquera I.
Speaker 1: O'Brien. Hi, Baxter. Hi, Gonzalez.
Speaker 4: Hi. Herbold Hi.
Speaker 1: Johnson Whereas President Harrell high aide in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Going to move on to the adoption of other resolutions. So let me just say a few words about the action we're about to take or we're considering taking as provided under RTW. 42.17 8.555. The City Council will now consider the adoption of Resolution 31846, and at the conclusion of our councilmembers comments, the Council will hear comments from the members of the public who wish to speak on the resolution which endorses the state wide initiative 1639 on the November six, 2018 general election ballot and approximate equal opportunity to speak will be given to members of the public. So having said that, will the clerk please read agenda item three into the record, which is under the section adoption of the resolutions?
|
Clerk File (CF)
|
Full unit lot subdivision of UTP, LLC, to subdivide one parcel into 87 unit lots at 2101 NE 88th Street (Project No. 3024872; Type III).
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_10222018_Res 31846
|
Speaker 0: will be given to members of the public. So having said that, will the clerk please read agenda item three into the record, which is under the section adoption of the resolutions?
Speaker 4: Agenda Item three Resolution 318 46 A Resolution supporting Washington Initiative Measure 1639 and urging Seattle voters to vote yes on Initiative 1639 and the November six, 2018 general election ballot.
Speaker 0: Before any council members would like to speak on this, let me sort of move the process along. I'll move to adopt Resolution 31846. So has been moved in second to adopt resolution 31846. And so we'll now hear comments from council members pertaining to the resolution. So any council members would like to speak to it. Please proceed. Councilmember Gonzales, you have the floor.
Speaker 4: I would love to speak as to my resolution. So this is a resolution that I'm bringing forward in collaboration and conjunction with Mayor Durkan and really excited about setting forth another action by the Seattle City Council in support of common sense gun legislation. We have, as you all know, taken many steps over the last several years to act where we believe we can act as the city of Seattle. And in fact, last week received wonderful news about our own gun safety storage ordinance that we passed here at the city council. The NRA moved to file suit against us, and that case was dismissed last week. And our law was upheld as being constitutional and in an effort to continue to be responsive to our constituents requests to continue to advance common sense gun safety legislation. It is with great pride that I introduced this resolution concerning firearms. This particular initiative, initiative, Measure 1639 will be on the general election ballot on November six, 2018. This initiative seeks to make changes to to state law related that are contained within the Firearms and Dangerous Weapons chapter of our CW 9.41 initiative. 1639 would create an enhanced background check system and require firearm safety training and waiting periods before semiautomatic semi-automatic assault rifles may be purchased or delivered. And Initiative 1639 would impose age limitations on who may purchase or possess certain firearms, including prohibiting purchases by persons under age of ten, under the age of 21. And this initiative would also require certain secured firearms storage or trigger locks and criminalized non-compliant firearm storage if it results in unauthorized use. So it is my great honor to be able to present this resolution to the City Council in hopes that the City Council will have a unanimous vote to urge Seattle voters to vote yes on Initiative 1639 in the November six, 2018 general election.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Catherine Gonzales. Would any other members like to comment on the resolution before us? Okay comes from bakeshop.
Speaker 1: Only that I want to say great thanks.
Speaker 4: To my colleague Councilmember Gonzales and all who have worked on this. I wholeheartedly support it and I'm glad to see our state moving forward in this direction.
Speaker 0: I concur. Thank you very much. Okay. That concludes the comments from councilmembers and will now hear from comments from the members of the public who wish to speak on the resolution. And the total time allotted for the comments will be 10 minutes in two minute increments, and the speakers recalled in the order which they signed up.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION supporting Washington Initiative Measure 1639 and urging Seattle voters to vote “Yes” on Initiative 1639 on the November 6, 2018, general election ballot.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_10012018_Res 31837
|
Speaker 4: Agenda Item three Resolution 318 37 amending adopting the policies and procedures that govern the re-use and disposal of real property owned by the City of Seattle, not subject to the city department jurisdiction, updating certain portions of the procedures relating to property, reuse and disposal for affordable housing, and adding provisions regarding the use of proceeds from surplus property disposal. The committee recommends a resolution be adopted as amended.
Speaker 7: Councilmember Mesquita Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. President, this legislation is a call for development done right? It's a call for development done through the community lens for the families and workers who want to and need to live within the city. It's in. It's in response to the call for density to help address the environmental impacts of displacement. Earlier today, I was listening to public testimony from the legislative body that oversees housing in Olympia. And Jaime Hahn, president of the Northwest Carpenters, testified saying the following. Despite the boom and despite the fact that our membership is overwhelmed with work, we are still not producing, producing enough housing, he said. Just like the police officers who cannot afford to live on the streets that they patrol. Just like the teachers who cannot afford to be neighbors to the children they educate, carpenters cannot afford to live in many of the homes we build with our own hands. This legislation is a response to the housing crisis and the injustice that many of us have talked about so far. We need housing. We need affordable housing. We need to house the homeless and we need to do it now. This legislation is in response to the call for reversing the exodus, especially of communities of color. As our friends from the tribal community said today. People who are the most vulnerable are losing out on the opportunity for housing. We're losing out on the opportunity for density in our neighborhood. We're losing the opportunity for more greenspace and public space for communities to engage and have opportunities for engagement. We're losing the opportunity for individuals to be able to live in the city that they work. And we need to make sure that all city property is used for the best use and not just sold at the highest price. Many of us know the root causes of the sad reality. The historic roots of redlining and restrictive zoning has often made it harder for working families, especially women and people of color, to have access to affordable housing. When housing is so limited in our city, it's often redlined communities where we see families and community organizations that are trying to serve those families who don't have the capacity to purchase new land and don't have the ability to create housing opportunities, especially mixed use opportunities for the density done in our for density in our communities. But when we remove the cost of land, the cost of producing affordable housing can be decreased by 15%. So in response to the comments that we've heard today, no, this legislation doesn't correct the injustice of redlining and it doesn't correct the injustice of having land taken. But it does help us begin the first steps necessary to make sure that more community organizations and individuals who are the most vulnerable have actual site control, and that we build the housing to respond our communities need. And now is the time where we have to act. Here is where we need to act at the local level. The Federal Department on Housing and Urban Development has just engaged in efforts to dismantle efforts to create affordable and fair housing. Here is where we have the opportunity, and I want to thank representative for you another woman of color who we should constantly thank when they are leading the effort, who passed House Bill 2382. She passed this earlier, this legislative session to make sure that we look at opportunities for us to take a step further and make sure that community has the opportunity to build the housing that we need on surplus property, that we commit ourselves to engaging and creating affordable housing to meet our fair housing goals, and that we are not only building housing but building community opportunities by making sure that housing is above child care facilities, above health facilities, next to public parks , and creating opportunities for small businesses to thrive on the first and second floors. And that we do this in a way that is built next to transit centers. And when we see maps of Seattle and where we know that displacement is occurring, especially for these most vulnerable communities, we have an obligation to do more. The community organizations who helped pull together this legislation have made it possible for us to now have tools in hand for us to take the next steps in living our values. And that is public land should be used for the best public use. And over the years coming up, I hope that we can act with urgency to make sure that these policies are set into place. Mr. President, there's six bullets that I'd like to read that outline what this legislation does, if I might.
Speaker 2: Please do. Councilmember.
Speaker 7: First, it sets a policy that requires the city to prioritize using surplus land for affordable housing in addition to parks and open spaces. Childcare and early learning centers. Educational facilities. Light routes. Light rail stations think little things like grocery stores so we can address food deserts. It allows for us to make sure that the land can also be leased, which means that the city maintains public ownership or partial ownership from municipal use. And that means that the property can be developed into affordable housing for mixed use. It directs the Office of Housing to partner with community organizations in areas of heightened risk of displacement, allowing for greater community ownership, site control and affordable housing to be developed through their lens. And it sets a benchmark that if a parcel is sold, if after an intense analysis, that the land is not going to be developed by the city in partnership with community organizations, that if it is sold, a goal of 80% of that revenue will be generated for parcels to go into affordable housing and into making sure that we meet our goals under the Equitable Development Initiative. It adds additional reporting from the Office of Housing regarding implementation to ensure accountability. So we're actually living our values and those organizations are serving the community that they intend to serve and that they're reflective of the community through their boards and leadership. It also cuts in time, cuts it in half the time for internal process in the city to review these parcels so we can build housing with urgency of the changes that I'm most excited about. It directs the Office of Housing to work with community organizations and to design affordable housing, especially for those who are at risk of displacement. To make sure that we are actually working with the communities that are at highest risk of displacement, instead of just assuming that that will happen with development and development is done right when community organizations are brought to the table, we can create the housing that we need and we can do it in a way that addresses the environmental impacts of displacement and as an effort to try to reverse some of the injustices that we talked about before. So I'm excited about this legislation, as you can tell. Mr. President, there's been a number of efforts that we have worked on together over this last year. But this is the piece of legislation that I think really helps us live our values in terms of how we can do a better job with publicly owned land and make sure that we get more affordable housing and community assets. This wouldn't have been possible without the organizations that you heard of today and a number of additional ones that I'd like to read very briefly, including folks from Puget Sound, Sage Got Green Interim CTA, El Centro 350, Seattle, Sierra Club, Campus Housing, Housing Development Consortium Future Wise of four Terra Enterprise Community Partners Chief. South Seattle Club. Seattle Indian Services Commission. Beacon Hill Development Group. Rainier Beach Action Coalition. Filipino Community Center Abundance of Hope Sustainable Seattle Sightline Mount Baker Housing Seattle Tech for Housing Seattle for everyone and so many more. I want to say very briefly before we get to amendments, a huge amount of appreciation to Sally Bagshaw. Thank you, Councilmember Bagshaw, to your team Allison, Dan, Brian and Linda for their ongoing work with us to make sure that we got this right. To Tracy Radcliff from central staff who constantly worked with us to make sure this was possible and to the intense work from our team, especially Michael Maddox and all of his research on this. I want to thank also as well Aretha Basu and Farida Cuevas, who helped shape this work and working with community organizations. This is a continuation of the work that you all worked on, I think, in 2017 within Councilmember Burgess. What we've done today is taking it to the next level in terms of what we mean by highest and best use of the parcels. And I'm really excited with this legislation. We will hopefully be able to see more. PLAZA Roberto Maya's does more Filipino community centers, more literal shopping places and more opportunities for, for example, Seattle Club as chief Seattle Club to acquire site control for production of permanently affordable housing to serve communities who've been left out and are at risk of displacement. And this is, I think, how we respond to the housing crisis today and also the housing crisis that will be here with us in 20, 30, 40 years if we don't act now. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Catch from a skater. Any. My colleagues like to address the resolution. So we'll go with Councilmember Beckstrom.
Speaker 9: Thank you. I want to just say. Councilmember Mesquita, you and your office have been fabulous partners on this. Thank you very much for taking the lead. Michael Maddox, I know you're embarrassed in the background that we call you out, but truly working with you and with the folks in my office who've done that is make a big difference. I just want to say I completely concur that this is the right way to go and we simply need a whole lot more housing, a lot faster, which means much more resources in order to do this that people say, well, it costs so much money. And I want to remind my legislator friends that last year the housing trust fund offered $100 million, which was a great beginning, but not statewide. We could so easily use $100 million right here to build the kind of units that we need. And if we're doing full on brick and mortar, we know that it's about $30 million for 100 units. And if we want to look at some options, like what we've been arguing for around modular is to try some pilots to get some things built and up and on, just ready to go for people. I really want to encourage us to look at every possible alternative. And in that regard, I would like to say thanks to my King County colleagues, John Arthur Wilson and Adrian Quinn, who are helping us look at those kinds of opportunities across the county. We cannot do this alone. You will hear me say a thousand times. The city government can do anything, but we can't do everything. And we need help and we need money in order to get this going. So. Also, we've got the green space, the parks, the education, all the amendments that we talked about. Do you have an amendment, an amended version that we need to bring forward before we vote on this?
Speaker 7: I sure do.
Speaker 9: Great, July. Thank you. Please. So that's my comments. I just say. And what?
Speaker 2: Thank you. So why don't we take the amendments and then we could describe the the amended legislation and we have some closing comments. So you have, I believe, an amendment one councilmember mosquito.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I think I unfortunately described the amendments as I was doing my spiel. So I do have two amendments, both just to clarify legislation. So the first is Amendment one, I'd move to amend Resolution 31837 by using substitute version five for substitute for version for the second.
Speaker 2: It has been second. So basically we're just accepting version since she actually spoke to the the new version. So substituting version five for version for any comments on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment. But I.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Opposed the ayes have it and amendment one has passed.
Speaker 7: Amendment two relates to attachment. I'd like to move to amend resolution 31837 attachment A by substituting version five for version for a second.
Speaker 2: It's been moved in second on the attachment. Any comments those in favor of amendment number two, which is again the attachment a subsequent version five for version for a. All those in favor say I. I opposed the ayes have it and those two amendments are passed. So we have an amended resolution and Casper bring back show you're through with your remarks, I assume. And Councilmember O'Brien, you have the floor, sir.
Speaker 8: Thank you so much again. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Mosqueda, for your work on this. And thanks community members for continuing to make sure that the city is focused on delivering as much affordable housing and using and prioritizing all of our resources towards that. I am thrilled to be supporting this going forward. I also want to acknowledge that there are there are surplus properties that are currently going through a process. Some of the homeowners spoke to that, specifically the Mercer Mega BLOCK, and I've been working closely on that and want to make sure that the process will maximize the amount, affordable housing and want to work with community members to really understand how we can do that to serve the best interest and get the most housing and in the neighborhoods where we need it most at the same time. So I think this resolution is a great step forward and we'll continue to work on those that are in the process.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Casper and Brian. I'll just say briefly councilmember skater that and I think what? What makes a difference in a good legislature legislator is the the ability by which they can get creative and really think outside the box and look at new problems and old solutions. And again, sort of put on their thinking hat and really push the envelope. And I think that's what you and your staff are doing. So I want to commend you on that. We've looked at surplus property and both from the generous Upton and for our utilities for years. But I think you've taken a much more aggressive approach and one that will better serve our residents and our our constituents throughout this city. So thank you for bringing forth this resolution. And with that, I think we are ready to vote. Are you ready to vote, Catherine Mosquito. Okay, all those in favor of adopting the resolution as amended. Please vote i. I those oppose vote no. The motion carries the resolution is adopted. Then Chair will sign it. Please read the next. Yeah, let's step on that. Please read the next agenda item.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION amending and adopting the Policies and Procedures that govern the Reuse and Disposal of real property owned by The City of Seattle not subject to the City Light Department jurisdiction; updating certain portions of the procedures related to property reuse and disposal for affordable housing; and adding provisions regarding the use of proceeds from surplus property disposal.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_10012018_CB 119356
|
Speaker 4: Three Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee Genda in five Council Vote 119 356 relating to sale of public utilities in many sections 21.20 8.0, 40.0 80 and 21.70 6.0. 42 Items for code to address wastewater rates committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 2: Council Member Herbold Thank you.
Speaker 5: So the drainage in wastewater rates relate to the strategic business plan that the City Council passed last year by Resolution 31769. And the strategic business plan endorsed a six year average rate increase of 5.2% across all lines of business. This legislation would establish drainage and wastewater rates for 2019 through 2021, and this package before us actually lowers that rate by a 10th of a percent lower than what is in the endorsed six year strategic business plan.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 0: Herbal Hi. Johnson. Suarez, Moscato. O'Brien All right, so what? Big John Gonzalez President Harrell.
Speaker 2: High.
Speaker 0: Eight in favor not opposed.
Speaker 2: Bill passes and share with Senate please read agenda item number six.
Speaker 4: Agenda item six Principle 119 345 Land and zero Public Utilities and many sections 320 1.33.0 30 and 21.76 zero. 40th C Transfer Code to Adjust Drainage Rates Committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 5: Councilmember Herbold Thank you. The Water System Plan provides guidance for planning and managing the city's drinking water system and associated capital facilities for the next 20 years, in coordination with growth management planning by the city and other planning agencies. The Water System Plan provides guidance to Seattle Public Utilities on future direction for all elements of its water system, including new water use efficiency goals for the Regional Water Conservation Program. An update to the Water Shortage Contingency Plan and strategies and plans for operating, maintaining and improving the system for the next ten years and beyond.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Casper Herbold. Any questions about agenda item number six? If not, please call the role on the passage of the Bill Herbold II.
Speaker 0: Johnson Whereas I macheda i. O'Brien All right, so on. Big shot Gonzalez. President Harrell.
Speaker 2: High.
Speaker 0: Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: Bill passed in show Senate. Please read agenda item number seven.
Speaker 4: Agenda item seven Council Vote 119 347. Relating to set of public utilities adopting the 2018 Water System Plans Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 2: Customer Herbold.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I just.
Speaker 0: Realize.
Speaker 5: When the city clerk read the second item into the record that the, my, my comments for item five were actually for item five and six and I already gave my comments for item seven. So I have nothing more to add.
Speaker 9: Efficiency as leaders.
Speaker 2: Many of us were well aware of that because.
Speaker 0: You're.
Speaker 5: Tracking it.
Speaker 2: Okay. Now, are we ready to vote on number seven? Please call the roll on the passage of the Bill.
Speaker 0: Herbold by Johnson Suarez Moscato. O'Brien All right. So on John Gonzalez President Harrell.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 9: Have.
Speaker 0: Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: The bill passed in show senate. Please read items eight and nine together.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; amending Sections 21.28.040, 21.28.080, and 21.76.040 of the Seattle Municipal Code to adjust wastewater rates.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_09242018_CB 119345
|
Speaker 1: The Report of the Select Committee on Civic Arenas. Agenda Item one Constable 119 345 relating to key arena authorizing the renovation of Key Arena into a world class, multipurpose sports and entertainment arena at Seattle Center, including its design, construction, lease financing and Future Operations Committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Suarez.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Good afternoon, everybody. Before I go to my more official comments, I want to thank everybody who are here today who have been coming to all of our public hearings, our committee meetings, to provide public comment on this very important piece of legislation. Again, I just want to remind everyone that.
Speaker 0: It is 2018.
Speaker 8: Let's not live in the past. We just celebrated our third WNBA national championship.
Speaker 0: Go Seattle Storm. Thank you. Owners of Sales Storm.
Speaker 8: I guess sometimes when I hear people just go on and on about oh eight and their hearts being ripped out, I get a little annoyed because that was ten years ago, so you kind of gotta let that go. So we are starting a new day here in the city with a new partnership and a new partnership, and I'm very, very happy and excited. The Select Committee on Civic Arenas made a unanimous recommendation on September 14th, 2018 that the City Council passed Council bill as amended. This, as you, many of you know, is a few years in the making. The dozens of committee and committee in city council meetings, private briefings, community events, individual briefings and tons of paper and notebooks. But we're finally here. I want to thank my co-chair, President Harrell. I want to thank the client group who worked with me closely. Councilmember Bagshaw representing District seven in Council Member Johnson. Your participation and willingness to work with me as well as your staff was invaluable. I know we spent a lot of time together and you're probably tired of me and all the notebooks. A special thank you to my amazing five team in my office. Both both past and present. Brendel Nagy, Tyler, Mercedes, Sabrina and Shaina. Hundreds and hundreds of hours of putting together notebooks and reading and highlighting and collating and making sure that my colleagues had all the information they needed to make the right decision. And a very particular wonderful thank you to our director, Kirsten Anstead. Where are you? Kirsten, please raise your hand. This woman is amazing. Want to go a little bit off script here. I don't think people realize how hard and I think I can say Kirsten Kirsten.
Speaker 0: Is the is the glue that makes it.
Speaker 8: Happen. She's the one that makes sure all the charts, all the analysis.
Speaker 0: That it takes it much very sophisticated.
Speaker 8: Complicated ideas and all these transaction documents and boils it down. And we all work together to make sure they got done. And I could not have done this job without her. So I told her, when I leave this job some day, I'm taking her with me. So I'll leave it at that. I also want to be a special thanks to Ovg and their team. Your commitment, both financial and civically, to our great city is very, very much appreciated. We appreciate the time you took for us in the last about 18 months to work with us through many drafts and many documents. And I cannot tell you it was a labor of love, but it was well worth it. I want to thank the leadership and the cooperation of the executive team, particularly Mayor Jenny Durkin, Robert Nelms, Marshall Foster, the two Carls Carl Carl Steckel and Carl Hersch, Ben Noble. Thank you, Ben, for all your hard work and of course, our legal team, Greg Nava and our experts, most notably for me anyway, it was Mr. Abrams from NYU. Mr. Abrams again spent a considerable amount of time who the Legislative City Council hired to walk us through the most difficult documents, making sure that we understood due diligence , equity, financing, backstops, all that stuff.
Speaker 0: So thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Thank you. We are all proud of the hard work everybody contributed to deliver us here today. And in particular, I want to thank the city of Seattle and all the dedicated public servants who I did not list off today, who spent countless hours in time. And of course, all my colleagues and their legislative staff that came to meetings and took the time to meet with me and Kirsten and anyone who would listen about any material or any information or anything that they didn't understand. And one last thank you to the wonderful community groups that reached out to me that we met with so we could accommodate all of the needs of the residents, not only within the development zone, but those outside of the development zone. And I believe that this is just the beginning of a wonderful new era. 2018 is our year to make our city. And we said that line, and I'm going to say I almost said, make city Seattle great again. No, that's not what I was going to say. Seattle is already great. We are going to make it greater. And this is a phenomenal partnership.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Chair, where's Councilmember Bagshaw?
Speaker 8: Thank you very much. And thanks to all of you who are here. Many of you were here with us two and a half years ago, and I think I opened up my comments with something like, sometimes you have to stand up what's right, even if you have to stand alone. And fortunately, I had a number of my colleagues who were willing to stand with me. And notwithstanding some of the stuff that we heard over the last year and a half, we have really been heartened by the support that we have received from all of you and from Oak View Group and Kirsten and Robert and Marshall, all of my own. Deborah has already sung your praises, but I just also want to say that when we first put this out in an RFP, the goal was to say Seattle and the Seattle center and the key arena are assets that are worth saving and not just saving, but revitalizing. And I am so excited today that the objectives that we had laid out included provide the world class civic arena that will attract and present music, entertainment and sports events, potentially including an NHL and an NBA. We know the NHL is within our grasp. I believe we'll see NBA by 2025 that we're going to integrate and connect with Uptown and Debbie FRAUSTO recoup are many of you who have been leading this charge. This is so important to me as a person who represents District seven. This is an incredible opportunity for us to design and permit, develop and construct again with minimal financial participation from the city. This is a big deal. It is a different deal than we were looking at two and a half years ago. And I, too, want to extend my thanks to a few group for the work that you have visioned and envisioned, because it's going to be very exciting to see what Seattle Center can become. And I'm also thrilled that our Bicycle Network is going to be extended. Thank you to Cascade Bicycle Club to Neighborhood Greenways for the work you've done and also for those who want to see the pedestrian connections. So, you know, just want to also say thank you to our labor community. Daryl Bright, Nicole Grant for the participation and what you showed us that we are standing together here that is not an us versus them city, but having the community development agreement, the local hire. And then we've also heard from our arts we uptown is an art and culture overlay neighborhood now. So connecting that with Uptown and with Belltown is important. And also I just want. To know that then to remind folks that the neighborhood was involved in the neighbors were heard. The notion of building affordable housing units right in Uptown and Belltown establish an innovative mobility strategy that puts pedestrians first. This is what we're going to be doing. And I don't know if Alan Hart is in our audience today or not, but he's the one that introduced me to this mobility action plan, the map, and making sure that we are connected. I'm excited about what we're doing. I'm very grateful to my colleague, Councilmember Suarez. I just appreciate so much your leadership on this. And you're putting the stake in the ground and saying we are going to have a deadline. I love what Debbie FRAUSTO said. It's that dreams with deadlines. And your goal is was that to bring us here today, get us moving. And I'm so hopeful that we have the NHL team soon so we can start the construction. So many thanks again to all of you that have been here. I'm just very grateful to be working with you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Cast Member O'BRIEN Would you like to say a few words?
Speaker 4: Just briefly, I want to thank the folks that have worked on this when less than a year ago when we considered the agreement. And the more you to move forward, I had some concerns of those time and voted no on that. And I want to say that those concerns have largely been addressed. I'll speak to the specifics around transportation when we get to the resolution, but proud to be supporting it today and look forward for the next couple of years. There's still work to do, but I think we can get there.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Comments from Brian. So we have item one in front of us, but any of my colleagues like the Chairman Castro Johnson, please, just briefly.
Speaker 9: Since there's a lot of things on the agenda today and everybody else's speeches have been really short in the interest of time, I just want to say how proud I am to be here. We have had a long road to get to this point. But Councilmember Suarez's suggestion earlier, you know, it has been really incredible experience to work with so many different and great people on this project. We've got an agreement where we all share in some risks and some rewards, but we are going to build a world class venue that is going to be home to some world championship teams . And ideally one of those will be a basketball team from the men's side to join the great basketball team that we have from the women's side. And.
Speaker 0: You know.
Speaker 9: I'd be remiss if I didn't mention, you know, I brought my little bobblehead friends today, thanks to a friend of mine who gave that to me after the last unsuccessful vote and said, stick with it. This is an important thing to a lot of people in the city. And and I'm really proud that we have a commitment not only to build a new arena, but also that that ARIN is going to contribute two and a half million dollars into our mandatory housing affordability program that it's going to commit $10 million to youth care and another $10 million in the Giving Fund, a three and a half million dollars in public art. And it's going to be part of a community in Seattle center where we have intentionally set up a lot of really incredible arts and cultural institutions. And it's going to respect and work with those arts and cultural institutions. My significant other spent six years on the fundraising staff for PNB, and I'm a big believer in the culture that we've created at Seattle Center, and I'm grateful to you, Director Dellums, for continuing that culture. So I'm just really excited. I'm going to get a lot less harassment from my taller, more athletically inclined cousins at Christmas this year. At six foot three, I got made fun of a lot for being one of the shortest members of the family and for for them. I am very grateful to you all for your vote today, because I think this is going to be a really, really incredible project. And I'm so proud of them both.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Kasper and Johnson. Now, the comments from many of my colleagues and we say a few words I just like to start off saying by that my heart was torn in 2008.
Speaker 5: Oh, God.
Speaker 2: I'm just joking.
Speaker 5: Oh.
Speaker 2: Yeah. In all seriousness, this is just a great deal for the city, for the residents, for the businesses. So I'll view hopefully with the success voters, it's no longer our adversarial in a contractual way. They are our partners and I think they've already proven through this process they've been outstanding partners. So just a few things councilmember worries really drove the process your thoroughness is was remarkable so thank you for that. Director Kirsten Aristide and your team were phenomenal. Robert Nel I'm sure team we, we had high expectations and you rose to the occasion as you always do. So we think. Thank you for that. And I just enjoyed Mike McQuaid's description that this is this is world class, this is a legacy project. And in the midst of, you know, we just got off a big Seahawk win and a big Husky win. So we're riding high in the midst of all that sports stuff. We're not forgetting about the people that matter the most the communities, the neighborhoods, the homeless, the housing needs. So this is a good deal for the city and I'm very honored to support it. So and with that, councilman was really like saying, are you ready to vote?
Speaker 8: Despite being called a bandito today? Yes, I think I'm ready for a vote.
Speaker 2: All right. We good? Okay. Here we go. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Gonzalez. I herbold. I Johnson.
Speaker 9: Hi.
Speaker 3: Suarez. Hi. O'Brien. Sergeant Bagshaw. Hi. President Harrell. Hi. Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: All right, Bill passes.
Speaker 7: I know this. That's got to be.
Speaker 2: A record in terms of the size of the bill. My goodness. It's called the next agenda item when you are ready.
|
Council Budget Action (CBA)
|
AN ORDINANCE related to KeyArena; authorizing the renovation of KeyArena into a world-class, multi-purpose sports and entertainment arena at Seattle Center, including its design, construction, lease, financing, and future operation; authorizing the Mayor to execute agreements with Seattle Arena Company, LLC, for the renovation and lease of the Arena, including a lease agreement, a development agreement, an integration agreement, and other related agreements; exempting the renovation and future operation of the Arena from the requirements of Chapter 20.47 of the Seattle Municipal Code; authorizing the Seattle Center Director to execute future joint purchasing agreements with Seattle Arena Company, LLC, notwithstanding Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 20.60; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_09242018_CB 119344
|
Speaker 1: Agenda item to cancel Bill 119 344 pertaining to emission tax revenue received by the city amending section 5.40 point 124 Code to revise uses of admission tax Revenue Committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Wallis, thank you.
Speaker 8: The Select Committee on Civic Arena has made a unanimous recommendation on September 14, 2018 that the City Council passed the Council bill as amended. I moved to amend Council Bill 119344 Section one B2 by replacing Council Bill with number 119344 with 139345 as presented on Amendment one. Okay.
Speaker 2: Okay. So let's just take the amendment first is somewhat of a technical build number change any questions on the amendment alone? So it's been moved in second to amend the bill by deleting the council bill number as described by Council Member Wars and adding a new bill number. All those in favor of the amendment, please say I. I oppose. The ayes have it. Councilmember Member Whereas you need to speak anymore to the base.
Speaker 8: Bill No, I don't. Thank you, Councilman Herbert.
Speaker 2: I'd like to share a few words.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I just want to thank the Select Committee, thank central staff Director Aristide for working with me to make some changes to the legislation before it came to full council. The the changes that we made in the Select Committee specified that the new use for admissions revenues applies only to the lease agreement for the arena and only with respect to the admissions tax generated through the operations of the new arena. The reason why this is so important is back in 2017, the city I'm sorry, 2015, the city council passed legislation allocating 75% of all of the ad tax revenue to go to fund the Office of Arts and Culture in the next year in 2016. The City Council sort of made a commitment to a multi-year ramp up of of admissions tax with 20 in 2016 going up to up to 80% in 2017 going up to 90%. And in 2018, just last year, we brought it up to 100%. So this this legislation that is as it is before us today, allows us to maintain that commitment to the Office of Arts and Culture. So thank you.
Speaker 2: Thanks for those comments, Councilman Herbold. Any further comments before we vote? Please call the rule on the passage of the amended bill.
Speaker 3: Gonzalez I. Herbold I. JOHNSON Whereas. O'BRIEN All right. So aren't I. BAGSHAW High President Harrow High eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: Bill Pass in show assignment, please read agenda item number three.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE pertaining to Admission Tax revenue received by the City; amending Section 5.40.120 of the Seattle Municipal Code to revise uses of Admission Tax revenue.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_09242018_Res 31840
|
Speaker 2: Very good. Any further comments? Those in favor of adopting the resolution as amended? Please vote I. I opposed the ayes have it. The motion. The resolution is not done. Cheryl Simon, please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 1: Agenda item for resolution 318 40, providing honorary designation of Second Avenue North from Harrison Street to Thomas Street. Seattle Storm Way.
Speaker 2: Casper River, Back Shore. I think so. I mean, I did have it as Cancer Bay Shores, but she looked a little surprised there.
Speaker 0: So let's.
Speaker 2: We get all we're all going to help you.
Speaker 5: Just.
Speaker 8: So we can we can work on this. I want to say congratulations again to Seattle Storm. Thank you to the mayor's office. The mayor proposed and brought down one of the beautiful brown signs that designated that one block area to be Seattle storm way. So congratulations. And this is a honorary designation. It doesn't change anybody's address. So we'll be delighted to make this recommendation to call this Seattle storm way.
Speaker 2: Very good. So you are ready for it. See, I apologize. My note said Casper Factual. Any other comments? We want to she. She took the pass and she slam dunk it. So we're ready to vote on the resolution. This is exciting to change the storm way. Okay. I move to adopt resolution 31840. Their second second has been moved in second it to adopt the resolution. Any further comments? Those in favor of adopting the resolution please vote I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries the resolution adopted and Cheryl, sign it. Please read the next agenda items.
Speaker 8: Item.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION providing an honorary designation of 2nd Avenue North from Harrison Street to Thomas Street as “Seattle Storm Way.”
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_09242018_CB 119325
|
Speaker 8: Item.
Speaker 1: The report of the Finance Neighborhoods Committee agenda and five cancel 119 325 relating to historic preservation opposing controls upon the Colonnade Hotel Gate Wood Apartments, a landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 8: Thank you very much. I think the next dozen are belonging to me. I was a little surprised about that first one, but the Colonnade Hotel has received a landmark designation, and the recommendation of the committee is that we move forward to impose controls on this site and building exterior. It was designated a year ago. The control features are just the building exterior and the site itself, and we recommend moving forward with this landmark designation.
Speaker 2: Very good. Any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Gonzalez I. Herbold, I.
Speaker 5: Johnson I.
Speaker 3: Was. O'Brien I saw what I. Bagshaw high president Harrell high aide in favor and opposed.
Speaker 2: The bill pass and chair of Senate Please read agenda item number six with the short title.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to historic preservation; imposing controls upon the Colonnade Hotel/Gatewood Apartments, 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_09242018_CB 119338
|
Speaker 2: Bill passed and chair senate. Please read the next agenda item. The short title.
Speaker 1: Agenda item seven cancel 119338. Authorizing 2018 acceptance of funding from non city sources. The committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 8: Thank you very much. These next two items on our agenda are companions. The first is to accept approximately $2.6 million of funding from external sources. 2.2 2,000,000.06 in park related grants for Youth Play Field at Smith Cove. Play Field Renovation at Brighton. Play Field. 1.1 million for boat mortgage renovation. 169,000 for out-of-school time programs. And then the 137 for enviros, 137,000 for regional enviro stars, and 249,000 to update the Seattle Fire Department's hazardous materials response plan. So it's a total of 2.6 million. We will accept these grants and this external funding, and then I will move forward with our second quarter supplemental budget. But first, we have to accept the money and then we'll spend it.
Speaker 2: Very good. Any comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Gonzalez Herbold II. Johnson Suarez O'Brien. I so want a fake shot. Hi, President Harrell. Hi. In favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: To a pasture senate. Please read the next agenda item. The short title scroll 119339.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE authorizing, in 2018, acceptance of funding from non-City sources; authorizing the heads of the Executive Department, Department of Parks and Recreation, Human Services Department, Seattle Information Technology Department, Seattle Fire Department, and Seattle Police Department to accept specified grants, private funding, and subsidized loans and to execute, deliver, and perform corresponding agreements; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_09242018_Res 31836
|
Speaker 2: Bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 1: Agenda item ten Resolution 318 36 designee the grants she comments redevelopment opportunities and pursuant to ICW 70.10 5.1 50.1 and making findings in support of such designation, the Academy Committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 8: In your district. Good. So I am very pleased to be able to present this resolution. What we are doing here is identifying a parcel of property that is going to have a what is called a redevelopment opportunity zone. It is at or close to the future site of the Judkins Park Light Rail Station. I believe this is in your District Council President Harold the Grand Street Commons. It's an a very impressive project that will be going on a Browns field, very polluted area, but that area is going to be demonstrably cleaned up. And part of the reason that we're doing this resolution is the Department of Ecology requires us to make this designation. There will be approximately 700 units of housing total on the site. About half will be affordable. 150 will be for households earning less than 60% of the area. Median income and 150 will be for households earning more than that, and then the other will be market rate. So because we have to make the determination that this brownfield property is something that can get cleaned up, that we are supportive of the project, that we will provide the designation, then they can go forward for additional funding and approval. And we definitely recommend that the revitalization of this property is very much the the juice is worth the squeeze and we're prepared to move forward with it.
Speaker 2: Any further comments? Councilman Gonzalez, thank you.
Speaker 1: Council President setting aside that, saying that, I'm not sure what it actually means.
Speaker 8: A lot of work and you actually get something for it.
Speaker 1: Okay, good. Thank you for the translation. I I'm really excited to support this particular resolution there. There's been a lot of effort at the city and in the city council in particular to really take a look at a lot of publicly available land that the city regularly surpluses for purposes of identifying those parcels of land to build additional affordable housing or to develop in some other way to advance our priority around affordable housing. And one of the things that I think we need a greater strategy around is identifying more of these contaminated sites that are either publicly or privately owned that cannot currently be utilized to build affordable housing upon because of the degree of contamination. And this provides us, I think, a really good example and model in the city of Seattle moving forward in terms of how we can be a little bit more creative about identifying buildable lands within the city and work with our representatives in our state delegation to secure funding through the state budget to allow for this type of environmental cleanup to occur within neighborhoods who are really just in desperate need of land and property to build on. And I'm really excited about the opportunity to work with these developers in particular to see if we can move forward a body of work over the next year to take, take, take a riff off of the work that we did on that Hope for Home program and see if we can come up with an inventory list, for example, to begin identifying other brown sites throughout the city of property that would be able to be utilized for affordable housing, but for the fact that it's contaminated. So I'm excited about this being the first step and excited about more to come in this in this space.
Speaker 8: And if I can just build a little bit more of the comment you just made, I want to say and recognize that Lake Union Partners Joe Ferguson and the Mount Baker housing group, Connor Hanson have done a tremendous amount of work. And one of my colleagues and it may have been you, Councilmember Gonzalez, said, what's it polluted with? And the litany is unbelievable that there was former commercial equipment manufacturing. There was actually a former commercial dry cleaner offsite, but the water was leaching from one property to the other. We've got petroleum hydrocarbons, words that I can hardly even begin to pronounce, let alone explain what they are. And because of their willingness to go in and remove the soils completely and then bring in fresh, we're going to have a site where people can live in a very healthy way.
Speaker 4: Very good.
Speaker 2: There are no further comments. Those in favor of adopting the resolution. Please vote i. I. Those oppose vote no motion carries the resolution is adopted in the chair will sign it. Please read items 11 and 12 into the record agenda.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION designating the Grand Street Commons Redevelopment Opportunity Zone pursuant to RCW 70.105D.150(1) and making findings in support of such designation.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_09242018_CB 119297
|
Speaker 2: Very good. And for the comments those in favor of confirming the appointments. Please vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries and the appointments are confirmed. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 1: The Report of the Governance, Equity and Technology Committee Agenda Item 20 Council Bill 119 297 Establishing a new Sodo parking business improvement area. The committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. So this council bill establishes is a business improvement area, otherwise known as a bi a and south of downtown or otherwise known as Sodo. And I think many of you are very familiar with this legislation. For those that aren't bills or an economic development funding mechanism that basically allows property and business owners to assess themselves, to fund enhanced services, programing and management for a business district and the current SODO business improvement area, or be it was originally established in 2013 for a five year period. It ends in December 31st, 2018. And, you know, in theory, it's based on an ability to provide service services valued by its ratepayers. The Soto Business Improvement Area developed a proposal recommending the creation of a new BIA with expanded boundaries for a period of ten years. And that's what this legislation does. The new service area would extend a roughly from South Rail Broadway way to South Hudson Street and I-5 to the Port of Seattle. The city generally considers a new or expanding bay. When presented with a petition by those who represent 60% or more of the total assessment in their proposed bill and are city staff and their employees follow the RTW that allows for this and calculated the dollar amount of the special assessment that each business and multi-family residential or mixed use property would pay and compare the dollar amount represented by the signed petitions and and letters of support to establish a total of the entire House total bill. And the result was 61%, which of course exceeds the threshold of 60. And in a nutshell, the programs allow for transportation, investment, safety, cleaning, advocacy, marketing, communications, business, community development within that existing zoning. A little bit about the the process that was used and of course, the assessments would begin January 1st, 2019. On July 16th, the Council passed Resolution 31823, which initiated the proposed bill for consideration and Resolution 31824, which establishes establish the intent to establish a bill and sought to set the public hearing date for August 7th. On July 17th, the committee had an initial discussion and briefing on the proposal, and we listened to ratepayers and community advocates . On August 7th, the committee held another public hearing. And and on September 18th, the committee held its third discussion and voted on the legislation. A few remarks that we heard from and during the public testimony, we we've said all along that we are doing our best to make smart investments, and we are asking on businesses and ratepayers to assist us in that process. Looking again at transportation solutions, public safety solutions, and this is a good example where I think we have strong leadership of those running to be. I wanted to recognize you least by description, not by name, because I don't like start singling people out. But it was very clear that the work done by those running the BIA were to the satisfaction of the ratepayers. And I say to the satisfaction, I'd say that we solved all the problems, but I think that it is very clear we are we are committed and we're coming up with solutions and we take this work seriously and we are worthy of this kind of investment. So we want to thank the ratepayers think the bay folks and I look forward to supporting this this this ordinance. Any further comments from any of my colleagues? If not, please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Gonzalez, I. All right. Johnson. I heard.
Speaker 6: My name.
Speaker 3: Whereas you did. O'Brien, I. So on. I make sure President Harrell I aid in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: The bill passed in show senate. Please read the next agenda item.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE establishing a new SODO Parking and Business Improvement Area (BIA); levying special assessments upon owners of business, multi-family residential, and mixed-use properties within the area; providing for the deposit of revenues in a special account and expenditures therefrom; providing for collection of and penalties for delinquencies; providing for the establishment of a Ratepayers Advisory Board; providing for an implementation agreement with a program manager; providing for the continuity of services and the distribution of remaining funds from the current SoDo BIA account that was established in 2013 by Ordinance 124306; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_09242018_CB 119342
|
Speaker 2: The bill passed. Chair of the Senate. Please read the next report. The short title, please.
Speaker 1: The Report of the Planning, Land Use and Zoning Committee should own 22 Bill 119 342 ruling to any since zoning, sending a moratorium stoppage by ordinance 1 to 5 425 for six months. The committee recommends bill pass.
Speaker 2: Katherine Johnson.
Speaker 9: Thanks. This is the first of four items from the Pledge Committee. Fun fact since we're going along today. We almost called it the Up Beat Committee, urban planning, built environment and trees. I settled on plans instead. The first item is a moratorium on certain uses within the Araw Linton Springs Urban Village. Last October, we passed emergency legislation prohibiting certain uses that conflicts with our comprehensive plan goals for love. The moratorium was in response to continued application for uses such as storage and many warehouse facilities in a residential urban village. When those uses crop up, it tends to lock up our land use for two plus decades. And that's a place where we want to see more housing, not necessarily more self-storage units. So we asked for that emergency legislation, adopted it, and anticipated that those changes would be made permanent through the adoption of the citywide mandatory housing affordability proposal. But given the lengthy ness of that appeal, we are here asking for an extension of that moratorium by six months, as was outlined in public comment today. We've had a couple three folks in our position, maybe four or five, and received in excess of 100 emails and phone calls to the office in support of this extension . So I would ask for your support in adopting the Council Bill 119342.
Speaker 2: For because remember. Brian.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilmember Johnson, thanks for your ongoing work on this and I will be supporting this. I want to just reiterate what I said. A committee, which is that I'm committed to the city, takes a kind of comprehensive look on the types of uses that are currently in this fight. I think the the feedback that you and others have talked about, about the number of comments are important. I also think, though, there are certain types of uses that we need to function as a city. Those uses have to be somewhere I've heard from because as soon as like the folks at Handy Andy that have talked about , if we, you know, they will be there because they're invested. But if these uses don't exist in our city, where will they go? And I think it's worth a conversation to make sure that we are creating spaces for the types of uses we need and also honoring, you know, neighborhood desire to evolve over time. And it may be that these uses are not incompatible in certain ways, and we can figure that out. And maybe that there's there is some type of incompatibility and we just have to figure out where that goes and not just prohibit things. I do think continuing this with this legislation to extend the timeline to allow us more time where the process moves forward is makes sense, which is why I'm supporting it.
Speaker 0: Good.
Speaker 8: LS President Press if you.
Speaker 2: Would just council members.
Speaker 8: Thank you. This this location obviously is located in District five. And again, the purpose of this legislation is to extend a moratorium on certain types of heavy commercial development inside the Aurora Lipton Springs Urban Village, Ala. Boundaries by an additional six months. This moratorium was originally approved by council. As was stated earlier, one year ago. Restricting heavy commercial development will encourage more housing and pedestrian friendly development in the C-1, C-2 and NC. Three designations within the boundaries of ALA of the goals of this legislation are consistent with a two or three five comprehensive plan. They are the Aurora, Clifton Urban Village Neighborhood Plan and the mandatory housing affordability that is MH eight, the city wide reasons, all of which have had community and council review over the last several years. No businesses will be asked to leave or relocate as a result of the legislation. Any new businesses, any new business development. It has been has recently been permitted or is in the permitting process will still move forward. The ALA community has been welcoming to potential density and zone changing and a more pedestrian friendly development. However, since ALA was part of the citywide rezoning, those permanent changes will have to wait. And this is a way to ensure that we do not lose too much development capacity with things that are incompatible with the vision for that neighborhood, and we will be legally incompatible in the future. I want to thank the community members who brought this to our attention and who have contributed and continue their work with our office to achieve the goals for their community. Many individuals, but those in particular. Leah Anderson, Lee Burch, David Osaki. Brian, do you ever say that? Do you remember? Just to name a few. So I asked my council colleagues for your support today in voting yes to approve. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank. You can remember her bold.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I just wanted to mention, for the record, I believe that of the three or so comments that we received in opposition to this action, one of them was on behalf of a membership based organization, the Aurora Merchants Association, so likely representing more than three individuals. And I think that speaks to the interest that was discussed in committee in using this time not only to make sure that there are not any additional incompatible uses of filed for incompatible uses, but to actually have a more intentional engagement that includes that body as well.
Speaker 2: Very good. Any further comments before we vote? If not, please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Gonzalez I Herbold II Johnson Suarez O'Brien, Sergeant Bagshaw President Harrell Aden favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: Bill Passenger Assignment. Please read the next agenda item.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; extending a moratorium established by Ordinance 125425 for six months on the filing, acceptance, or processing of applications for the establishment, expansion, or change of use for certain uses on parcels with a Commercial 1, Commercial 2, or Neighborhood Commercial 3 zoning designation within the Aurora-Licton Urban Village; declaring an emergency, and establishing an immediate effective date for this extension; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_09242018_CB 119333
|
Speaker 2: Bill Pass and Chair of Senate. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 1: Agenda item 24 cancel 119333. Relating to planning and zoning in many sections. 11.14 point 150. 23.50 3.006.0 15.3 2020 2320 48.002.006.0 37. District Code for pedestrian access and circulation to make corrections. The committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 9: Councilmember Johnson thinks this legislation is required to help bring the city into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. It explicitly calls out curb ramps as a part of pedestrian access and circulation requirements would require corner lot development projects to construct new curb ramps and curbs, which was an ambiguity in the current code requires development inside urban centers and urban villages to improve existing sidewalks, curbs and curb ramps. The current standards and defines accessibility terms and makes minor changes to add clarity on the curb ramps are only one of many options possible for improvement during developments. This doesn't change the types of projects exempted from those requirements, but then again does require particular development projects like ones on corner. Lots to make investments in new curb ramps. A lot of public outreach done on this topic to both the Commission for People with Disabilities, the Bike and PED Advisory Board, the Master Builders Association, and was unanimously approved by committee.
Speaker 2: Very good. Any further comments in that? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Gonzalez HERBOLD Hi. JOHNSON Whereas. O'BRIEN So on. I Lakeshore President Harrell eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: The bill passed and the chair will sign it. Please read the next agenda item.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending Sections 11.14.150, 23.53.006, 23.53.015, 23.53.020, 23.84A.002, 23.84A.006, and 23.84A.030 of the Seattle Municipal Code for pedestrian access and circulation and to make corrections.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_09242018_Res 31839
|
Speaker 2: The bill passed and the chair will sign it. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 1: Agenda item 25 Resolution 318 39 Making a preliminary decision on the University of Washington 2018. Seattle Campus Master Plans Committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended.
Speaker 9: Katherine Johnson Okay, this one I've got a lot of words about. So the Resolution 31839 contains a preliminary decision on the University of Washington master plan. As a refresher, we are at a one spot in a lengthy timeline here for approval of the major institution master plan. It started with the University of Washington preparing a draft master plan, an environmental impact statement for community input. Then they submitted a final version of those two documents. The City University Advisory Committee then produces comments and a report associated with it. The FBI has the Department of Construction and Inspections issued its own recommendations. The hearings examiner then held a hearing and recommended approval with conditions. All of that happened before we then as a committee had a hearing from the that included the University of Washington, the Department of Construction and Inspections, the Community Advisory Committee, and the parties of record that appealed the decision of those hearings. Examiner. After all of that public hearing, we then took a look at different conditions. We adopted 13 amendments to the plan last Wednesday, as follows Those amendments require the University of Washington to provide 300 units of affordable housing 80% ami on top of the 150 units that are conditioned by the hearings. Examiner. The other opposes this condition and argues the city lacks the authority to require housing, but has voluntarily agreed to 150 units. We asked for a reduction of the service goal rate from 15% to 12% in 2028, with interim goals tied to the opening of light rail stations. We included parking associated with residence halls and a cap on parking spaces and removed minimum parking requirements from residence halls with lowered the parking cap from 12,300 spaces to 9000 spaces, which was a part of incredibly wonderful, esoteric conversation about how you can cap something in 9000 spaces when there are already exists more than 1000 spaces. We included showers and other park bike parking facilities as part of the the draft recommendations. Trail widening and pedestrians operations along the Gilman Trail as development occurs along the trail. We exempted child care space. On the gross floor area cap maintain the current zone height limit on W 22 supported the use of priority hire and contracting exempted space for small businesses from the gross gross floor area. Cap. Encourage the incorporation of diversity in retail ownership on campus. Encourage the use of best management practices for reducing stormwater runoff and ask the University of Washington to negotiate an updated City University agreement. Should my colleagues agree that this monumental amount of work is acceptable to them and we pass this resolution today? The resolution then goes to the parties of record for a 30 day comment period, followed by 14 days of replies. Those parties of record include the Department of Construction and Inspections, the University Board of Regents, as well as all of the individuals and organizations that appealed to parties of record in front of the hearings. Examiners. The those bodies all get to make comments on our resolution. And then in December, we will discuss any comments that we've received and discuss whether or not we would like to pass an ordinance that reflects any changes based on the comments that we've received. Likely sometime after the first of the year. Please remember that this is a quasi judicial matter. So the appearance of fairness rules apply and the council rules related to experts. The community location continue to apply even after we passed the resolution today. But just because we are here doesn't mean that we're at the end, that there's more work to come. And at this point, why don't I pause? Because that was a good five straight minutes of opening remarks.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Katherine Johnson. The floor is open for remarks on the resolution dealing with the master plan. Councilmember Herbold and looks like I would.
Speaker 6: Say make it really, really short. Specifically, as it relates to the recommendations from the University District Alliance for Equity and Livability, one of the parties of record on at least at least two of the elements that Chair Johnson reviewed, specifically the elements related to small businesses and the element related to the need to address child care within the context of the master plan. We made some proposals for a strategies that were really not there aligned in the goals but not aligned in the methods as was recommended by by the alliance and and cookout. So I'm really eager to get to this next stage of the process so we can actually hear in a way that's consistent with the quasi judicial process, whether or not those are good approaches to address those needs, because I really have no idea.
Speaker 2: Very good. Any other comments before we vote on the resolution or concern? Just good. Closes out comes from Brian.
Speaker 4: Just say briefly thanks, Councilmember Johnson for all your work on this. Obviously a lot of staff support. I really appreciate this western's help on that, too. There's still a few months of work to go here, but it's a good benchmark I think we're clearing here. Very complex and important stuff working through. And really, I'm pleased to support this resolution and hopefully some version similar in the ordinance in a few months.
Speaker 9: There between his work on the convention center and then straight from the convention center here and to the major institution master plan list. Woodson has been a busy dude the last couple months. I'd like to briefly say thanks to no on from my office who's helped shepherd a lot of this stuff across the finish line. And, you know, we've had a lot of incredible conversations about the university district over the last couple of years between implementation of the mandatory housing affordability program that neighborhood design guidelines will get next year. And then also just generally a lot of transportation dollars that are being invested in the neighborhoods. So a lot of really great things that are happening there, a changing neighborhood that's growing. And this is going to be a critical piece to that growth and looking forward to continuing those conversations once we hear back from the parties of record after the first of the year.
Speaker 2: Very good. Any further comments? Okay. Those in favor of adopting the resolution please vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted and chair will sign it. Okay. Please read items 26 and 27 together.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION making a preliminary decision on the University of Washington 2018 Seattle Campus Master Plan.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_09242018_Res 31842
|
Speaker 2: Very good. Any further comments? Those in favor of confirming the appointments. Please vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries. The appointments are confirmed. Adoption of other resolutions. Please read agenda item number 28.
Speaker 1: Adoption of other resolutions. Agenda item 28 Resolution three 2042. Relating to the Department of Parks Recreation authorizing Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to act as the Authorized Representative Agent on behalf of the City of Seattle and to legally bind the City of Seattle with respect to the project below, for which the city seeks grant funding assistance managed through the Recreation and Conservation Office.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Suarez.
Speaker 8: Thank you. This resolution is the city's application for grant funding of 5.5 million awarded by the State Recreation and Conservation Office. Grant funds will be used to support 12 Parks and Recreation Capital projects. The committee was briefed on September 19th and is supportive of this legislation. I recommend that Council pass through Resolution 3184 to move.
Speaker 0: To adopt. Oh, no. That's it, right? That's good.
Speaker 3: Okay, I'm done.
Speaker 2: All right. Any further comments on this? All right. I move to adopt resolution 31842. Is there a second? Okay. Those in favor of adopting the resolution, please vote. I, i those oppose vote no. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted. Cheryl, sign it. Is there any further business to come before the council? No. Okay. Hearing. Then we stand adjourned. And everyone, have a great afternoon.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation; authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to act as the authorized representative/agent on behalf of the City of Seattle and to legally bind the City of Seattle with respect to the Project(s) below for which the City seeks grant funding assistance managed through the Recreation and Conservation Office.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_09172018_CB 119357
|
Speaker 1: Thank you and congratulations. I look forward to working with both of you. Okay. Let's go to agenda item number three and please read the short title.
Speaker 2: Engine item three, cancel 119 357 relating to the sale of lots one, two, three and four of block seven in the Latin edition to the City of Seattle Committee recommend civil pass.
Speaker 1: Jasper and Beck show.
Speaker 4: You this is a sale of property over on Burr Gilman next to Dun Dun Lumber. It is a 15,000 square foot property that is known as the Brickyard and it has a sales price of not less than $2.575 million. It is in an area that is zoned industrial. I see 45. The possibility of residential uses there have been eliminated simply because of the zoning. And I would just want to say council members want your legislative aide came to my office this afternoon and asked if there was a reason why the money could not go back into the housing fund. And the answer is, is that when the property was purchased, it was purchased with gas tax fund moneys that must go back into the Transportation Department. So I just want you to know that we did look into it. We did ask that question. And if this is approved and the transfer is completed today, the receipts that the city Department of Transportation receives will go back into as stock money and into their funds. So there has been great community support for this. I just want to acknowledge that at my meeting last week, we had members of the Neighborhood Cascade Bicycle Club, the pedestrian organization Feet First were there just to support this. And we really appreciate the visuals that we saw from Dunn Lumber with the idea that it will be part of the neighborhood. It will tie itself into Burke Gilman, that people will be invited to come in, use the facilities, and just it will be a real neighborhood asset. At the same time, it expands some space for that company that is very important to the Wallingford neighborhood. So we recommend that this purchase and sale proceed.
Speaker 1: Very good. Any questions or comments? Customer I'm a skater.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to say thank you to Chair Bagshaw for her work on this and for her staff and central staff's willingness to answer the various questions that I had. One of the issues that you've heard us continually talk about this year is the ability to keep public land in public hands and build housing on it. This is the question that we look forward to asking for every parcel of land as soon as we're able to hopefully pass the disposition policy here soon. Here's a great example where our city departments did ask that question, and the answer was, we cannot build housing on this relatively small plot of land. It is not zoned for housing. It is not zoned for mixed use, and thus we cannot put housing above it. And given the size of this lot, it makes sense to continue to allow done lumber to expand their production there in this industrial area, to promote good living wage jobs in this area and make sure that we're connecting the community. I really appreciated that. Even though we don't have the ability to build housing here, the vision, the model that has been outlined for us includes, as Councilmember Bagshaw just mentioned, the use of a public space on the ground floor so that we're connecting the trail to community space there. And so I'm really looking forward to how we partner more with organizations that are interested in this trail oriented development, as they called it, so that we can get more individuals of all ages, ethnicities, languages, races, genders, abilities, using the Burke Gilman connecting our community to public assets like the ones that we already have down there on the north end of Lake Union and the ones that are soon coming. So I will be a yes in support of this legislation.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Coach Marion Johnson.
Speaker 0: I won't repeat the excellent points made by both of my previous colleagues, but just want to say thank you to the folks from the Department of Transportation Affairs and in particular the folks representing the Dunn family and the Dunn family themselves. First learned about this project about four years ago, and it's taken us a little while to get to this point. But we're glad to be here and excited to see a project that has such strong commitment from so many different diverse stakeholders move forward.
Speaker 1: Excellent customer.
Speaker 2: GONZALEZ Thank you. Just to join the chorus here, I also wanted to take a moment to recognize the good work done on the efforts here. I think this is a good example of what happens when we do have surplus land and we have a property owner excuse me, a a purchaser of the property who has really gone gone above and beyond to do the necessary community outreach to make sure that folks in the neighborhood understand why it's going to be repurposed for X, Y, Z purposes. And so I want to commend the folks over at Dunn Lumber for the good work you all did to do some of the hard work and lifting around making sure that the Wallingford community really understood what the project meant and what the scope would be. And so I just want to thank you all for for that and also for briefing me personally about, I think, a year ago already at this point to make sure that we understood in our office exactly what was going to be done on this parcel of land and also all the work that had already been done in terms of community outreach. So kudos to you all for having a very smooth process and really look forward to seeing the end result. I think it's going to be a huge contribution to this part of part of the city. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you for those words. Okay. When anyone else like to comment or ready to vote, please call the roll on the passage of the Bill.
Speaker 6: Bagshaw.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Gonzalez Herbold High Johnson Macheda I O'Brien All right. So what President Harrell high eight in favor and.
Speaker 1: Unopposed the bill passes and the chair of the Senate please read the items four and five.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the sale of lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Block 7 of the Latona Addition to the City of Seattle, as per plat recorded in Volume 4 of Plats, on page 28, records of King County (the “Property”); finding that City ownership of the Property no longer serves municipal purposes; amending Ordinance 96106; authorizing the sale of the Property for not less than $2,575,000; authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services to execute all documents and take other necessary actions to complete the Property’s sale; directing the deposit of the net sale proceeds; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_09172018_CB 119351
|
Speaker 2: The reported Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Commission that in six Kasapa 119 351 relate to the Human Rights Code, broadening coverage of unfair practices to include domestic workers in hiring entities, extending protections to domestic workers workers, and extending obligations to hiring entities. Amending Sections 14.0 4.0 20 and point zero 30 zero. Mr. Code and adding a new section 14.0 4.2 30 of the USMCA. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Herbold, appreciate it.
Speaker 3: So I want to thank everybody who's joined us here again today to talk about the need for this bill. I was first approached about this legislation by Councilmember Mosquito during the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights deliberations. You've all shared with us your heartbreaking stories of sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace. And I'm honored to play play this small part in addressing this horrible problem in your workplaces and in the workplaces of your coworkers. This legislation is designed to help protect domestic workers from the forms of abuse that we've heard about today and to ensure that when it does happen, that you are able to bring these claims to the Office of Civil Rights, the in particular, their legislation extends the recourse available to the Office of Civil Rights to include domestic workers who are identified as independent contractors. Domestic workers who are considered employees already have the protection. The legislation amends the Fair Employment Practices Section 14.04 of the Municipal Code to add a section reflecting that the chapter covers domestic services and amends the declaration of policy and the definition sections. The amendment to the Declaration of Policy section states that the chapter applies to hiring entities, domestic workers and employees. The definitions section adds in the definition of hiring entity and domestic worker and adds in those terms and domestic service to the existing definitions as applicable. Lastly, the Municipal Code also adds that if an individual or household contracts with a separate hiring entity, that hiring entity is solely liable for any violations of the chapter unless the individual or household interferes with any rights established. This provision ensures that the correct entity will be held liable if the chapter is violated. One amendment to the bill that I would like to to move forward. I moved to amend Council Bill 11 9351 by adding a new Section five entitled Sections one, two, three and four of the ordinance six shall take effect on July 1st, 2019. Second. Thank you. The the amendment to the bill accomplishes a couple of different things. The legislation that I referred to earlier to council councilmember Mosquitoes, Domestic Workers Bill of Rights legislation goes into effect on July 1st, 2019. This allows for a implementation that will be led by members of the workers board. It's going to be important to also include discussion around this element. In addition, the there are some there are some funding issues associated with this legislation. There's a fiscal note that the implementation of this legislation, education and outreach, is about $75,000. And that's something that I'm hoping that will take up in the budget. So there's both sort of a bureaucratic and technical reason for aligning the implementation date, but there's also an important fiscal reason for it.
Speaker 1: So we have first an amendment before we speak to the base. Legislation in council member Herbold amended the Section five, which is basically sections one, two, three and four. The ordinance today, the effective date. And I assume implicit in that is the re numbering and the remaining sections accordingly. Correct that amendment. So just on the amendment, any questions on the amendment? I'm just on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment. Please vote I. I oppose. The ayes have it. So we have now base legislation. There's been a minute. Councilmember skater, would you like to speak to it?
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I do want to start with a huge appreciation, a note of appreciation for Councilmember Horrible. She's taken this incredible component of the policy and made sure that it was expedited, that we had the full stakeholders at the table for conversations, that we work with the domestic workers and the hiring entities to make sure that this critical component was part of the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights. You called that a small part of the solution. But in essence, this is the backbone of the domestic worker protections that I think many domestic workers wanted to see. Every single story, yes. Included stories about wage theft, included stories about the need for rest breaks and meal breaks, protection from having documents withheld, the desire to have a table so there could be ongoing negotiation. But every single story included an element of harassment, intimidation and retaliation. And what you've been able to pass today really completes this puzzle. I just want to say thank you for your steadfast leadership, also for taking a critical look at what legislation or what words we needed to have in this component of the legislation so that we could align the implementation of midyear next year so that the domestic workers board can think through the outreach plan, which is going to be critical with Office of Labor Standards and the Office of Civil Rights to work directly with our community partners, many of whom are here today, so we can do the outreach needed so that we can avoid confusion and not knowing which policies apply at which time , and also making sure that the department really thinks through rulemaking with the stakeholders at the table, as you heard, and the national vice president for the United Farm Workers, Eric Nicholson, say these policies, the reason that we need these policies today is because domestic workers and farm workers were intentionally left out of national, state and local labor protections, left out for racist and sexist reasons. I wish we could implement these yesterday. I wish we can implement them tomorrow. But I think through the legislation that you've created, the ability for us to make sure that stakeholders are at the table, we will implement these in 2019 with the thoughtful, proactive approach that the stakeholders have been able to bring to the table. So for me, this is a huge component that would not have been possible without your leadership. Council Member Herbold Thank you. And without the leadership of the direct lives experience from the lives that you've heard have been impacted without this legislation. So mill grass has been a level what is that, a kick or nosotros? Grass there's been a level versus a is eagerness to pursue courage. Communities encouraged by law to take DNA. And in this day in the moment though and so and so be a great supporter. Thank you so much for all of your courage that you showed today and every day of your life. This is possible because of your work and your words.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Kathryn Skeeter. Would anyone like to say some closing words? And then, if not, Councilmember Herbert would like to close the discussion.
Speaker 3: I just want to give some additional thanks. So just echoing councilman mosquitoes words about your lived experiences, you are truly the best advocates for your cause. And thank you so much again for the courage and humbling us all with sharing your stories. In addition to thanking Councilmember Skated for her, for her leadership and her giving me this opportunity to take to play a role in this policy. I also want to thank a couple other folks. I want to thank Lauren often from the Office of Civil Rights. I want to thank Asha, then cut to Ramon. I get that one of these days from council central staff, I want to thank Shannon Perez Darby from my office and Central Perk from Councilmember Muscat, his office and the many, many advocates that have been working on this legislation.
Speaker 1: Very good. Thank you very much. Okay. Please call the role on the passage of the amended bill.
Speaker 2: Badger Gonzalez be herbold i.
Speaker 5: Johnson Macheda.
Speaker 2: I. O'Brien Somewhat. President Harrell.
Speaker 1: High.
Speaker 2: Eight in favor and.
Speaker 1: Unopposed bill passed in Cheryl Senate.
Speaker 6: Who?
Speaker 1: The three item seven through 11.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Human Rights Code; broadening coverage of unfair practices to include domestic workers and hiring entities; extending protections to domestic workers and extending obligations to hiring entities; amending Sections 14.04.020 and 14.04.030 of the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC); and adding a new Section 14.04.230 to the SMC.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_09172018_Res 31835
|
Speaker 2: Sustainability in Transportation Committee Agenda Item 22 Resolution 318 35 Granting conceptual approval to construct, maintain, operate below grade five utility lines under and across South Holgate Street, east of Occidental Avenue, south and west of Third Avenue South as proposed by the National National Road Passenger Corporation, the committee recommends that the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 1: Member O'Brien.
Speaker 0: Q So Amtrak is working on a project that will help make the passenger rail system function better and better for our environment. They're upgrading the facilities to have electrical capacity for the diesel engines to turn off when they're parked there and be plugged in to essentially a version of shore power like we do with the ships. Also updates the systems for treating stormwater and emptying the bathrooms on the trains too. This is in part to accommodate the expansion of passenger rail, including the expansion of sounder rail, which is operated by Amtrak. So this is something that I think is a good thing to move forward.
Speaker 1: Excellent. Very good. Any questions or comments on this resolution? Okay. Those in favor of adopting the resolution, please vote. I, i. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted in the chair. Will Simon please read items 23 through 25.
Speaker 2: Agenda items 23 through 25 appointments ten, 80, 21, 11 and six appointment of Lisa Picard as as member levy to Seattle Oversight Committee for term to December 31st, 2018. Appointment Hester Cerebrum as members levy to move Seattle up Oversight Committee for a term to December 31st, 2018 reappointment Betty's faith Carol as member levy to move Seattle Oversight
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION granting conceptual approval to construct, maintain, and operate below-grade private utility lines under and across South Holgate Street, east of Occidental Avenue South and west of 3rd Avenue South; as proposed by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (“Amtrak”).
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_09172018_Res 31838
|
Speaker 2: Agenda Item 29 Resolution three 2838 reaffirming City Council's commitment to workers and supporting dairy workers and their fast for reconciliation. Councilmember Mesquita Thank you, Mr. President. As you heard from the testimony that was presented today from the United Farm Workers, folks wish that they weren't coming here after years of having conversations both at the state level and throughout Washington state. These workers are coming to us with their requests for assistance and solidarity. I've been working with the United Farm Workers and dairy workers for the last few years. And as you've heard from their personal stories, they've seen repeatedly situations where safety concerns have not been corrected, unfair working conditions continue, harassment and intimidation occur on a daily basis, and issues of sexual harassment occur for many of the women who work in the dairy industry, United Farm Workers has come to us and a call for solidarity. The city of Seattle stands in solidarity with United Farm Workers today. We stand in solidarity with unions from across Washington state, with faith groups, with businesses, with community organizations who've called for there to be reconciliation of the issues that they face on a daily basis and the call for a fast. Dairy workers around Washington state to provide the milk that is drink right here in Seattle. They provide the milk that is supplied to many of our businesses and the milk that many families rely on on a daily basis. But these dairy workers struggle to provide for their own families. While these dairy workers provide the food and the milk for families across Washington state, they struggle to put food and milk on their own tables. Today, we're standing up in solidarity with United Farm Workers, with the dairy workers, with the individuals who've called for action. Mr. President, if I may read from the resolution that's in front of us today for consideration, for the public's knowledge of what is included that would be appreciated.
Speaker 1: Please do. Comes from a mosquito.
Speaker 2: Just a few of the recitals and summary of what we are calling for. Whereas numerous dairy workers across Washington state have voiced concerns alleging hostile work environments, unsafe working conditions, wage and hour theft, sexual harassment, lack of clean drinking water, physical abuse and verbal abuse. And. Whereas, dairy workers plan to engage in a five day fast a fast for reconciliation supported by members of the faith, business and labor community. And. Whereas, Dairy Gold is headquartered in Seattle and holds its corporate offices in Seattle, the city of Seattle therefore resolves to stand in solidarity with dairy workers fighting for the right to work without fear of or intimidation, and calls on dairy, gold and other companies who purchase this product to work with dairy workers and their representatives at the United Farm Workers to ensure these protections are accomplished. Where the City of Seattle stands with dairy farm workers and dairy gold workers to provide Seattle residents with dairy products, the city of Seattle extends its full support for the upcoming Fast and Reconciliation to bring much needed attention to the issues impacting daily impacting Washington state dairy workers on a daily basis. Mr. President, these individuals have taken the courageous step to come forward and express the concerns that they see on a daily basis. And we know that here in the city of Seattle, we don't have many dairy farms, but we do have an obligation to continue to extend our commitment to the hardworking individuals who provide the milk and food for the families in Seattle. We here in Seattle have stood up courageously and asked for a higher minimum wage protections from wage theft, the ability to have a sick and safe day, the ability to be free from intimidation and harassment. These are the same protections that we expect from individuals, whether they're companies, whether they're subcontractors or whether their organizations are headquartered here in Seattle. Because our commitment to workers extends beyond our borders. And when we consume products within our city, we expect the full supply chain to be honored for the supply chain to have good labor protections at every single point along the way. I'm really honored to be able to bring this resolution forward. I was humbled by the amount of individuals who came forward and stood with us Councilmember Swan, Councilmember Gonzales. And I think every member of this body has shown support for workers in the past who have been in vulnerable situations. And today we stood with the farmworkers, with unions, with faith leaders, with individuals who've been calling for action over many years. And this last effort to try to elevate the issue, to make sure that farm workers, dairy workers, explicitly have the protections that we would expect for every worker here in Seattle. Mill Garcia's.
Speaker 5: Pursuit rabbit hole.
Speaker 2: Grasses persist when those two are Storia grass superstar kiko nosotros estamos kiko newstead grasses.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Caspian mosquito. Okay. We have a resolution. Very well. Describe a customer mosquito with any of my comments. Colleagues like to make any comments. Councilmember Bagshaw Thank.
Speaker 4: You. Councilmember Haskett I want to say thank you and a big thank you for bringing this forward. And I have been really honored working with you in the last year where your heart is to care for employees and families. And also today, as we're hearing from people in the audience about the fact that they haven't been paid, the fact that they have been harassed, that their working conditions are less than meritorious and in many cases just despicable, and that you brought it to the attention of the public. And I appreciate what you are calling for. And I just want to tell my colleagues, as we have just started this meeting today, I received an email from the legal counsel of Dairy Gould. And I'm wondering, would you like to hear what they have to say, or do you just want me to summarize that they're saying they're not part of this lawsuit. What would be useful? Councilmember Mosquito This is really your resolution. I want to be helpful because I'm going to support your resolution.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you so much. Thank you for your support. You can feel free to summarize, I think in the conversations that we've had over the years, we know that when it comes to contracting and subcontracting, many individuals will say this was not me as an employer directly responsible, and I can understand where their legal argument is probably coming from. Again, this is a resolution in support of the workers at every single level. So while there may not or may be a lawsuit or may not be a lawsuit that they are engaged in, what's important to know is that this issue has over many years been tried to be elevated. And I think this is a wonderful opportunity for us in Seattle to see that our same labor protections should apply throughout the supply chain, and especially when we know that there are so many individuals who do consume this product, we want those workers to be safe. So I've heard it, but I appreciate the way that they've reached out. And again, I think that this resolution is not actually commenting on that. It's commenting on the desire to make sure that every level along the supply chain we expect accountability and protection from wage theft, harassment and intimidation, and therefore, for there to be good faith negotiations so that workers voices can be elevated.
Speaker 1: But I heard her say if she could just summarize, well, maybe she does need I also heard her say she's heard it before.
Speaker 4: So I just I will just summarize this briefly. And it's only because it came to us today. And it's not that I have any knowledge, particularly of of Dairy Gould itself, but there is a lawsuit that is ongoing in eastern Washington that goes to trial soon. Gary Gould says that attempts to pull dairy gold into it, there's simply not a party to the litigation involving the farm workers and that the farm workers were not employees of Dairy Gould. So I'm not in a position where I can support this. I just want to acknowledge that it came in and I thought, in fairness, that I should at least mention that. And that said, the employees need to be cared for.
Speaker 1: Okay, I think we're prepared to vote. Councilwoman Gonzalez.
Speaker 2: I'm not quite yet. I just I just really want to thank Councilmember Mosca that for bringing this up. She's been working with farmworkers for quite some time in her prior life before she got elected to the Seattle City Council in a lot of different areas housing, health care, health care, labor rights, etc.. And so I just really want to appreciate the work that you have done and carried into these chambers as a result of that prior advocacy work that you have done on behalf of farmworkers. A lot of folks up here know that I grew up as a migrant farm worker myself, and today at 3:00, my mom started her shift at a processing plant in Sunnyside, Washington. At the age of I won't tell you because she'll kill me. But, you know, she's she's older and she still continues to work in these processing plants. The one she works at is in Sunnyside, not that far away from Dairy Gold in Sunnyside as well. And I just I just really think that regardless of whether or not this corporation is part of this particular lawsuit or any particular lawsuit, the principle of taking a position on the dignity of work that is being done by the the dairy workers is a really important position for the city of Seattle to take as one of the primary consumer markets of this product. And it really does remind me of the inception of the United Farm Workers to begin with. You know, many some people up here are old enough to have been around when there when the grape boycott was in place, and there was a massive amount of protest. And boycotting right here in our city as it should have occurred and across the country. And I just see this as the next movement and the next phase for our farm workers. You know, we've heard atrocious stories of these farm workers, dairy workers being sexually assaulted and sexually abused and harassed for no other reason than showing up to work. And that is wrong. And earlier today, I shared with the workers in Spanish that I'll say it in English. Now, is that is that really, you know, a man doesn't sexually harass women. A man doesn't disrespect.
Speaker 3: Women, a.
Speaker 2: Man does not disrespect the a woman's effort to provide for herself and her family. And the behavior that is occurring at the dairies is absolutely dishonorable and disrespectful and disgusting. And I believe we have an obligation to continue to stand in solidarity with workers across the state as consumers of this product. It just really reminds me of all of the work I used to do in the fields as a young child to buy, to pick fruit that my own family couldn't afford to buy and eat. And so I think I think for me, this is very personal and and I really do, again, appreciate bringing this to light. And I hope that some of our home grown companies like Starbucks and others will stand up and will do the right thing and and be on the right side of history, just like all those grocers who refused to carry grapes during the boycott. I hope that they choose to also not carry this these products if workers aren't being treated well. And, of course, in the fight for workers in the grape boycott. We know that groceries, you can choose to not carry the products. We demanded it and we forced them to. And it was through building the movement of farm workers. And so I want to appreciate UFW for the work they did then, because I know that we know how to do it again and we stand here with you at the ready to continue to fight for you and for workers . Thank you so much for being with us. Gracias.
Speaker 1: Good. I think that'd be a good note to close on. Thank you, Councilman Gonzalez. Okay. Those in favor of adopting the resolution. I'm sorry. I will move to adopt the resolution. 31838 second to move in second to the resolution be adopted. The reason I have to do that is because it was introduced today as well on the same day. Are there any further comments from those in favor of adopting the resolution? Please vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted and cha will sign it. Okay. I was along again as their journey for the business to come before the council.
Speaker 2: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Former.
Speaker 2: Skater giving the upcoming tour that the AFL-CIO has invited me on. I would like to be excused on Monday, September 24th please.
Speaker 1: The moved in second and that comes from a skater be excused on September 24th. All those in favor say I. I opposed. The ayes have it. And the other business coming for the council. Okay, everyone, have a great rest of the day and we stand adjourned.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION reaffirming City Council’s commitment to workers and supporting dairy workers and their Fast for Reconciliation.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_09102018_CB 119343
|
Speaker 1: Bill Pass and Chair of Senate. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 4: Agenda Item to cancel Bill 119 343 relating to Department of Parks and Recreation, authorizing the superintendent to enter into a management agreement with the Jefferson Park Lawn Bowling Club for the purpose of renting rooms and teaching lawn bowling to the public. At the Jefferson Park Lawn Bowling Facility, the committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: That's my words.
Speaker 4: Thank you. This council will authorize the Superintendent, Parks and Recreation to enter a management agreement with the Jefferson Park Lawn Bowling Club for the purpose of renting rooms and teaching lawn bowling to the public at the Jefferson Park Lawn Bowling Facility. The Civic Development, Public Assets and Native communities voted unanimously to support such action. And as I shared with you this morning, the Jefferson Park Lawn Bowling Club, along with Parks, did a phenomenal job in our public benefit section. We were really, really impressed. And we will now you be use that as a template for how public benefits should be outlined for community assets. And I also want to thank the community and the representative here today. We had a full house at our committee on Wednesday. And we want to take thank you and appreciate the time you all took to come down to city hall to provide public comment and let us know the history, the public benefits in the use and what you've done for the community up on Beacon Hill. Thank you. With that, the committee passed it out of committee unanimously.
Speaker 1: I think you can still do that. Thank you. Any further questions or comments that please call the role on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 5: So on I make sure I.
Speaker 4: Herbold II. JOHNSON Whereas I.
Speaker 5: O'BRIEN All right. President Harrell All right. Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill pass and show the Senate. Please read the next agenda item.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation; authorizing the Superintendent to enter into a management agreement with the Jefferson Park Lawn Bowling Club for the purpose of renting rooms and teaching lawn bowling to the public at the Jefferson Park lawn bowling facility.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_09102018_Res 31834
|
Speaker 4: The report on the Sustainability and Transportation Agenda Item three Resolution 31834. A resolution expressing the City of sails, opposition to offshore oil and gas drilling and exploration activities, including including seismic erosion and blasting. The committee recommends a resolution be adopted.
Speaker 1: Customer Brian.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. It's unfortunate that we're in a world where we can't see where Seattle and smoky days in the summer because of forest fires and the pristine coasts of Washington state, which has been off limits for oil and gas exploration for a long time. Then we actually are having a discussion about is it a good thing or a bad thing to be doing offshore drilling off our coasts? But the reality we face today is that the current administration has signaled the opening up most of the coastal waters on both the Atlantic and Pacific Coast to potential offshore oil and gas exploration . And it's important for us to weigh in, to state our opinion. We think that is a bad idea for a variety of reasons. This resolution has two sections. The first states that the city of Seattle finds that offshore and gas drilling and exploration unnecessarily risks economic and ecological health, and therefore opposes any plan or legislation that encourages oil and gas development exploration offshore that would impact the residents of Washington State. The second section states that the mayor and city council firmly oppose offshore and gas drilling and exploration and call the governor Washington the state legislative delegation, the federal congressional delegation to all to take all steps possible to prohibit and prevent such actions. Further called on the Trump administration, including the Federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, to halt such activity. We've seen a lot of voices standing up saying something similar. I believe we'd be about the 75th jurisdiction in Washington state to pass such a resolution. And we've seen I've seen governors, both Democrat and Republican governors from Atlantic and Pacific states stating strong opposition to this entire proposal, including including the possibility of offshore drilling in Washington. So I would urge your support and that's it.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Councilman Brian, for bringing this to us. Any comments or questions or concerns on the resolution or about the vote on those in favor of adopting the resolution? Please vote i. I those opposed vote no. The motion carries, the resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. That concludes our agenda. Is there any further business coming for the Council? If not, we stand adjourned and everyone have a great rest of the afternoon.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION expressing The City of Seattle’s opposition to offshore oil and gas drilling and exploration activities, including seismic airgun blasting.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_09042018_CB 119308
|
Speaker 1: 34 Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee and Item 24 Council Bill 119308 Relating to water services of Seattle Public Utilities, revising water rates and charges for service to wholesale customers, and amending Section 21.0 4.4 40 of the Senate Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Kassebaum.
Speaker 7: Herbold Thank you. This piece of legislation relates to wholesale water rates in the Southwest subregion. The Southwest subregion includes Highline, Des Moines and Burian. The city of Seattle sells water on a wholesale basis to over 20 suburban cities and utility districts in the cost allocations and rates are set through water supply contracts. Last fall, the Council adopted the other wholesale water rates for the other other regions. But the Southwest subregional surcharge was delayed through changes in metering equipment and the need to complete a rate study before approving those those new rates. The new surcharge for the Southwest region is decreasing and it works out to be about a $380,000 a year decrease because of past overcorrection. This is fairly common in rates are adjusted every three years to account for over or under charging. And also there has been a decrease in demand that was previously incorporated but has been delayed past 2023.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any further questions or comments? If not, please call the role on the pastor. The Bill.
Speaker 1: O'Brien. Herbal Johnson. Whereas President Harrell high six in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and chair of the Senate please read items 25 and 26.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to water services of Seattle Public Utilities; revising water rates and charges for service to wholesale customers; and amending Section 21.04.440 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_09042018_Res 31833
|
Speaker 1: The Report of the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee. Agenda 34 Resolution 318 33. Burlington City Light Department acknowledging the 2018 Integrated Resource Plan Progress Report and confirming conforming with the public policy objectives of the City of Seattle and the requirements of the State of Washington. And approving the progress report for the Iranian September 2018 through August 2020. The Committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 0: Customer Back Show.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 1: I'm pinch hitting here for Councilmember Mesquita. This resolution will adopt the mid plan progress report for what is a state mandated integrated resource plan for Seattle City Light. It's actually required by our state statute and it requires City Light to invest in a broad resource mix. What I like about this is it's a long term planning tool to ensure that our utility prepares for the next 20 years, and we're doing a lot already and have been for decades to increase conservation and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So this effort really supports the resolutions out of this council toward carbon neutrality and to meeting our growth loads through conservation and renewable energy. And just as a heads up as we are going to be looking at the new City Light director and going through this committee is that I want to dovetail on this resolution.
Speaker 4: To require and.
Speaker 1: Really explore clean energy options and a national transition plan what Seattle City like can be doing locally and through the state as a leader. So you will be hearing more about this. But in the meantime, this resolution adopts this mid plan update and it came out of our committee unanimously recommending full council approval.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any further questions? Those in favor of adopting the resolution please vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries the resolutions adopted and chair will sign it. That concludes our agenda is only for the business coming for the Council. If not, we stand adjourned and everyone have a great rest of the afternoon.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION relating to the City Light Department; acknowledging the 2018 Integrated Resource Plan Progress Report as conforming with the public policy objectives of The City of Seattle and the requirements of the State of Washington; and approving the Progress Report for the biennium September 2018 through August 2020.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_08132018_Res 31831
|
Speaker 3: The report The City Council Agenda Item two Resolution 318 31 requesting the Department of Finance, Administrative Services and the Central Budget Office negotiate contract for Basic Life Support. Emergency Services.
Speaker 1: Casper Bagshaw. Correct. I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: It's me.
Speaker 1: Oh, I'm sorry. I know this kind of pushed your customers to want. I'm sorry.
Speaker 6: No. Thank you, President Harrell. First, I need to move to amend. So I'm going to.
Speaker 0: Just.
Speaker 6: Read that out and then talk about it. Yep. A move to amend resolution 31831 by substituting version two for version one a second.
Speaker 1: Okay. You want to that's been moved in second that the resolution be amended. We'd like to talk a little about this amendment, but.
Speaker 6: Okay. I can talk about the amendment and then I'll have points about the resolution.
Speaker 1: The substantive resolution. Just we're.
Speaker 6: Just. So just to explain the amended version, this is a result of the discussions with Councilman Mosquito's office and with all the EMTs themselves and the union representatives. And there was there were many versions flying around. So I got a mosquito and I brought all of it together. And this version, version two, incorporates all of those changes and it has gone through law review as well.
Speaker 1: Okay. So we could address what it means more in depth, but right now we're just voting on the amendment. So any questions about the amendment process here? I'm going to we're going to vote on it because have mosquitoes. You want to say something?
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you to the program on this. I also want to acknowledge that this includes much of the hard work that Councilmember Gonzalez and I did prior to the weekend and spent a lot of time making sure that we had a good foundation. Minor tweaks this morning and late yesterday. So I think we're in a good place for this joint piece to move forward.
Speaker 1: Okay. So we're just going to do the procedural part of the amendment and then we could explain a little bit more. I think we're all sort of following the issue. So all those in favor of the amendment, please vote I. I oppose. The ayes have it. And I would like to address now the amended piece of legislation. And Councilmember SWAT.
Speaker 6: Thank you. As many of the MDs who spoke today indicated, this was this had come this resolution come to a vote to the city council last week. And I like them. I'm hoping that this will get voted in by the city council today. As everybody knows, our medical emergency medical technicians do or EMTs do vital lifesaving work in our community every day. They respond to assess, treat and transport people in all manner of emergencies, from psychiatric crises to car crashes to strokes. Last year, EMT has transported 43,000 times in Seattle. The emergency medical technicians that we're talking about who work for the private profit making company EMR, that the City of Seattle contracts with these MDs are members of Teamsters Local 763. I appreciate Les Brown, the representative of the Teamsters Local speaking, and I stand in solidarity with all of you as a member of the labor movement myself, as a rank and file member of the local teachers union, it's my honor to be standing with the Teamsters. The MDs work closely with and alongside the Seattle Fire Department, firefighters and medic one paramedics were employed by the city and are paid living wages and good benefits. We want all EMT to be making decent wages and benefits and for no one to be left behind. And as I clarified last time, I would like to clarify again, this is not the union's contract with AMR. This is the city of Seattle's service contract with AMR. And the city of Seattle has. And when I say city of Seattle, it means the mayor, the city council, the elected representatives of the city have a responsibility to make sure that all the workers get decent wages and benefits. As it happens, the current contract itself says that all EMT should get wages and benefits that are substantially equivalent to other workers who do similar work. But this contract provision is not being enforced. So despite that contract requirement, Seattle's EMT is working for AMR are paid fully 28% below. The starting pay for EMT is in comparable and even lower cost of living cities in California. And we want to make sure that this does not continue anymore, that the EMT are allowed to live a life in dignity. All workers should get to be live in dignity. But especially stark is the issue of the EMT who do life saving work for the rest of us every single day and are barely able to get by. At the current Seattle EMT wage, an emergency medical technician in Seattle would have to work more than 7075 hours every week without taking any vacation in order to be able to afford a typical one bedroom apartment in the Seattle King County area. According to data from the National Low Income Housing Coalition. Worse yet, Seattle EMT that provided a substandard health care plan that forces many workers to forgo necessary health care. Imagine the irony of this. They are transporting and helping workers, people who are facing the most emergent health crises, and they themselves are not able to have decent healthcare. This cannot be. It's just not okay. Workers are reported, M.D.s are reported that some of their colleagues are homeless. Others rely on food banks and other community services. They are many of them are living in unstable housing conditions. We have heard from an EMT, Meghan Scherzinger, who's who tearfully testified at the press conference a couple of weeks ago that she has had to sell plasma many times just to make a rent. And we heard from other EMT today that there have been cases of suicides. So we are talking about a very about a very critical situation here. And I hope that we don't delay this any more and that we wrote this through. I wanted to make sure that everybody your tanks, the EMT themselves, it is very hard to fight for your own rights. I know through personal experience, it's easier to fight for somebody else's rights, as strange as it may sound. It needs a lot of you need a lot of courage to fight for yourself. And so I really applaud my fellow workers. The EMTs who have organized themselves in this group say save, save our EMT. And I appreciate all the workers who have worked with Jonathan and Dead and others in my office to make sure that we have a strong resolution. That by itself is not enough. But it is a huge victory to propel the movement forward. So I look forward to the vote here. And I also want to say, you know, as EMT has indicated today, AMR lobbyists have been doing the rounds and we've got letters from the AMR lobbyist Paul Berrent. I just want to make sure the public is clear about who this guy is. AMR lobbyist Paul Berrent, who has been the one writing to city council urging that we not move forward with the resolution and has been crying a river about AMR's finances. He is the former chair of the Washington State Democratic Party and has formed strategies. 360 also takes credit for killing the Amazon tax, which would have built more affordable housing. So this is this is a nefarious source. So we have to make sure that the city council stands with the workers and not with the corporation that is making profits and yet keeping its workers from being able to live a life in dignity. And if this resolution does pass today, as I said, this represents a huge victory for the MTA and the workers who have been organizing with them. I should mention that healthcare workers and unions have stood solidly with the MTA. We've had SEIU 1199 Northwest Washington, 8488 vote unions that represent nurses and other staff at the Harborview Emergency Hospital, where they interact with the MTA on a daily basis, and they know the work that the MTA do. But we've also had incredible support from Certified Medical Assistance, many of them young women at the local Planned Parenthood clinics who are members of the U.S., CWA Local 21. So kudos to all the healthcare workers standing in solidarity with the EMT. I hope the City Council also shows that it is actually going to stand with the MDs and a message of the MTA. If this is a if this resolution goes through, it will be a historic victory for you, but it will not be the end of the road. We will need to continue organizing. So let's build on the momentum that we are able to win today.
Speaker 1: Okay. So we have a resolution that's been properly amended. We will be ready to vote unless there are some other comments. A few of my colleagues would like to make and I could wait for councilmember skaters like say a few words.
Speaker 5: Norm Well, thank you, Mr. President. I think that there's one thing I want to clarify. We took this last week to actually listen to the workers to incorporate additional protections. And I think that both the folks who've sponsored the amendments today, myself, Councilmember Gonzales, council members, Solent, we have actually created strength in this legislation because of all of your work. We have made sure that we're including language around health care and mental health protections, recognizing the trauma that workers see on a daily basis and wanting to make sure you have your health and mental health care protected. We have made sure that we're sending a clear message that a final contract that our city negotiates with Amara come back to this body so that we can see those provisions are upheld. We are making sure that there's greater oversight in terms of the contract and that we're living our values. And we're also making sure that the city require future contracts to retain workers so that if there's any changes, that there can be similar wages, benefits and jobs, so that if there's any switch in the future, workers can maintain employment. We're really excited about these protections today, and these came directly from conversations with workers themselves, from the conversations that the labor movement has had about making sure that we stand up and protect those who are the most vulnerable, and that we do so, especially for those who are caring for the most vulnerable. I want to thank the union members, the rank and file folks, union leaders. Thank you to the president who came forward to Chief Scoggins and the EMT for sharing your stories today over the last week and for your tough negotiations. We understand that this, as the councilmember said, is not a contract that we are amending between AMA and the union. But yet being clear in our perspective as a city what we value and what we want to see in any contractor. We also want to make sure that we strike the right balance so that we have clear follow up steps that are necessary to make sure that we can fulfill our values here that you see laid out. And I'll be working with the chair, Chuck Gonzalez, who oversees public safety to make sure that the next steps are very clear. And we recognize that there's additional barriers to making sure that we are protecting those who are caring for our most vulnerable. We care about workplace sustainability, which is something we'll be discussing in our committee this upcoming meeting on Thursday. We want to make sure that those who are providing care for our most vulnerable, whether you're picking up folks in the street or whether you are caring for folks and helping to place them into a new home that everyone can afford to live in the city that they are working and helping those to stay in the city . We want you to be able to have a good living wage job as well. So thank you again for bringing this resolution forward. Council members want thank you to Councilmember Gonzales for your work on it with our team over the weekend. Looking forward to working with you on that next steps. And thank you all for your continued activism and making sure that we hear your voice.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Mesquita, Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I just wanted to make two quick points. When I met with the Teamsters on Friday, they identified that a tangible.
Speaker 0: Deliverable.
Speaker 4: For their union would be an answer to what areas Seattle uses as an objective measure to determine whether Amar'e or any other vendor is meeting its obligations under Article 7.5 of the RFP. That relates.
Speaker 0: Specifically to.
Speaker 4: The requirement that wages be comparable to the prevailing wage in other cities. We know that other cities in the West Coast range from a starting wage of eight, $8.09 to as high as $22. Whereas Seattle, Amar'e, it starts at. 1554. So I just want to uplift the fact that Section five of this resolution specifically asks, in consideration of the Teamsters request, that the executive provide us with information that basically.
Speaker 0: Lets us know who.
Speaker 4: Their what cities they are considering as the other comparable living prevailing wage cities. The other point I wanted to make is that I recognize that Amar'e has not received a rate increase on Medicaid reimbursements from the state of Washington since 2000. For Medicaid transports are reimbursed at a fixed rate of approximately 135 per transport. That is very, very low and I have connected with the Director of our Office of Inter-Governmental Relations to see that we highlight this issue in our legislative agenda that we use to.
Speaker 0: Lobby.
Speaker 4: Olympia and our legislators to address legislatively in this legislative session coming up. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Herbold. Case closed remarks by Councilor Swan and I think we'll be prepared to vote.
Speaker 6: I just wanted to share with the public that, you know, when we fight we do win. Already the MDC won something that the that a union approached the mayor about. And the mayor has sent a letter to the union. And that was the issue of the Seattle Police Department's use of IMR to transport arrestees to King County jails. And the EMT have been, you know, talking about this as an unfairness. I see the MDs nodding. Well, congratulations on a victory that you've already won, because you've got the letter from the mayor that says that that practice will stop and they will figure out other alternative means of transportation. And it says, Chief Bratton, I have agreed to discontinue the use of transporting detained suspects and arrested individuals who have no medical needs for the county's correctional facility. So congratulations on that. Congratulations and advance on what I think is going to be a unanimously voted resolution. Let's keep fighting for the next steps. Let's make sure you all win of our contract and a life with dignity as all the workers deserve.
Speaker 1: Okay. Those in favor of adopting the resolution as amended. Please vote i. I those opposed vote no. The motion carries a resolution is adopted. Same. The next agenda item into the record.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION requesting that the Department of Finance and Administrative Services, the Seattle Fire Department, and the City Budget Office include in the City’s contract for Basic Life Support Emergency Services provisions that provide to emergency medical technicians (EMTs) a prevailing wage and benefits comparable to other emergency workers employed in comparable cities and similar sectors in the City of Seattle; and requesting the departments to provide additional analysis, data, and information.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_08132018_CB 119330
|
Speaker 1: Okay. Those in favor of adopting the resolution as amended. Please vote i. I those opposed vote no. The motion carries a resolution is adopted. Same. The next agenda item into the record.
Speaker 3: The report of the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee to name three resolutions excuse me accountable 119 330 related to the Pike Place Market Historical District amending Chapter 25.24 Estate Code to adopt an interim boundary expansion for the Pike Place Market. Historical Districts Committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 1: Very good, Councilmember Baxter. Why don't you introduce the matter? I'm sure folks have something you should amend.
Speaker 6: Go ahead. Amended version and then.
Speaker 0: Yes, that's what I was going to bring forward this amended version. But if you would like to do that first, please go ahead.
Speaker 6: No other way. But I don't know what the familiar is specifically.
Speaker 1: Why don't you go ahead and make the motion for the amendment? That's what I thought you were going to do.
Speaker 0: So very good. Last week we looked at an ordinance which we amended a couple of times in my committee, and we have provided another amendment yet this morning, which, like I would like to put in front of us for discussion.
Speaker 1: Okay. So what let's describe with a little more particularity, Councilwoman Swan, would you like to describe this amendment a little more specifically or. No, you don't have to. Would you like to? I I'm sorry. Who would like to describe them.
Speaker 0: And I'm. I'm not. Go ahead.
Speaker 6: It's. Yeah. My legislation, I'm probably in the best position to explain it. So, first of all, I. I'll just make the motion. I moved to amend council bill 119330 by substituting motion for for version to.
Speaker 1: So second.
Speaker 0: There's second.
Speaker 1: Okay. And this version has been approved by law.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 6: And as a matter of fact, just to quickly explain the the amended version, it actually and this came after the committee vote on Wednesday. It incorporates recommended amendments from the law department itself. And I can go over it again if you want. But these were the things that we discussed at the briefing. Yep.
Speaker 1: Okay. I think we're ready to vote any of the comments before we vote on the amendment. All those in favor of the substitution version for for version two, please vote I. I opposed the ayes have it. So now we have a version for for consideration. We'd like to speak to the version four of this ordinance. That could wait. I'm pretty informal on the process here, since we all worked on it. Sort of collectively, consumers don't like to tear up.
Speaker 6: Thank you. First of all, I wanted to thank all the all those who have been fighting to save the shoebox for also supporting the MDC in their fight. I won't really make too many arguments for why we should save the shoebox. Because you all have said it more than eloquently. And I didn't hear what there was, but.
Speaker 0: Related.
Speaker 6: It. It is. It is absolutely all related. I could not agree more. Yes, it's about saving our city. So just to let everybody know, the petition that was started by Jay Middleton, who spoke in the public comment this morning, when I checked, it had 92,975 signatures. And we have we have had tremendous outreach from the music community. You all know last Monday, Ben Gabel from Death Cab for Cutie was here and he called my office saying, I'm just calling as a constituent. And we've had now the Pearl Jam concert on Friday. I don't know how many of you were there, but but they some somebody somebody I know message me a clip a video clip from that concert where everybody was saying, save the shoebox, save the shoebox. So thanks to all the the music community for putting their weight behind us. We also know that a number of music musicians and music bands, everyone from Katy Perry to Sir Mix-A-Lot, you know, it's every genre you like to go out a two page ad in the Seattle Times, I had my staff member check how much it cost, and it costs roughly $22,500 for a 42 page ad. So now, granted, the musicians may be able to afford it easily. But I think what that ad represents is the tremendous commitment of the entire community, not just the most well-known musicians, to saving the shoebox. So this is really, really important. And it's it's been my honor to be able to be there with you. I think it is important to underscore the points that we made earlier, which is that this is not and again, I'm going to quote only one of the employees of the Showbox was sitting right there who I think said something like, this is not a conflict between culture and affordable housing. This is a conflict between culture and profit. And he asked City Council, Which side are you on? And I think somebody else also captured that sentiment. And I think it's important to clarify that this is this is not this entire community, which is probably far more than 100,000 people. Not everybody who wants to save the shoebox has openly spoken up or one has signed the petition. This is not against change. The question that all community members and working class people are asking is on whose terms does change happen in Seattle? That's the question. And I am. So I mean, I don't have words to describe my gratitude to everybody who has stood on the front lines of this, because that is the only reason we are here today. I thank all the council members who were there at the Wednesday committee because we were able to have a discussion and be voted the legislation out of committee, six votes for, no votes against and no abstentions. So that already shows how much how much support there already is for for this legislation. But again, I will also say that this won't be the end. This legislation is very, very important today, but that is step one. We need to continue to get organized. So those of you who are here, those of you who were here last week, we need to come together again, maybe in September and discuss our next steps for organizing. But thanks to everyone and.
Speaker 7: I know and I know.
Speaker 6: Special thanks to the Showbox employees themselves.
Speaker 1: I think the bill has been properly moved. And second, it is ready for vote unless anyone has any. Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 4: Thank you. So one of the findings of the Arts Office's CAP report, which is the creation, activation and preservation of cultural spaces. I know there are a lot of people involved in it, but I want to recognize Matthew Richter in the office, who is one of the primary authors. Really, this report really does a great job.
Speaker 0: Of highlighting.
Speaker 4: Why this is an.
Speaker 0: Issue that is much.
Speaker 4: Larger than just a shoebox.
Speaker 0: That that report says, despite cultural.
Speaker 4: Spaces role in strengthening neighborhoods, creating and maintaining these spaces in strong real estate markets can be extremely difficult. The older, smaller.
Speaker 0: More.
Speaker 4: Eccentric spaces that often house cultural uses and small businesses are particularly vulnerable to development driven displacement. And I bring that up because.
Speaker 0: The CAT report itself has.
Speaker 4: A number of different recommendations to deal with.
Speaker 0: This larger.
Speaker 4: Larger issue. One of the one of the recommendations is to actually look at creating a cultural space management public development authority that we're going to hear more about that actually in my committee tomorrow morning. This council worked with the arts office in developing an implementation plan for its recommendations. So really, this is really about, I think, a much bigger issue. One of the things that we've been talking about since last Wednesday was the talk.
Speaker 0: About whether or not we should hold the legislation. And I'm glad that it appears that we've decided.
Speaker 4: Not to hold it. But I do want to. Yeah.
Speaker 0: I really want to sunlight the issue.
Speaker 4: The fact that the developer of this site agreed to voluntarily take steps to delay vesting in the hopes that this council would delay the vote. And happily, again, it appears that that we're not doing that.
Speaker 0: Though a hold would.
Speaker 4: Provide an opportunity for the developer to develop another plan. The description I've heard of, the plan that they're working on, calling it a win win solution gives me great pause. The developer's legal counsel contacted SGC last week in their agreement to delay vesting, and the description of the Win-Win effort was as follows We look forward to working with you on a win win solution that could sustain the performance history of the shoebox into the future.
Speaker 0: So as I.
Speaker 4: Understand the words, sustaining the performance history, this, of course, could result in space within the new building. Being dedicated to live performance rather than a preservation of the structure, like was successfully done in the instance of the sanctuary on Fifth Avenue, with construction costs approaching over $900 per square foot for some of the new high rise buildings in the city. I really doubt that any performance venue could financially support that cost per square foot.
Speaker 0: So that's to me, I think that's a it's up it's a hollow effort.
Speaker 4: Because one, as as you.
Speaker 0: Have really made.
Speaker 4: A great point of there are things.
Speaker 0: About this structure.
Speaker 4: That are so important to maintain. I'm really glad that somebody mentioned the spring loaded floor. That is really one of the things that makes.
Speaker 0: Makes a show at the Showbox, a really life.
Speaker 4: Changing experience.
Speaker 0: Almost in the stage from the floor.
Speaker 4: And so so all of this brings all of this brings me back to, again, the recognition that the CAF report has identified, which is that because we have.
Speaker 0: Such a hot.
Speaker 4: Real estate economy, we have to be creative in finding ways to save these venues. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay. So I think we're ready to vote.
Speaker 0: Not quite. Oh, quite. Okay, well, now. Now we get down to the procedures, and I know you're all excited about how this is going to work. I am very much presuming that this is going to be a unanimous vote today. And what's going to happen is that it's going to bias about ten months time to consider how the Showbox property can be included as an interim basis and working toward a more permanent basis to be part of the market. But it's also going to take us some time to get there. The Pike Place Market itself, tenants, board members, many people in the music community, property owners, both people who are living there now and businesses have said that they would like to be part of this. They want to be part of the conversation about how we preserve the shoebox and this and the floor and the wall, as you've talked about, and the stage. So it's not anything that is going to be preserved if it is scraped and then something else is built there and the shoebox is put elsewhere. We have heard that loud and clear. Preserving the shoebox and its history and the cultural value, however, is going to take every tool in our book. And I think that already our historic Seattle. Thank you all for coming today and for getting in the landmark nomination. It was pretty amazing. For those of you who are not here on Wednesday, my committee people are sitting there working through talking about the conversation. Eugenia Wu is sitting there completely poker faced, and at the end of the meeting, we find out that they had submitted a landmark nomination in the middle of it. So we appreciate the fact that it's moving forward. But the plan and this is something I think is really important for people to work on with us together is to explore the potential impacts on the neighbors and the neighborhoods. And I want to get more specific about that. But the impact to the market and the key organizations could be profound. We want to make sure that they've got the time to think this through and what it means. And we've got to rely upon the roles and responsibilities of those who have been engaged in the market for over 50 years now. And it includes our preservation and development authority. I want to recognize that Mary Vaccarello was there on Wednesday, our market historic commission and Friends of the Market. Sarah Payton was there with us as well. The Day Stall Tennis Association, the Market Foundation, the Merchants Association and downtown neighbors and property owners that are around there, the market operations in them. So sells for maintenance, security facilities, the buskers, the events and all that, something that has to be considered as well. Also, just from the standpoint of what we will be looking at, First Avenue mobility is a big deal. Many of you have been listening to this for years about whether we have a First Avenue streetcar, yes or no, what we can do during this. What I love the marketing term of the period of maximum constraint, but freight deliveries are critical for markets, for merchants, for the hotels and residents. And a gentleman that was here from the Newmark mentioned that the alley is critical alleys all through. Whether it's between first and second or second and third are things that we really haven't come to grips with yet. And we're going to be working, continuing and call upon escort to make sure that the transportation mobility all around those blocks is really addressed while we're doing this kind of work. And many of you remember that the pipeline corridor improvements are something that this council has been working on. I don't want to see one of them get behind this other work. I do want to say thanks to my council colleagues, all of you who are here, every one of you have paid attention. You jumped on it. We had an excellent meeting on Wednesday where this came through loud and clear that preserving the shoebox was important. And at the same time, we have affordable housing we're trying to accommodate. We want to include more people in the neighborhood. So that said, the market charter itself are market guidelines. They provide the time tested kind of public processes. I'm looking forward to working with that. And I want to thank my colleague, Councilmember Gonzales. She's putting together a resolution right now that's going to set forth a schedule and how we're going to proceed that will probably be in front of us in September. I want to thank her staff as well, already is working with mine because as we're moving these conversations forward, I can just see that we can expand this conversation to the downtown neighbors as well as to the music community, residents and businesses. So that people see this. We're bringing the collective wisdom to the table, figuring out the best way that we can to preserve the shoebox without negatively impacting the market or in the neighborhood around it. So with that, that's the process you can expect. I want to say thank you. You've got my vote on this.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. That's why I'm a skater.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. One of the individuals who came up to testify said that they moved here many years ago and they moved here for the culture. And we have people who are continuing to move here every single day. In our region, we have over a thousand people who moved to our region because of the culture, because of us, the community, because of the environment that we've created and because of our progressive values. And another person who came forward testified to say that past city councils should have taken opportunities to up zone, up zone throughout the city so that we can have housing and density and affordable homes and cultural centers and child care and access to grocery stores. Those are the things that I hope that we can do together, because it doesn't have to be a false dichotomy. We must be able to preserve cultural hubs for individuals to come together, to gather, to either create activism or art or music. And we also we also need to have the ability to afford to live in this city so that those who are performing at the Showbox, those who are cleaning up the buildings, those who are building the buildings, those who are stocking the grocery shelves are taking care of our kiddos. And seniors can afford to live in the city. And right now. And right now, our restrictive zoning laws have focused most of the development to 15% of this city. And when 15% of the city is focused on development. It's no wonder that the cost of housing continues to go up, that folks are being pushed out of the city, that mostly black and brown and low income workers are being pushed out farther and farther and having been too forced to commute, commute to their jobs. And you know what? We want to make sure that this movement continues so that we can do development done right, so we can create affordable housing and more music venues and art centers and childcare facilities and grocery centers. So I want to keep working with you to make sure that we create that density throughout the city so that we can create the homes and the public services and more artistic venues. So we can truly be that creative hub that brought many folks here and that keep many people here. I know it doesn't have to be a false dichotomy. I'm hoping that we can continue to work through this committee and the effort that's been laid out in this new legislation to make sure that we can create an actual win win, because we have to not just say protect this one piece when what we want to do is protect cultural hubs, especially in black and brown communities that don't often have a historic designation. We want more affordable housing for those who are performing and wanting to raise their kiddos here and stay here as seniors on fixed income. So will you work with us to create affordable housing and a cultural center going forward? All right. I look forward to working with you, and I so appreciate all of the activism and I really appreciate you all coming forward. I did have my life changed by another motley concert at the Showbox, although Motley and really I think, you know, it helped that she kind of like me roots in the community and want to continue to be here so looking forward to working with you. Same saving the Showbox. Step one.
Speaker 1: So Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 4: Thank you council president serve my remarks are I'm going to be a lot more boring than that and I apologize in advance because I use all my energy already on the first agenda. You know, I just wanted to I just really wanted to talk about what I keep hearing from folks about how much the show box means to them. And I know that there are some people who might be listening to this conversation. I don't know who they are, but there might be some people who listen to this conversation and think about how it's just a building. And and I think that what I hear from the public testimony, from the countless number of people who've been emailing and calling my office, is that this represents much more than just a building. It really is about who we want to continue to be in the future in our city. And we and and it's about taking a position that we value the arts and culture and music community and those who participate in it to be part of our story moving forward, not just in history, but in present and in the future. And I really want to thank you all for just reminding us as a city that that's important. And as as somebody who's who has participated and going to concerts at the Showbox or just going in to get drinks at the Showbox as I'm working my way through downtown and whatnot, I, I understand and appreciate and what this means to our community. And so I'm really proud that we're going to be able to take a step forward now to hit the pause button, really, and to make sure that we send the message to those who want to see the Showbox go away that the Showbox isn't going anywhere. And I'll just I'll just end by by talking a little bit about how I hope we can accomplish creating a path forward to making sure that whatever tool we use to create the greatest opportunity possible to preserve the shoebox through community driven approaches is is a resolution that I'm working to pull together that I'll be working with my colleagues on. I think I think you all should walk away with a sense of understanding and belief that we are unanimous up here on this city council, on this dais, that we need to create as many tools and options and pathways and rooms available to have a conversation about what the appropriate tool is to preserve the shoebox. And I'll be working really closely with my colleagues to do that. But I also want to work closely with a lot of you and with as many of you who are willing to continue to engage over the next several weeks and months to make sure that that that the tool that is chosen is one that is going to be most viable and most workable for everybody who's interested in making sure that we preserve the shoebox within our arts and culture community. So I look forward to working with you on that. For any of you who are interested in continuing to work with me and my office on this, you can reach out to my office and I'm literally one of the most easiest people to find. So just, you know, look, look, look us up. Give us a ring sheet, drop us an email, let us know how you want to be engaged and involved, and we'll keep you posted on making sure that the work plan is one that is going to keep up, keep up the urgency, but also create an opportunity for for the most creative solutions to to win out, to accomplish the common goal that I think we all have here.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember suarez. Councilmember war as you have the floor.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Council president.
Speaker 3: I'm not going to be specifically on point about the Showbox, but I have an overarching theme here that has always concerned me since I've been on Seattle City Council that is with CCI or any of the PDAs or the Design Commission or the Historical Commission. While I appreciate that you're all here and the shoebox is important to you and you all have great memories as a Native American person is indigenous people that are this is our land. People have been deliberate in erasing us and making us invisible. What is more important, from what I heard today in this conversation, I've heard it my whole life is what is history and what is culture? And who gets to decide? Who gets to decide what's important? What is your soul? And I'm here to tell you that the soul of the city are the indigenous people that were here. I'm hoping that when it comes, when we have our issues, that we can count on you to step forward and support us in making us in seeing that we are the indigenous in the original folks here and that our culture and our history has to be represented. And I say this not to be on a down note. I say it because, again, these institutions that were put together, these commissions, these PDAs, these committees, were deliberate in keeping our voices of people like me who don't get to be on these committees and commissions and decide what is culture, what is important, and what is soul. Because I believe that this is Indian country and we should be.
Speaker 0: Represented across the board.
Speaker 3: So I'm hoping when some of you come forward and like listening to you today, I was mildly listening about your great memories of coming to Seattle, of your memories of going to a concert there. Imagine people who have been here for time immemorial in which the only thing that shows that we're here is that fake cheese Seattle thing over there and some other issues down in the market. So I'm hoping when the time comes, I can look for your support to talk about what it is to be indigenous and what it is to be representative. And that has that's neither here nor there for me about the Showbox. So I just want to end on that note. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I am thrilled to support saving the shoebox today also. Someone said in public comment that what makes Seattle great is change in progress, but not at the expense of things we care about. And obviously. Councilmember Whereas I appreciate your comments about how we decide what that is. But clearly, we've heard resoundingly from the community that saving the shoebox is critically important. And it's amazing to see how many people come together so swiftly around this. And it was great that we've been able to find a legal path to move forward, to put a pause on this, to have further discussion, and to figure out how we can have a long term, permanent solution to saving this shoebox. I really appreciate all my colleagues work on this legislation and excited to go to the next step. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Has asked, why would you like to close debate?
Speaker 6: Yes. Thanks to all the council members who who've spoken in favor of saving the shoebox and to the council members who participated in the discussion on Wednesday. I also wanted to thank Kittle Freeman and Lesch Watson is right here. These are these are staff members who serve all council members. And they are the ones who worked with my office to develop this ordinance. So they they certainly deserve a big measure of the things. And also, Kirsten arrested central staff director, historic Seattle who've been on the forefront of this from the very beginning. I also wanted to thank all my staff members Doug Vardon, Ellen Anderson, Nick Jones, Sasha Summer Adams and Koski, Jonathan Rosenblum, all of whom who worked on both the EMT resolution and the shoebox ordinance. We weren't expecting all of it to come all at once, but in a way, it has been a beautiful confluence because the shoebox struggle has supported the Mdhhs and the Mdhhs have supported the shoebox. And as you yourself said, it's connected.
Speaker 7: I also I.
Speaker 6: Also wanted to thank Joel Sanchez, who's standing there in the back, who's who's a Ph.D. doctoral student, you know, physics doctoral student at U Dub. And I first met him when his union was on strike for a fair contract a few months ago. But he's also happens to be a musician. So he's been on the forefront of the, I should say, the show back struggle as well. And and it really shows that a lot of these issues are connected in our heads and also in reality. You know, nearly 50 years ago, it was a community uproar and community organizing that saved the Pike Place Market. The shoebox is our struggle of our times. So it's really exciting that we will be able to take this first step and then move on to the next one. But also, let's remember, one is we need to come back to organizing. So, you know, please stay in touch with us. Make sure you're signed up on the sign up sheet that my staff have handed out, because we want to make sure we have an organizing meeting in September. But also, let's not stop. There are a lot of people who actually who are affordable housing activists and didn't didn't weren't immediately in tune with what was happening with the shoebox. Have said perceptibly to me that this this this need not just be about the shoebox. We could but we we we will succeed in saving the shoebox. We need to get organized for that further. But but what they said was, interestingly, was that this could be the catalyst for future struggle to build affordable housing. So how awesome would it be if you all became part of the people's budget movement for this year that we will be launching and maybe we can win the Amazon tax that was repealed. Maybe we can win a tax on big business to build affordable housing. Why should we stop at just saving the shoebox? We need affordable.
Speaker 7: Housing as well. You are.
Speaker 6: And after this vote, let's keep fighting. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. Let's vote. Please call the roll on the passage of the amended bill.
Speaker 0: Whereas I macheda i. O'Brien. All right, so on. Make sure Gonzalez Herbold i President Harrell high ed in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passed Cheryl Senate.
Speaker 7: And. They? So.
Speaker 1: If you could hear me, Madam Clerk, please call Mother. Please read an agenda. Item number four.
Speaker 3: Agenda item 41193 ten Williams The City of Sails Volunteer Deferred Compensation Plan. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 5: A very quick go.
Speaker 0: Forward.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 7: Transition to. Oh.
Speaker 2: Can take a minute to go down and look. Okay. I'm a little bit what we want to say. I just want to say. I think it's. Okay. As you exit, please.
Speaker 1: Order restored. So go ahead and read the next gen item. Sure. Ciao. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Agenda item four Council Vote 1193 ten Relating to the City Seattle's Volunteer Deferred Compensation Plan amending Section 2.5 of the Deferred Compensation Plan to clarify existing immunity from liability for offering certain investment options. The committee recommends the bill passed.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Pike Place Market Historical District; amending Chapter 25.24 of the Seattle Municipal Code to adopt an interim boundary expansion for the Pike Place Market Historical District.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_08132018_CB 119328
|
Speaker 1: Bill passed chair of the Senate. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 3: Part of the Governance, Equity and Technology Committee. Jan Item seven Council Bill 119 328 Relating to the Technology and Matching Fund, the committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. So this year, the Technology Matching Fund celebrates 21 years of supporting digital equity in Seattle. Our goal is very clear as a city, to invest in communities that may not have access to technology, may now have access to some of the goods and services associate with technology. And since 1997, we've actually awarded 4.6 million to over 300 projects. So this particular legislation for this year awards approximately $400,000 of city funding to 12 new projects throughout the city. There are over 8000 residents, over 4600 immigrants and refugees, over 1000 youth, and approximately a thousand seniors and 1000 people with disabilities. And so I'll just describe a few of the projects. I may omit one or two, but just to give you a flavor for the kinds of investments we are making, but most importantly, the kind of investments that the community themselves are bringing as matching funds. So in District one is literary source. They actually in five, two and one, and they're going to expand basic digital literacy classes to serve more than to serve more adults with low literacy or low levels of English proficiency. Also, there's the Somali Family Task Safety Task Force, which will expand their current digital literacy program in Newhall to offer training for East African women living in West Seattle. So here we have sort of a cross city kind of expansion that works out very well. In District two, you have community passageways, which is established as a computer lab and Rainier Beach. You also have the East African Community Services Organization that will expand STEM and a STEM enrichment program to engage in Empower for the East African Young Ladies. Helping Link is also an organization. They're going to upgrade their aging computer lab lab in Little Saigon and they'll serve the Vietnamese community. And seed Southeast Effective Southeast Affective Development will implement a computer center at the Dakota Family Apartments for approximately 500 low income seniors and children. Again, Youth Care in District four will replace end of life hardware and install additional equipment at their youth cares. Five residential sites prevail in District five will establish an assisted assistive technology lab, especially designed to meet the needs of children and youth with disabilities in the age of 21. And again, I'll just mention one more where they give their civil organization to Millionaire Club charity. They'll expand an updated, heavily used computer lab. And I want to mention one other one in District seven, which is an update of the technology infrastructure from the the United Indians of All Tribes Foundation. And this will be at the center to improve Internet access and delivery, the delivery of a series of digital literacy programs. So again, there many other organizations, but just to name a few. But we're very proud to present this to the Council for your consideration. Any questions or comments on this particular legislation? If not, please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 0: Whereas I. Mosquera i. O'Brien Sergeant Bagshaw. Gonzalez Herbold. II President Harrell High seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read the part of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Technology Matching Fund Program; making allocations and authorizing implementation of certain Technology Matching Fund projects in 2018; providing that 2018 appropriations for the Technology Matching Fund from the Cable TV Franchise Fund and from the Information Technology Fund shall automatically carry forward into the 2019 fiscal year; allowing that any unspent funds from an individual project may be applied to another project that meets the goals of the Digital Equity Initiative; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_08132018_CB 119326
|
Speaker 3: Agenda item nine Council Bill 119 326. Vacating subterranean portion of East House Street between East Lake Avenue East and Fairway Avenue East on the petition of Bender Development LP and Bender Equity Inc, can we recommend Civil Path?
Speaker 1: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 2: This is a project that we discussed a number of years ago, and I'll remind folks for this agenda item in the next one, for three vacations, we go through an extensive process granting conceptual permission for folks to build a project and requiring them to meet public benefits and in order for public right away to be vacated. We did that process a few years ago on this project. They built a parking structure that spanned two buildings underneath what was a right away, and they've met all their public benefit requirements. And so at this point, we come back, we inspect to make sure they did what they're supposed to do and we can proceed with their actual vacation and transform the property. And that's what this bill does.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Any comments? Please go to the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 0: Whereas I must get to I O'Brien.
Speaker 2: By.
Speaker 0: Sergeant Bagshaw, Gonzalez Herbold by President Harrell High seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 3: Each an item ten cancel 119 327 Taking the alien block 22 Brooklyn edition additional decent adjacent to right of way and the alien block 23 Blocking addition on the petition of the University of Washington, the committee recommends the bill pass.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE vacating a subterranean portion of East Howe Street between Eastlake Avenue East and Fairview Avenue East, on the petition of Bender Development, LP, and Bender Equities, Inc. (Clerk File 313430).
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_08132018_Res 31832
|
Speaker 1: Item 12. Oh my. There is. Am I brothers? Please read agenda item number 12.
Speaker 3: Adoption of other resolutions and item 12 Resolution 318 32. Denouncing the enormous backlog of citizen applications before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. That's currently preventing over 18,000 immigrants in Seattle from becoming U.S. citizens and voters in affirming the city's recognition of immigrants as new Americans who are an integral part of states. Communities support them as they integrate into Seattle and the nation, uphold their rights and the opportunity to receive fair and equitable treatment in their journey to obtain legal status, including citizenship under the U.S. Constitution, statutes and regulations.
Speaker 1: I apologize for that. Councilman Gonzales, you had the floor.
Speaker 4: That's okay. It's been a busy day and it's 4:40 p.m., so I understand. I will try to keep my remarks brief. I'm really excited about advancing this resolution. There are many immigrant rights advocates and service providers that have identified a disturbing trend since January of 2016 that has resulted in a significant backlog of applications for naturalization at USCIS. Specifically, since President Trump has taken office, the backlog of naturalization applications has increased by over 93% for a total of 753,352 backlogged applications across the country for two years in a row. USCIS has failed to naturalize more legal, permanent residents than they have actually naturalized. Here in Seattle, we are seeing this backlog impacted by the fact that there are nearly 19,000 local immigrants with pending applications awaiting a decision by USCIS just right here in Seattle alone. This is what we referred to as the second wall. And the intent of this backlog is clear. It targets our immigrant communities by preventing legal, permanent residents from becoming citizens with all the benefits and the sense that that permanence holds. Attaining citizenship is a transformative experience for immigrants, something my family knows firsthand, having gone through that process. My my mom went through that process several years ago. And I think it's important for us to continue to support immigrants who have a legal right to become naturalized citizens, to be able to do so as quickly as possible. USCIS is serving the political agenda of the federal administration rather than serving the people is harmful for individuals, families and the community that surrounds those individuals. The City of Seattle has long valued our immigrant residents and support naturalization efforts. We've dedicated resources to launch the New Citizen campaign in 2016. That work is led by our Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs. The New Citizen campaign supports both small and large, and mega workshops, facilitate partnerships with credit unions to help individuals manage the costs of applications, and has brought vital partners to this work from the private and public sector together. I want to thank some of the advocates that showed up today. They have stormed the length of this council meeting and are still in the audience of folks from One America in the Romanos and the West African Community Council have been so gracious to make sure that they're here to support this resolution and to take it back into community, to make sure that community members know that we stand with them and want to see and will continue to advocate for action at USCIS to meaningfully address the backlog issue. And I know that one America in particular signed on to a letter of national organizations last week demanding that the federal administration provide answers as to why the backlog exists and what will be done to create meaningful improvement in and reduction of that bag backlog. It's an incredibly important piece of advocacy for us to do and will be talking to our federal lobbyists to see how the City of Seattle can engage in conversations with our delegation and other members of Congress to continue to advocate for addressing this significant backlog. That has a real impact in terms of the work many of our advocacy organizations are doing to naturalize people and also the work that the city of Seattle itself is doing to naturalize folks. It's one thing to support the completion and the financing of these naturalization applications, but we end up damaging the credibility we have with the community. If, after all of that effort, that application sits on a shelf collecting dust because there isn't a judge or an administrative judge to just process the application. So this is a really important component of not just defending our immigrant refugee community, but advocating and making sure that we are advancing the immigrant and refugee community to to a legal right that they are entitled to and that they should be provided due process in in giving. So I'm excited that we are taking this position, that we are recognizing this, that we are joining a national movement around this issue and. And we'll be looking forward to working with my colleagues and other community based organizations in partnership to continue advocacy around here. Lastly, I just like to thank Joaquin we from the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs for his leadership on this issue and helping us draft this resolution, along with being one in my office for helping to also shape the resolution and seeing it through fruition. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Very good, Councilman Gonzales. Any comments on the resolution? Okay. Those in favor of adopting the resolution please vote. I, i. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries a resolution is adopt and show. Sign it. Can now is there any further business cover for the council to?
Speaker 4: Thank you guys for sticking it out? I do.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 4: I know you guys have heard from me a lot today. I'm sorry about that. I need to be excused. I moved to be excused on September 4th.
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 1: Two moved in second with the concern over.
Speaker 4: Wait a minute. Nope. Yep. Fourth, that's Tuesday.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Gonzalez be excused on September 4th. All those in favor say I. I opposed. The ayes have it unopposed. I'm okay. Okay. Councilmember Sharma. So on.
Speaker 0: Why did you execute? She said I did not.
Speaker 6: I didn't know. Just to clarify, I did not oppose the absence I raised my hand to.
Speaker 0: Soon she did.
Speaker 6: I also move to be excused from city council meeting on September 4th.
Speaker 1: Like I second it's been moving since September 4th has been moved in second to excuse consumers want on September 4th. Are those in favor say I. I opposed the ayes have it because my mosquito.
Speaker 5: Mr. President, I would like to move to be excused on September 4th. That's okay.
Speaker 1: We're keeping track. Second. Yes, but what? You guys worked out a deal before that.
Speaker 4: Word is dwindling?
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's. Let's not worry about that. I have to. That's my job to do that. So it's been moved in second and that counts. We're I'm a scared to be excused on September 4th. All those in favor say I. I oppose the ayes have it. Is there any other business come for the council? Okay. And we'll go over the scores as we always do it. Okay? Okay. With that, everyone, have a great afternoon. Afternoon will be on recess until September 4th. Have a great day, stranger.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION denouncing the enormous backlog of citizenship applications before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services that is currently preventing over 18,000 immigrants in Seattle from becoming U.S. citizens and voters; and affirming The City of Seattle’s recognition of immigrants as New Americans who: are an integral part of Seattle’s communities; supports them as they integrate into Seattle and the nation; upholds their right and opportunity to receive fair and equal treatment in their journey to obtain legal status, including citizenship, under the U.S. Constitution, statutes, and regulations.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_08062018_Res 31831
|
Speaker 1: It was number 33 and I stopped it. Okay, so we concluded. We concluded that. So where was it? Please read the first edition item into the record.
Speaker 6: That new it the new agenda item one Resolution 318 31 requesting that the Department of Finance, Administrative Services and the Central Budget Office negotiate a contract for basic life support emergency services. That includes provisions guaranteeing wage and benefit standards for emergency medical technicians and requesting the draft contract be provided.
Speaker 2: To the City Council for approval prior to execution.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Swan. Just one minute. So I'm not a lot we we closed public comments, we cut off I think right before but we're less than 32. I think you were in number 33. So. So that's that's that's. I do apologize.
Speaker 8: People go to great extent to come down here.
Speaker 1: I understand. I understand. But we extended.
Speaker 8: A strong issue.
Speaker 1: Okay. And we're getting ready to address it right now.
Speaker 8: So, again.
Speaker 1: We're getting ready to address it right now. So I'm trying not.
Speaker 8: To be disrespectful.
Speaker 1: Sir. You've been very respectful. You've been very respectful. We have rules that we're trying to comply with. We extended it twice. So it's so it's not over. So I'm going to ask you. Sit down, sir. And if you're not, you're disrupting our agenda. So I'm going have to have you remove. So I'm sorry we didn't get to you.
Speaker 5: Pretty much the line.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So I'm going to ask you to relinquish the microphone. And you just started proceeding.
Speaker 3: Is it? Could we could we just give him a minute? I mean, he's an EMT.
Speaker 1: No, I think if you'd like to make a motion to that.
Speaker 3: I'll make a motion to let him speak for a minute. But I've made it. I've made a motion to allow the EMT to speak for a minute.
Speaker 4: I'll second it.
Speaker 1: It's been moved to extend public comment to allow this gentleman to speak. Any comments on the motion.
Speaker 9: Or we're just extending one minute.
Speaker 1: We're listening just for this gentleman, and I'm going to speak against it this way. I have nothing, nothing against this fine gentleman, nothing to. I think we understand the plight of the M.D. We've heard some pretty heartwrenching stories now for a few weeks. We do have an agenda. We did extend it twice. And in all due respect, sir, we've heard pretty strong testimony on behalf of the MTA, and now we're about to vote. So let me speak, sir. Okay. So I understand he wants to speak, but I'm trying to run a meeting here according to the rules. But I'll vote against it if you want to vote for it will extend it. So the motion has been made. And second, any of the comments of the motion. Although then you raise your hand. If all those in May in favor of letting this gentleman speak for public comment, raise your hands. Say I. All those polls say, no, no, the ayes have it. You have the microphone, sir.
Speaker 8: Thank you, council members. Good afternoon. My name is Robert Bandera and I'm currently an EMT with the American Medical Response. I've been an EMT for 20 years. I can tell you that I love this profession. I enjoy making a difference every day. I believe the majority of my brothers and sisters come to this profession for the same reason to make a difference. The job itself is extremely challenging, full of ups and downs. I can tell you what it's like to take care of somebody who's homeless on the streets of Seattle, I can tell you. The next call can be at a high rise penthouse with a multimillion dollar resident. I can also tell you what it's like to be on the streets and do CPR and lose a patient. I can tell you what it's like to use an aid and shock a patient, get their heart rate back and have a save. I can tell what it's like to be in the Rainier Valley at 2:00 in the morning with a pregnant woman whose water broke, who's extremely scared and deliver a baby. There's lots of ups and downs. That said, this profession is is not about the money. Nobody comes to this profession. No EMT comes to this profession to get rich. But that said, it's important that we earn enough money to put a roof over our head, food on the table, be able to provide for our own health care, and not have to decide between being able to pay rent versus food. I'd like you to know that you have to be with our organization for ten years before our wage hits the $20 an hour rate. Ten years? I'm trying to go fast. We've lost a lot of really good, exceptional care providers who provide excellent service to the Seattle Fire Department and working in cooperation. It takes a while to build proficiency and we lose this proficiency if they don't remain. I'm not going to say the AMA is a bad company. They're not a bad company. I've worked for them for a long time. They're a company for profit. They're a company who. Who needs to be able to make money. And that's that's they're there. They need to have a profit margin. I understand that. But we need to try to find a win win solution where the employees can continue to work and they can continue to make a decent living. The contract stipulates a prevailing wage. The prevailing wage has never been defined. That's part of the reason that we've come to you folks today to ask you to evaluate the prevailing wage, determine what the prevailing wage is, and then please enforce that. I encourage you to sign the resolution. I appreciate your time very, very much. Thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 6: Mr. President, just very briefly, Mr. President, if I might, just very briefly, since we went back to public comment, I just wanted to quickly say thank you to you for allowing so much public comment where an hour and 40, 40 minutes into this discussion and to connect the dots between the affordable housing issues, the need for good living wages, the need to create more density throughout our city, and to not just create density that bulldozes landmark institutions. And so I just wanted to thank you for your time today. I saw the signs that said Save our empties and save this shoebox. I think there's a huge connection there. And when our city really directs development to just about 15% of the land that we currently have, it's no wonder that housing is so damn expensive in this city. It's no wonder that word they $815,000 for an average home in the city. We need to actually think about how we create the housing and the cultural institutions that allow for artists to play and live in this city. So I look forward to supporting the shoebox. I look forward to greater conversations around density and density done right. And thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, councilmember skater. And. Why don't you read the agenda item again? So we get to sort of start from scratch.
Speaker 6: Resolution New Agenda Item one, Resolution 318 31 requesting that the Department of Finance, Administrative Services and the Central Budget Office negotiate a contract for basic life support emergency services. That includes provisions guaranteeing wage and benefit centers for emergency medical technicians and requesting the draft contract be provided to the City Council for approval prior to its execution.
Speaker 1: Councilmember one.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Brian Harrell. I made some comments earlier today and you've heard eloquent testimony from EMT themselves, including the person who just spoke that they do enormously valuable lifesaving work. You actually could not put a price on this any more than you could put a price on your own life or on the lives of your loved ones . And if you can't do that, then you can't put a price on the living standards that standard and dignity of the workers who allow that to happen. And as we know, they are doing this incredible work, but they are not being paid what they are owed. And in reality, there is a very specific question here. The city of Seattle contracts with AMR, which is a for profit corporation. I urge the council not to confuse the public, intentionally or otherwise, by talking about the contract that the Teamsters have with AMR, the Teamsters and the workers. Rest assured, we'll be fighting for the best possible contract when they when they fight for it. But that does not. The fact that the workers are unionized does not absolve the city council as the highest legislative body in doing its duty and making sure that the rhetoric about Seattle's workers and their rights does not just remain rhetoric , but it's actually enforced by the city. So this resolution is not about the Teamsters contract with AMR. It is about the city of Seattle's contract with AMR. And this is very much in the purview of the city council, the contract that expires at the end of August. And that and I know that there is an RFP process and the mayor's office is working on this currently. I also want to make sure the public understands there is no conflict here between the city council passing this resolution and the mayor's office carrying out that RFP process. I know council members will say things that suggest that, but that's not true. It is absolutely without conflict. Furthermore, if the city council passes this resolution today, it gives much more leverage to the mayor's office and much more leverage to the workers and the Teamsters to demand that there is a contract that enforces workplace standards. Because the city council today, by voting yes on this resolution, will say, we are urging the mayor's office to enforce contractual provisions on workplace standards and that we request that the mayor that the contract details are reported back to the city council. Now, what is what are the contractual provisions? We are talking about the existing contract for you that it existed for years. That the city of Seattle has with M.R. says that the combined compensation and fringe benefit program for all the personnel should be substantially substantively equivalent to the average rate of compensation for similar private sector field personnel in similar sized and cost of living areas of the United States. Now, it is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact that the EMT with AMR in other cities are being paid far more and better benefits than the EMT in Seattle. This is not a it's not an imagination. It is an actual fact. And Seattle EMTs are paid fully 28% below the starting pay for EMT, incomparable and even lower cost of living in cities in California and 34% below EMTs working in Seattle for the Federal Veterans Administration. So if you look at comparable jobs, there's a lot of injustice in this world when we need to fight. But we're not even talking about larger issues. We're talking about simple the comparison between EMT who do the same work in other cities, the AMD's who do the same work in this city but happen to be under the federal jurisdiction or under the city of Seattle jurisdiction. So these these EMT happen. Many of you are here. You happen to be working for a for profit corporation. The city of Seattle has an obligation to enforce the contract that they themselves have. The city of Seattle has this contract. I did not I did not introduce this. I just read the contract, which, by the way, the mayor's office did not help us to get. It was the workers who gave us the substance of the contract. I just want to repeat that this voting on this resolution today is important because it will give workers the leverage to demand that the mayor's office enforce the workplace standards in the new contract that the city signs with Amber. I would also urge the Council to remember, as the EMTs have told you, we've never been empties. They are EMT. They work hard, they work 24 seven. Many of them have to take a second or third job. It is a lot to ask them to come to city hall day after day for what? It's a resolution and it's a straightforward resolution. So if all council members support it, then why not would vote on it today? So the MDC can focus on their work and they can focus there, you know, focus their energies on making sure the mayor's office puts together a decent contract that enforces, you know, provisions that allow them to live with dignity. I absolutely think that that is important. We have to put a value on the time of the MTA, just like we always put a value on our time as city council members. I do not believe in any way that this resolution will be a distraction from other issues. As Councilmember Bagshaw brought up about patients without insurance, as AMD's have themselves said, they don't refuse service to anybody. They don't refuse service to anybody. So let's not let's not I mean, let's again, as I said, for the shoebox question as well. Let's be honest with the public about why we are voting or not voting on a certain thing today. This resolution does not in any way hamper the ability of IMR MDC to serve everybody regardless of insurance. As a matter of fact, if we offer, if we make sure MDC have decent living standards, then they are better able to do their job for what our people have insurance or not. Mind that there is a big problem in Amara, which is the turnover of the workforce. If we if we recognize correctly that M.D.s bring in a lot of skill and experience that no, you know, I can just become an EMT tomorrow and replace an existing EMT . These are skills and experience that are gathered over time by working with actual people who are in crisis. It's very hard to replace it, but with such abysmal wages and benefits, it is, you know, inevitable that workers will look for other jobs and move on, even though they love doing what they are doing and they are so dedicated and self-sacrificing. So I think it is only correct to do this. That's the other point. You know, Mike Andrews from Amado Amar, spokesperson who spoke, he says here that they are in a partnership with the union. No, this is not a partnership. If you are keeping your workers in such abysmal living standards. This is not a partnership. This is exploitation. And Andy NGO said it's tough. Well, I'll tell you what's tough. What's tough is having to, you know, help people in crises, work long hours, take second jobs, having to sell plasma because you can't make your rent. That's tough. And let's also keep in mind that Ammer is owned by a parent company named KKR, which is the leading global investment firm that controls 176 billion in private equity, energy, real estate and other ventures. So these are not struggling corporations. These are corporations that are making a lot of money, except the profits are going at the top. And lastly, for council members who are concerned that maybe this is the only company that the city can contract with, that somehow we can't enforce it. I will say two things. One is this is the city of Seattle's government. We have the power to enforce things on corporations. We have the power to do it. I don't want to join in the pretense that that is not possible. It is absolutely possible. It's a question of whether there's a political will or not. And the second point I'll make is if if AMR threatens to not sign the contract, then we should bring this into public ownership and make all empties be direct City of Seattle employees and give them all the living standards.
Speaker 1: That's okay. Any comments, Councilmember Herbold?
Speaker 9: Sure. Thank you. I am going to be supporting this resolution. It is an expression of intent and expression of our values as a city. I do think we need to address some broader, broader structural issues, though, and work together with AMR in doing so. They've not received a rate increase on their Medicaid reimbursements from the state of Washington since 2004. And so what that what that does this is a city where there are a lot of Medicaid reimbursements necessary because of the population of folks that AMR is assisting, the EMT, that AMR is assisting. So this is a structural problem that we that we need to address. This is a resolution to the city. I do believe that it will give the city more leverage to to negotiate with AMR. But we also need to be taking this vote today with our eyes wide open. It might change some of the discussions around the negotiation table, around the approach that the city and AMR use for for compensation of other services. So I'm comfortable with knowing that because again, this is a contract from the city of Seattle to employ people. And I think we should be employing people with a livable wage and in a way that is consistent with our with our values as a city and actually would which is consistent with the previous contract, which has not been able to be enforced.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Katherine Herbert. So I have just a question for clarification. First of all, this isn't a new approach as a good approach. When you look at for some of our waste management and recycling contracts that we've outsourced, we've asked for similar types of provisions in our our fees, make sure that people are paid a good wage and certainly they deserve it. The question I have is looking at the language. I just want to understand sort of what we're doing. That is that we are requiring the Department of Finance and the central budget to negotiate in the contract at least $25 an hour. So I'm reading this.
Speaker 3: It's a request if you see the language and also it's a resolution. So it's not I mean, it's it's a it's an expression of intent. So it says the Seattle City Council requests the force to enforce those provisions.
Speaker 1: And I like your point that we're sort of doing this eyes wide open then in support of our employees that certainly am or may have a different opinion and threaten to move out of our market. And but we want to stand behind our employees. And so we think this is a good statement of legislative purpose here. So so I'm prepared to vote as well unless I hear any other comments from anyone in our city. Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 7: I'd just like to say I don't feel adequately prepared to vote yes today. I had a conversation in the 90 minutes that we had between the conclusion of our Mandatory Housing Affordability Presentation Special Committee today and 2:00. During those 90 minutes, I reached out to some members of the law department to ask them questions, have not had a response back from them yet and also received a phone call from the fire chief asking us to asking me to support DeLay for one week in order to better understand the impacts of the resolution both to the negotiations and then also to our baseline budget, which this undoubtedly would have an impact to our baseline budget if it is adopted as is. So I would support a one week hold on this topic to allow for some more information to help me make a better informed decision.
Speaker 1: So I'll take that as a form of motion to hold for one week, for one week till August 13th and second. So we'll address this issue first. So there's been a motion, a hold and a second customer. Swann Did you want to address the hold or. Yeah, okay. Please do.
Speaker 3: Please do I obviously if the majority of the council finds it so compelling to hold this, as opposed to all the other votes that were rushed through like the Amazon tax repeal, then that is what will happen. I will say for my part, I do not agree at all withholding it. There is no reason to hold it. I mean, there is no legal or ethical or or any such technical reason, technocratic reason to hold it. It is this is a political hold that one member of the public, an EMT, has to understand that this is a political hold, meaning they don't feel comfortable, council members don't feel comfortable on voting on something so straightforward. It's a resolution, not an ordinance. It's merely a request to the mayor's office to enforce provisions that already exist in the contract. I do not think we should hold it mainly because it is very, very difficult for empties to come again and again. You all have taken time off from your work and furthermore, furthermore, I mean, if they're forced to come, they absolutely will because they are fighting for their lives. But the but the reality is that if we are if we have the political will to vote on this resolution today, then it will give them one extra week to use this as leverage for their for their own efforts. I mean, this is not they're bringing a resolution. The city council is not the only thing that employees are doing. They are fighting hard on many fronts to make sure that their living standards are satisfied. And so if we hold it, we are taking one week away from them, a week that they could use, you know, going to the mayor's office, empowered with this resolution and say, did you see the city council has voted on this resolution? What do you have to say about that? How will you help enforce these contractual provisions and so on and so forth? So with all with all that in mind, I will be voting against the hold.
Speaker 1: Okay. We have a. Motion. A motion to hold on the table has from properly made in second and more discussion about the whole the reason why you want to hold it or not. Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 9: Thank you. So I chair the committee responsible for public safety issues. And one of the departments that is at the center of this resolution that has is not directly mentioned in the resolution is the Seattle Fire Department. And I was I was alarmed when I shared the resolution with Chief Scoggins this morning. And I learned that he had not seen it before and had not had an opportunity to provide me as the chair of the Public Safety Committee or the rest of the council, his feedback on the interplay and the intersectionality between what the resolution is signaling and where the fire department is in terms of negotiating the service contract with AMR. And so for me, it's not it's not a oh, I want to hold this because I'm, I don't know, don't have political will or whatever the term was that councilmember so want used. It's legitimately that I heard from Chief Scoggins that he believes that there may be implications here that will incur unintended consequences both in the service contract. They may and could harm the positions of legislative intent that are described in the resolution. And I want to have the benefit of the opportunity over the next several days to consider the information that Chief Scoggins may bring to bear to the conversation so that we're crafting the legislative intent described in the resolution in a way that it will actually ultimately be helpful to the effort to raise the standards of EMT in in the city of Seattle and make sure that we actually understand how we can best enforce the terms in the contract. Ultimately, the end of the day, this is all going to boil down into a contract. The contract will still have the same enforcement issues that exist now, because there's nothing in this resolution that talks about a pathway forward on figuring out how to enforce the terms, including the terms that are described in this resolution. So I think I think we just for me, I would just appreciate the opportunity to extend it to Chief Scoggins, the courtesy of providing us some more feedback. And he and his folks are the ones who are at the table negotiating their service contracts with Amara. I just think it's a reasonable approach to to making sure that we aren't creating landmines where we are actually trying to be helpful.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 1: Okay. Any other comments? Councilmember Switch.
Speaker 3: Just to quickly respond to this question of interplay and intersectionality, the groups that we here supposedly exist between this resolution and the contract that's being negotiated. I don't I don't agree with that at all. I. There is no there is no clear reason why. What is the interplay? What is the intersectionality? And my office also spoke to Chief Scoggins. We spoke to him in detail. I'm not convinced in any way that this resolution is in any way conflicting with the process of contract negotiations between the city and between it and Amara. And as I said, if the mayor's office whom Scoggins ultimately Jeff Scoggins ultimately represents, if the mayor's office is genuinely desirous of achieving a contract that enforces decent living standards for the workers, then they should welcome this resolution. Why? Why are they asking to hold a resolution? Because the resolution merely says we request the provisions that you have in your existing contract, enforce the provisions that are already there. That's all the resolution says. But it's its political significance is greater because it empowers the workers to continue fighting for their living standards. So I am I'm still not clear at all what the actual reason is, other than the fact that Chief Scoggins called, which he called my office also.
Speaker 8: Okay, I'm going to call for a.
Speaker 1: Vote comes from ROSQUETA.
Speaker 6: Well, I just want to, again, echo my my extreme appreciation for the folks who came to testify today. Having worked in the labor movement for the better part of a decade, I know the importance of getting contracts right and having internal and external pressure. I think as a city we have weighed in with that external pressure before we weighed in with support for UAW 4121 when they were negotiating with the University of Washington. I appreciate that there's multiple venues or conversations happening right now where we will weigh in with support for the Teamsters as they negotiate with the employer as well . Here, I think it's really important that our city send a strong message that whether or not you are a city employee or a. Contract employee. It is important for us to have good living wage jobs and especially for those who are in dangerous situations. We make sure that there is adequate and above, above and beyond adequate health care benefits, especially for those who see trauma on a daily basis. I am very interested in making sure that we send a strong message to the mayor and the negotiation team that this city stands up for its most vulnerable. I'm also very interested in supporting the chair and her interests and making sure that the public safety questions have been answered. Otherwise, this conversation would have been, I think, discussed in detail in your committee. If there is a commitment like we talked about with the shoebox, that this doesn't go on for a long period of time and that we bring this back, I will be happy to wait a week, but I want to make sure that we're sending a very strong message. The details do matter in this. The council is weighing in with support for not just good benefits, but also adequate wages, and that we stand up and identify every opportunity we can to pull some of this work in-house. Because I think it was said earlier by council members that we have critical services that we have outsourced historically. And to the extent that we can be more cost efficient and have contracts negotiate on our terms, I'm always interested in that. I look forward to the discussion if that happens in a week. Happy to support them.
Speaker 1: I think your concern is greater. So I guess just in plain and plain nonpolitical terms, I have no reason believe that FASB and CBO, while they may not have been on their A-game in the past, I have no reason to believe they only put in a positive. I think they will support the EMT workers. Anyone with any ounce of sense realizes the plight of the EMT workers now. And I think, Councilman Schwartz, leadership is, if anything else, has really brought this issue to light. So I don't hear anyone disagreeing with how can we be your advocates? And even following your your strong advocacy for your plight, one week's not going to make that big of difference. What we're trying to do. Let's see if we can do even more. Let's see if we can get a Department of Finance, CBO, to really understand this issue list, have this discussion. I talked to Council Chief Scoggins as well, and I understand his plight. And in his plight, if you know his personal story, he is aware of how people are underpaid and treated unfairly. And so I think a week is not political. Whatever. I don't even pay attention. Whatever the accusations are, it's just common sense to make this stronger, not water it down and support our EMT workers. And so I think you're hearing that. So I would support the motion to hold it for a week in those simple terms. And so having said that, it's been moved in second and hold it for a week till August 13, 2018. All those in favor I. And raise your hand, I. All those opposed. Say no one. Raise your hand. No. So. 62, it's been it will be held for one week and we will see everyone on this issue in one week. And so please read the next edition item.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION requesting that the Department of Finance and Administrative Services, the Seattle Fire Department, and the City Budget Office include in the City’s contract for Basic Life Support Emergency Services provisions that provide to emergency medical technicians (EMTs) a prevailing wage and benefits comparable to other emergency workers employed in comparable cities and similar sectors in the City of Seattle; and requesting the departments to provide additional analysis, data, and information.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_08062018_CB 119317
|
Speaker 2: I think it's the report of the.
Speaker 6: Select Committee on Civic Arena as agenda item one accountable 119 317 Relating to historic preservation, imposing controls upon the century 21 Coliseum Key Arena. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Our Becky.
Speaker 4: Shaw. Thank you. I'm pinch hitting here for Councilmember Juarez. And this is item number one under our Select Committee on Civic Arena. The question is whether or not to impose controls on the key arena for Landmark Preservation Board. The answer is yes. It came out of committee unanimously. The Landmark Preservation Board found that the key arena met the criteria needed to gain landmark status. It was submitted a year ago. And as we all know, the arena was built in 1962 during the World's Fair architect Paul Theory. It was designated as a landmark just a year ago, August 2nd of 2017. Clearly, OPG is working closely with us on the construction and the design to keep the roof line, and we will move forward to impose these controls on the site, on the exterior of the building. And so we recommend that that adoption of the Preservation Board landmark status and conditions.
Speaker 1: Thank you, consumer. Thanks for filling in for councilman worse. Any other comments or questions? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Johnson. Macheda. O'Brien by Sergeant Bagshaw. Hi. Gonzales I Herbold I President Harrell high seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read the next agenda item.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to historic preservation; imposing controls upon the Century 21 Coliseum/KeyArena, 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_08062018_CB 119321
|
Speaker 6: Agenda item for constable 119 321 relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation amending ordinance 125 493 The committee recommends the bill.
Speaker 2: Pass.
Speaker 4: Councilmember Bexar Good, thank you. I'm going to speak to this item number four, which is First Hill Park, and then I'm going to pass it to my colleague, Councilmember Herbold, to talk about the property at 7137 38th Avenue Southwest, since this is her district and she's been very greatly involved in it. So the first Hill Park, I want to say thank you to Alex Hudson. Thank you for coming. For all your folks that have worked so hard on this, this particular legislation would reallocate 500,000 from the Property Acquisition Fund in our Parks and Recreation Opportunity Fund reaching back to 2008 and allow these funds to be used for redevelopment and improvements to the existing park. So this particular it's a small park up on first hill, but as we all know, four still really needs more parks and this is one that is there now but will be improved. I'm also working with the First Hill Association about expanding some pedestrian connections throughout the first Hill area. But this particular area or this park area will be matched by a $500,000 contribution from Swedish Medical Center. I want to say thanks to that. I know that, Alex, that you worked hard to make sure that we got this matching fund. So redevelopment will include new walking paths in the central gathering area, lighting benches and play features. And it certainly will improve the first hill area. And I want to say thank you and recommend that we do move forward with this reallocation of funds and the improvement on the park.
Speaker 1: It's very good. We'll address it the next two gentlemen next to each an item. So any questions on this bill? If not, please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 7: Johnson, I.
Speaker 2: Mosquito, I. O'BRIEN Sergeant Bagshaw. Hi. Gonzales I traveled by President Herrell All right. You didn't favor. And unopposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passed. And chair of the Senate. Please read the agenda item number. The next agenda item in the short title.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation; amending Ordinance 125493, which amended the 2018 Budget (Ordinance 125475), including the 2018-2023 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); reallocating funding from the Acquisition Category to the Opportunity Fund Category of the 2008 Parks and Green Spaces Levy; and revising project allocations in the 2018-2023 CIP; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_08062018_CB 119322
|
Speaker 1: The bill passed. And chair of the Senate. Please read the agenda item number. The next agenda item in the short title.
Speaker 6: Agenda item five Council Bill.
Speaker 2: 119 322 relating to the Department Parks and.
Speaker 6: Recreation authorizing acquisition of real property commonly known as 7137 38th Avenue Southwest. Committee recommends the bill pass customer inspection.
Speaker 4: I'm going to pass this to Council Member Herbold.
Speaker 9: Appreciate it. This legislation would authorize the acquisition of the property at 3137 38th AV. Southwest is part of the Green Crescent in the Morgan Junction neighborhood and would add access and open space in the area. The acquisition itself consists of 5642 square feet. The budget for the project includes funds to acquire the property, demolish the building on the site and remediate the land to incorporate it into existing passive recreation area. The total project budget is $350,000. I want to thank the Parks Department for working with community members. I want to thank Councilmember Suarez for shepherding this acquisition through the process. And I want to thank the community members who've been doing so much work in this area. The big piece of of of work that they've been doing is monthly work parties to maintain the the recommendations in the vegetation management plan and doing a lot of reforestation and work removing removing Blackberries and other invasive species. The number of emails and phone calls we've received over the last few days is really inspiring. It's a great reminder of how many people have been working on this, on this issue. And it's also a great reminder of what happens when a community comes together to advocate for something that serves their communities needs. So thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Very good. Any further comments or questions? Please call the role on the pastor of the Bill Johnson.
Speaker 7: Just messing with you. That's how much I like this one. I love.
Speaker 2: It. Hey, Johnson.
Speaker 7: All right.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Macheda I O'Brien. I so want I make sure I. Gonzales, I herbold. Hi, President. Eero Hi. Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passed and chair of Senate. Please read the next agenda item a short title.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation; authorizing the acquisition of real property commonly known as 7137 38th Avenue Southwest; authorizing acceptance and recording of the deed for open space, park, and recreation purposes; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_08062018_CB 119311
|
Speaker 1: Bill passed and chair of Senate. Please read the next agenda item a short title.
Speaker 6: The Report of the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item six Constable 1193 11 linked the two funding for housing and community development programs, adopting the 2018 through 2022.
Speaker 2: Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. We've actually seen this for the fourth time and it will allow us to receive $17,413,772 from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. And the reason we have to go through this is that HUD wants us to have an annual action plan, which we submit back before we get the money. We had the requisite number of times in front of our committee, plus a public hearing, and we recommend that this legislation be adopted and our Human Services Department can move forward with getting this money back for us.
Speaker 1: A good guess, my picture. I had a note that you may want to amend this by amending Section four if you have any notes on that.
Speaker 4: So I'm getting a head nod from my favorite clerk. Do you want to tell me about this?
Speaker 1: Well, I will say that I think I could just make the motion and I think it is consistent with our intent here. Move to amend council bill 119311 which is this council bill attachment A by amending section four as presented in Amendment one.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. I think this was fair to describe the public hearing or the public comments. Thank you very much for doing that. Yes. At the hearing, public comments were offered in July ten at our July 25th meeting. Comments included a statement of support for the plan as part of addressing the critical needs of homeless people. Concerns expressed about HUD's actions that may reduce the number of public housing units available, and a general statement that housing and service needs are not met regardless of the plan for people of color. I think that it is very clear that $17 million is not going to get us where we need to go, but $17 million is a great help. So thank you for that. Thank you for the amendment. For the amendment.
Speaker 1: That means you second amendment. Okay. It's been second by castro and brian all those in favor of the amendment. Please vote I. I opposed the ayes have it. So then please call the roll on the passage of the amended Bill Johnson.
Speaker 2: Macheda.
Speaker 8: O'Brien by.
Speaker 2: Solan Bagshaw. Gonzalez Herbold by President Harrell. I didn't favor and oppose.
Speaker 1: The bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read the next agenda item.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to funding for housing and community development programs; adopting the 2018-2022 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development (“Plan”) and authorizing its submission to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); authorizing acceptance of grant funds from HUD for programs and activities included in the Plan; amending Ordinance 124496, which adopted the 2014 Annual Action Plan to the 2014-2017 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development, to repurpose funds to the Office of Economic Development; amending Ordinance 125493, which amended the 2018 Budget (Ordinance 125475); and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_08062018_CF 314356
|
Speaker 2: Application be granted its condition. Council 119 323 Willing to land use and zoning. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Okay. Before I turn the microphone over to Councilman Johnson, I believe we'll have to suspend the rules to consider an amendment to clerk file 314356. That was not distributed before 12 noon today and Councilman John to consider working through that. So unless there's any objection, we're going to suspend the rules. And Councilmember Johnson, you have the floor.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you for that. There's a small technical change, the Councilmember Herbold, to walk through because it's related to her amendment. This is the traditional court filing and countable that we adopt whenever we have a quasi judicial contract reason in front of us. This relates to a project at 709 Greenwood Avenue North. The project would construct a neighborhood commercial 240 foot high limit apartment building that would result in a major payment of about $531,000. Based on the commercial square footage of the proposed building. And under the image, a performance option would require two units. The project is a five story 35 unit apartment building with 6000 square feet of retail, and 60% of those units will be two or more bedrooms. The building will also, I think, use the multi-family tax exemption credit, which will require an additional 20% of those units to be affordable at 60%, 60 to 80% of AM I in addition to their two required image performance units. Great project come out of committee with do pass recommendation. We do have an amendment proposed by Councilmember Herbold. So with the President's permission, I'll now turn the microphone over to her.
Speaker 8: Perfect.
Speaker 1: Please do.
Speaker 9: Thank you. I am in clerk file 314, three, five, six. By substitute teaching version two four version one of the findings, conclusions and decisions of the Council.
Speaker 7: No second motion.
Speaker 9: Thank you. The the amendment before you relates to requirements for buffers between zones and there's within the the development site for this particular development there is a both a single family. Parcel and a multi-family parcel. And the appellants had argued that there is required to be a buffer between the two parcels. I originally had proposed a setback to fulfill this requirement, but instead we talked at the committee table about the fact that the here use. Aminah cited the area in the southernmost portion of the Single-Family zone as the open space physical barrier between the two zones that would fulfill the requirements under SC 2330 4008. So what this amendment does is it it basically puts what the hearing examiner identified as the required buffer into the property use and development agreement. The second part of the amendment changes or adds a recital related to the issue of development site. Again, this is two parcels of property that is being considered as a single development site. And one of the issues raised by the appellants is that we don't really have a definition of what a development site is. And so this puts a sort of puts a pin in this issue and establishes a council intent to take up this issue of defining a development site in the future.
Speaker 1: Very good. Thank you. We just have the amendment right now. We'll vote on the citizen comments on the just the amendment piece. So was it seconded? Did I get a second? I was just been moved in second. And councilmembers Herbert's amendment basically substitute version two for version one. Any other questions on that? All those in favor of the amendment. Please vote. I oppose. The ayes have it. Is there anything more to say about the clerk file?
Speaker 7: I'd move adoption.
Speaker 1: Already. Okay. So those in favor of granting the application as amended and conditioned vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries the applications granted as condition and Chair was signed the findings, decision and conclusion of the City Council. The next agenda item is 14.
Speaker 7: Councilmember Johnson and our clerk already read this into the record, but it does require motion. So like I usually do, I'll move to amend Council Bill 119323 Exhibit C by substitute executed property use and development agreement for the on executed property is in development group.
Speaker 1: Then moved in second to make the amendment as described by Councilmember Johnson. All those in favor of that amendment vote i. I opposed. The ayes have it. Anything further say Katherine Johnson? No, sir. Okay. Please call the role on the passes. Councilmember Herbold has will amend council bill 119323 as well by adding six new recitals after the bill title.
Speaker 2: Six new recitals. Yeah.
Speaker 7: That's how I look to my colleague to see that she wants to read for that moment.
Speaker 2: I am. I'm at a loss. What of the six new recitals? Oh, are these.
Speaker 9: These are the new recitals that Kittle sent out this morning, which is why.
Speaker 2: I am.
Speaker 7: Asking this.
Speaker 9: To suspend the rules. So, yes, I will move to amend Council Bill 11 9323 to include recitals affirming the hearing examiners recommendation, reciting that the contract rezoning approval has no precedential effect and establishes that the council's intent to take a policy issues related to designation of Delta development sites.
Speaker 1: And is there a second? Second and just be clear, I did suspend the rules on this to allow that it wasn't needed. It was not needed. Okay. We have the amendment here with the six recitals. All those in favor of the amendment. Please vote I. I opposed. The ayes have it. That is amended.
Speaker 7: So I still have nothing to add.
Speaker 1: Okay, so I wasn't in there. So I think we're ready to call for the please call the rule on the passage of the amended bill.
Speaker 2: I just get it. I O'Brien Gonzalez I Herbold I President Harrell. I aid in favor and oppose.
Speaker 1: The bill passed in the Senate. I believe that takes us through all of our agenda items for the afternoon. Is there any further business cover for the council? Okay. Notwithstanding Jane and everyone, have a great rest of the day.
|
Clerk File (CF)
|
Application of 70th & Greenwood Ave, LLC to rezone an approximately 12,188 square foot site located at 7009 Greenwood Avenue North from Neighborhood Commercial 2 with a 40 foot height limit (NC2 40) to Neighborhood Commercial 2 with a 55 foot height limit and M Mandatory Housing Affordability suffix (NC2 55 (M)) (Project No. 3023260; Type IV).
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07302018_CB 119305
|
Speaker 0: Bill passes and sign it. Let's move to committee reports. Please read the report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee.
Speaker 1: Report of the Sustainability.
Speaker 2: And Transportation Committee agenda. Item one Constable 119305 relating to Street and Syracuse fees, adopting a free floating bikeshare program fee schedule and amending ordinance 125 493, which amended the 2018 budget by increasing preparations to Seattle Department Transportation all by 3/1 vote of the City Council.
Speaker 1: The committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. I'm aware that we have some amendments, but let's start with the basic legislation. Councilmember O'Brien wants to lead us through it.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. So a little over a year ago, the city of Seattle created a pilot program for licensing bike share programs, free floating bike share programs. It was one of the first in the country. And what we've seen is, as you heard today in public comment and of you heard through committee reports in the past number of months, a significant usage of these new types of bike share over a million riders of use these use these bikes in the last year and as time would like to continue licensing them under a new program. And so this legislation authorizes them to do that moving forward. Seattle Department of Transportation has extended, as has stated, their intent to essentially double the number of permits that they would allow permitted bikes from a maximum of 10,000 today to about 20,000 going forward with up to four companies. And each company could have up to 5000. It's not clear that there will be a full 20,000 yet. There are currently three bike share companies that have permits. One of them has publicly announced they're kind of pulling out of the United States market. But there are also a number of other bike share companies that have expressed interest. So we'll see how that goes. What we are doing today is essentially authorizing the collection of fees and giving the flexibility to our start on how they move forward. If there are other questions on the underlying legislation, and I'm happy to take those and if not, I would turn it over to Councilmember Herbold, who has an amendment that she would like, which I support.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any questions before we turn over? Councilman Herbold.
Speaker 6: Do you have a question? Councilmember O'Brien, can you speak to the.
Speaker 1: Scope.
Speaker 6: Of this ordinance as it relates to liability issues? I believe those issues, some of the issues related to contracts and liability that were brought up during public comment are out of the scope of this ordinance because this is just about the street use fees. Is that basically correct?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm a little nervous talking about liability without the attorneys being here. I can speak specifically that the scope of this is simply authorizing the collection of fees and spending those fees. I will note that what we heard during public comment specifically about an arbitration clause in there, this legislation does not address that. But I am I do appreciate those concerns being raised and specifically to the comment, the request that we follow the Governor Inslee's lead in stated city preference for partnering with folks who do not have mandatory arbitration clauses is something I am certainly interested in, in not just this program, but any partnerships we do have going forward. So it's something that I'd be willing to work with colleagues on separately in this work.
Speaker 0: Catherine Beck, she has a question.
Speaker 1: I do. And I'm not sure. Councilmembers whether you want to address these after Councilmember Herbold brings her amendment forward. But I'm particularly interested in the rules that we may be changing in response to the increasing number of bicycles. You all know that I am a huge supporter of riding bikes, particularly around downtown, but I am concerned about where people are parking. And I know there's been conversation about the last 30 feet, like in front of a stop sign, that parking spot that's usually disallowed any way for cars. Are we dealing with that? Are we dealing with rules around riding on sidewalks, especially when we've got a bike lane like on Second Avenue? And then as Mr. McDonald brought up something about the permits and being able to get that information, I don't understand why that continues to be a difficult problem for people. So could you address that? Rules about riding on sidewalks, increased parking, and what's the status of being able to get information around permits for massdot?
Speaker 4: Sure. So I have after Councilmember Herbold has her amendment, I have a separate amendment that speaks to how we plan to move forward with enforcement of parking regulations around free floating bike share. Specifically how the city requesting more information from Massdot about how they plan to enforce against the companies who can then hold their riders accountable for where they leave these bicycles when they're done. I will speak briefly to the parking what's loud right now? We've done a few pilots. They've been very narrow as far as creating specific spaces for bike share bikes and sometimes other bikes where they can park. And one of the areas that I think is ripe for kind of redeployment is, as you mentioned, the area adjacent to stop signs where parking is not allowed, but bike parking could be put in that place and it would be done right with not restricting the visibility around the stop signs. And so it's essentially an underused piece of the right away that could be reallocated to bike parking, including bike share corrals to create an opportunity for people to put bikes there. I don't this this ordinance, as it increases the permitting fee for operators, will generate additional revenue to make some of the investments necessary to make that parking available. I don't want to pretend that that parking alone will solve it. A lot of this is behavioral and we need to establish the type of behavioral norms. And we're going to look forward to hearing from the department within the next month or so on how they plan to enforce that against the bike share companies who can then establishes norms with a client. It's whether they want to find them or educate them or however they plan to do that. Can someone make sure he had one more time?
Speaker 1: The question was around our starts response to requests for data sharing.
Speaker 4: Yes, I have. The current requirement is that data is shared with a third party who then kind of crunches those numbers for us. It's the University of Washington's transportation mobility folks that are doing that. And so I don't know the specifics about the public records. The data I've seen has been very thorough. I have not chatted with Mr. McDonald about specifically what he is trying to get and he has not been able to get. But there is some there may be some pieces that are proprietary, which I understand folks want to do. But my my intent is that the city is collecting all the information we need to make good policy decisions. And that information should also be made available to the public. So the public can weigh in on that, too. And so I'm happy to work with Mr. McDonald to continue to ensure that he has access to the data that he wants, assuming it's consistent with what I just said.
Speaker 1: And I think the other question that got lost in my intro was the question about just rules for riding. And I've heard from many folks that the concern is if there is not a bicycle lane, a dedicated lane, then bikes will ride on the sidewalks if it's less or the people feel safer on there than pedestrians feel concerned. You got bikes on the sidewalk. So the vicious cycle there is we need to have more designated places for bikes to ride. And is there a plan for changing the rules when we've got more spaces that are designated for safe? Because as we know, you know, what have we called the priorities? Soft over hard? You know, pedestrians have priority over bikes that have priority over cars and freight coming at them.
Speaker 4: And there's no I don't believe there's any specifics in our policy about a plan to do that. But I agree with what we heard from the public today and what you said. And, Councilman, make sure you and I, among others, have seen other jurisdictions where there is public right away and it's dedicated to pedestrians, public ride, whether it's dedicated to motor vehicles and public ride away. A whole network is dedicated for folks using bicycles or other modes to get around. You know, in the city of Seattle, we just have a small fraction of our right away actually has that type of facility where folks feel safe at all ages and abilities. And so I think there's an urgency around building that out. Which agenda item three touches on for downtown. How we manage what's allowed on the sidewalk or not, I think is a question that will continue to be in front of us in the coming years as we see more and more types of devices coming forward that do great to address mobility challenges, too great to address some of the climate challenges we have. But do do those certain conflicts that were heard a little bit about today and I'll talk about in my amendment and we need to address that going forward. I will say that the right to use the sidewalk is one that, you know, sometimes there's a bike lane and some of us feel safe on a bike lane. Some people don't feel safe enough on a bike lane. We know still, you know, protected bike lane is is or a regional trail is kind of a higher standard. There's a range of facilities and different individuals feel feel differently about their safety. And in the city of Seattle, we do allow folks to ride on the sidewalks. Of course, the requirement is that to do so in a safe manner. And sometimes that means the only safe manner would be to get off and walk the bicycle depending on who's there and have it is. And we need to make sure that regardless of everything else we're doing, that those standards are upheld.
Speaker 1: Right. Thank you. And thank you, President Herold, for giving us have that.
Speaker 6: May I add one point to Councilmember Bradshaw's last question? Thank you. It's my recollection that the state legislature has recently passed legislation as it relates to e-bikes and sidewalks and limiting their ability to use sidewalks. It's not clear whether or not we have to do something here in Seattle in order to implement that new law. It's something that my staff is checking on.
Speaker 1: Okay, good. And there's different levels of e-bikes to you. Exactly.
Speaker 6: Councilmember Johnson just reminded me of that as well.
Speaker 0: Okay. So Councilmember Herbold has an amendment to substitution. She'd like to talk about Councilwoman Herbold.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I moved to amend Council Bill 11 9305 by substituting version three for version two.
Speaker 0: So second, second guess. I would just like to describe what we're doing.
Speaker 6: Sure. And just to let folks know the you don't have a hard copy of it. That's because it did make the agenda. So it's it's linked online if you want to follow along. When I as I speak and if you don't want to, that's fine too. So the. Comments in the substituted version do a number of things. They limit council approval for fees to bicycles and adaptive cycles to accommodate disabled riders. They are the substitute requests that provide a written plan for sidewalk management and addressing the increased use of fast moving motor electric motor devices on sidewalks by December 31st, 2018. Also request quarterly reports from stat about installation of designated bike parking associated with the free floating bike share program. And the thinking behind this is we want to hear back from Massdot before considering approval for fees for additional devices such as electric scooters and other innovative devices. And then there's a specific recital that references Scott's current plans to allow for access for disabled riders. It notes an allowance of up to 1000 bicycles permit per permit to incentivize the deployment of adaptive cycles. And the again, the intention is to allow Eastport to work with the permitting companies to incentivize their deployment of one additional regular cycle for each adaptive cycle that they provide.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any questions on Councilman Herbold amendment that I'll describe as Amendment one? Basically. So choose version three for version two. Any comments or questions?
Speaker 4: How's it coming? Councilmember People, I appreciate your work on this and the clarifying language around this. The the original intent to provide a variety of types of cycles that can accommodate users is great and I really appreciate your focus on getting the language right to really specify what we're talking about here. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Very good. Okay. If there's no further comments, we will vote. Thank you again, Councilman Herbold. Oh, all those in favor of Amendment One, which substituted version three for version two, say I. I opposed the ayes have it. Amendment one does pass. Councilman Brown, I believe you had a Second Amendment.
Speaker 4: I do. So the Second Amendment I proposed add a new section for that would read as follows. Section four, no more than $500,000 of the funds appropriated in this ordinance for the mobility operations budget control level in the 2018 budget may be spent on implementing the free floating bikeshare program until the Chair of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee files a certification with the City Clerk that the Department of Transportation has provided a plan for direct enforcement of bikeshare parking requirements and management of the right of way to accommodate disabled pedestrians by creating a parking enforcement program or identifying use of a parking enforcement strategy currently implemented by the city of Seattle. And this amendment would also remember the subsequent sections appropriately.
Speaker 0: Before we discuss it, I.
Speaker 4: Will move that.
Speaker 0: This move is their second.
Speaker 6: Second, second.
Speaker 0: Sort of self-explanatory that comes from a brand, as you want to say any more about it.
Speaker 4: And we'll just briefly what we what we heard today in public comment. And I really want to thank Michael, Marcy and Lynne for coming out and speaking about their personal interactions with these bicycles. And a number of folks were also a committee raising concerns, concerns both that folks with disabilities have not been included in the conversation with our staff. But I believe since committee there have been conversations have begun and the expectation is that those conversations will continue and that members of this community will be at the table helping design an enforcement strategy that will address the concerns they raise more broadly. I want to just say that bike shares have proven, as I mentioned earlier, over the nearly a million and a half rides in the first year as an opportunity to provide great mobility to a lot of people in our community. But we cannot be adding mobility options for some people in our community. Well, we're hindering the mobility opportunities of others, and we don't have to do that. There are ways, I am certain, that if we're smart about this, we can expand the mobility options for some while also maintaining and increasing the mobility options for folks in this case that may have vision disabilities and these bike shares are impeding that. And so I look forward to working with the Department of Transportation and advocates in the community in the coming weeks and months to identify ways that we can really create a standard our community with teeth to back it up so that folks who are using this new mobility option are doing so in a way that doesn't hurt others.
Speaker 3: Mobility options.
Speaker 0: Very good. We are just going to vote on the amendment right now. Any other comments on amendment number two? All those in favor of amendment number two as described by Councilman Bryan. Please vote i. I opposed. The ayes have it. Okay, so one and two are passed. So we have an amended piece of legislation in Constable 119305 comes from Brian actually. Any any closing remarks or any other comments.
Speaker 4: Just mentioned that that Seattle has been a pioneer in this new mode of bicycle transportation. And what we're seeing around the country is a very rapidly evolving system, and we will almost certainly be back multiple times in the coming years as new technologies and devices emerge. And I just want to acknowledge that we will continue to struggle with what exactly type of lane and facility folks use and how we manage that in a way that improves mobility for every single person in our community, not one group at the expense of others. And I'm proud of the the work we've done to date. I think the city could have done a better job to this point working with certain communities. And I hope that collectively moving forward as this body of work continues to evolve, we can really set a high bar for how we do this. Well, I think this is a good piece of legislation is is very good.
Speaker 0: And it comes from a Johnson.
Speaker 8: Briefly, I want to say, you know, to echo that point, Councilmember O'Brien, you know, we heard in committee that of the 40,000 some odd bike share bikes that exist in the United States, 10,000 of them are here in the city of Seattle. So, you know, when we look at mobility, particularly for those transit users, for a first mile or last mile connections, bike share in the city of Seattle is undoubtedly improving the lives of thousands of Seattleites on a daily basis to get them where they want to go. And I think as we continue to expand geographically and we and we put an increased focus on equitable geographic balance of these bikes, I think it's only going to do more to improve the lives of more satellites.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Katherine Johnson. Councilwoman Mesquita.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm really excited about this piece of legislation and the amended version that's in front of us. I think we are seeing more and more residents of Seattle decide that they can take up biking. I know for myself and for my husband, this was our reintroduction into biking and seeing it as a possibility for not just occasional use, but for a potential commuting option. And I know that we have community members throughout Seattle who never thought that they'd be able to make it up these hills and with the electric bikes now have a possibility of being able to use a bike to get up there. So I think it's a win. I think it's a win for environmental justice. I think it's a win for the mobility justice movement. I think it's a good first step. I also am concerned thank you to the Washington State Association for Justice for bringing up the concerns around injured bikers. And I know that we will be continuing to work with you on some additional protections, which I understand are the questions that were raised in our earlier conversations. That's a broader conversation that we must engage in. Initially, I was a little concerned about capping the number of bicycles out there, given that we're not even capping how many TNC operators we have in our city. But I absolutely agree that we have to have a way to make sure that we're being conscious about the impact of these free floating bicycles on our right way, on a ride away is on our sidewalks and making sure that we're not impairing those who have mobility or vision limitations. So I really appreciate the amended version that we have in front of us, and I look forward to working with you on how we create more opportunities for safe alternatives to using a car.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Skater. Any other further comments from any of our colleagues? Okay, please call the rule on the passage of the amended.
Speaker 1: Bill Herbold i Johnson Morales. I mosquera i o'brien. I want to make sure President Harrell high eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and show sign it. Please read the second agenda item.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to street and sidewalk use fees; adopting a Free-Floating Bike Share Program Fee Schedule; and amending Ordinance 125493, which amended the 2018 Budget (Ordinance 125475), by increasing appropriations to the Seattle Department of Transportation; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07302018_CB 119306
|
Speaker 2: Thank you agenda item to your council. Bill 119306 relating to preparations for the Seattle Department Transportation.
Speaker 1: Multimodal Corridor Project.
Speaker 2: And many more 125 475, which adopted the 2018 budget and lifting a proviso the committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Customer Brian.
Speaker 4: Thank you. So we heard a little bit in public comment today and I talked about this in committee a bit really excited about the multimodal work being done in the Del Ridge corridor. We had previously put a proviso on that and said the Department of Transportation has met the criteria to lift that proviso, which is what this legislation would do to allow that planning process to move forward. There's an amendment and I'll turn it over to Councilmember Herbold to introduce that they would place a second proviso on the next phase of this when it gets the 30% design phase. And now that Councilmember Herbold talked about that.
Speaker 0: Consumer Herbold.
Speaker 6: Thank you so much. I'm. Common Council Bill 1190 3006 by adding a new Section two and re numbering the remaining sections accordingly.
Speaker 0: Second has been moved and second, Councilor Herbert to walk us through the amendment, please.
Speaker 6: In the 2018 budget process, the Council adopted a proviso requiring the Council approval before it could spend funds beyond a 10% design. This was for the Council to start beginning the to begin using the stage gate writing process for capital projects. Stage gating is a process that delivers more accountability and oversight from a legislative body to a body that is charged with implementing these capital projects. And so this particular amendment would require council approval to proceed beyond the 30% design and includes a request for a clear definition of sidewalk and bicycle infrastructure improvements in the project's scope per community requests, as well as ongoing community engagement requirements.
Speaker 0: Very good. So it's been moved in second. Any other questions or comments on amendment number one articulated by Councilmember Herbold?
Speaker 4: I just mentioned that we've had conversations with the Department of Transportation, and they agree that this is an appropriate next step and will not hinder them from moving forward with this, but will certainly be appropriate way for us to have a check in when they get to that design threshold. And that's a really critical design threshold where a lot of the decisions that community members have concerns about and interested in will be made. So this works well.
Speaker 0: The more comments are those in favor of amendment. Number one is articulated by Councilmember Herbold to council 119306. Please say I. I opposed. The ayes have it. The amendment passes. Councilman Brown, as you like to say more about the base legislation? Nope. Any other comments from any of our colleagues on the Bass legislation as a minute councilmember skater? No. Nope. Everybody get ready to vote. Okay. Please call the roll on the passage of the amended.
Speaker 1: Bill Herbold, i Johnson. Maurice Metzger, I O'Brien II Sergeant Bagshaw, President Harrell High Aide In favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed and chair assignment please read agenda item number three.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to appropriations for the Seattle Department of Transportation's Delridge Multimodal Corridor Project; amending Ordinance 125475, which adopted the 2018 Budget; and lifting a proviso.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07302018_Res 31826
|
Speaker 2: Agenda item three Resolution 318 26. Wellington Cell Center City Bike Network Assumption and Implementation Schedule for this year department transportation delivery of capital projects that are elements of the Center City Bike Network and requesting quarterly status updates to the Chair of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee through 2018. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted as member.
Speaker 0: O'Brien.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I'll just speak briefly to this. And then we have a substitute, which a lot of folks on the dais here weighed in to help craft and let folks speak to that. The general impetus for this is to lay out a 18 month plan for how the city will take some significant steps to completing the downtown Protected Bike Network. This has been a specific set of investments that has been central to the bike master plan, and other community advocates have been pushing for this and there've been a number of setbacks. So just going to be honest, the city has postponed and delayed various aspects of this a number of times to the frustration of many in the community, including myself. But out of that frustration, we had a chance to work with the department and advocates on identifying projects that can be completed in the next 18 months. I will say that this is an ambitious set of plans, but that every one of these there are no major.
Speaker 1: Or.
Speaker 4: One, should I say there's no obstacle that we don't see a way to overcome in the next 18 months. So we have a plan that's short term and we're going to be monitoring this very closely with report backs in the committee. And I look forward to moving forward and getting these things built in the week and a half since we had our committee meeting and at our committee meeting. A number of colleagues who showed up at committee meeting had a number of really great suggestions. We have incorporated all those suggestions into a substitute version, so I would go ahead and move to amend Resolution 31826 by substituting version three for version 1D, which includes a new attachment B. And then I would let my colleagues each speak to the various components that they had a hand in crafting when we get to that point
Speaker 0: . There has been moves in second for the new version three. Who would like to speak on components of the new version? Now. Just wait if someone feels the need to go first. Councilmember Johnson's. Please go.
Speaker 3: First.
Speaker 8: So just briefly, the section that Councilmember O'Brien worked with me on was Section ten. And Section ten relates to not providing quarterly reports back to the Council on evaluation of the performance of the transportation system, particularly downtown. We are living in a city that is rapidly growing, and there's a couple of ways that we can try to manage that growth. From our transportation network perspective, one would be very expensive and that's to build a whole lot more roads. And to do that, we would require to tear down buildings and do all kinds of ridiculous things. The other is for us to really do a better job of managing our existing environment, and that I think we're doing through these quarterly reports. Growth means we need to use our space more effectively and more efficiently than we're using it today. It means that we need to think about throughput and how many people are going through the city into and out of the city every day and maximize the existing right away that we have to the best of our ability, in particular downtown. We know that we've got, you know, a very high percentage of households that are living without a car. We know that one of the best ways we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions is to encourage folks to get around without a car. And that really, particularly for downtown bike riders or those that are coming to downtown on their bike, that this is one of the places where we need to have a highest emphasis on safety. It's a place where there's a lot of conflicting modes and a lot of people that are looking at a lot of different things, whether that's their phones in their cars, whether it's the screens in their cars, whether it's the best friends around them. There are a lot of distractions downtown. So the more we can do to create protections, the safer we're going to be for those folks that are riding into town every day. So enthusiastic about this resolution, I think to Councilmember O'Brien's point, we've set ourselves a pretty high bar here, and I'm hopeful that we can really make it very good.
Speaker 0: Thanks for the explanation, Katherine Johnson. Councilmember Mesquita.
Speaker 2: Sure. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you to Councilmember O'Brien and to his staff for your ongoing work on this legislation and for your work with us in my office to really identify if there was a way for us to use the language in the text of the resolution to call out the priority populations that we really want to address intentionally. We want to make sure that this is a bike network that's available and accessible for all ages and abilities, as I said in the legislation. But given the conversation that we had, and I think very much Phyllis Porter, who came forward and talked about making sure that individuals have access to socio cultural, economic opportunities and destinations, this is also an opportunity for us to be really intentional in our language here, to make sure that this new bike network is available for all languages, ethnicities, genders, race as well as abilities and and ages. And so the language that you see in front of you reflects those demographics and that commitment throughout the text. I use a shorthand for all of those categories to say Allegra, which also means happy when I take my bike into work and actually cut my commute in half by coming in on the bike way. I show up happy, happy to have been outside for a brief moment, to be able to have a little bit of physical activity. And I know that more individuals will be able to show up happier at their places of work if they're safer also on their commute in. This is about economic justice, just as is is much it is is about environmental justice. We're also creating the ability for individuals to have self-determination, to be able to decide when they're able to get on their bike and get to work in a safe manner. Instead of maybe being reliant either on a car that's expensive or a bus route that maybe doesn't need their time. And yes, we're going to increase the bus routes as well. And we want to make our streets safe, safer, pedestrian, safer bicyclists and safe for all that are on it, including those in busses and bikes and busses and cars. So the language that you see in front of you also comes from a really a commitment to recognizing that as we think about the ability to get more folks out of their cars, which are the most the the item that contributes the most to pollution in Seattle is single occupancy vehicles. When we think about this through an economic justice lens, we must think about it through a racial and gender justice lens as well, because it's our communities of color who are going to be disproportionately impacted by climate change. And so, yes, we want more folks to get out of their cars, but we also want to make sure that we're investing in communities equitably across our city. We've talked about this before, Mr. President, where we currently have a situation where our zip codes are determining our our health outcomes and how long we live. And many of you know that I spent the first few years of my career working in South Park at Seymour Community Health Centers, making sure that people had access to health care and health services. And now I live in Queanbeyan and you know that there's a quite a distinction between the health outcomes for individuals who live in South Park versus Queen Anne. We need to rectify that wrong. We need to make sure that every community throughout Seattle has access to equitable services. And that means affordable housing. That means access to child care facilities, that means access to food and grocery stores. So people aren't living in food deserts. And, Mr. President, this means access to safe routes for people to be able to bike and walk and get around their communities safely. I'm really excited that this piece of legislation is moving forward after years of your work and advocacy. Thank you to the sponsor for his work on this. And it's not just about making sure that people have access to a bike lane because those bike lanes are not just about luxury, it is about access to bike lanes as the necessity and necessity to be able to get to your job, to your child care, to grocery stores, to make sure that people can get to hospitals, whether they're working there or they're visiting a loved one. And this really comes my my excitement about this is really renewed after coming back from Minneapolis, where I had the chance to meet with the individuals and the t shirt that I'm wearing, which is Somalis in basic letters . This organization promotes access to safe roads in communities of color and connecting communities of color to downtown core so that people can have access to jobs and opportunity in every corner of their city. They said that the most important thing in creating new bike lanes is to operate from a place of reducing harm, which means protecting lives and increasing access to bike lanes as much. It is about reversing harm, recognizing that many of our communities have historically been disinvested in thought of after the fact and not included. I really appreciate the report that the Chair included with this resolution, and if I might just read from it, Mr. President has a few statistics that I think are important for women and people of color as we think about creating a connected bike lane. It says that women are consistently underrepresented as a share of the total bicyclists, but the share of women writing increases in correlation to better riding facilities, and that safety in numbers has additional significance specifically for female bicyclists. I feel that myself, Mr. President. It also talks about communities of color and notes that black and Latinx bicyclists make up a rapidly growing segment of the riding population. And yet it is black and Latino cyclists who feel uncomfortable, whether it be from assault from a vehicle or whether sorry for accident from a vehicle assault or being cited by law enforcement. These are barriers to cyclists, and we want to make sure that people all feel safe and in biking in every community. And it also says something that I think is really important, given the conversation we heard today from those who testified that longstanding disinvestment in street infrastructure means that these riders are disproportionately likely to be killed by a car, more disproportionately likely than their white counterparts. So for me, this is really about with the back of this shirt says and I know you probably all can't read it, but it says decolonizing one bike lane at a time as we think about investing in the bike lanes and the infrastructure and the road networks throughout our communities. It's about connecting communities, not just creating bike lanes through communities are through communities of color. It's about making sure that individuals have access to local. McCalla was making sure that people can have individuals, enjoy their small businesses and not just bike through it. The folks that tirelessly bicyclists talked about how their studies, study after study shows that when there is not a parked car in front of a business, actual visits and purchases at those local businesses increase. So we can think about how we promote economic justice, especially for low income communities and communities of color and entrepreneurs who are trying to create economic opportunities in their own communities. When we think about connecting communities, not just connecting corridors through communities. So I'm really excited about this opportunity to work with you to make sure that we are intentional about creating an integrated and connected bike network that lifts up all of our communities and highlights the fact that we want this to be for all ages, languages, ethnicities, genders, race and ability so we can all have more Allegra in our lives. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: One more. One more obese. Oh, two.
Speaker 0: More. Don't know when to quit when you had. That was a closer.
Speaker 1: As I know it it was it was so good. It was so good. But I want to acknowledge and say thank you to our Seattle neighborhood greenways. Many of you here in the audience. You and I have worked together since 2011 on this. And of course, I'm emphasizing downtown connected lanes because I live downtown. But secondly, because here that's what we ride. But you are doing so much good work in the neighborhoods. I want to acknowledge that. And also, when we're talking about all ages and abilities, we're not just talking about seniors, we're talking about the kids getting to school and connecting those neighborhood greenways so that our kids can get to school on the bike trains or whatever we decide to do. I think it's really important to I just want to acknowledge you and say thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you both.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I just wanted to very quickly speak to the contribution that Chair O'Brien allowed me to make to the substitute. There is a recital at the bottom of page two, as well as two recitals, the two last recitals on page four and the new Section 12. The purpose of these changes is to include recognition of the broader one center city work the city is doing with partner agencies such as King County and Sound Transit in the One Center City program. And it also references the quarterly reporting that the Council is already required on implementation performance and that coordination of bike network implementation will be done within the overall context of meeting the one center city goal of moving people safely and efficiently through the center city. This is very important to West Seattle bus commuters who access downtown via the Alaskan Way Viaduct on routes like the C line and the 120. And my hope is again that changes and improvements to the Bike Network be considered within the context of one center city, particularly as it relates to the period of maximum constraint that will have severe, significant impacts on West Seattle commuters.
Speaker 0: Excellent. Any other comments before we vote.
Speaker 4: On the amendment?
Speaker 0: We hadn't voted on the amendment. Obviously, I was infatuated with General Lewinsky's comments. Okay. But all those in favor of the amendment that basically substitutes version three for version one D, please say I. I opposed. The ayes have it. Okay, now we have an amended resolution. So closing comments on the amended resolution. Caspar My.
Speaker 4: Brian I'll be brief. I want to really think all of my colleagues for weighing in on this. And I think the fact that there were so many people that had ideas to improve the the resolution really speaks to the importance of this the attention that council members are putting into this. And I think that speaks well to the outcomes of making sure that we can move forward and working with the department in the mayor's office to make sure that we actually meet these ambitious goals that have laid out here. I think it's critically important that we have the report back that Councilmember Johnson highlighted. And Councilmember Herbold, the coordination with the work on one Senator City is is critically important. It's going to be exciting times in the transportation world the next coming months. And so making sure we have clarity on exactly what is happening, when and how it's going to impact us is going to be really important. Councilmember Make sure your ongoing work around all ages and ability and the fact that I should mention that the attachment B that's included in this amended version is the NAT, the National Association of City Transportation Officials, designing for all ages and abilities, contextual guidance for high comfort bicycle facilities document. So we're making just clear that when we reference all ages and ability in that document, what specifically we're talking about and you've been a champion on that for a long time. And finally, councilmember skater, I am so thrilled to have your support of this in your advocacy on behalf of communities. You relayed to me your story of being back in Minneapolis earlier this month and having that experience riding with folks. And we do some great work here in Seattle, and we have so much great work to do, making sure that that everyone in our community, regardless of their background. And I really appreciate you highlighting languages, ethnicities, gender and race in addition to ages and abilities in this document, because there's so much potential for folks to do it . We hear from community members. Phyllis Porter here today testifying, who's been a strong advocate in southeast Seattle and I really appreciate her comments about this is really about mobility. Equity is what we're talking about. I'll still mention bike lanes occasionally, but I think she's right. But this is about mobility, equity and how we do this. And I think you're amendment's really speak to that today. So thank you for that.
Speaker 0: Very good. Excellent. Any further comments? If not those in favor of adopting the resolution as amended. Please vote i. I those opposed vote no. The motion carries in the resolution adopted and then chair will sign it. Please read the report of the thank you. The Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION relating to the Seattle Center City Bike Network; establishing an implementation schedule for Seattle Department of Transportation delivery of capital projects that are elements of the Center City Bike Network; and requesting quarterly status updates to the Chair of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee through 2019.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07302018_CB 119298
|
Speaker 1: The Report of the.
Speaker 2: Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Canadian Item Ford Council one when 1988 related to the Civil Art Fund amending Section 20.30 2.0 30 Oceania. Ms.. Baker to remove the timing limitation on the use of funding.
Speaker 1: The committee recommends.
Speaker 2: The bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold, thank you.
Speaker 6: The Seattle Municipal Arts Fund is where percent for arts funds are deposited and spent. Current Seattle municipal code governing spending requires that funds be spent within three years. This is intended to ensure that funds are spent in a timely manner. Unspent funds return to the general fund and a two year extension is possible. These policies were adopted back in 1967 and led to some challenging spending of the funds because many capital projects spend the art only portion at the very end of the project. So this can result in funds being spent for established artists who who know the process. But the intent of this legislation is to allow for broader outreach from artists, from unrepresented communities. The the amendment will.
Speaker 1: Allow for a longer.
Speaker 6: Period of time of spending, but it will also require a report back to committee to track impact and success of this legislation. There is a report back that will be required annually from 2018 to 2022. In that report will require information on new projects that public arts funding will support. The size and number of those new projects compared to 2015 and how the Arts Office has conducted outreach and community engagement, particularly to underrepresented communities and communities of color. And also report back on the balance of program funds for each year. That reporting back function is a result of an amendment that went through my committee with the support of committee members.
Speaker 0: Very good. Thank you. Any questions on this bill? Or comments. If not, please call the rule on the pastor of the Bill.
Speaker 1: Herbold II Johnson. Whereas. Macheda I. O'Brien So aren't I? BAGSHAW High President Harrow High eight. In favor and.
Speaker 0: Unopposed, the bill passes and the chair of the Senate is right next to an item.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Municipal Art Fund; amending Section 20.32.030 of the Seattle Municipal Code to remove the timing limitation on the use of funding.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07302018_CB 119314
|
Speaker 0: Bill passenger Cheryl Simon. Please read the next agenda item the short title.
Speaker 1: Agenda item seven.
Speaker 2: Cancel 119 314 Rally to Sell Public Utilities. Declaring certain real property rights.
Speaker 1: To be surplus to the.
Speaker 2: Needs of Seattle Public Utilities.
Speaker 1: Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Senator Herbold, thank you.
Speaker 6: This legislation requests an easement to construct and maintain an underground storm drain line across the city of Seattle's Old Lake Pipeline. Right of way. The storm water pipe would convey stormwater to a detention pond associated with a development in a city of to fill up approximately two miles east of south center.
Speaker 0: We get any questions or comments that please call the role on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Herbold i. Johnson whereas mosquera i. O'BRIEN So aren't I make sure President Harrell aid in favor and.
Speaker 0: Oppose the bill passed. Your assignment please read the report of the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee.
Speaker 2: Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee. Agenda Item eight Resolution 318 29 relating to the City Department adopting revised procedures for the disposition of surplus properties under the jurisdiction of City Light, the committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Mosquito.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. This resolution essentially adopts House Bill 2382, which allows the Seattle City Light to dispose of excess properties for the purpose of affordable housing. This is a piece of legislation at the state level that Representative Raju introduced and the City of Seattle was supportive of, to make sure that local government entities, including utilities, can dispose of or lease surplus or underutilized land for below market value so that we can actually address much of what the community needs and what the community needs is affordable housing. This is in line with what we I think I've talked about a lot here on this council. It's something that I talked about a lot last year, which is a commitment to keep public land in public hands and use it for the public good. And to the extent that we have excess or surplus property, that is not currently being used. We would like to prioritize its use for affordable housing. Whether that means the Seattle City Light will now be able to transfer or sell at below market rate the piece of land to another city entity so that we can build affordable housing or that we work in partnership with the community developers. Nonprofit developers to create affordable housing with other public goods is the best way for us to, I think, utilize the precious resources that we have in this city. Councilmember Johnson said earlier that with this exponential growth that we are currently seeing in Seattle, well, that means we must use our land in more efficient and effective ways. And I think this piece of legislation does exactly that. We are looking not to acquire new land, but when we have existing public land that we are not using to the best of its ability, we should be prioritizing affordable housing and doing so in a way like the Seattle GREENSPACE Coalition member represented. Doing so in a way that promotes livability as well. Above child care facilities, a health care facilities, grocery stores around park like settings so that you have trees and public spaces and plazas and playgrounds. That's what it looks like to create affordable housing, new homes and mixed use opportunities that our community truly benefits from. Land that is currently sitting unused. So the piece of legislation in front of you basically implements this first step in Seattle to pass into our state statute the ability to to look at excess property, prioritize it for affordable housing as per House Bill 2382 has suggested. And I'll also note that this is an issue that has been brought to our attention the desire to use public land for public space, whether it's these park like settings that I'm talking about around affordable mixed income homes, or making sure that we're creating more innovative ways to think about transit oriented development, like what we see at Plaza Roberto Master's, where people from around the neighborhood are able to benefit and use those properties as we create affordable housing, really identifying ways to create mixed opportunities there. I've heard about this desire from community councils, from neighborhood councils just as much as I've heard about it from social justice groups and housing and affordability advocates. So I'm excited that we're taking this first piece of first step with this legislation for Seattle City Light to be able to look at surplus properties that A currently has in hand and see if we can make it available for affordable housing in this city.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Any questions or comments? I just want to thank you, councilmember skater, for pushing the issue and doing the research and being creative and in the situation dealing with in our city. Thank you very much for your leadership with that. Those in favor of adopting the resolution please vote i. I. Those of those opposed vote no. The motion carries in. The resolution is adopted. The chair will sign it. Please read agenda items nine and ten. You can read a short title from the Planning Land Use and Zoning Committee.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; declaring certain real property rights to be surplus to the needs of Seattle Public Utilities; and authorizing the General Manager and CEO of Seattle Public Utilities to grant a water utility easement to the Ryan-GHC Two, LLC, a limited liability company of the state of Delaware to use certain City of Seattle property in the Northeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington for the purpose of constructing, operating, and maintaining a storm drain pipeline crossing the City of Seattle’s Bow Lake Pipeline right-of-way.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07232018_Res 31827
|
Speaker 9: The Report of the Governance, Equity and Technology Committee Agenda Item one Resolution 318 27 providing an honorary designation of 15th Avenue.
Speaker 6: South from South Nevada Street to South.
Speaker 9: Columbian Way as Alan Sega Yama Way, the committee recommends the resolution be.
Speaker 6: Adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. It's absolutely my honor to present the legislation before you. Resolution 31827. And I want to thank all of these community activists and leaders for their heartfelt testimony. A little background about Mr. Sugiyama, who we are honoring today. He was regionally and nationally respected for his integrity, as you heard, his courage and his tireless commitment to our community and in particular to our youth. I was a lifelong resident, a community activist and educator living over 40 years in the Beacon Hill neighborhood. He was a Seattle native, a Garfield High School Bulldog alum, a Seattle Central and YouTube alum. He was founder, as you heard, of the Asian Student Union Unions at Seattle Central College and the University of Washington. He founded the Asian Family Affair newspaper in 1972, and as described in 1989, he was the first Asian-American elected to the Seattle school board, where he served two terms and advocated for equity and fairness and honorably served as the president of the school board from 1990 to 1998. In 1979, as a scribe he founded in this town is the Center for Career Alternatives that an organization provided free education and employment and career training for disadvantaged adults and youths in King and Snohomish counties and served as its director for over 30 years. He had so many accounts, accomplishments and and actually changed lives and successfully turned high risk youth towards high demand occupations. You heard testimony in that regard and did it in an innovative way and certainly always with love in his heart. From a personal note, you know, I know now for decades and decades and what we heard so much about what he did when he was alive and as many people that I've unfortunately lost over the years, I learned about as much about him in his life as I did when he was dealing with battling his illness. Still fought, still courageous, still inspirational, and still funny and loving. And that was an owl that we so loved and so respected. So again, I'd like to thank all of the community members. I actually was given a list of names to to thank, but that's always a dirty, dangerous journey to go down. So I'll just say thank you all that. I have many names and many people who should be thanked. And we'll have a celebration after our legislative hearing this afternoon. Another personal note. When I first decided to run for office, I sat down with Al. And not only was he a friend and a supporter, but he gave me some very significant advice about being of an Asian heritage and sort of the things we learn from our parents and our grandparents about how one conducts himself, how one behaves, how one stay strong. And we talked about that up until his later years. And so he was a friend, a mentor, as many described. And we will miss him and we will continue to honor him because in honoring him, we truly honor the best in ourselves. So thank you very much. Would anyone else like to question. Before I call for the roll call on the. Or rather, the passage of resolution with any one else. Like to say any words. I don't want to deprive you. Councilmember Bagshaw.
Speaker 2: And thank you to the community for coming today and for really leading this effort. I got to know Al in 2009. It was the first time that we met and he was very helpful, supportive to me when I decided to run for office, and I appreciate it very much. His commitment to youth and the good work and looking for alternatives. He was one of the first people I had talked to about what do we do? How can we bring you that are in our community into a space where they can actually flourish? And avoiding having to get into trouble and get into jail. But to find those options. And I just want you to know how much I deeply respect him and the love that he had for your community.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Back show any further comments before we close debate? We're good. Okay. Those in favor of adopting this resolution. Please vote i i those opposed vote no. I can't imagine anyone would be opposed to this. The motion carries a resolution adopted and the chair will gladly sign. Such an item into the record.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION providing an honorary designation of 15th Avenue South from South Nevada Street to South Columbian Way as “Alan Sugiyama Way.”
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07232018_CB 119302
|
Speaker 9: Council Bill 119302 relating to the Central Waterfront Project authorizing Memorandum of Understanding concerning development of new Seattle Aquarium facilities between the City of Seattle and the Silkworm Society, increasing the maximum amount of funding authorized for design and requiring a comprehensive financial plan prior to execution. Every Project Development Agreement. The Committee recommends the bill.
Speaker 0: Pass its final words.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Council President. This is an updated aquarium emoji regarding the Ocean Pavilion this summer. I'm sorry. This emoji would replace a previous emu that was passed by council in 2013 and subsequently amended in 2015 and again in 2017. The new agreement is intended to, number one, encourage a collaborative design complementing the.
Speaker 6: Overall.
Speaker 2: Waterfront Seattle vision number to align with the.
Speaker 6: Design schedules. Number three make.
Speaker 2: A strong commitment to cost effectiveness with rigorous and cross control cost control management. The emoji will also increase the maximum funding authorized for design from. 4.2 4.7 million with the required 50% match. This also would requires a comprehensive financial and development plan that will come back to Seattle City Council for additional approval. The committee recommends that the full council pass the legislation.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any questions or comments? If not, please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Thanks. John Gonzalez Johnson. Hi. Whereas I must get to Sergeant President Harrell. Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read the report of the Planning, Land Use and Zoning Committee.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Central Waterfront Project; authorizing a “Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Development of New Seattle Aquarium Facilities” between The City of Seattle and the Seattle Aquarium Society, increasing the maximum amount of funding authorized for design, and requiring a comprehensive financial plan prior to execution of a Project Development Agreement.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07232018_CB 119294
|
Speaker 9: The Report of the Planning, Planning and Zoning.
Speaker 6: Committee Agenda Item eight Casper.
Speaker 9: 119 294 Appropriate for approving and authorizing an amendment.
Speaker 6: To the development agreement between the City of Seattle and the Central.
Speaker 9: Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority for the real property above and adjacent to the Capitol Hill Station and ratifying confirming certain prior acts committee recommends the bill passes.
Speaker 6: Amended.
Speaker 0: Pass from Johnson.
Speaker 10: Small change to the development agreement between the city and sound transit allows for the construction of capital housing's affordable housing projects on site B north next to the Capitol Hill station.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any questions or comments comes from a skater.
Speaker 9: Just want to say thank you to Councilmember Johnson and his staff and central staff for moving this change through in order to make sure that the project remained on track. I think it's really heartening to see the council respond so quickly to technical issues so that we can continue to respond to the need for more affordable housing . Thank you so much for your work on this.
Speaker 10: I should have mentioned Councilmember Miss Kidder, thanks to your office. But also the Sound Transit Board has already ratified disagreements over the second signers.
Speaker 0: Excellent. Okay. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: By John Gonzalez Johnson. Whereas I macheda i somewhat President Harrell High seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed to share with Senate. Please read items nine through 14 together.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE approving and authorizing an amendment to the Development Agreement between The City of Seattle and the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority for real property above and adjacent to the Capitol Hill station; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07092018_CB 119271
|
Speaker 4: Agenda item for Council Bill 119 271 authorizing a 2018 acceptance of funding from announced resources committee recommends the.
Speaker 2: Bill passed.
Speaker 1: This round picture.
Speaker 5: Thank you. We actually have five items of business that's coming from our Finance Committee, so I ask you to bear with me. There are lots of detail here in the funding of these various ordinances, but if anybody has specific questions, we can probably answer them or we can bring Glen Lee back and Eric Sand. I want to say thank you for everyone who's been involved in this. And we did spend over two full hours in our committee a week ago going through these. So Council Bill 119271. This is the first grant acceptance ordinance of 2018 and it authorizes the city departments to accept approximately 13.4 million of funding from external sources and support a range of purposes. And those grants will be funding projects for parks for the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs, our Seattle Fire Department, the Police Department and SPU, Seattle Public Utilities and Escort. So we're going to be voting on these individually, but I will happily take any questions. Otherwise, you recommend the acceptance of these grants.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Are there any further comments from that? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: O'Brien Sergeant. Thanks. Bye. Gonzalez Verbal Johnson. Suarez Mr. President. Harrell High nine in favor not opposed to the.
Speaker 1: Bill passed and chair of Senate please read the next agenda item the short title.
Speaker 4: Agenda in five council 119 272 amending ordinance 125 493 which amended the 2018 budget. Including the 2018 through 2023 capital improvement program. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE authorizing, in 2018, acceptance of funding from non-City sources; authorizing the heads of the Executive Department, Department of Parks and Recreation, Seattle Department of Transportation, Seattle Fire Department, Seattle Police Department, and Seattle Public Utilities to accept specified grants, private funding, and subsidized loans and to execute, deliver, and perform corresponding agreements; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07092018_CB 119272
|
Speaker 4: Agenda in five council 119 272 amending ordinance 125 493 which amended the 2018 budget. Including the 2018 through 2023 capital improvement program. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Rachel.
Speaker 5: Thank you. So the first quarter supplemental budget provides expenditure authority to use the grants that we just accepted for other budget revisions that are requested by various city departments. It is the collective of approximately $17 million. The 13.4 that we just accepted and plus an additional almost $4 million. These will be used for various sub fund projects. The largest one is $10 million in our judgment and claims fund to cover the cost of settlements and judges. There will be initial 2.3 million for the Seattle Police Department, 1.8 million for reconstruction of Woodland Park Zoo's night exhibit, and $1.3 million of General Fund for Finance General Reserves to support funding for city obligations to King County for various election and voter registration costs. There is more. If you don't have any questions, I'm just going to recommend that we adopt 119272.
Speaker 1: Any further comments concerned Johnson?
Speaker 3: This is the infamous sidewalk amendment that we talked about in council briefing, and we heard some testimony about this afternoon here in full council. So I would move adoption of Amendment seven B second.
Speaker 1: Then moved in second, Councilmember Johnson's Amendment seven B, are there any further comments on just the amendment piece comes premature to want.
Speaker 5: I totally support sidewalks, safe sidewalks that are accessible to everyone, especially and including children and our elderly and disabled community members. However, I intend to vote no on this amendment. It would take half a million dollars intended for city wide school pedestrian safety and reserved exclusively for a three block stretch of sidewalk near your village. What the Seattle Department of Transportation should do with this money is use their knowledge and expertize to select the neighborhoods with the least safe pedestrian access to schools and allocated their. If there are no school safety needs immediately, then as DOD should use the money for sidewalks in areas in the city of greatest need. As I mentioned, I think the whole city deserves safe sidewalks, including this neighborhood, and I totally support the neighborhood residents who have come to advocate for it. But when deciding which neighborhood should get the funding first, I think that the city should be deciding that based on a fair determination of greatest needs. Taking equity into account. And above all, I think I just wanted to echo what Gordon Tuttle, four from Seattle neighborhood Greenway said that the city council should be pushing for as he got him bold funding solutions, progressive revenue sources to ensure safe neighborhoods throughout the city. Because again, as you said, there are large swaths of the city that are lacking safe sidewalks and safe neighborhoods.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council members want any further comments from Councilman John? So he'd like to speak.
Speaker 3: If I may. Just two quick points. I think, one, just to make sure that my colleagues are clear here, this is $500,000 in school safety traffic pedestrian improvement fund that didn't exist. This money has come from higher than expected red line traffic camera violations. So it is new money, for lack of a better term. Secondly, the the neighborhood, as you heard a little bit during public comment, has had a whole lot of impacts coming from the University Village. University Village is set to build a big parking garage and that big parking garage resulted in mitigation funds coming to the Department of Transportation a little more than half a million dollars. The neighborhood was hoping that that money would be used for this particular sidewalk. The department has decided to allocate that money towards traffic signal improvements, which likely will result in more people driving through the neighborhood more speedily than they already do today. So this, we think, is a set of investments that will help get folks more safely to the places they need to go to. And I want to thank those who are hoping to support this.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Any further comments from any of our colleagues before we're voting and we're just voting on the amendment for right now. I'll call it seven. Be okay. All those in favor of Amendment seven be as advanced by Councilmember Johnson. Please vote I. I oppose vote no, no, no. If the motion passes and now we're going to go back to the base legislation because I'm back. Would you like to see two more words about.
Speaker 5: No, I think I've said what needs to be said about the committee unanimously recommended adoption, and I support Councilmember Johnson's amendment. So as as amended, I would like to put this forward.
Speaker 1: Okay. For the comments, please call the rule on the passage of the Bill O'Brien.
Speaker 2: Hi, Suzanne. I beg your. Hi. Gonzalez Herbold Johnson Suarez Mascara President Harrell Hi nine in favorite on a post.
Speaker 1: Person show sign please read the next agenda item the short title please. I think one six.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 125493, which amended the 2018 Budget (Ordinance 125475), including the 2018-2023 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various funds in the Budget; adding new projects; revising project allocations for certain projects in the 2018-2023 CIP; creating both exempt and non-exempt positions; modifying positions; making cash transfers between various City funds; amending a Budget Summary Level purpose statement; revising project descriptions; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07092018_CB 119273
|
Speaker 1: Person show sign please read the next agenda item the short title please. I think one six.
Speaker 5: Members six.
Speaker 4: Year agenda item six Constable 119 273 relating to city employment, commonly referred to as at first quarter 2018. Employment Ordinance Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 5: Thank you. What this particular item does is designate four positions that will be exempt from the civil service status. It also corrects two errors inadvertent from the 2018 adopted budget position count. We had reversed one plus and one minus, so it had erroneously netted out ten police patrol officer position and four positions in City Light. That should be reversed. There's no budget implications and the budget, the funds were budgeted appropriately. It's a technical change. We're also adopting by this legislation a memorandum of understanding between the city, Seattle Public Utilities and the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry. Local 32 And this again is part of our first quarter employment ordinance. And as a package we recommend that it be adopted.
Speaker 1: Very good. Any further comments that please called the wrong on the passage of the Bill.
Speaker 2: O'Brien somewhat like being shot by Gonzalez Purple Johnson whereas Macheda President Harrell nine in favorite unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passed chair of Senate Please read a united number seven short title.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment, commonly referred to as the First Quarter 2018 Employment Ordinance; designating positions as exempt from Civil Service status; authorizing the Mayor to execute a Memorandum of Understanding by and between The City of Seattle, Seattle Public Utilities and the United Association of Journeyman and Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Industry Local 32; creating non-exempt positions; modifying positions; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 2/3 vote of the City Council.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07092018_CB 119274
|
Speaker 4: Agenda Item seven Council Bill 119 274 and many Ordinance 125 475, which adopted the 2018 budget, including in 2018 through 2023 Capital Improvement Program Committee Recommends Bill Pass.
Speaker 5: Thank you. This is a 20 1728 carry forward appropriation ordinance and it's typically used to reappropriate funds that were previously provided for various purposes in our actual adopted budget and for various reasons. Money that had been identified but had not been spent will now be carried over into 2018. That's what we're doing now is adopting approximately $16.4 million. And just to give you a sense of what we're talking about here, $6 million in finance, general reserves will be used to continue to support the Equitable Development Initiative or EDC funding program. $5.3 million in the Information Technology Fund will be used for projects that will be force Seattle I.T. and it's such things as upgrading Seattle City Lights Outage Management Project, the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections portion of the Permit System Integration Project 440 442,000. Replacement of computers for the Department of Parks and so on. This is typical that we do these kinds of things total. This time, as I mentioned, is $16.4 million. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. But we do recommend adoption.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Are there any further comments or questions not? Please call the role on the passage of the Bill O'Brien.
Speaker 2: So I beg John Gonzalez, Herbold, Johnson, Suarez Mosqueda and President Harrell. Hi nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill first chair of Senate please read the next agenda item the short term.
Speaker 4: Agenda item eight Council Bill 119 276 Amending Ordinance 20 507 which adopted the 2017 budget, including 2017 through to the 2022 Capital Improvement Program. The committee recommends the bill.
Speaker 2: Pass.
Speaker 1: Council for Inspection.
Speaker 5: Thank you. This is our final item from the Finance Committee. At the end of 2017, there were a few, what they call exceptions, and the exceptions actually were unanticipated costs that were realized right at the end of the year in 2017, and it resulted in spending beyond the authority that was previously budgeted. Ben Noble suggested that this is the kind of thing that comes forward. They're not unusual or irregular. There was not malfeasance, but it were things that resulted in some cost overruns. And as an example, 1.9 million in the employee retirement system to cover costs related to the implementation of the new pension administration system and 1.6 million in the Transportation Operating Fund in the Department of Transportation to cover over expenditures that were related to the move Seattle Levy implementation. So grand total here is about $5 million and we recommend adoption of this ordinance so that these can be paid.
Speaker 1: Very good. Thank you. Any further comments or questions? If not, please call the role on the pastor of the Bill O'Brien.
Speaker 2: So I thank John Gonzalez. Purple Johnson Juarez Mosquito President Harrell hi nine in favor none opposed to a.
Speaker 1: Personal share of Senate. Please read the part of the gender equity safe communities new Americans and. Education Committee.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 125475, which adopted the 2018 Budget, including the 2018-2023 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, 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_07092018_CB 119266
|
Speaker 1: Personal share of Senate. Please read the part of the gender equity safe communities new Americans and. Education Committee.
Speaker 4: The report The Gender Equity Safe Communities in New Americans and Education Committee Gender nine Council 4119 266 relating to the safe storage of and access to firearms. Adding a new Chapter 10.79 to the Center Mr. Code. The Committee recommends the bill passes amended customary.
Speaker 1: Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. If we can have the floor, if I may ask if the clerk can also read an agenda item ten as I like to discuss these council bills together.
Speaker 1: Perfect. And you can read the short title if you like.
Speaker 4: Agenda Item ten Council Bill 119 267 Relating to the reporting of Lost or Stolen Firearms. Committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 1: Excellent customer. Overzealous.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. This is Council Bill 119266 and Council Bill 119267. I was thinking that what I would do would be to quickly review each of the bills and then if there were any questions about the bills, I'm happy to take those questions from my colleagues and then open up the floor to any other council members who would like to provide remarks or comments on the bills before before council president calls them to vote. And then I would like to make some closing.
Speaker 3: Remarks before.
Speaker 0: Voting occurs.
Speaker 2: Very good. Very excellent. Okay.
Speaker 1: Councilman Mike orders. And so I was just going along with it.
Speaker 0: So I, I do speak in a very direct manner. So I apologize if that did not end with a question mark. It was intended to end with a question mark. Council Bill 119266 requires that guns be secured in a locked container when not in the possession or under the control of their owner or other lawfully authorized user . This legislation creates a civil infraction and fines for improperly storing a firearm when a prohibited person obtains unauthorized firearm access, or when a prohibited person uses a firearm to harm oneself or others. Council Bill 119267 increases the existing fine for failing to report a lost or stolen firearm. Just really quickly, just by way of background for those folks who did not attend a committee hearing, I wanted to just cover some high points of both of these bills. So Council Bill 119266, which we have been referring to as the safe storage bill, has some really key and important definitions that I want to review really quickly . It really centers around who is a lawfully authorized user, who's a prohibited person and who is an at risk person. And we went through the process of defining each of those categories in addition to what our container is, what a minor might be, and who a prohibited person is in the bill and at risk person under this particular bill is defined as any person who has made statements or exhibited behavior that indicates to a reasonable person that there is a likelihood that that person is at risk of attempting suicide or causing physical harm to oneself or others. A lawfully authorized user is defined under this new bill as any person who is not in unlawful possession of a firearm is not prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or federal law and has expressed permission to possess and use the firearm. A prohibited person is anyone who is not a lawfully authorized user. Some little clever lawyer lawyer trickery there in the drafting a locked container is what the ordinance will require, so it doesn't specifically define what the storage device should be, but does provide the Chief of police the opportunity to do some rulemaking to be able to provide specifications of approved storage devices under this ordinance. A minor is defined as anybody who is under the age of 18, consistent with state law, and a prohibited person means any person who is not a lawfully authorized user. So essentially, this bill would impose civil penalties on individuals who who failed to store their firearms appropriately. And if there is a consequence, as defined by the bill as a result of not using Safe Storage Practices Council Bill 119267, this is the legislation related to stolen firearms. This would create an increased civil fine for those folks who violate this particular law. It's very it's an existing law at the city of Seattle, and it just simply increases the civil fine from $500 to an amount not to exceed $1,000. Both of the enforcement mechanisms for both of these laws is a civil fine. It's an it's an infraction citation that comes with a civil fine and penalty. There are no criminal consequences as a result of violating these council bills, obviously, if there is. Injury caused to someone that would be subject to an end to our ordinary criminal laws, either under state or city laws. But but. But it is not a crime to violate either one of these. Council bills. These are these are civil infractions only. So I'm happy to take powers and take questions if anybody has any and if not.
Speaker 1: Any questions or comments on this legislation. Kasper, back to you.
Speaker 5: Councilmember Gosar, thank you so much for leading the charge on this. So appreciate what you and the mayor have done. And I want to acknowledge our moms demand action. So many of you have been here and been working with us, I think, since Sandy Hook and maybe before. But unbelievably enough, it's been five and a half years since that horrible event brought such attention to our entire nation. But I think particularly here in the city of Seattle, we grouped together in ways that we hadn't before. And I want to acknowledge our prosecuting attorney, Dan Satter Berg, also our city attorney, Pete Holmes, and Chris Anderson on his team. And it mattered so much that you and your voices were out there saying, enough, this is just so impossible that we are putting up with this kind of thing that's happening across our nation. I also want to acknowledge Dr. Fred Rivera. I don't know if Dr. Rivera's here today, but he was really helping us identify what we could be doing at Harborview Hospital Medical Center to use the money that we can to help do database research. And this work that you, Councilmember Gonzales, have done really is evidence based looking for that kind of solution. So I want to acknowledge all of you who've been involved there, balancing rights and responsibilities, and also our Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility. That organization has been around since the Sandy Hook event happened and much is happening across our state. I want to say thank you to all and how important this is to our city.
Speaker 1: And good for the comments or questions. I would like to say it just a few words for Councilman Gonzales, sort of close, and that is, you know, there are federal laws, state laws and local municipal laws in terms of gun safety and gun regulations. And it's a complicated world, but at the end of the day, we are doing everything possible here on a local basis that we can, given the hand we're dealt and the existing legal scheme. For me, it's very simple. We're just trying to save one life at a time when life at a time and whether this law or any laws drastically change the needs. That concerns me unless we're trying to save one life at a time. So thank you for your your advocacy for the families who've been affected by gun violence, that they understand this very well. So, Councilman Gonzales, I can't thank you enough for bringing forward this legislation and for being such a strong advocate for just reasonableness and common sense laws. And so I look forward to supporting this. And with that, you can close debate.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. So it's my pleasure to bring these two bills for consideration by the full council. And I think that these are a suite of laws, particularly the safe storage law, that really is going to have a measurable impact in keeping our children safe and our communities safe from from gun violence and all of the research that we have been reading and hearing about and and hear and just sort of really digesting in this space really does tell us that safe storage of firearms in the home makes a huge impact in terms of keeping our communities safe. And I just wanted to highlight some of that research and some of those findings and so that we have a clear understanding of why it is we believe that this is a public health solution to a public safety crisis that is occurring within all of our communities across the country, including here in in Seattle. So according to a study conducted by the University of Washington School of Public Health, 63% of firearm owning households in Washington State do not store their firearms locked and unloaded. Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States, and almost half of suicide deaths involve a firearm in Washington State. In 2016, firearms were the leading method of suicide for men and the second leading method for women. According to a Spokesman-Review analysis of state death records, 4164 people in Washington ended their lives with a firearm between 2010 and 2017. That accounts for almost half of all suicides and 78% of gun deaths. A study conducted at the Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center found that safe storage of guns decrease the risk of accidental firearm injuries and suicides to youth by 73%. This study examined 108 cases where a child or adolescent younger than 20 years gained access to a firearm and shot himself or herself, intentionally or unintentionally, or shot another individual unintentionally. The Harborview study shows that the presence of a household firearm is associated with an increased risk of suicide among young adults and adolescents. In a related study of suicide attempts and COMPLETERS, investigators found that 75% of the guns were stored in the residence of the victim, friend or relative. Available evidence is compiled by the RAND Corporation indicates that child access prevention laws and safe storage laws reduce self-inflicted, fatal or non-fatal firearm injuries among youth and reduce unintentional firearm injuries or unintentional firearm deaths among children. The study also indicates that limiting access to individuals with mental illness appears to reduce the rates of gun violence. A Secret Service study of school shooters showed that access to guns was common to many attackers. Over two thirds of the attackers acquired the gun or guns used in their attacks from their own home or that of a relative. Stolen guns can be used to commit subsequent crimes. And the Bureau of Justice Statistics has reported that at least 232,000 guns were stolen per year from 2005 through 2010. And the U.S. Department of the Treasury study revealed that nearly a quarter of ATF gun trafficking investigations involve stolen firearms and that 10% of the investigations involve guns stolen from residences. As estimated 150,000, an estimated 150,000 adults in King County reported keeping a firearm unlocked in their homes and loaded in 2015. In 2017, the Seattle Police Department reported taken into custody 3213 guns and has indicated that 250 guns were reported stolen in the same year. So we have a lot of work to do in this area to continue to keep our kids safe and our broader community safe. And I'm really just thrilled about being able to have had the opportunity to work with Mayor Durkan on this package of laws to encourage this as a as a practice. And I also want to thank our city attorney, Pete Holmes, who provided us with a lot of legal expertize in terms of threading the needle between what we can do as a city and what we cannot do as a city based on state preemption laws. And we believe that we are on good legal standing here and good footing here to defend this law should it invoke a lawsuit based on preemption. And largely that is because we are not restricting how people on their person possess firearms, but what they must do in order to store firearms when those firearms are not in their possession. And we believe that this is a balanced, reasonable approach that addresses any potential preemption arguments at the state level. And I'm really grateful for the city attorney's advice on that and for Assistant City Attorney Carlton Su's advice on that. I also want to thank Robert Feldstein, who's in the audience here with the mayor's office, who keeps trying to, I think, go to his other job. But we needed to get this done first. So I really appreciate your ongoing commitment to helping us do this work. I know you've been an advocate and a policy wonk in this area for a really long time. So appreciated all of your expertize. I also wanted to thank Greg Doss way in the back, who has given me more words than I can ever imagine being able to repeat and sound as smart as I do. So thank you for allowing me to plagiarize all of your work, Greg, as we make the case for why these laws are sensible and lawful. And then I also wanted to thank Brianna Thomas, formerly of my office, now with the Office of Inspector General and Public Safety, who really did a lot of the heavy lifting in my office in terms of the policy work. She did tremendous job making sure that this bill reflected the equity concerns that I brought by making sure that we didn't have any criminal infractions and civil infractions and also making sure that we have a education first component on this law to make sure that folks were able to understand their new responsibilities under this new rubric. And then lastly, wanted to thank Moms Demand Action, folks from the Brady Campaign and folks from the Alliance for Gun Responsibility, all whom joined us at the table in my committee on June 13th to provide us their perspective and sort of real life stories about how gun violence impacts them personally and our communities in general. And I've just really appreciated your all's commitment to continuing to show up and to continue to fight the good fight to keep us all all safe. So with that being said, I think I have covered all of.
Speaker 3: The points.
Speaker 1: And well done. Well done. Any further comments before we vote? So we're going to vote on these separately. So please call the role on the passage of Council. Bill 119266.
Speaker 2: O'Brien by Sergeant Bagshaw. Gonzales, I for Bob Johnson, Juarez must gather by President Harrell High Line in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passed and show Senate. Please call the roll on council. Bill 119267.
Speaker 2: O'BRIEN All right. Sergeant Bagshaw. Gonzalez I. Herbold Johnson. Juarez. Mosqueda. I President Harrell. I 9 a.m. favorite unopposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passed and the chair sign. And thank you again, Katherine Gonzales. Please call the next agenda item from the Select Committee on the 2018 Seattle City Strategic Plan.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the safe storage of and access to firearms; adding a new Chapter 10.79 to the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07092018_Res 31819
|
Speaker 1: The bill passed and the chair sign. And thank you again, Katherine Gonzales. Please call the next agenda item from the Select Committee on the 2018 Seattle City Strategic Plan.
Speaker 4: Report to the Select Committee on the 2018 Seattle City Wide Strategic Plan Agenda Item 11 Resolution 31819 relating to the City Department adopted in 2018 through 2024 Strategic Plan for the City Department and endorsing a six year rate path required to support this strategic plan. The Committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended.
Speaker 1: Okay. So, Councilwoman ROSQUETA, why don't you describe the basic legislation and there may be an amendment or two. So, Councilmember Mesquita, you have the floor.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to say thank you to Seattle City Life, the mayor's office, the review panel, community stakeholders at large, our council staff, Tony Kilduff, who's here in the audience with us and the entire council for participating in this process. Just by way of background, Seattle City Late updates its strategic plan every six years with two year updates in between. This was the first opportunity for us to provide the second of two six year strategic plans so far. The first one was passed by this council in 2012, and we now have the opportunity to set the direction, identify priorities, identify strategic initiatives, and really put our fingerprints on what we'd like to see this public utility invest in to meet our public good and our community needs. With that in mind, perhaps I could identify the amendments that are in front of us. And Mr. President, if I might save my additional comments for the end, that would be preferred.
Speaker 1: Very good. I didn't even like to speak before we get into the amendments. Or should we just dove into the amendments, is what I'm thinking. Okay. Let's go through the amendments now. And Catherine said you had Amendment one. Would you like to start off with that one?
Speaker 6: Yes, Mr. President, thank you. I'd like to move Amendment One, which is version D three, which has been provided to the council.
Speaker 1: The second second are those in favor of the amendment, which basically a substituted version that was introduced properly. Any comments on that? Just the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment. But I. I opposed the ayes have it. Go ahead, Councilmember Mesquita.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. And I'll just say a brief comment on the amendment that we just discussed. And then I know our good council colleague Herbert has another amendment. This was an attempt to fix a few technical concerns and edits that a law had suggested. We want to make sure that the work of this council is clear, that our direction is to make sure that we have all the ability for the review panel, which you will see as detailed in the resolution that the review panel has the ability to look at all financial policies and makes it clear that we want to evaluate our existing public utility, but not in a vacuum, that we want to comparison with other public utilities. We want as much as we can to get close to an apples to apples comparison, but that we also recognize that there's varying cigarets, varying state regulations, energy sources, markets and other utilities that are served. So that was more of a technical amendment. And I welcome a good council colleague, council member, Herbert's friendly amendments as well, if we might.
Speaker 1: Very good. So, Councilmember Herbold, you'd like to amend the introduction?
Speaker 2: Yes, I would.
Speaker 0: Like to move Resolution 31819 to add a new Section seven and this.
Speaker 2: New while I pause since.
Speaker 1: Their second.
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 1: Okay. What do we just go ahead.
Speaker 2: This new Section.
Speaker 0: Seven combines the two items that we discussed in council briefings meeting this morning into a single amendment that accomplishes both the tasks. One is to relate specifically to the employee to manager ratio and a requirement that Seattle City Light report to the City Council on measures and policies that address that ratio to be consistent with best practices and deal with span of control issues that often are identified.
Speaker 2: For four large utilities.
Speaker 0: The second issue relates specifically to the desire to identify efficiencies within the utility, both business practice efficiencies, as well as efficiencies related to project delivery specifically. You know, one of the things that we looked at during the Seattle Public Utilities.
Speaker 2: Strategic Business Plan discussion.
Speaker 0: Is that often rates are set within a based on the proposed CIP obligations without. Actually looking at what the actual accomplishment accomplishment rate is. And often that accomplishment rate is more in line with reality and is less than what is actually in the CFP. So the result sometimes is that rate decisions are being made based on much larger numbers than the utility is actually realizing costs for, because they're not they're not they're not finishing these ship projects as quickly as as they anticipated. And so the the request is to look at the CFP accomplishment rate. And together with this efficiency study, look at whether or not rates can further decrease consistent with the timeframe that the council's already identified for for looking at at the rate path. So that's.
Speaker 2: The over.
Speaker 0: Arching goals and steps that this amendment to create a new Section seven would accomplish.
Speaker 1: Very good. This moved in second, and this amendment articulated by Councilmember Herbold or any comments on just the amendment. I'd like to just say thank you. When we start talking about USPI accomplishment rate, I mean, we all are watching closely and very concerned about the cost overruns on several projects and not only the cost overruns in and of themselves, but the processes that lead to them, the whys and. And again, as we work with our utility and it's our utilities of public utility, we have to be that steadfast, I think, in how we approach these issues. So I think this is a really good, good amendment and it's my pleasure in in supporting it. Any further comments on just the amendment? Yes. Yes. Just to clarify, is adding sections seven and eight.
Speaker 0: My apologies. I did not realize that the second section was incorporated in this amendment. I thought I had gone from potentially three amendments to one, but potentially three of them to two. But it sounds like it's all in one. Okay. So if I could just describe Section eight as well.
Speaker 1: Yes, please.
Speaker 0: Fantastic. So section the changes to Section eight are a little bit different than what y'all received via email this afternoon or this morning before noon. What I proposed in that amendment was to actually make a change within the strategic business plan document, and the executive asked that we not do that. Instead, we include this language in the resolution so that they would not have to go through the republishing process.
Speaker 2: That would.
Speaker 0: Result in actual changes being made in the in the very large strategic business plan document. So basically what this does, again, it's replicating work that I had the pleasure to do with Seattle Public Utilities and the and my committee members as it relates to system development charges and looking whether or not there is possibility for further increases by making sure that growth is paying for growth and looking that there are these particular types of system development charges relates to customer connections and the fact that some some of these costs are passed on to the general ratepayer rather than to the person who's building the building. And so this is just asking for them to come back to us with a report on how they would go about shifting these practices. There is a nod to their interest in doing it within the strategic business plan. It's just calling it out a little bit more.
Speaker 1: Very good. Thank you for that explanation. So any other comments on Councilmember Herbert's amendment? Okay. It's been moved in second. And so all those in favor of the amendment please vote I. I opposed. The ayes have it. So Councilmember Herbals amendment has passed as well. Councilmember skater, would you like to describe the legislation as amended a little more?
Speaker 6: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. So, again, I want to make sure that everyone has received the comprehensive packet that was compiled by our staff. Michael Maddox thinks that all of his work throughout the last few months here as well, getting us prepared for the strategic plan discussion. As you'll see in this comprehensive packet, we have incorporated various letters from community, from the rate panel, from individuals at Seattle City, like who responded to our requests for information, a question and answer documents, and what you see in front of you as a compiled packet that we are now considering today. I want to thank the specifically the Seattle Satellite Review panel for their work. This is an all volunteer group who was initially tasked with reviewing the original strategic plan and redesign a rate path that was put in front of you. We know that this involved many conversations with the community as well. And I want to thank City Light for your engagement in this effort to be heavily involved in community. This conversation started before I even arrived, and as you will see as an amendment in the packet in front of you, we began receiving letters in the last June of 2017 asking for the Council to consider progressive policies that create more equitable structures so that we can have a city like structure that is well financed and also funded. Any kind of review in a renewed process based on a more equitable structure. As the Chair of the Select Committee, I was happy to receive the draft plan. The second meeting that we had, again, we had three meetings over the last two months and I asked the mayor's office if they would come and do a presentation on how we got where we are, but we received a letter instead. I want to make sure everybody has the chance to receive this. Just a little bit of background for your information on how we received this proposed rate increase and select our strategic plan in front of us. I think that what's been clear, if anybody has had the opportunity, the good fortune, I will say to participate in the conversations that we've had in the select committee, you will hear a renewed sense of oversight, accountability, an interest in working collaboratively to make sure that the rate design mirrors our public utilities needs, and that we're thinking proactively about how we can continue to be the public utility of the green energy economy of the future. What we talked a lot about was making sure that we're reining in cost, that we're looking at oversight and management, that we're creating a workplace environment that promotes equity and safeness. For all those who work at Seattle City Light and for its customers, the rate path has. Receive some attention. And I want to make sure that folks have a clear understanding that the mayor's rate increase does have an impact of about $3.77 a month for the typical resident residential customer. And we know that this will have an impact on some working families and working people, including small businesses. And we're asking for additional feedback and thought about how we can get more folks in the utility discount program as we think about affordability and that we're going beyond that, as we think about greater ways to ensure accountability and oversight. We want to make sure, as Councilmember Herbal, then President Harrell said, that we look at overruns, that we make sure that we don't have 20% overruns or 130% overruns for substations that we find out about after the fact. We want to know about these upfront and be good partners with the public utility and the customers throughout this process. We've made it clear that we want to make sure that our largest and part of the city's overall budget has the oversight it needs, that we have close attention paid to how the utility is running, how workers feel in the workplace, that we're moving forward with good energy economy initiatives, and that we have good governance over the public utility. And I look forward to living and that collaboration that we talk about every day by working together with the rate review panel, with the mayor's office, with the utility, and with the community at large to make sure that we can realize many of the strategic initiatives that are included in this packet. If you have a chance to take a look at the strategic plan, there's four major areas of strategic initiatives. I want to call out just a few, if I might, Mr. President. We talk a lot about affordability, and that includes affordable affordability for residential customers and for small businesses and for large industries. I'm really interested in working with utility as we think more about how we get folks into the utility discount program and the impact that that might have on our rates going forward. We talk a lot about accountability and oversight. I specifically want to draw attention to some of the language that we included in the select committee that I chaired on making sure that we are creating a workplace where people are free of harassment, intimidation, where they don't experience discrimination based on gender or race, and that they also believe that they can excel in the workplace and get promoted and that we've created strategic processes so that we're recruiting more women and minorities and folks from within to move up within the ranks, because we know that these are good living wage jobs in our public utility. We also want to have a clear system in place to manage capital costs, larger capital projects, and ensure that we're catching issues like the overruns that were mentioned before the erupt into overruns and before they're actually noted in the press. I look forward to working with our colleagues here to make sure that we follow through on the customer service initiatives that were really driven by Seattle City life. This came directly from them and some of their internal workings to make sure that they have a better handle on any potential billing errors and that we look at how we implement new technology initiatives in the future. I want to note for the viewing public, if you believe that there is a problem with your bill, make sure you call our office or the number on your bill as the delay is there to help. There has been no rate increases implemented and there will not be the $3.77. You will not see that monthly until 2019. And so if you do believe that you see an increase in your bill, please do call us because we want to make sure that we're addressing any of those overruns now, and that is not related to the strategic plan in front of you. Lastly, I'll just say this. What I'm most excited about in this strategic plan and the accompanying resolution is not just an acceptance of the status quo as it relates to rate design, but that we're actually creating a process led by the review panel in collaboration with the community stakeholders who sent us this letter in June and June of 2017 to work together with the public utility, with the mayor's office, with us as council and with the community at large to address possible rate design changes, to look at progressive rate structures and progressive rate designs. Because in the last two months, we've really talked a lot about rate design, debt service ratio rate classes and rate blocks. And terminology like this can easily exclude many people who aren't living and breathing satellite and public utilities on a day to day basis. Again, I've had the benefit of having folks on central staff and my own staff help walk through the process on how we can actually distill some of these issues so that newcomers to the conversation can be involved. I want to make sure that in the next 12 months, beginning this fall, quarter four, that we're working with the leadership of the of the review panel in collaboration with community partners such as Climate Solutions and our Solar Emerald City. Scott Green, Latino Community Fund. McDonnell Miller, Northwest Energy Coalition. Northwest Energy Efficiency Council. Puget Sound Sage. Robert K Harmon and Company. Washington Conservation Voters. Washington Environmental Council. And so many more. To make sure that our rate design catches up with the modern day needs. As we mentioned, and as the City Light strategic plan mentioned, the rate design has not really been updated since the 1980s. So it's time for us to take a robust look at this. I also want to make sure that folks are clear about the type of impact that this could have with the initial rate that's being proposed. You'll see on this comprehensive packet on pages 32 and 33. Again, for your typical residential customer, we're talking about $3.77 a month. But this is just a placeholder starting position because the review panel is going to come back to the City Council in mid 2019 for considerations for us to take up. That would look at rate design going forward so we could see changes to that process beginning as early as summer next year. So my office will be working hand in hand with you within you and the community, the community at large, the review panel and with the next general manager, with our colleagues, with the Mayor's office to ensure that the utility has the revenue it needs, but that we also rein in cost, that we ensure greater accountability and oversight, and that we continue to grow into the green energy economy that we know we can be. Seattle City Light is the greenest utility in the nation. By 2030, we will have no nuclear energy. We can continue to make great strides on energy conservation by working together and making sure that our public utility remains public and is driven by public priorities. And those who haven't been able to make some of the improvements in their homes or their offices, we want to make sure that you're also able to benefit from green energy conservation strategies and that you see a more equitable and progressive rate design in the future that ensures that all residents can afford to heat their homes or to keep their food cool in the refrigerator, or to make sure that renters aren't overly affected by the fact that they don't have control over their windows or their energy efficiency. Often, I want to make sure that we continue to work to improve our process, but I think that this is a good first start. I think you all see Seattle City Light, the review panel for the community at large who sent the letter in June of 2017 and all of you for participating in the last three months in this process. And I look forward to working with you in 2019 as we consider the recommendations from the review panel. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Kathryn. Mosqueda Any comments? Councilmember. So I want to believe you have a comment.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Bruno. I want to thank city staff, central staff council senators Jeff, and also those who serve on the City Light panel for the work that has been done year after year. I wanted to thank environmental activists in the city who have over the years pushed for conservation. And you've seen you're seeing some of those impacts to city policy. Over the past several years, I have voted against three large rate increases, and I will be voting no on this resolution also, which will be the basis for a future ordinance on rate increases. There continues to be a structural problem and this is not nothing new with how city lights sets its rates. It's a structure that puts the cost disproportionately on working families rather than on big businesses. And this is especially problematic not only by itself, but also in the context that we have a model where revenues need to be received from ratepayers the same time that the same ratepayers are being told about conservation. And so that is mathematically is it's just not a it's not it's not a program that can work. And it has already shown itself to be quite deficient. Utilities have a process called cost allocation in which they divide customers into clauses and have a formula for deciding which of their costs. Each class is responsible for the result of city lights cost allocation methodology is the average residential customer pays almost twice per kilowatt hour compared to a big business like Nucor Steel. Again, this is nothing new. If you go and watch the Seattle Channel videos, you will have seen me making the same comments for several years. The problem is buried in technicalities, but the solution is not beyond the technical capacity of the city's experts. It's the real question is the of the failure of the political will of elected officials to shift the burden of who pays and making that a priority. My my office headed the Energy and Environment Committee in the past years, and we have discussed the questions of question of rates for City Light a lot. And I have made it clear year after year that I do not support a rate structure that puts the cost rate increases and the cost disproportionately on the shoulders of working families and also those some of the most struggling businesses. In two 2014, my office proposed one solution which which would be to eliminate all the rate clauses if this happened. Residential customers. Would see a rate cut, not an increase. Unfortunately, the majority of the council at that time did not support this. And and if the council today has a desire to support this, then I am happy, more than happy to work on this. At that time, in fact, we requested that we provide council with cost estimates for making this change so the Council can clearly see their choices when voting on the rate bills. But that was never done and that has not been included in this year's strategic plan. Then last year, the Energy and Environment Committee, headed by my office, discussed another solution, which we do include something called the public benefit in the cost allocation structure and applied fairly to all rate clauses. Because utilities are publicly owned utilities, Seattleites are charged less for power than customers of the, you know, profit making utilities and the surrounding region. Like purchasing that difference is a benefit that could be evenly applied to all customers of satellite rather than concentrated in the especially low bills of the largest customers. So as you can see, there are options that we could look at to make satellite bills more equitable. But none of these options have been taken up so far, which is especially galling given how much of satellite's real costs are driven by the changes to the city driven by big business. Amazon's expansion, for example, in Salt Lake Union, has necessitated new substations, which cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The Alaskan Way Tunnel, which primarily benefits the property values of downtown owners. As for satellite to spend hundreds of millions moving lines. So these you know, these businesses disproportionately benefit from the city's public resources and they also make huge profits. And so in the context of them being the primary beneficiaries, every which way, I think it is absolutely necessary that city council really put the interests of working people first. And it also should be mentioned that many of these businesses were among those who blocked the Amazon docks some months ago, and also they are also the same who don't pay their fair share of city light bills. All of these issues are large structural issues and they are not specific to this or that detail of the strategic plan. They also don't reflect the willingness and commitment of staff at any level. It is a it is a political question of whether or not the city council will fight for a strategic plan that puts the increases rate increases on big business and not on working families. I also wanted to mention one other issue that is not directly related to strategic plan, but is related to City Light and which is the uncharacteristically high utility bills many people are getting. This has been reported in the media. My office continues to hear from constituents both through email and phone who are concerned about this. And I wanted to encourage City Light and Seattle idea to find the root of the problem and look forward to hearing about that. And just lastly, if council members are interested in working together on making the rate structure progressive, then I absolutely welcome that and I'm happy to work on that and look forward to actually making that change. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Comes from our on any ghetto a too.
Speaker 6: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Further comments.
Speaker 6: I just want to say thank you one more time and I appreciate the interest in working on progressive redesign precisely because of the need to write legislation that makes political steps forward, makes policy change possible. And that is why we have tasked the review panel with coming back to us with recommendations. So this is an ongoing conversation, and I think it's one that will result in a progressive rate structure. My office is always interested in getting edits and amendments so that we can do this all together. And while I understand that we may not have a unanimous vote on this, I look forward to future conversations so that we can have a rate design discussion that is truly reflective of the panel's recommendations that will be coming back to us in the spring. Unfortunately, I just learned about some of the concerns today, but very excited to move forward and ask the design panel in condition in addition to the a dozen or so community partners that I mentioned , environmental activists, low income activists, communities of color activists, and not just advocating for individuals, but directly within the community to come to the table so that we can create a table that equitably hears people and creates design change that is long overdue.
Speaker 1: Thank you for the comments, Councilman Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Council President. I just wanted to start off by commending the work of Councilmember Mosqueda, who chaired the Select Committee on the Seattle City Light Strategic Plan. I know it's a highly technical work and very dense and really appreciated an opportunity to attend several of those committee hearings to learn a little bit more about how you were envisioning moving this conversation forward. And I think we've been able to strike a really healthy balance in this resolution, which essentially focuses in on a couple of just from a high level concerns. One is that there is a reality that the cost issues related to capital projects and infrastructure projects that are necessary to Seattle City Lights , ongoing functioning and delivery of service, which the Seattle City Light Review panel acknowledged in their initial letter and I believe it was dated in May. But but the reality is, is that we need to take a look at how the agency, the utility, is forecasting those capital costs to make sure that it is an accurate assumption that we saw that with the advanced metering project, there was a miscalculation in terms of the estimate of those costs. And we need to make sure that there are systems in place to ensure that as the utility is projecting costs related to capital projects, that those costs estimates are reliable, accurate and current so that we add on the City Council as the budget appropriation authority have the best information available to us to continue to support the infrastructure work that is necessary for the utility to continue to do. And it's important for us to make sure that we are being honest and transparent with ratepayers when when mistakes are made so that we don't lose the confidence that we create a clear path forward on how we are going to make sure that this is not going to occur in the future. So this resolution, in my mind, really does address what is the biggest driver of costs at Seattle City Light, which is around the capital cost project. It is. It is it is a reality that the way that that program and those programs are managed right now is resulting in. I think the city light review panel said 48% increase. It represents 48% of the of the increase to the Seattle City Light utility. And so I think I think getting a better sense of how the utility is going to get to get that under control is going to be key to any future decisions on the rate design. And then secondly, the big issue that I think is important is around rate design, obviously. And forecasting in that context was also a significant issue that was highlighted by the review panel that the utility has agreed needs to be tightened up and looked at again. And I think that the reality is, is that that what this resolution has done is doing today is creating a process by which the Utility and city council and the executive can come together with the expertize represented on the review panel to really dig into how to systemically change the rate design at the utility, to be equitable and to be as good steward of taxpayer dollars, and to provide the utility services that our ratepayers expect us to do. And and so I just wanted to sort of frame the conversation in that way, because that's the way I'm viewing this resolution. And I really wanted to just commend you again, because rooms get up for the work that you've done to get us to this point. We went from a letter in May of 2000 and in May from the review panel that was really critical of the proposal that we received at City Council. We went from a very critical toned review panel to a much more positively toned review panel letter that was delivered to us on June 26th of 2018. And I read this part of the excerpt of their letter in committing, and I think it's important to read it here at full council today as well. And they they said in their letter in June of 2018, quote, The issue of rate design was raised at the June 14th Select Council session on the Strategic Plan. We note that rate design is a core part of the review panel's mission approved by the City Council. The nine members of the review panel are prepared to take on that task over the next year. Stakeholder engagement is an important part of rate design, and stakeholder outreach is also part of our mission. Rate design is a challenging. Policy discussion as it is essentially a zero sum game. Any changes to the current design mean some will pay more, while some may pay less. And there is still the issue that Seattle City Lite faces declining demand with a consumption based rate model. Identifying agreed upon principles to guide rate design will be critical. We look forward to engaging with you on that subject. To ultimately be successful, we will need the mayors and councils backing and I think that this resolution is exactly the backing that the review panel is looking for, and I appreciate the opportunity to support this resolution.
Speaker 1: Very good. Further comments from any of our colleagues. I mean, just say a few words. But Councilmember.
Speaker 3: O'Brien, you have to say a couple of points. First of all, Councilmember ROSQUETA, thanks for your leadership on all this work. This is complex and really important stuff to get into, and I really appreciate that and I appreciate central staff to be killed off and all the great folks to Seattle citywide for their ongoing stewardship of this public asset. The one thing I want to just reiterate for the public is the importance of conservation in the work that Seattle City Light does. They've been a leader in conservation for decades and continue to be that leader. And as a result, what we see is, despite being one of the fastest growing cities in the country, both in terms of growing employment and people moving here, our load growth is declining, meaning even as the city is growing collectively, we're using less electricity in an individual basis, even more so. And that is in part because of the ongoing investments that the utility and other things that are happening throughout the city allow people to keep their their home, let their business, let their house warm by using less electricity overall. And so when we look at this rate path, what we see is what the actual rates are doing. And I understand why we do that, because the rate is an easy thing to compare from last year to this year, from Seattle to Bellevue or Seattle to San Francisco at the end of the day. What would most consumers really care about is how big their bill is, how big of a check are they riding? And if the rate is going up a little bit because we're making more investments in energy efficiency and the the individuals benefiting from that energy efficiency, whether it's through LED light bulbs or heat pump or whatever it is. And so the bill they're paying at the end of the year is less. And that's what we've seen on an ongoing that energy efficiency is offset a lot of the rate increases. It's a really great thing. And so as we move forward, I think it's really important that we continue to focus on the rates for sure , because that's an important metric, but really prioritize those investments in energy efficiency and what is the net effect to our residential and business customers? Because if they can actually save money through modest investments in energy efficiency, we're all better off. Not even to mention the benefits to the climate and other sources like that. So city like knows this. These guys have done an amazing job on this. And I just want to make sure that we're all staying focused on that piece of the pie, which I think is a really important piece.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Comes from a Brian said just a few words comes from honorable thank you.
Speaker 0: I just want to speak a little bit to an action that was taken in committee and I was not there. And my concern about this action is not going to impact my willingness to vote for this resolution today. But there was I just see there's a lot of controversy around the concept of a single.
Speaker 2: Single rate class rate path.
Speaker 0: And there was some language that was in the proposed resolution in Section five that was struck in committee. And this.
Speaker 2: Was carryover.
Speaker 0: Language from the resolution that had been passed the previous year, Resolution 31, 67, eight. And the work that the council asked in this resolution to be done wasn't done. And I'm just concerned that, you know, even for looking at alternatives that may not be strongly supported by the utility, that when this council asked for that work to be done, it should still be it should still be done. And I'm concerned that simply, you know, not recognizing that, one, the work wasn't done. And to sort of forgiving the utility for not doing the work by simply striking the language, I'm just concerned it creates a bad precedent for.
Speaker 2: For.
Speaker 0: The departments, any departments. Obligation to this council to follow through on the work that's requested. And just to for the purposes of knowing a little bit more what I'm talking about, the the amendment language passed in the previous resolution would be that the council requests that city light include with its nest next strategic plan update a report that identifies the impacts on existing customer rate.
Speaker 2: Classes of establishing.
Speaker 0: A single rate class while preserving the existing low income discount program.
Speaker 2: For low income customers. The report.
Speaker 0: Should identify any legal, technical or practical issues with establishing such a single.
Speaker 2: Class structure, especially as it.
Speaker 0: Relates to City Lights franchise agreements with neighboring jurisdictions.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you for the comments. I'll just say a few words and we could pretty much.
Speaker 6: Just very briefly thank you for acknowledging that. And I think that as as I learn more about what we would like to see the review panel consider, I would be really interested in working with you to see if we can incorporate that as part of what the panel considers given we've passed them with looking at various rate options. Let's include that back in there. If we could work on that together, I'd love to do that. So thank you for flagging that.
Speaker 1: So a few ideas. Number one is I think I had the pleasure of chairing this, the utility committee. And I think Tony Kilduff always starts off every chair by saying the same thing. People don't pay rates, they pay bills, and that's what they concern themselves with the most. And I want to thank customers Mr.. For doing the hard work, which is very granular times and making sure that the Select Review Panel has all the information that we have and that the executive has. And by all accounts, I believe they're getting that so such that the utility has opened up the hood. And so to show their soft underbelly to those that are paying rates that are like $1,000,000 a month, bowing as an example and making sure that jobs are depending and are dependent upon a very competitive per kilowatt hour usage rate, whether it's business or residential. And so so thanks for for doing the hard work and making sure that sort of the, the existing ecosystem and how we look at these rates sort of works on this single rate class notion only to take the blame and the credit for talking about that IT committee. No one forgave the utility for not doing it. We just admitted it. I said at the committee and I'll say it now, I just think it's a bad idea. Personally, no utility in the country has one single rate class, and it just seems to me that everything we asked utility to do again results in higher rates, that this is management time, this is operational time. And unless there's some data to suggest this is a path really worth pursuing and there doesn't seem to be any data to suggest that at all. By eliminating that scope of work, we probably could get some very smart people doing some more meaningful activities. And so it wasn't a question of if there's if there's precedent to be set, it's presented look to say we are protecting the ratepayers and our directors. And so I'm very proud of that precedent. But I did suggest we strike that language. It had very little to do with forgiving them and had to do with making sure that they are focused, their resources and attention on at least priorities under the existing council. So that was that discussion was not forgiving. It was in fact, if anything, it was redirecting what they do. Again, this is granular work that has to be done. If you still look at the rates at less than $0.10 per kilowatt hour and you look at the top 25 cities, we are still one of the lowest in the country. And this becomes critically important, as Councilmember O'Brien said, when we look at how much we are pushing conservation. One thing I learned very early in this, looking at the rates is people not only want very competitive rates, very low rates, they want rate predictability. That becomes critical. And so when we look at a rate path that changes the discussion, ten years ago, ten, 11, 12 years ago, there was not this kind of rate assurance of rate predictability. Again, that is a hard work that the utility's doing in conjunction with the executive and the department and the Select Review Panel. But again, if you look at the at the major cities, Seattle remains in one of the like the top three in the country in terms of per kilowatt hour. People are always concerned about outages. Right. And this kind of they're concerned about how we incentivize green buildings. They're concerned about how we subsidize low income. Are people on fixed income. All of these come with a cost as well. So as we continue to talk about low rates and competitive rates, again, we have to make sure that we are using every penny of ratepayer money wisely. And I think that's what this present this plan presents. As so Councilmember said, I want to thank you for this work. And did you want to say anything else before we vote or are we ready?
Speaker 6: Thank you all for your work. And we know this. There's more there's more to come. So we'll be working on this with the review panel, with the community at large. Thanks again.
Speaker 1: Okay. Any further comments from our colleagues before we vote? Okay. So those in favor of adopting the resolution as amended, please vote i. I. Those oppose vote. No.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 1: No. And I believe the motion carries and resolution adopt and Charles, sign it. And that was our last agenda item. Is there any further business cover for the council? Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 3: I'd like to ask to be excused on Monday, August the 13th and.
Speaker 1: August 13th. Very good. It's been moved in second and the council member just be excused for August 13th. Any comments? All those in favor say I. I oppose. The ayes have it. Any further business come up for the council? If not, we stand, adjourn and everyone have a great rest of the afternoon. Thank you.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION relating to the City Light Department; adopting a 2019-2024 Strategic Plan for the City Light Department and endorsing a six-year rate path required to support the Strategic Plan.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06252018_CB 119256
|
Speaker 2: The report of the City Council Agenda Item one Council 4119 256 relating to the Transportation Benefit District authorizing material scope changes to the sale transportation benefit district Proposition one. The committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 1: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 6: Thank you. This was discussed in the committee a few weeks ago. It came to full council two weeks ago today, and we put a hold on that because of some concerns we heard between the committee meeting and the full council. I'm going to give you an overview of what the legislation does at the base level, and then we'll move forward with an amendment to make some changes. The base legislation essentially goes and make some adjustments to the Seattle Transportation Benefit District Initiative that was passed by citizens a few years ago. There are four areas where the changes are being made to allow greater flexibility to invest those dollars into transit outcomes that folks are hoping to see. The first would allow up to $7 million a year to be invested in or capacities for students in Seattle public schools. We currently do this for low income students, but the proposal would allow more flexibility to a broader range of students. And the mayor has proposed making sure that all high school students have access to our campuses, regardless of how far they live from school and also in the summer. And this legislation would allow that flexibility. Another change is where we can invest in buying additional service hours. The original legislation said service hour, additional service. Our investments can be made on routes as long as 80% of the stops on that route were within the city of Seattle. The ordinance before us today would adjust that to allow routes that have 65% of the stops to the city of Seattle. There are a couple high, high volume routes that are could benefit from some investments but are not currently allowed to have those investments because slightly more than the criteria, number of routes are happening just outside the city's borders. So that adjustment would allow greater flexibility. This would also the change would also allow us to make investments and capital improvements. We heard a little bit about that in public comment today. The city has made some great investments in capital improvements in particular. What I'm familiar with is along the 44, where some modest capital improvements on curb bulbs for in-line stops, queuing lines and huge jumps in the traffic signals allow busses to operate more efficiently in the corridor and has the same effect as buying more service hours because busses can complete their routes in shorter time and make more trips with the same busses and riders. Busses and operators, I should say. The final change is in the current legislation, which we're going to propose to remove, would have allowed flexibility for Metro for the city to contract with private operators as a pilot project during the periods of maximum constraint, which is a series of construction projects and other events happening in the next couple of years where we're expecting significant congestion downtown. So that is what the underlying legislation would do, and I'm happy to take questions on that. But first, I'd like to go ahead and move our amendment and maybe I'll ask it Councilmember Skate, if you want to move that, and then I'll second it
Speaker 2: . Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to move Amendment One to Council Bill 119256, which strikes subsection C from section two and deletes section four.
Speaker 6: Second.
Speaker 1: I would describe that as Amendment one. So would you like to comment on Amendment One before we vote on the amendment only?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. And thanks again to the good chair for his work to work on this amendment with me. I think that what you see in this amendment is a recognition that while we understand that there are limitations that are currently presenting itself to King County Metro, the answer is not a pilot program without consultation and work with workers and the community at large. The answer instead is, I think, as we heard today, greater investments in infrastructure and investments making sure that we have transit only lanes, that we look at the limitations around what we understand to be spaces for parking busses and work collaboratively to address some of those issues. And what you see in front of us is a recognition that the heart of this legislation, as it came down from the mayor's office, as I read it initially, was really around the worker card. This concept around a pilot program appears to have been included without the due diligence to have conversations with the folks who are doing the work, the drivers here, the community at large, and the labor community at large. So what you see in front of us is an effort to really try to pull that piece out with the recognition that we need to have longer conversations with the executive, with King County Metro, with the drivers, with community, with the labor movement , to make sure that we're actually looking at how to meet our goals of moving individuals, commuters, families, students, and do so in a way that's inclusive. And I think I'll save some of my other comments for later on. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Any other comments? Just on the amendment. Amendment one. Customers want.
Speaker 5: Thank you, President Herrell. I support this amendment. While it is true that the privatization that the mayor proposed would represent a small section of our public bus service. Opening the door to privatization would be a major mistake. It could give private companies an opening a foot in the door to undercut our public transportation system, replacing living wage union jobs with low paid, precarious labor, and setting prices not to maximize public usefulness, but instead to maximize private profits. Those things would not happen immediately, but that is the direction inevitably that privatization points towards. In Chicago, corrupt Democratic Mayor Rahm Emanuel is pushing a private mass transit system to be built by billionaire Elon Musk. And with revenues, decisions and benefits going to that private corporation and privatization does not necessarily stop there in the neocolonial world. As in my home country, India, in the wave of neo liberalism that has marked the last several decades, all of the most profitable and beneficial sections of the state sector have been sold off to private corporations to profit from the workers there and from the deeply impoverished communities in the surrounding areas. And as a matter of fact, decades of research from the U.S. itself shows that privatization of public services, whether it is transit or electricity or garbage pickup, ends up costing municipal governments far more than public entities do, while destroying union jobs and workplace rights for workers. I would recommend a really, really good book written in 1997, way back in 1997 by an economist from the Economic Policy Institute called Elliott Carr. And the book is The Privatization of Public Service, in which he shows statistically how every study shows that privatization of public services is actually bad for the public. I wanted to thank Linda Errol, who is a bus driver and a member of Edu, and Jeremy Muni, the ADA co-chair, who volunteered their time to bring attention to this threat of privatization and to all the edu A.I. speakers who spoke today to stop this before it went further. So let's vote yes on this.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Swan. So we're just going to vote on the amendment first. If I hear the comments. So all those in favor of amendment number one as described by Councilmember Mosquito, please vote i. I opposed. The ayes have it. And now we have the base. Legislation comes from Brown. We'd like to see some more remarks.
Speaker 6: I'll just add my gratitude for the folks who showed up today at a council meeting two weeks ago. I really appreciate all the operators. I really appreciate all the work you do day in, day out to make sure hundreds of thousands of people get around our city safely. And I also appreciate one out for my appreciation for the fact that as the city grows, we're relying more and more on your services and the transit agencies to move people around. And I know that I'm hearing from folks throughout my communities that they want to see more bus services soon as possible. And I know that that's a constraint on you all. And so thank you for working through this rapid growth in your industry and continuing to serve the people of our communities. I also want to thank the transit advocates who showed up and been engaged in this from the beginning. Thanks for your continued oversight and advice on this. I'm really excited about providing some flexibility here, and I'm also proud to be co-sponsoring the amendment to not move forward on the piling projects at this time and move forward on the other issues that I think will have an immediate benefit.
Speaker 1: That's a very good skater.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I am pleased to support this bill as amended. I think it's important that we do expand access to worker cards. I know that many of our council members have been working on this for a while, and I think that our amendment to the mayor's proposal makes this an actually fiscally sound policy as well . We don't want to be privatizing or giving the impression that we're moving forward on pilots without full and robust discussions with workers, with the community at large. And I think we all recognize that our current busses are at capacity. I'm sure many of the drivers that are here know on a daily basis that we need more services. And the way to do that is, I think, is exactly as one of the drivers expressed, creating transit only lanes, investing in buying busses, creating that parking space for busses to actually be housed, and investing in drivers. And when we do so that invest in the health and safety of our community, then invest in the health and safety of the drivers. That allows for more individuals to be able to get a good living wage job in this industry. I'm also really interested in working with the community at large and the folks who are here today about how we make sure that the last mile is successful going forward. We want to make sure that people are getting to these rapid transit lines, that we're increasing access for people to be able to take the light rail or bus to work, and that we're creating opportunities for folks to really get out of their cars to meet our environmental goals that this city has established. I also think that it's important that we match these goals with our overall city's vision zero goals, which to date have, I think, in my opinion, taken a back seat. We know that individuals continue to be injured while walking or riding bikes, and we want more people to take the bus and get out of their cars. We need to look at this holistically and think about ways that we get people into busses and out of their cars. So as we move forward, I will be looking forward to working with the good chair and the Council as a whole on investments in worker training, safety investments in infrastructure, making sure that we have pedestrians and riders and cyclists in mind as we create our are our mission to complete our vision zero goals. And I just want to thank again the folks who flagged this issue for us and the ongoing conversation that's happening in community about how we meet our transit needs while being fiscally smart with the public dollars that we have for our good public servants. So thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Astronomer Johnson, just.
Speaker 0: Briefly want to speak to an issue that was brought up during public comment. This bill that we're going to pass today, in addition to many of the things that my colleagues outlined, allows for up to $7 million a year to be spent on youth work implementation. It's not prescriptive in the way that maybe some of our other legislation that's adopted may have been in the past. This allows the Department of Transportation to then enter into negotiations with King County, Metro, SBC and other folks around the distribution of that additional to up to $7 million annually. So during public comment, the Speaker talked about the need for us to make sure that we are getting kids on busses, regardless of whether they're in private schools or in public schools. And we've received some information from Metro that we've shared in my office, with the mayor's office, about some of the different proposals that we could walk down if the city wanted to choose to partner with the folks on Metro in a different way than just subsidizing kids in high school. So we have a lot of different avenues that we could go down. This legislation today authorizes the expenditure. It doesn't execute the agreement that we're now putting into the mayor's hands to have her and the Department of Transportation then execute those agreements. My hope is that we can really use the up to $7 million a year to really maximize the number of kids that are getting on and off busses, particularly since the number of the amount that Metro generates in terms of youth or every year is 10 to $12 million a year. So we'd be making a very significant contribution to Metro in terms of an increase and hoping that that commensurate resource will allow for an increase for kids at all ages of the system.
Speaker 1: Excellent. Okay. Before we vote, I just wanted to thank 85, 85, 87 and the Transit Riders Union and the advocates for just strong and effective advocacy gets things done. Thank you very much for that. Madam Clerk, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Macheda I O'Brien.
Speaker 0: I somewhat.
Speaker 2: Bagshaw Gonzalez Johnson Suarez President Harrell.
Speaker 0: Height.
Speaker 2: Eight in favor an unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passed and chair of Senate. Please read the report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts.
Speaker 4: Committee.
Speaker 2: Three part of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee Agenda Items two and three appointments 1034 and 1035 re appointments of Nikki Hurley and Joseph Case Centers members Seattle LGBTQ Commission for Term two April 30th, 2020.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Transportation Benefit District; authorizing material scope changes to Seattle Transportation Benefit District Proposition 1; authorizing the Director of the Seattle Department of Transportation to execute an interlocal agreement with Seattle Public Schools to provide transit passes to Seattle Public Schools students; changing appropriations to the Seattle Department of Transportation to fund the ORCA Opportunity Program; and amending Ordinance 125493, which amended the 2018 Budget (Ordinance 125475); all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06252018_CB 119279
|
Speaker 2: Please have you part of the Governance, Equity and Technology Agenda Item five Accountable 119 279 related to elections raising limits of certain items on the statement of Financial Affairs in conformity with state law, changing deadlines and definition of voter democracy voucher program to align better with other state and city practices, the committee recommends the vote passes amended pretty good.
Speaker 1: So as described this morning, this legislation modifies and improves, we believe the mailed the democracy voucher program. And so with some context in 2015 you may recall that Seattle voters approved initiative 122 was created the Democracy Voucher Program, and provided a voter approved levy funding for campaigns for City of Seattle elected offices. And it was funded by a ten year property tax levy levy of about $3 million per year. And we were in the first municipalities to implement this kind of innovative public campaign finance program. In its first deployment, we emailed as a city democracy vouchers to over 540,000 Seattle residents, and we provided all key program communications in 15 languages. And as a result, we had about a 300% increase in the number of Seattle residents contributing to actual campaigns. So following review of that program, after it sort of first roll out, the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission made several recommendations to improve the the program and to clarify the code under Chapter 2.04 of the Seattle Municipal Court. And a little about the process. It began with the hiring of a Berke consulting firm, firm to do extensive and extensive independent review of the program as it was deployed and as it was described by the voters. And then the Commission received public input at a public hearing on the program that was held in February, the commission staff experienced their experiences in administrators administering the program. They articulated some of their meetings, and on May 15th, 2018, Director Barnett provided the initial brief briefing to the committee, and the legislation was transmitted on the 25th. And then on the second meeting on June 19th, it was heard and the committee voted out unanimously. So here's some of the key changes that came from the commission. And then, of course, there were seven improvements slash amendments made by a few of the colleagues on the dais. The first changes had come from the commission was replacing the threshold for reporting financial interest to make it consistent with the threshold in place at the state and with the city prior to the passage as more of an administrative categorization of financial interests. And they believe that made sense. A second change was requiring that the Commission adjust the contribution limit to the nearest $5 or $10 with language that the Commission adjust the limits to amounts, quote unquote convenient for public understanding, because apparently there was little confusion there. There was changes of the date of the mailing vouchers from the first business day of January to the first business day of March per recommendation from Burke Consulting. Again, there are a lot of misplaced vouchers and a lot of as a first time deployment, a lot of mismanagement of the of the vouchers. I should just say they were lost. So based on public input and gathered judgment, I believe was the logical thing to do, democracy vouchers would be mailed to all active, registered, registered voters, but no longer mailed to inactive registered voters. And I'll address amendment that Councilmember Gonzales proposed on that issue. It reformatted to make it possible to assess a monetary penalty on a candidate who does not participate in three debates as it was previously word. The only option was to disqualify a candidate from the program, and certainly a penalty seemed to make more sense. As it turns out, it adds to the list of crimes created by I 22. The crime of falsifying qualification information clarifies that a candidate relief from the maximum campaign evaluation cannot redeem vouchers once they have reached that valuation. And this responded to the Commission's concern that the candidates banking vouchers for future elections, the amendments that were proposed and accepted by councilmembers Gonzales must get a clustering czar proposed amendment that would require notification of inactive voters, that they have the opportunity to request democracy vouchers if they continue to reside in Seattle. And that certainly made sense, given the fact that there could be mistakes. And we want to make sure every inactive voters has every opportunity to participate in the. Program. Casper Gonzales also amended the clarification that candidates who participated in the program but lose in the primary have until the first workday in September to redeem their vouchers again . That date made sense based on how this actually plays out. And lastly, there was an amendment by counterexamples that increased the donation requirements and maximum campaign valuation limits for candidates for the city attorney's office. In the currency limits for city attorney candidates were they were equivalent to the district, the district, city council candidates, which was 150 donations and ordered to participate with the changes that were accepted. This makes the limits equivalent to the At-Large positions, and the city attorney is an at large office. So certainly that made all the sense. And thank you for accounts from Eric Gonzales for pointing those out and making those amendments. Councilmember Mosquito should I just describe your amendments are okay and councilmembers mosquito want to clarify that city employees and organization have contracts with the city that are unrelated to providing goods and services, are not considered contractors when considering whether contribution from a contractor is illegal. And we gave some examples as to why that made sense and councilmember mosquitoes. Her second of the four amendments. I should just say that in issue one, when she provided for 425 democracy vouchers to be provided to every participating donor in Seattle. And this amendment now would allow the commission to determine the value of the vouchers and retain the maximum amount of funds available to each recipient of a vouchers. Now, that doesn't sound like it makes a lot. I didn't describe it for fairly well, but what we considered was whether it should be five $20 vouchers or some other not ten, $10 vouchers. I just sort of said that as a joke at the table, but we looked around and what made sense, given the fact that there are going to be a lot more candidates for a lot more positions. And so councilmember skater wanted to address that possibility to make sure we had the flexibility councilmember skate also to allow a candidate in order to qualify of the program to receive contributions of signatures from adults. Shall residents see? Currently, the code requires contributions from adult child residents who qualify for the program, but not signatures. And her amendment allows the signatures and contributions to come from different residents. Still, there's a 400 person threshold, and the policy arguments were that some people were. It was a little confusing for some folks who were signing, making signatures and some people that were they thought that was part of the process and we want to encourage the signatures. For many people, that that's their participation. But we're also requiring that people that actually give the $10 amount that they sign as well. And so all people can participate in the process. I hope I describe that well. And it made a lot of sense, made a lot better sense when it was described at the table as I'm describing it now. But I think we get the gist of it. And last, the amendment will allow and this is sort of a really cool when I thought the amendment advanced by comes from state allows the commission to work with the King County elections to explore whether election drop boxes could be used as a place to transmit the vouchers to the commission. So a lot of people are filling out their vouchers when they're voting. And so with that, one depository may make sense. And and we had the Julie Wise from the King County elections at our table and she was very receptive to this and they thought that may make a lot of sense. So thank you for those fine amendments by councilmembers Gonzales and Mosquito. So that's the base legislation that was unanimously approved out of the committee. Is there any comments or questions or concerns? Casper Mosquito.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I think Councilmember Gonzales and I, having lived the experience of democracy vouchers, want to make this workable and implementable and accessible for all future council colleagues and future candidates, and most importantly, to all the residents in Seattle. I think that some of these amendments today help make this a more accessible program, easily more implementable by the FCC, and I think reflects some of the feedback that we've gotten directly from community partners and most notably those who put forward the initiative in the first place. I want to acknowledge that many of these ideas were already incorporated into the suggested and based legislation that the FCC pulled together based on conversations that they had with voter justice folks and making sure that it was accessible to communities most historically marginalized from voting, talking to low wage workers, workers who speak English as a second language , people who've been historically not on the voting rolls and trying to identify ways that we can make democracy vouchers a tool for people to be able to access so that more people are engaged civically in our local democratic process. I also want to just very briefly, if I might, Mr. Chair, call the Fourth Amendment that I put out there, the Aretha Basu Amendment, because she was really an advocate coming from communities of color, youth advocates, talking about how we can increase access to civic engagement. And it was her idea to put the democracy vouchers into the drop boxes, the ballot drop boxes, when they're open and available. So that comes directly from the youth advocates and communities of color groups who are trying to make voting more accessible thanks to her work and for her idea on that one. Very good.
Speaker 1: I thought that was your idea. So. Okay.
Speaker 2: Fix the team.
Speaker 1: It takes a team, actually. Okay. Any further comments? Councilmember Becerra.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And thanks to you both for your work on this councilmember. Miss Kate, I know I.
Speaker 5: Brought something up.
Speaker 0: Which was my concern that if democracy vouchers weren't available until March of the actual election year, that someone who hasn't been running for election before might get left behind because somebody who has been involved knows that the election cycle usually gets started somewhere around Thanksgiving, and then it's a full on effort for the remainder of the next year. So I had suggested that we keep the democracy at voucher funding available date in January. You convinced me that so many were lost, that it wasn't it wasn't really reasonable. But I'm wondering how how are we doing this to.
Speaker 5: Reach out to people.
Speaker 0: For an example. Right now people are and I always say, Hello, Polly Grow. Yes, I send people to Polly Grow first. But that people can get signatures now. If they want to run for city council for 2019, they're able to get the signatures now and the $10 contributions. So. Two questions. One, how are you getting people engaged and sort of informed about the program? And then secondly, would you explain how this signatures work? Can people now just have signatures without $10? To qualify for vouchers? Is that your idea or how's that working?
Speaker 2: It's okay if I address the police, constable. Thank you. First, I want to thank Councilmember Bagshaw. She had a really she and I had a really good conversation about accessibility to the program and wondering if we should keep the date when democracy vouchers are sent out at January versus March. In conversations that I had had with the CDC and community partners, we were trying to identify ways to make sure that more education and outreach could be done with the voting public at large to make sure that all residents knew that the democracy vouchers were coming their way to look out for them to not accidentally recycle them or have them get lost in the household. What we found is that when the democracy vouchers were sent out that first week of January, many people were still recovering from the holidays and just getting back into the work mode. And many people receive a lot of mail and have a lot of bills at that time. And many of those democracy vouchers were getting put at the bottom of the mail pile or were accidentally getting recycled. We have asked now that the CDC work very diligently in January and in February, so that by the time March rolls around and the democracy vouchers are mailed out, every household has a chance to understand that these democracy vouchers are being mailed to them. The importance of receiving $100 in democracy vouchers and the value that that has, especially to first time candidates and nontraditional candidates, especially thinking of nontraditional candidates who are more likely to be women and people of color and low wage workers and immigrants. We wanted to make sure that everyone had sort of a level playing field as it takes many of these first time candidates more time to get to yes to say yes to running for office. Having those all mailed out at the same time feels like it helps to level that playing field. So we're really going to be working and I hope to get future updates through the Council Presidents Committee from the FCC about their plans for outreach and engagement in January and February, which I think is part of your question how are we doing outreach and engagement, especially in various languages, which we know was a a desire of the community and a concern last time around. Translating the materials is one thing, but having ambassadors to go out and have a conversation with communities is another. So we'll be looking at that. And then to your last question about the signatures, you, a candidate, will still have to have the required number of signatures and the required number of small dollar contributions. So if you are running in a district, that required contribution is at least $10, at least 150 $10 contributions, and at least 150 signatures for Councilmember Gonzalez and I it was $410 contributions and 400 signatures. And so you will still have to have those requirements, and one cannot supplant the other. We just wanted to make sure that the the distinction was clear, that it can be an individual who signs and donates or could be somebody who donates or somebody who signs. But you still have to meet that signature and dollar contribution requirement.
Speaker 5: So part of the.
Speaker 0: Idea I hear from you is that somebody can sign that's what he or she is able to do. They don't have $10, but they want to show their support to you so they can sign not $10. But that does not count towards 150 with $10 plus that you need. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Very good. Any further comments or questions?
Speaker 3: I was just going to add in terms of the outreach as well, I know that the Seattle Ethics and Elections has already begun their work to advertise and talk to community about democracy voucher program for those folks who are interested in public financing of their campaigns for the 2019 cycle. And my understanding, based on a tweet they just put out timely, timely tweet just literally at the same time that we are having this meeting is that folks who are interested in qualifying for the DeMarco Street voucher program can begin the program and meeting its qualification criteria is beginning July 2nd.
Speaker 1: Very good. And further questions if that, please call the role on the passage of the Bill.
Speaker 2: Moschella I O'Brien I want to thank John Gonzalez Johnson whereas President Harrell.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passed Chair of Senate Please read the part of the planning land use and Zoning Committee.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to elections; raising limits of certain items on the statement of financial affairs in conformity with state law; changing deadlines and definitions related to the democracy voucher program to align better with other state and City practices; creating a crime of falsifying democracy voucher program qualification information; making technical corrections to and reorganizing and clarifying the content of the democracy voucher program; and amending Sections 2.04.165 and 2.04.370 and Chapter 2.04, Subchapter VIII of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06252018_CB 119252
|
Speaker 1: Bill passed Chair of Senate Please read the part of the planning land use and Zoning Committee.
Speaker 2: The Report of the Planning, Planning and Zoning Committee Agenda Item six Constable 119 252 Willing to lend you concerning establishing an incentive program for high performance buildings in urban centers? Amending Section 23.40 point zero 6,023.40 1.00. 4.0 12.0 14. Set of code needing a new section 23.40 .00 70 of the Civil Code. The committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 1: Katherine Johnson.
Speaker 0: Thanks. And I try to speed it up here a little bit because I know Councilmember Suarez as a meeting after hours. Ladies, nerds, this is about the living building pilot program and the establishment of a 2030 challenge, high performing existing building pilot program. It's a way for us to continue to encourage construction in. A city, both renovation of existing buildings and new buildings to meet a deep green standard. Couple of changes that were made out of committee would make it much more clear for the folks who are building these buildings what penalties they may incur if the buildings don't quite meet the standards that we call for on this. And I'm excited to bring this forward. It was unanimously recommended by committee and I encourage your support.
Speaker 1: Thanks very much for the comments. Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Macheda O'Brien. Somewhat beg John Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Johnson.
Speaker 2: Suarez. President Harrell.
Speaker 1: High.
Speaker 2: Eight and favorite unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passed and chair of Senate. Please read the report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee.
Speaker 2: To report its Sustainability and Transportation Committee agenda item seven Council Vote 119 285 Relating to the Washington State Convention Center Facility Edition authorizing the Director of the State Transportation to acquire accepted record on behalf of the City of Seattle.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE related to land use and zoning; establishing an incentive program for high performance buildings in urban centers; amending Sections 23.40.060, 23.41.004, 23.41.012, and 23.41.014 to the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC); and adding a new Section 23.40.070 to the SMC.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06252018_CB 119285
|
Speaker 2: To report its Sustainability and Transportation Committee agenda item seven Council Vote 119 285 Relating to the Washington State Convention Center Facility Edition authorizing the Director of the State Transportation to acquire accepted record on behalf of the City of Seattle. Temporary right of way easement with the Washington State Convention Center Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Kassebaum O'Brien.
Speaker 6: Thank you. So this particular piece of legislation relates to the convention center and specifically about the right of way on all of this. Folks may recall when we went through the discussion, the city granted a subterranean street vacation for all of way. So the convention center will be building there, expansion underneath all the way, which requires that all the way be torn up for a while and where they build the structure from which will support it. Well, that's torn up. There will be a reroute where all of way passes over the property just to the north of currently on all the way. So this action is just to allow that right away easement to happen while they do that construction and the temporary reroute before they move the the vehicles back on to all the way and resume construction on other sites.
Speaker 1: Or get any further comments that please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Macheda O'Brien. Sergeant Major Gonzalez Johnson Suarez. President Harrell I eight in favor and.
Speaker 0: Unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passed and chair of Senate please read agenda item number eight the short title please.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Washington State Convention Center facility addition; authorizing the Director of the Seattle Department of Transportation to acquire, accept, and record, on behalf of The City of Seattle, a temporary right of way easement with the Washington State Convention Center, Public Facilities District for the temporary reroute of Olive Way during construction of the new convention center facility; placing the easement under the jurisdiction of the Seattle Department of Transportation; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06252018_CB 119292
|
Speaker 1: Go past and sure sign it. Please read it and add a number ten.
Speaker 2: Agenda item ten Council Bill going to a 1982 amending ordinance 1 to 5 471 which condition the Seattle Department of Transportation 2018 Grant Applications. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Council Member Brian.
Speaker 6: This legislation would add the corridor between Market Street and Ballard and the University of Washington 45th. The corridor is currently served by the Route 44 Metro Bus. This is one of the proposed rapid ride upgrade corridors, and the Department of Transportation would like to apply for grant funding for some of those upgrades in future years. We would like to apply this year to do upgrades in future years. Previous action by the City Council restricts grant applications for our site to only projects that are on our grant application list. And this project was not previously on that. So we are amending that list to add this project so that they can go forward and apply for a grant.
Speaker 1: Very good. Any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Macheda O'Brien. Hi, Juan Gonzalez Johnson Suarez. President Herald. Hi. Eight In favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passed and chair will was it please read agenda items number 11 through 15. I'm going to call for individual votes on these appointments, but please read them all into the record and let Councilmember O'Brien do his thing.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 125471, which conditioned the Seattle Department of Transportation’s 2018 grant applications.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06182018_CB 119275
|
Speaker 4: The report of the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item one Council Bill 119275.
Speaker 3: An ordinance.
Speaker 4: Amending ordinance 125493 which amended the 2018 budget, changing.
Speaker 3: Appropriations to various departments and.
Speaker 4: Budget control levels and creating positions in the Human.
Speaker 3: Services Department.
Speaker 4: The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: In back.
Speaker 2: Show. Thank you. Council President Harrell. I first want to move to amend this council bill 119275 by substituting version three for version two. And what this is doing is a technical amendment identifying which fund the moneys will come from. And instead of general fund, the proposal is through the Finance and Administrative Services Fund.
Speaker 0: I guess their second. There's a second. Thank you. It's been moved in second and to amend counts bill 119275 by substituting version three for version two. Any further comments? Although it comes from a skater. I'm sorry. Okay. All those in favor of the amendment. Please vote. I oppose. The ayes have it. The versions are substituted. Cancel my back show.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. What this bill will do is to frankly embrace the evidence base housing first philosophy that we have been proposing and promoting for the last couple of years. And all of my colleagues know that when we supported the sale of the coffee shop property, that we had dedicated money that would be going into bridging this gap for housing for all. I want to acknowledge Sharon Lee and Rebecca Elmo in the front row. Thank you both for your good work on these tiny homes. They are getting better and better. And we know that getting people out of the mud is way more important to give them something, a stable place to go. And as someone mentioned at our committee last week, an individual who is in one of your tiny homes someplace stable is five times more likely to get into permanent housing than if we can't find them, can't give them support, can't get them the services they need. And we always underscore that we do not believe the tiny homes are. Those are the ending point. It is a middle point to get people up, get them stabilized, provide them what the help they need and then move forward. So what this legislation will do is to help us invest in affordable housing services and get put 6.3 million into bridge housing and investment strategy, $2 million to address our housing stability for those who are on the verge of homelessness by piloting the Seattle Rental Housing Assistance Program. There will be 3.2 million dedicated for affordable housing. We know once again that this is just a fraction of what we need to really create more affordable housing for people because we've got to be able to have a whole pipeline. And as we have been discussing now, not just the last six months, but four years preceding that. Having more housing available in the city, in the county and in our tri county area is what it's going to take. But in the meantime, getting another 500 people off the street is a very welcome opportunity so we can talk more. I was happy to answer questions. I want to specifically say Thanks, Councilmember Mosquito, for coming to the meeting and Councilmember Gonzalez last week. It made a big difference to have you there. So I'm going to move adoption of this amendment. And it's council bill 119275.
Speaker 0: Very good. The actual legislation has been amended, so we're pretty good shape there. Any further comments on this legislation?
Speaker 2: Councilman.
Speaker 0: Councilmember skater. Would you like to comment on this legislation?
Speaker 4: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank the good the folks from Lehigh. I have now now the chance to go and visit a tiny house village twice in my short tenure on council and really appreciated the leadership and the governance model that was shown and exhibited in my in my time at the camps and really look forward to working with you. Mr. President, if I may read from the attachments that we received with this correspondence from the mayor as well, just to underscore a point about the importance of this.
Speaker 0: Please do. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. In a letter from the mayor on June 1st, 2018. The mayor writes, Yesterday, we learned that there are about 4500 people living unsheltered in the city of Seattle, an increase of almost 650 people over the last year. We must prevent people from falling into homelessness. We must build more affordable housing. We must increase resources for mental health and behavioral health treatment. And in the fiscal note that we have that accompanies this ordinance, the first page reads, The city recognizes that there are not currently enough resources to address the housing needs of everyone who is experiencing homelessness and therefore seeks to invest new innovative bridge housing strategies that address the immediate shelter needs of people living unsheltered until permanent housing can be secured. I read this to underscore the importance of not only investing money into short term in terms of shelter and emergency services and hygiene centers, but the ongoing need that's been expressed by this council and the mayor and the county to find additional resources, because these dollars alone are not going to actually provide the long term housing that folks need to be stable. We need to make sure that we're creating every opportunity for folks to get inside, get off the streets, get out of parks, and to feel safe and respected and secure in their homes. But we cannot warehouse the homeless for years and we cannot sweep them, the folks who are homeless out of sight just for the short term. What we actually need to do is invest in the long term housing, and I am incredibly supportive of moving this $7.2 million today into the emergency services and encampments programs that have been specified and then memo from central staff. But what we also see here is that there is no money going into outreach, prevention, permanent supportive housing, rapid rehousing, transit, transitional housing. And when you see zeros in these categories, I think it just underscores the point that so many of us have made over the last few months, that we must have long term funding, progressive funding, like the funding that would have been provided from the employee hours tax so that we don't have to think about the heartbreaking reality when the money runs out at the end of this year. I want this bridge programs to be successful. I want us to think short term and long term so that we're not actually creating a bridge to nowhere, that we're creating a bridge to housing. So we're creating the bridge today. We are investing in the infrastructure that we need to get folks off the street and stable. Let's make sure that there is a bridge that leads to housing. I'm looking forward to ongoing good faith negotiations with the mayor, with the county. We want those dollars that had been earmarked for the Mariners so that we can actually house folks. We want to think about long term housing solutions so that we can get folks inside and treat this as the emergency that it is. So with that, I think a good chair for her work to highlight the need for us to make sure that people feel respected, that they're safe, that they're in somewhere warm, and that this is a good first step today. But clearly, in order for us to be able to make sure that we're creating a bridge into housing, we must continue to get to work.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Catherine Mosquito. Any other further comments before we take a vote? Cast members who want.
Speaker 7: Thank you, President Howell. I intend to vote yes on this ordinance because it's very important for the tiny houses. And I want to thank Sharon Lee and low income housing as you and everybody else who's there who spoke on this issue and who has been working on this for years. It's incredibly important the service you are providing on the ground. I also wanted to be clear about what the legislation does and what it does not do. It uses funds from a city owned property sold last year for shelter beds and dining houses for a year. These are absolutely essential services because there are thousands of people sleeping unsheltered today with nowhere to go. And it is our social, moral responsibility to do something to help our community members. And and in that sense, it is absolutely critical. However, this legislation does nothing to fund services after that first year, and it does not create the affordable housing that is so desperately needed to get people out of homelessness and to stop the ongoing displacement of working class people. That that is you know, that's really just an ongoing pipeline towards homelessness. People who want homeless do, you know, to start with this year are probably going to be homeless at the end of the year because they're facing such challenges due to skyrocketing rent or also called the attention to councilmembers attention. The recent study from UCLA, which is a California wide study, but which showed an incredible statistical link between rising rents and rising homelessness. And the only way to fund do to address this problem, first of all, is to to build social housing, which is publicly funded, permanently affordable housing. And the only way to fund that housing at the scale that we need. As we have discussed many times, is to tax big business and the super wealthy. It is deeply unfortunate that seven of the nine council members here decided to repeal the tax that we had passed on May 14 on Amazon and other big businesses, in fact, the 3% largest businesses to fund social housing and essential homeless services. It is really sad that that did not happen. And at the same and I also I want to say that the sweeps of homeless people are ineffective and inhumane and need to stop. In the meantime, we need these emergency services to mitigate the harm of the housing crisis. And for that reason, I will be voting yes on this ordinance.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilor Swanson. Any other comments? Before we pass the vote. Okay. Well, might have been short. Just. Thank you. Thank you for lending your expertize. And thank you for not only expertize, but making sure that a lot of people in the public want to know how they can help in this. These kinds of efforts allows sort of an opportunity for so many people in this city to chip in, which I think is critically important to us moving the needle. So having said that, I will move to pass Council Bill 119275 as amended. Is there a second? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Whereas. Rosetta O'Brien.
Speaker 0: I so.
Speaker 2: Want Bextra Gonzalez.
Speaker 3: Herbold High.
Speaker 1: Johnson President Harrell High nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed and chair will at least signage. Please read the next urgent item.
Speaker 4: The Report of the Gender Equity Safe Communities.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 125493, which amended the 2018 Budget (Ordinance 125475); changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels; and creating positions in the Human Services Department.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06182018_CB 119277
|
Speaker 4: The Report of the Gender Equity Safe Communities.
Speaker 3: New Americans and Education.
Speaker 4: Committee Agenda Item two Council Bill.
Speaker 3: 119277.
Speaker 4: An Ordinance relating to Noise Control Establishing an alternative.
Speaker 3: Enforcement 75 foot standard for.
Speaker 4: Determining excessive vehicle noise.
Speaker 3: And amending Section.
Speaker 4: 25.08.430 of the Seattle Invisible.
Speaker 1: Code. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Catherine Gonzalez.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President. I think there is one proposed amendment that was circulated before noon today, and I'm a little unclear as to the procedure because, you know, amendments under our new council rules, I believe, need to be circulated by 5 p.m. on Fridays.
Speaker 0: Yes, it certainly does. But we will we will do that. Friday also. Okay. So we do not have to suspend the rules today because of an email that did take place. And so we're okay to proceed. And so if there is an amendment we can from Councilmember Mosquito, she could make that amendment now and we could proceed , if you like.
Speaker 3: Great. So I would suggest that as chair of the committee, I defer to the prime sponsor of Council Bill 119277 to walk us through an overview of the Council bill and then perhaps allow Councilmember Mosqueda an opportunity to walk us through her proposed amendment, consideration of that amendment, and then we can take a final vote. Does that seem like it's a good run, a show council.
Speaker 0: President run the show. So, Councilmember Skate, would you like to talk about you?
Speaker 3: No, I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Herbold, who's the prime sponsor of the underlying legislation, to walk us through the work she has done on getting us to this point. Very good. Thank you. Fantastic. Works for me. Thank you. So just a little bit of background about.
Speaker 1: This time last year, I worked with.
Speaker 3: Community members in the Alcoa and Fauntleroy neighborhoods to complete and Alcoa Public Safety and Health Survey to address community concerns around activity in the beach communities, beach, residential and business communities of Elk and Fauntleroy neighborhoods. The survey had really high participation. 1100 people participated in the survey, and the results showed that modified muffler noise was the number one community concern. And after that, during the budget process, the Council adopted a statement of legislative intent, asking that the Seattle Police Department report back to council about how the City Council could help CPD in addressing the issues raised in the community survey. The report from CPD noted the challenges that CPD has in enforcing noise laws that use a decibel standard and require a sound meter which is time consuming, requires calibration and requires officers to carry sound meters. And that's not practical for officers to use. So we worked with the law department and speed on a potential solution, which is this proposed legislation. The legislation itself uses a standard that we currently use.
Speaker 1: For.
Speaker 3: Stereo noise, and that is basically using a 75 foot standard for audible noise by a person of normal hearing as the proxy for a decibels standard. And so it specifically adds a section to.
Speaker 1: The vehicle exhaust.
Speaker 3: Noise law allowing for enforcement for exhaust.
Speaker 1: Noise.
Speaker 3: And again, this is based on the 1989 stereo noise law. The 75 foot standard was recommended by the Environmental Health Division of the Department of Public Health, which noted it is, in our opinion, if a sound can be heard clearly and plainly in an in in an outside environment at least 75 feet away, it is of such intensity and volume that it is likely to be bothersome, distrustful and even harmful. This is because the volume of the sound source is between 83 and 85 decibels. The maximum permissible level of sounds produced in residential areas is 55 decibels in commercial areas, 57 decibels. So again, the 75 foot distance is being used as a proxy proxy for a decimal reading.
Speaker 1: The law, though.
Speaker 3: Originated from community activism in the Elk and Fauntleroy neighborhoods, is one that would apply citywide. I have several of my colleagues here in the Council have been looking at this issue as it relates to their their districts as well. One of the things that I think Councilman Rostker is going to talk a little bit more about as relates to her amendment relates to biased policing and concern about bias policing. I have some comments I'd like to make about that as relates specifically to the 2012 consent decree and the adoption of a new bias free policing policy . But I'll hold those until we talk about the amendment.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilman Herbold. So I think now would be a good time to talk about the amendment. Councilwoman ROSQUETA.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to amend Council Bill 119277 by adding a new section to entitled The C.R. excuse me, which says The Seattle Police Department shall report to the city council on. The locations of citations, demographic information regarding citations and disposition of citations. Reporting shall occur at least on a quarterly basis to the Chair and members of the Committee with Oversight of Public Safety beginning no later than January 31st, 2019. And then it remembers the remaining sections accordingly.
Speaker 0: I just refer to that as Amendment one. It's been moved. Is there a second? Okay. Little discussion on the amendment.
Speaker 4: Sure. Mr. Chair. Thank are. Mr. President. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your conversation in your committee and to the sponsor. Thank you very much, Councilmember Herbold, for bringing this forward. As I said before, we know that excessive noise is a public health issue, and thank you for your extensive engagement with communities. We also know that we want to look at every piece of legislation for any unintended consequences. And per the conversation that we had a committee of the chair's comments, in my comments, we had been discussing the possibility of a quarterly reporting just to have a better sense of whether or not there were any unintended consequences. So this amendment before you really is just scoped ad requests in quarterly reports just for that first year after implementation so that we can have a better assessment of how it's being implemented and any any concerns that may arise. And thank you again to the chair's comments from this morning, because we don't want to rush anything through without any conversations with CPD about actual demographics that can be collected and how that would be done. So we will hold off on those additional components that were discussed this morning and just focus on the reporting back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any further comments on the amendment? We're just talking about the amendment right now. You're very good, Catherine Swann.
Speaker 7: Thank you. President Hello. Just to let the council know I will be voting yes on this amendment, but I do intend to vote no on the overall ordinance. I will save my comments for them.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any comments? Just on the amendment case of the amendment, as articulated by council members, Kate has been moved in second. And all those in favor of the. I will raise your hand, please.
Speaker 3: I said earlier that I want.
Speaker 0: I know, but I asked the second time.
Speaker 3: I was good.
Speaker 0: But I can't read mine. So we have a hairball if you like to comment on the amendment. I do. Very good.
Speaker 3: I just wanted to give a little bit of history as it relates specifically to the department's efforts to address the consent decrees finding regarding unbiased policing policy in conjunction with the the Community Police Commission in 2015, CPD did adopt a new policy on bias free policing. It was approved by the federal judge. It includes race, ethnicity, color, sexual orientation and gender in states. That is the possibility. It's the responsibility of all CPD employees to know and comply with. The policy requires an annual report on bias based policing and and the allegations related to it, as well as the status of the Department's efforts to prevent but bias free policing the policy. Also, states have spd's commitment to eliminate policies and practices that have resulted in disparate impacts, and they call out specifically practices related to citations that might have disparate impact on protected particular protected classes. And they tag the the need that when unwarranted disparate impacts are identified and verified, the department will consult with neighborhood business community groups and or the Community Police Commission to explore equally effective alternative practices that would result in less disproportionate impacts. Alternative enforcement practices may include addressing the targeted behavior in a different way, de-emphasizing the practice in question or other measures. Initially, disparate impact analysis will focus on again race, color and national origin. Central staff have in providing an update on on the implementation of bias free policing policies have have noted that SPD has been traded trained on the bias free policy as well as receiving race and social justice training and implicit bias training.
Speaker 0: Thank you, guys, Herbert, for those comments. I'll just see you down there. Excellent amendment. Okay. We're just voting on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment. Please vote I. I oppose. Okay. It is a minute in Councilmember Herbold. I'll turn it back to you. I believe for the base legislation for further discussion.
Speaker 3: I have nothing further to add. As to the base legislation, all aside from the fact that a speedy at the table in committee last week committed to a robust education outreach program before the implementation of this ordinance is very good.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Concerning Herbold Councilmember Swan, I do recall you did say you want to see something about space legislation. So, Councilmember Sawant, thank you. Councilman Beck shot two.
Speaker 7: I will be voting no. As I said on this legislation, which I informed Councilmember Herbold office about in advance. And I would like to take a moment to explain why. To be clear, I believe that the people in Seattle should have a right to peace and quiet. And I definitely support having laws on the books that will allow people to do something about excessively and unnecessarily loud noises in their neighborhoods and barks. However, this legislation does not make excessively loud vehicles illegal. That is already the case. Instead, it changes the enforcement from an objective standard measured by decibel into a totally subjective standard that could apply to almost any vehicle in Seattle. The line that is added reads code. Or can be clearly heard by a person of normal hearing at least 75 feet away from the vehicle and quote, 75, 75 feet is actually not a very big distance. These council chambers are over 50 feet wide and they are 75 feet wide, if you include the waiting area on the other side of the glass where members of the public come into the chambers. In my staff member Ted Worden measured it. At that distance you would hear most cars. So it all comes down to what it means to see a car can be, quote unquote clearly heard. Clearly is an entirely subjective metric. And I think it has to be this legislation should be evaluated in the in in in light of the fact that policing is extremely biased and police officers would choose whom to take it and whom not to take it or cite. Unfortunately, there is a hoard of statistical evidence that in this country the criminal justice system is used far more frequently and far less leniently to punish people of color and poor people. I hope that if this legislation is passed, its subjectivity would not result in more biased enforcement of noise violations. But statistically speaking, the most likely outcome of this legislation is that more people of color and working class and poor people will be held responsible for driving an old car with a failing muffler. I can easily imagine getting a call from a constituent who relies on their car to get to work and is trying to save up money to have that car repaired. But who is falling farther and farther behind because of the tickets they get under this ordinance? I'm sure that many working people have been in situations where they've had a broken muffler and are saving up to fix it again. I'm extremely sympathetic to everybody who wants to limit noise in their neighborhoods and parks. Peace and quiet is essential for people to relax, and there is nothing unreasonable about that. However, the reality is excessive noise is already illegal and I cannot support making that decision something that is almost entirely subjective. Finally, I would note that the fiscal note for this ordinance mentions that race and social justice analysis has not yet been done. This seems like an example of a legislation that could really benefit from such an analysis before passage of the legislation, and if there were a motion to send it back to committee to do that work , I would support doing that. Feeling that, however, I will be voting no today.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Concerns one councilmember backchannel.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, I will tell you that you are going to go down as my husband's hero here, as somebody who lives downtown, has been saying for years that he felt that we really needed to move something forward here. And it's not a joke. But somebody has said that one motorcycle driving down at two in the morning after they've left a bar or wherever else they've been, can wake 10,000 people. And I know that on Alki it's become an issue as well. I've heard it in Ballard around Golden Gardens. And I think the real issue, because we know that motorcycles offer enjoyable and purposeful transportation for many, but as soon as we get the aftermarket modification and those are just designed to increase noise, that it really negatively impacts our community. So my proposal, God bless you, is to advocate that we look at I'm going to support what you're doing here. I think it's a good first step, but I do think we need to continue to look at what other cities have do have done. Green Bay is an example. Other cities use the EPA, stamp enforcement and an officer can simply look to see if it's a straight pipe and if it has the EPA visible and unalterable stamp on the muffler, then we know that it has passed the EPA standard and that it is a much lower decibel. I think that is a way that we can go in addresses. What council members want was raising. I do believe that we can continue this. I think yours is a first step in the right direction. I'll be supporting it. But I would like us to continue to look at this EPA stamp enforcement procedure.
Speaker 0: Any further comments?
Speaker 3: I just want to make a clarification. I heard it. Defective mufflers are enforced under a different part of the Seattle Municipal Code.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 3: You have according to central staff, there have been 83 citations over.
Speaker 2: The last.
Speaker 3: Eight years issued for defective mufflers in Seattle.
Speaker 0: Very good. And I want to thank you. This is a good example of you looking at an issue that affected your district, but affects a district, too, in many other districts as well, some more than others because of where some of the modified muffler muffler drivers like to drive. But thank you very much. And customer Mesquita, thank you for alerting us to the need for some kind of filter as we look at how this is implemented and customer Gonzalez thank you for hosting the discussion in terms of making our communities more safe, more livable, so good. Come. I never saw that. I moved to pass Council Bill 119277 as amended. So a second, please call a role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: WHEREAS. Mr. O'Brien, so on. No.
Speaker 2: Make sure.
Speaker 3: Gonzales I. Herbold, i.
Speaker 1: Johnson president narrow. I didn't favor one opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passing the chair of the Senate. Please read. Agenda item number three, the short title, please. The short.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to noise control; establishing an alternative enforcement 75-foot standard for determining excessive vehicle noise; and amending Section 25.08.430 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06182018_CB 119258
|
Speaker 1: The Report of the Select.
Speaker 3: Committee on Families, Education, Preschool and Promise.
Speaker 4: Levy.
Speaker 3: Agenda Item.
Speaker 1: For Council.
Speaker 3: Bill 119 25 eight.
Speaker 4: An Ordinance relating to regular.
Speaker 3: Property.
Speaker 1: Taxes.
Speaker 3: The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: Very good. Cast Member Gonzalez.
Speaker 3: Council President Harrell me ask that agenda item five also be read into the record.
Speaker 0: Absolutely. That'd be the resolution. So why don't we read council? Agenda item number five as well.
Speaker 3: Agenda item five Resolution 31821.
Speaker 4: A resolution relating.
Speaker 3: To education services accompanying an ordinance requesting the.
Speaker 4: 2018 Families Education, Preschool and Promise Levy to replace two expiring levies to fund early learning and preschool. College and K-through-12 education. Support and job readiness and providing further direction regarding implementation.
Speaker 3: Of the programs funded by such levy.
Speaker 4: Introduced June 18, 2018.
Speaker 0: I can just for the viewing public. This allows us to talk about both the bill and the resolution, the spending plan, if you will, and we will vote on them separately, but we could talk about them jointly since they work together.
Speaker 3: Councilmember Gonzalez Thank you, Council President, for indulging my request to be able to speak to both agenda items four and five at the same time as we have this discussion. I know that there is one proposed amendment. It is a friendly amendment to the resolution. So I will let Councilmember Bryant's speak to that. But I would look to you, Council President Harrell, in terms of at what juncture you would like to handle that.
Speaker 0: Very good. I could sort of go with the flow, so to speak. We could sort of work that in down the road a little bit, if you like, Councilmember Bruno. So please proceed.
Speaker 3: Perfect. Okay. So after six and a half months of committee work in collaboration with Mayor Durkin, it is my pleasure to bring to full council votes along with my co-chair on the select committee, Councilmember Johnson. Council Bill 119258 and Resolution 31821. The passage of this Council bill and resolution would place a renewed and enhanced property tax levy on the November six, 2018 ballot for authorization by Seattle voters to continue and to implement the City of Seattle spending in four broad educational categories first, expanding quality preschool slots and classrooms throughout the city of Seattle to allow the city to serve up to 15,003 and four year old children through 2025. When this levy, if passed by, the voters, would be set to expire. Our revised proposal also invests in the early learning workforce to increase the number of educators available to teach in a Seattle preschool program. Secondly, continued investments in K through 12, including community based investments that provide children from K through 12 additional learning time. And it provides additional resources for more instructional staff, such as the math and reading intervention, as they had a pleasure to meet last Friday at John Muir Elementary School in District two, a new addition to the city of Seattle's K-through-12 Levy Investments will be to allocate $7 million towards assisting the over 4280 K-through-12 students currently experiencing homelessness in Seattle. Those new investments will allow the estimated one out of 16 Seattle public school students to find housing stability to allow them to make academic gains throughout the school year. Third, it will expand the number of student health centers to fund student health centers at Robert Eagle Staff Middle School, Meany Middle School, Lincoln High School and Nova High School. Like our current student health center model, our partners at Seattle King County Public Health would administer these programs, including identifying health partners to provide these holistic health services to students. Lastly, we would transition funding of our 13th year program investments into this levy by establishing the Seattle Promise Program. This funding, in partnership with the Seattle colleges, would provide public school graduates to receive tuition and other supports to attain a post-secondary degree or a certificate. If passed by the voters, the median homeowner would pay an additional $9.36 per month than they're paying now. Two additional important components, including those included in this ordinance, relate to a property tax exemption and accountability and evaluation requirements for these investments. And I want to just take an opportunity to talk both of them now before we move into the discussion around the resolution. The first is that pursuant to RTW 8436 381. An rc w 8450 5050. This ordinance that the City Council is considering today exempts qualifying seniors, disabled retirees, disabled veterans, or other qualifying persons from this proposed property tax. Because this is a renewal of two expiring property levies that did not have such an exemption when they first passed persons qualifying for an exemption under this proposal may actually realize Seattle voter approved property tax savings. Even if this levy passes. Second, like our expiring levies, this education levy will be subject to rigorous evaluation and ongoing oversight. This ordinance establishes a levy oversight committee comprised of 17 members, including representatives of the Seattle School District, the Seattle School Board, Seattle Colleges, and community members with professional, personal and research experience related to the growth and development of children and their academic achievement. This ordinance also requires that the Mayor's Office and the Department of Education and Early Learning develop an implementation and evaluation plan for vote by the Seattle City Council that includes priority priority criteria, measurable outcomes, evaluation methodologies and achievement outcomes to determine to determine the effectiveness of investment strategies designated through the resolution and through the ordinance. Secondly, Resolution 31821 goes into granularity around specific areas of investments that reflect mayoral priorities, council priorities and community priorities. I am happy to answer any specific questions on those investment priorities, as I'm sure my co-chair is as well. But my preference would be to maybe take a pause here and allow some of our into some individual council members to have an opportunity to speak about their own priorities as reflected both in the ordinance and the resolution. And then I'd love an opportunity to make some final remarks before we vote on the bills.
Speaker 0: Very good. Thanks for that opportunity, Councilman Gonzales. Now would be a time for consumers to talk about, I guess, components of the resolution of the levy they'd like to speak about. Councilmember Suarez my mind. All right.
Speaker 2: And your hand raised helped you.
Speaker 1: I just want to make before I begin, I want to really think Councilmember Johnson and Councilmember Gonzalez for working with us and their colleagues in being so transparent and getting information to us and talking to us about what we were doing. But particular thanks to the mayor's office and meeting with the mayor and their staff and working through the levy proposal about what's important to us. I think our city can take great pride I'm sorry, great pride in the past effort for children's education. But in particular, I want to focus on this old public school, the Promise program. I'm pleased with this levy that we are expanding the 13th year program to a full fledged promise program. Again, I think we should emphasize to everybody, particularly the taxpayers and the voters, that the Promise Program will ensure that Seattle Public Schools students, that is our kids that are in the Seattle public school system, who work hard, complete high school, can receive a college education and enter the workforce successfully. I'm happy to, and I think I shared this during the committee hearings, particularly in focusing on Ingram High School, that with the Promise program, we already are targeting, number one, children who are in the Seattle public school system. Number two, we are targeting high schools that are low income or children that have free or reduced lunch. And we learned that for many of these students, of the 80 students at Ingram, 60% of them, this would be the first time or the first person in their family to attend college . And over 40% would not even be pursuing college or any kind of trade. But for this program, and that speaks volumes, Northfield College remains a pillar in District five. We have over 18,000 students year around. We have two high schools in D5 and at Northfield College. We have over 800 faculty and also a pre-K program. So you can see that this program has an immense impact in the North End, at least for this district. And I should add that everyone that goes to North Sel College does not live in divide. They live all throughout the city and also come from Shoreline as I'm sorry attend or live in Shoreline as well. But again, the focus is on sale public school students. In any event, North Steel College does incredible work to prepare students for professional careers. North, south and central are all important resources for all of our students. Education is one of the most cost effective tools we have for ensuring that residents and families in our city will be able to support themselves in the future. And I'm glad we have such a strong network of colleges to ensure our students are workforce ready. I want to thank particularly again the co-chairs in working with me in restoring the K-5 funding. I thought that that was very critical. I appreciate that. I know that a lot of the decisions we made weren't easy ones, but I'm always proud when we come to some consensus. I'm also pleased to learn that the sale college. This will be contributing toward the Sale Promise program, ensuring that it remains at a high level. A higher level proposed by the mayor so that more students can participate. I'd also like to acknowledge the work of this Council to increase funding, like I said, such as the summer learning that benefits the K-12 students. The schools in my district work hard to provide a great educational experience. Councilmember Gonzalez mentioned the Bobby Eagle Staff School, which they believe is K to eight, and it's a brand new school. And we also have Hazel Wolf and some other schools that now have pre-K programs. Sweetie, when we're ensuring kids can keep up their learning, not only with the pre-K issues, but also over the summer months, and that is invaluable. The investment that, as you all know, we're making today is going to do more than pay, pay off ten, 20 fold a hundredfold five, ten years from now. Finally, I'll be looking at the implementation implementation plan when it comes to council to ensure that all children are able to be successful, including children from populations that have historically been disadvantaged or not encouraged or marginalized to attend college. Our success is our ability to graduate smart, civic minded students with skills to keep our city thriving. I believe this levy gives voters an excellent option. And again, I want to thank my colleagues in the mayor's office for bringing this levy forward. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Catherine. Whereas in other comments, Customer Impact Show.
Speaker 2: Thank you again. Thank you. Councilmembers Gonzales and Johnson for your leadership. I know you've had a lot going on this year. I also want to recognize the Office of Education and thanks to all of you for your good work and and the hours and and years of effort that you've put in this and to our mayor for her vision on the Promise program. But I also want to acknowledge the work that's happened here that's really data based. We've been focusing on early education. We know that the quality preschool, getting our children ready to go into kindergarten has made a big difference to close the opportunity gap. And I want to acknowledge our former colleague, Tim Burgess, that was something that he started working on, I think, around 2010. And he pushed for the real data based work, knowing that when kids are ready for school and get into kindergarten and have that sense of pride and respect and confidence that they then can move on into third grade. You know, we talk about the learning to read and then the reading to learn effort. We know that this is a continuum. And what our mayor is seeing and as she's pushing with the promise which we are supporting, is that our students are prepared for college or career and recognizing the good work that many of our partners are doing and I want to shout out to Dave Gehring is just one example cor plus having in our high schools and getting our students prepared and also to feel like we don't have to go to college to get a family wage job. You can get the skills, the certificates, the work that you need, background, you need to do this. And I do want to call out in special thanks to some of our school board member colleagues. Jill, Gary and I took a trip to Tacoma just a couple of weeks ago. Leslie Harris, the school board president, has been active as long as Rick Burke on this career preparedness and Betty Patu and others. Zach, appreciate the work that he has done here as well. This is a partnership in our community and the voters stepping up and saying that they want to support all of our our kids and each one of our community shield children has an opportunity to succeed. And that's what this is all about. And I appreciate this that you did Councilmember Gonzales and Joseph PR to draft something that's very readable and for us to acknowledge that yes, we are asking the taxpayers for more money and yes, we are asking for an increase to our property taxes. And we also want to acknowledge that somebody is now paying $11.34 a month or $136 a year. And yes, it will be going up to $248 a year of the voters pass this. But what we're investing in is worth the price and for an additional $9.36 a month. I'm happy to participate as a as a taxpayer and condo owner. So I'm in and I hope that we can all look forward to having our children succeed. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Customer in Bexar County from Johnson.
Speaker 8: Thanks. So there's a lot of work that has gone into getting us to today. And I want to take a couple of minutes to talk about how much I've learned as part of this process and why I'm excited to have this levy in front of us. You know, when Councilmember Gonzalez and I started on this pathway, you know, a little more than six months ago, we started having a round of community conversations. And those community conversations asked us to really weave. Together critical investments throughout the spectrum from birth to 20 and beyond. But for us, fortunately, we were standing on the shoulders of a set of investments that is made in partnership with the school district going all the way back to Mayor Norm Rice in 1990. So for those who may think that this is a little out of the blue because you may have been focused on other conversations that have been happening at City Hall, this is a set of investments that we have been making to support kids in our public schools for now, almost three decades. And for me, I think that I'm sorry. More than three decades. For me, this opportunity to have a fifth measure back in front of voters is really critical to the success of kids in our schools, because it supports those kids in a way that the school district doesn't necessarily allow for right now. The first of which is it expands our pre-K program. And time and time again, we've shown that investing in high quality preschool is one of the best investments that a city can make. And we also continue the legacy investments that the current program has made and rigorous evaluation and teacher support to make sure that the kids in those pre-K programs are getting the best education that we can possibly provide. Secondly, we take the investments that we make in our K through 12 space, and we rebalance those in a way that allows for our elementary school kids to sustain the gain that they get from that preschool investment. By continuing the education and investment in 21 elementary schools that are currently getting the city's innovation funds, the four middle schools that are currently getting those same innovation funds and five high schools will expand from just innovation funds in the ninth year all the way to the 12th year. So we really grow the investments in K-12, particularly with a focus on high school. We also are growing the support that were given to those students, whether those students are experiencing homelessness or whether those students need to come to a nurse or health care center or need additional family support. The city is step up in all three of those places in ways that allow for us to continue partnerships in the school district that don't exist. Right now, we're going from 25 health care clinics to 29. We're investing in 15 full time family support workers, which is about half of the family support workers that would be needed if we had family support workers in all of our Title one schools. We're investing another $13 million in our opportunity and access funds, which will allow schools to competitively apply for programs that they think will help close the opportunity gap within their schools. And I think that's another way we can continue to allow for innovation to come to schools and allow principals and educators to come to the city with an innovative and interesting idea that they think will make a difference for their schools blessing. And finally, that promise program that folks have talked about, I think is a pathway for those 550 or some odd students that we anticipate will graduate from SPS high schools and give them a chance to have a leg up so that they can start on a pathway that will make them competitive for those next generation jobs. So for me, as a parent of two in public schools who in September will have three in public schools, I'm really excited about the work that we have done to put us on a foundation which I hope will continue to build off of the legacy of almost 35 years of investments that previous councils and previous administrations have meant we wouldn't be here without a whole lot of support. Councilmember Bagshaw mentioned several members of the school board who've been critical in helping us get to this point. I want to recognize Dr. Pan and your leadership with the Seattle colleges who've been excellent partners throughout this whole process. Many of our colleagues who are here tonight from the advocacy community, this wouldn't have been possible without you. Nor certainly would it be possible to have us be here without the strong participation from the Department of Education and Early Learning. And the hours that you've spent with my staff and Councilmember Gonzales staff have been incredibly valuable for us, as well as Chris Albano from the mayor's office. Finally, I want to say a big thank you to V Wynn and Jerry Morris from Councilmember Gonzales and my officers as well as to Brian Goodnight and Ali Panetta of our council central staff who spent a lot of time and energy developing the really rigorous work that went into both the ordinance and the resolution. This is a really big step forward for us, and I'm hopeful that the voters will embrace this work and excited that this measure is back in front of us and excited to have a lot of time and attention focused on this over the next couple of months. Grateful to the leadership of Councilmember Miguel Gonzalez for us to get here. And with that, happy to ask for your support.
Speaker 0: Council President. Thank you, Councilman Johnson.
Speaker 4: Councilmember Mosquito Thank you, Mr. President. This is a really exciting day. I just want to say thank you again to the co-chairs, Councilmember Gonzales and Councilmember Johnson for their incredible work over the last few months on this effort. We have had a lot of conversations with folks in the community as well about early learning and the promise program. And I know it's a huge priority for. For working families to be able to have access to high quality, early learning. And I to echo the comments that Councilmember Johnson just made, I am very hopeful that the voters will embrace this levy and they will pass it overwhelmingly on the ballot, because we have seen that increased investments in children throughout the years have maintained a balance for property owners while creating significant improvements for our kiddos in preschool in K-12. And now we have the opportunity to look at birth through three and beyond high school in the Promise program. We know that investing in our youth ensures that we have a resilient economy. We have included components in this levy that promote equity by closing the opportunity gap. And thanks to Councilmember Bagshaw for her commitment to increasing access to health care and the chair's commitment to that, we're going to see more health clinics open throughout our schools, throughout Seattle. Part of the excitement that I have today comes from the investment that we're putting into child care for our kiddos, really in 0 to 3, expanding our city's ability to try to reach those kiddos who've been left out so far and trying to address the long waitlists that we have, increasing the number of highly skilled and trained providers to serve our community's needs. And when we invest in making sure that families are able to have access to high quality childcare, that also means that parents can go to work. The parents can be productive members of our community if they so choose to go back to work, and that we're not pushing them into impossible decisions of whether or not to pay for childcare or to have to stay home. So we want to create the opportunity for families to make that decision on their own. We also know that many of the childcare providers are women, many are people of color, many are immigrants. And we want to make sure that we're investing in high quality training programs and providing those child care providers with the mentorship and the training opportunities that they need to be able to either open child care centers or home based centers to increase access to high quality childcare that's affordable for all of our families. We also want to make sure that we are creating a mentorship program that means that people don't get burnt out in this industry. That's incredibly difficult sometimes and that they have the tools and the resources they need to be successful. And so I'm excited about this opportunity. I want to thank again the co-chairs. I want to thank their incredible staff, Jerry and V and my staff for her work on this effort as well. And Brian and Allie provided a significant amount of background for me on how we could make sure that a mentorship and training program, opportunities for enhanced learning for professionals who want to be childcare providers were included. And so I want to thank them for their endless efforts to address questions that I had. And also I just want to say how great it is that we have a Seattle Promise program that not only looks at opportunities for two year and potential four year opportunities, but looks at nontraditional learning through apprenticeship opportunities, through working with the building and construction union trades to make sure that we are getting more people into highly skilled, well-paid opportunities in post-high school apprenticeship programs. This is a huge, huge day and I'm excited to be proud of it. And I know that you've been working on this for years. Co-Chairs, so thank you for your work to make sure that this is possible. And it all came together within the last six months here. And with that I am I'm excited to vote. Yes.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Skinner. Council members who want.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Fresno. I will be supporting this education levy because it provides essential funds, especially in the context of the state legislature having for years criminally underfunded our statewide public education system. I do also want to be clear, though, that this it is disappointing, though not surprising, that in the midst of a very public discussion on progressive versus regressive taxes, the mayor has proposed education funding that still continues to depend on property taxes, which are becoming harder and harder for working class and middle class homeowners to afford, rather than using taxes on big business, which would have begun a much needed reversal of the regressive tax system of Seattle and the region. It is worth contrasting the generosity and social involvement of regular working people who vote to renew this and other important levies year after year, to the Dickensian response of Amazon and other big companies, to paying even a minuscule tax that would have amounted to just pocket change for them. In fact, the Amazon tax, which would have been on companies like Amazon, Starbucks, Nordstrom's, Facebook and so on, the largest group, 3% of the corporations was going to be half the size per year of this education levy. And yet these big businesses fought ferociously against it rather than supporting it. So despite my disappointment over the source of funding in this levy, I want to be completely clear. We need to support this levy because our schools have nowhere near the resources that they need, and our young people and our educators deserve better.
Speaker 0: Thank you. KATZ First, want a swinging hands? Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I just wanted to echo the thanks from my colleagues on the council to all of the folks who have participated in the process. I think we had a number of different, really important objectives that we wanted to try to juggle. We wanted to see increased enrollment in pre-K, and we wanted to move into.
Speaker 1: A new area.
Speaker 3: Of support with the Seattle Promise program. And I think while we have.
Speaker 1: Reduced the growth that was originally.
Speaker 3: Proposed in the mayor's proposal, we still see significant growth in the pre-K program. We have somewhat reduced funding in the Seattle Promise program, and our ability to do so again, thanks goes to Seattle College. Seattle colleges agreeing to help work with private donors and advocates to help us make sure that we make a conscious decision that tuition subsidies from public dollars are prioritizing historically underserved students and those most in need of financial support. The combination of those tweaks in the mayor's proposal has allowed us to maintain funding for for K through five, which I think is incredibly important. It's a it's really, as we are realizing gains in in pre-K and getting folks getting our youth ready for for for college. It's really important that we maintain support through the the K through five years. And I'm also really pleased I think we'll talk about this a little bit more when we get into the resolution discussion, but really pleased about some of the particular investments in in K through five that we're able to maintain.
Speaker 0: Very good. What I thought may make sense is for us to vote on the accounts bill first, then the resolution, although it's been read into the record since it takes seven votes and then comes from O'Brien's resolution to be articulated that that's what makes sense for everyone. Yeah, I'm ready to go with that. So but I would like to comment on that. On the base legislation, which you could do on the resolution, part two could do it, too. I'll wait. Okay, let's let's vote on the council bill. And then we got a little more dialog on the resolution. And Councilmember O'Brien is going to say a few things. Okay. Okay. So please call the roll on the passage of council bill 119258.
Speaker 3: Whereas Macheda I.
Speaker 1: O'BRIEN All right, so on back to Gonzales.
Speaker 3: I herbold i.
Speaker 1: Johnson President Harrell nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and the chair was silent and we should have a resolution. Councilmember Bryan, later through which I'd like to talk about either on the Bass legislation or the resolution. Yeah. So they both really briefly. First, I really want to thank all the hard work again that has gone into both the legislation which we just passed and the resolution, particularly my colleagues, council members Johnson and Gonzales, for leading us through this process and folks in central staff who've been doing a lot of work, really. And I applaud all the folks in the community who do this work day in, day out over the years and bring their expertize to the table to help us balance so many important needs. And my colleagues have mentioned in a way that I can be really proud of for the city of Seattle to support and hopefully see support going forward. So thank you for all of that. I also really appreciate the work on the resolution specifically to help outline what's going how we will move forward on this. I appreciate my colleagues willingness to put language in there that supports some of the recommendations and considerations I've had during this process. I do have an amendment that I'd like to propose today. It's simply inserting one additional sentence for, I believe, for clarity. And this would be an amendment to Section three of the resolution under Part A, which is titled Parent Child Home Program. The resolution currently reads in the first sentence, provide full funding for the parent child home program with sweetened beverage tax proceeds or other general fund resources in future proposed budgets. My amendment would insert a sentence that then reads in determining funding availability from sweetened beverage tax proceeds. Council expects the executive to follow the guidance of the Sweetened Beverage Tax Community Advisory Board. And then the last sentence, as written in the resolution, says If the sweetened beverage tax or other general fund resources are insufficient to support the parent child home program, the executive chef shift funding priorities and propose amendments to the A-fib plan to ensure that PCH is fully funded. So I will move that amendment, which I'll call amendment number one.
Speaker 3: Secondly.
Speaker 0: It's been moved in. Second Amendment number one, as described by council member Brian has been moved. And second, any further comments on the amendment only? All those in favor of the amendment. Please vote I. I oppose. The ayes have it. So that was just. The amendment comes from Brown. And you like to talk a little bit more about the resolution? I'm good. You're good. Any other comments? Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 8: Just briefly, I want to say a couple of quick things. You know, there are various levels of specificity to the work that we do here, particularly as it relates to measures that we put in front of the voters. And so the ordinance that we adopted just a minute ago is basically the authorization that allows us to go out to the voters and ask them to raise their property taxes, to pay for families, education, preschool and promise. This resolution outlines a lot more detail and specificity. So for those who are interested in peeking behind the curtain, a little bit more about how the council intends for us to spend this money should the voters adopted the resolution as a great place for you to look, I want to call out a couple of things specifically that are called out in the resolution here, one of which is that we expect 54% of the levies funds to go for the preschool components of the plan, and that 54% of funding will support approximately 2500 students per year as we get to the end of the levy cycle. So an incredibly important investment that we're making. Secondarily with with the preschool program, we also ask the Department of Education or Early Learning to do some additional work around some things that we had heard from the public outreach process for critically important to preschool providers, including things like a unified application process across subsidized tuition model, coordination with the state interested in a length of the day. We currently fund a six hour day. Can we go to a ten hour day? There are some really good ideas that were generated during the course of public comment. Those are outlined in the resolution for the Department of Early Learning to continue to continue to do, work on and report back to us. There was a question that came up earlier from our friends from the Seattle Education Association about what kind of investments are we really making in the K through five space. We clearly call out in the resolution a $56 million investment in the K five space to put at ease those who may be concerned about whether or not there's a deal here about the investments annually at $8 million a year that is very clearly identified as are additional dollars associated with opportunity and access funds. The Seattle Promise Program and several others have layers of specificity related to health and homelessness funding. It should also be pointed out, Councilmember Bagshaw, that very clearly does the resolution ask for $1.4 million to be spent on a school based health center at Noble High School? So the resolution has a second level of specificity. And then we intend, should the voters be successful in adopting this, to get an implementation plan from the Department of Education and Early Learning, that will give us an even higher level of specificity other than what's outlined in the resolution. But for those folks who are looking to dig into some more details, the resolution is a great place to do it. I'm thankful to the deal, folks, the mayor's office advocates and our central staff and our staffs for getting us to this place, because I think that this is the level of detail that many of my colleagues were looking for in the ordinance, in the resolution. This is the place where it's landed. So thanks to everybody for giving me a couple of minutes to talk about that, because I think it's critically important for success.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Johnson. I'll see some brief remarks and then perhaps Councilman Gonzalez could say a few remarks. Then we can vote that council Councilmember Dwayne Chappelle, thank you and your team deal. You've been awesome. We have a phenomenal opportunity in front of us. And it's precisely that, an opportunity people will ask for the next several months. Can we afford it? In. My response will be we. We can't afford not to pass this levy, that the future of our kids, the future of our city largely depends on addressing the opportunity gap, addressing the opportunity disparities, addressing the education for all of our kids, even the ones that are doing extremely well and those that are doing poorly that we have to design an ecosystem through this kind of investment to. To educate the types of employees and leaders and workers and the types of people that can make this city great. So this is a great opportunity. A comedian once said a quote, If opportunity doesn't knock than build a door. And I always think of that, that what we're doing is we're building a great opportunity for this city. What I'm most excited, I think about is when we look at the work we did during the preschool phase, when we looked at the brain development of children and how the disparities occur. Something that a lot of people don't think about, particularly where they're in their fourth or fifth grade, about what either occurred or did not occur during those formative years, you know, zero, three, three, three and four year olds. And then we started looking at in K through 12 where kids just get off track, whether it's during the summer because they're hungry. And we look at those interventions that you all are so well versed in. But what I think is equally bold about this, and when my daughter was at Madrona Middle School and graduated from Cleveland High School, it became so apparent that so many kids right now, right when they're getting ready to graduate, just don't have a clue as to what they're going to do. Unfortunately, they don't have the three eight GPAs. Many of these kids are, you know, to six to 7 to 8 GPAs. And and to see the light in their eyes when they say, I'm going to college through this program. The energy, the synergy. It's amazing. And I've sat in classrooms with these kids, have been on campus and talk with these kids. Many of these kids have testified in front of us. And so this is bold. This is the opportunity, I think, that warrants the word promise in this letter with the promise we're making to our kids. And so, Councilmembers Johnson and Gonzales, you did the hard work. You listen, you gather an information, provided data, you work with deal. The advocates did their job. And we have come up with a phenomenal package. And like I said earlier, we can't afford not to get this levy passed. So I'm very excited about supporting it. Councilmember Gonzales, you have the floor.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President, those are really on point remarks. I really appreciate you and your leadership as council president for the council as well. And I know that you were the prior chair of education, so I know you've had a lot of involvement in this, and we're a little leader in establishing funding for Seattle Promise in the first place. So I'm really excited to have your continued support in this area and your what I'm hearing is an endorsement of the package. So thank you. I have some final remarks that I wrote up that I want to share with folks. In 1964, Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr accepted a Nobel Peace Prize, and in his speech over 50 years ago, he said, quote, I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture, for their minds and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. Close quote today. Those words are solidly in my mind, and it is exactly that sentiment described in that quote in those words that it is that I fundamentally believe it is critical for the city of Seattle to reaffirm its commitment to the ideals encapsulated and described in that quote By continuing to invest in our children from birth through college, we know that the opportunity and kindergarten readiness gap affects all students, but especially students of color, low income students, English language learners, students with learning disabilities, and students experiencing homelessness. The persistence of these gaps tell us the equitable access to education and supports to achieve academically. Academically continues to be the civil rights struggle of our time. And while the Seattle Public School District holds the paramount duty to provide basic education to Seattle's children, we know that their ability to fulfill that duty is interconnected with the investments that the City of Seattle makes through our prior and expiring families and education and preschool levees . The City of Seattle and its residents play an important role in supporting our public school system success in their efforts to help each child fulfill their potential. We do this in several ways through this levy that will literally transform the trajectory of the children living in our city forever. When children show up to kindergarten, they'll be ready to learn. Thanks to our investments in early learning and expansion of our quality preschool program, quality preschool programing plus wraparound services are where the education pipeline begins for our children and their families. Participation in quality public preschool positively impacts a child's school experiences by reducing the demand for grade repetition, special education placement, mental health services, judicial system involvement and unemployment support in the future. We also know that the number of children experiencing homelessness has drastically grown since the passage of the 2011 Families and Education Levy. We now have an opportunity through this levy to ensure that students experiencing homelessness are not left out of our education system. Through this renewed levy package and its associated investments, we also increase our investments in student health centers that are public schools. A historic area of investments. Since the 1990, Families and Education Levy first passed. Research finds that poor health severely limits a child's motivation and ability to learn, and that school based health centers improve student health and emotional well-being. This, in turn, AIDS academic performance by increasing attendance rates and a student's grade point average over time. Likewise, a student is 21 times more likely to access mental health services at a school based health center if it's available. These are important, historic and new investments in the K-through-12 space that do not qualify for McCleary funding. And that will end if this levy does not pass this November. We round out our education spectrum investments by investing in a student's opportunity to attend college to obtain a degree or certificate. This is an area that the city currently funds in partnership with the Seattle Colleges via our general fund. This proposal that we just passed shifts those investments to the levy to provide a sustainable. Will revenue stream over the next seven years to continue investing in those kids, graduating from our public high schools, graduating from high school and completing a post-secondary training improves a person's earning potential and economic self-sufficiency. And recent studies have told us that two thirds of the jobs projected to come to Seattle in the next seven years will require a post-secondary degree or certificate. So we have before us a unique opportunity for Seattle taxpayers to provide tuition and supports to bridge students into living wage jobs of the 21st century. And lastly, I would just like to say thanks to all of my colleagues on the dais here today who were willing to dig in to the work and and be ready to vote today. And one time in particular, I think Councilmember Rob Johnson from District four, sitting over here to my right for being such an amazing partner in developing this proposal and just really staying true and committed to what our principles and goals were in terms of making sure that the full spectrum of education was going to be invested in here and in truly, your knowledge and commitment as a parent was just instrumental in in my own learning in terms of what it means to operate within the Seattle Public Schools system. Since I went to a public school in central Washington and really just appreciate all of your insight to making sure that the priorities in this package were reflective of student needs, parent needs, educator needs, school district needs, the whole the whole gamut. So thank you so much for being an awesome partner and colleague in getting this to this point. And then I also want to thank Mayor Durkan for our ongoing commitment to continued investments in this particular area. I know she's done had to do a tremendous amount of work in her first six months of her administration. And to get us here and I really appreciate her willingness to make sure that our individual priorities were able to be reflected in this final package that will be considered by the voters. And, of course, a huge thanks to folks over the Department of Education and Early Learning. Duane Veronica, monica said, So many of you have put in countless hours over the last year and a half to develop a package that is reflective of the countless hours of community engagement that I know all of you did, and to lend us with your expertize in terms of developing the individual policies that are reflected in the underlying bill that we passed and in this resolution that were about to take a vote on. So I really want to thank you for all of that, but more importantly, I want to thank you all the entire team over at Deal, including those that are not sitting in the audience. And there's probably like, I don't know, 20 people back in the office right now. There's a lot of you here, but I really want to thank all of deal for your steadfast commitment to our kids and to our families and and to the educators along the spectrum. They are and we are very lucky to have you all be with us and to be as dedicated as you are to achieving equity in this space. So thank you so much. And then lastly, I want to thank all of the staff, Gerry and V for my office and Brian Goodnight and Ali Pankey and so many others for all that you did to make sure that we are prepared and that all of my council colleagues were prepared. So I've just been truly honored and humbled to work on this lovely proposal. And I hope that the voters will agree that this is a investment that is worth not just worth making, but that it's an investment that is honestly the single most important thing we can do as members of our community is to invest in the future of our city, which.
Speaker 1: Is our kids.
Speaker 3: So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Gonzales. Okay. Thank you. Well done. Well said. I will move to adopt Resolution 31821 as a minute as a second.
Speaker 8: Second.
Speaker 0: Moves. And second, the resolution to be adopted. Those in favor of the resolution, please vote i i those opposed vote no. The motion carries resolution adopt and chair will sign it. Very good. Yes. All right. Is there any further business coming for the council that. I'm looking at Council Herbal today. I'm not seeing a room. Okay, we're okay. We stand adjourned. I want to have a great day.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Well, then.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to regular property taxes; providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City at an election to be held on November 6, 2018, a proposition to lift the limit on regular property taxes under chapter 84.55 RCW and authorize the City to levy additional taxes for up to seven years for the purpose of providing education services designed to improve access to early learning and high-quality preschool, K-12 school and community-based investments, K-12 school health, and post-secondary and job readiness opportunities for Seattle students; implementing exemptions for low income seniors, disabled veterans, and other people who are disabled as defined in RCW 84.36.381; authorizing a creation of a designated fund; directing the application of levy proceeds; establishing eligibility requirements for partners; establishing accountability and reporting structures; providing for the facilitation of communication between the City and stakeholders; providing for partnership agreements with Seattle School District and Seattle Colleges District; requiring a forthcomi
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06112018_CB 119268
|
Speaker 2: The Agenda. The Report of the Full Council Agenda Item two Council Bill 119268 An Ordinance amending ordinance 125561 to rename the plot of Madrona Glen to Madrona Glen Estates, introduced on June 4th, 2018.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Councilmember O'Brien. Johnson Johnson.
Speaker 3: Small change to an ordinance where we got the name wrong. I would encourage your vote in the affirmative.
Speaker 0: Okay. Any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Herbold i. Johnson, i. Whereas, I don't know, I guess.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: O'Brien Are so, aren't I? Bagshaw Gonzales I. President Herrell Hi nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and chair was signing. Please read the report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee on.
Speaker 2: The Report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee Agenda Item three Council Bill 119010 An ordinance relating to city owned property under the jurisdiction of the Seattle Department of Transportation, located at 800 Mercer Street, and in addition to the City of Seattle and a portion of Eighth Avenue North vacated pursuant to ordinance 89653 and laying off, opening, widening
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 125561 to rename the plat of “Madrona Glen” to “Madrona Glen Estates”.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06112018_CB 119010
|
Speaker 2: The Report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee Agenda Item three Council Bill 119010 An ordinance relating to city owned property under the jurisdiction of the Seattle Department of Transportation, located at 800 Mercer Street, and in addition to the City of Seattle and a portion of Eighth Avenue North vacated pursuant to ordinance 89653 and laying off, opening, widening , extending and establishing a portion of Mercer Street. The committee recommends the bill pass from O'Brien.
Speaker 5: Thank you. So I'm going to speak to this agenda item and also mention agenda item five. They're both related to what we've often know as a teardrop site. It's the large personal property owned by the Seattle Department of Transportation on the northeast corner of Mercer and Dexter. So as a reconfiguring that parcel so that we can do an RFP for selling that parcel. There's a large chunk of property which will be a street right away which will be vacated, which will be agenda item number five. But there's also a portion that's not in public right away that's going to be handed over to the public right away, specifically a sliver along Mercer Avenue where the sidewalk is. So this specific legislation piece, does that action to convert that into public right away?
Speaker 0: Thank very much. Any further comments? Please hold the roll on the passage of the bill. I.
Speaker 1: I was. I was scared. I. O'BRIEN So aren't I. Picture Gonzalez President Herrell High nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed in show Senate. Please read the next agenda item.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to City-owned property under the jurisdiction of the Seattle Department of Transportation, located at 800 Mercer Street in Eden Addition to the City of Seattle, and a portion of 8th Avenue North vacated pursuant to Ordinance 89653; and laying off, opening, widening, extending, and establishing a portion of Mercer Street.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06112018_CB 119241
|
Speaker 2: Agenda item for Council Bill 119241 an ordinance relating to the arterial asphalt and concrete program phase two excepting a deed for street purposes for certain real property and block to public benefit. Subdivision of Tract 17 Georgetown 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 Seattle Department of Transportation and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Bryant.
Speaker 5: So this is a curb ramp project in Georgetown. So a small, little curb ramp that was put in. In order to put the curb ramp in, we needed to acquire a few square feet of private property that was adjacent to the the sidewalk to make it fit. And this is the action that needs to be taken for us to accept ownership of those few square feet into the right away.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any further comments? Please call the roll on the pastor of the Bill.
Speaker 1: Herbold II Johnson Juarez Mosquito. I O'Brien. Hi, Sergeant Bagshaw. Hi, Gonzales. I President Arroyo. Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed and share with Senate. Please read the next agenda item.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Arterial Asphalt and Concrete Program Phase II; accepting a deed for street purposes for certain real property in Block 2, Public Benefit Subdivision of Tract 17, Georgetown; 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 Seattle Department of Transportation; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06112018_Res 31814
|
Speaker 2: Agenda item seven resolution 31814. A resolution requesting the Seattle Department of Transportation provide quarterly reporting to City Council on implementation of the One Center City Program. The committee recommends a resolution be adopted as amended.
Speaker 0: Just from our brian.
Speaker 5: Thank you. This is legislation that originally came up in our discussions around the convention center suite vacation. I want to thank Councilmember Gonzales for her work to suggest that we do a resolution that would require Seattle Department of Transportation to do regular report back to the Committee on Progress on some of the investments that need to be made to address some of the congestion we anticipate in the coming years. As part of one Senator City, we took this resolution to committee, and through the work, essential central staff added in addition to the investments they're making as part of the convention center work. Although the short term investments they're planning to make. So we will have a regular report back on a couple of dozen sets of investments in the coming year or two to see how we're making progress on that. Thank you, Councilmember Gonzales, for your leadership on this.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any further comments? If not those in favor of adopting the resolution, please vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries and resolutions adopted and chair will sign it. Please read. Appointments. Agenda Items eight through 13.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION requesting the Seattle Department of Transportation provide quarterly reporting to City Council on implementation of the One Center City program.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06042018_CB 119263
|
Speaker 3: The Report of the City Council Agenda Item to cancel Bill 119 263 Repealing Ordinance 125442 which impose a tax on short term rental operators under Chapter 5.54 of the Yellow Missile Code.
Speaker 1: So, Councilmember O'Brien and I know we have some logistical things you have to work on. You have the floor.
Speaker 6: Thank you. The president. So this is a bill that will repeal the short term rental tax that we imposed last year. Just discusses a few times there's been state legislation that it provides an alternate path for us to collect a similar taxing amount through a different mechanism. But it requires that we repeal this. And the bill, as introduced, references an attachment which is the ordinance it will repealing, but it did not include it. So I would like to I believe I need to suspend the need to suspend the rules so I can amend this bill by adding attachment one.
Speaker 1: So just to be clear, we will move to suspend the rules for the rule we are suspending. Is the two hour notification a requirement that this be placed before us within the two hour period? But because of the circumstances, unless there's objection, will suspend the rules and then we'll verbally chastise Councilmember O'Brien after the meeting.
Speaker 6: I look forward to that. Thank you. So I will move to amend Council Bill 119263 by adding attachment one, which is ordinance 12544 to.
Speaker 1: Serve second removed and second and to amend the Council Bill 119263. As stated by Councilmember O'Brien, all those in favor of the amendment say I. I oppose the ayes have it. Go ahead, Councilman O'Brien.
Speaker 6: So I think I've already spoken to this, but if anyone has any questions on this, I'm happy to answer them.
Speaker 1: Any further comments or questions? I think we are. Thanks for describing this during council briefing as well. So if not, please call the roll on the passage of the amended Bill Gonzalez i.
Speaker 0: Herbold i. Johnson whereas Musgrave I. O'Brien i lakeshore president herrell i adan favor an unopposed.
Speaker 1: A bill passed the chair the senate please read agenda item number three.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE repealing Ordinance 125442, which imposed a tax on short-term rental operators under Chapter 5.54 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06042018_Res 31817
|
Speaker 3: Adoption of other resolutions Agenda item three Resolution 31817 Superseding them and replacing the language and statement of legislative intent 2280 11b2 adopted in Resolution 317 95.
Speaker 1: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Two to the purpose of this resolution is to supersede the statement of legislative intent to a one dash, 1-b-2 that was included as part of last year's budget deliberations. The reason we're replacing that SLI is that we've had further conversations, the executive and made some simple modifications to the scope of work in that SLI, including language that adds a stakeholder process, including a stakeholder process, including service providers and labor representation and human service civic leaders. With this would do is two basic things would clarify the report back from the statement alleged that intent would be discussed in councilmember mosquitoes, housing, health, energy and workers rights committee. And it adds that the report back shall include a summary of that stakeholder process. The the bill that's on the referral calendar actually need to substitute of version D two for version d1b to have the proper version in front of us. And you should have received that via email before noon today. So I will avoid the chastising after the meeting on this one.
Speaker 1: Only that. Okay, let's do the amendment first and then we get have some discussion.
Speaker 6: So I'll move to substitute version d1b with version D 2/2.
Speaker 1: Has been moved in second to a minute by the substitution as described by Councilmember Brian. All those in favor of the amendment. Please vote I. I oppose. The ayes have it. So now we have an amended version of it. And Councilmember Mosqueda, does you have a comment? Sure, please.
Speaker 7: Thank you very much, Mr. President. And thanks again for your work to shepherd this statement of legislative intent through last year. I'm really excited that the stakeholder group has been convened, happy that the executive wants to make sure that we are being explicit in our in our commitments to making sure that we're bringing folks to the table by updating this resolution. I also think this ties in very nicely to the conversations we've had over the last few months. Our intent is to make sure that we are serving the most vulnerable, those who are homeless, those who might be on the verge of falling into homelessness by making sure that they have access to highly trained , highly skilled and highly trusted workforce. We talked a lot about this as it related to the employees hours tax and the spending plan. I think that the work that you have begun here is incredibly critical for us to create trust. Right now, many of these entities have a 30 to 40% turnover rate, a 30 to 40% rate and vacancies in terms of trusted partners. We also know that some of these critical positions, such as a chemical dependency counselor, which requires a master's degree, often starts around $33,000 a year. And in a city like Seattle, when we have a crisis of homelessness, we have to both be looking at creating the housing, building the housing that our community needs, and also making sure that there's a stable workforce to provide services to this vulnerable population. So I'm very excited about this. I think this directly ties in to workforce stabilization and happy to have this in my committee. I appreciate that.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Casper and ROSQUETA, any further comments or concerns if not? All those in favor of approving the amended resolution. Please vote i. I. All those opposed guys have it. And the resolution is passed and will be signed. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 3: Agenda. Agenda item for resolution 31818. Retiring, introduced and referred. Council bills, resolutions, quick files, and appointments that have received no further action.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION superseding and replacing the language in Statement of Legislative Intent, 281-1-B-2, adopted in Resolution 31795.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05292018_CB 119261
|
Speaker 1: Excellent. Any further comments? Those in favor of confirming the appointment. Please vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries. The appointment is confirmed. Please read the part of the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee.
Speaker 5: The report of the Finance Neighborhoods Committee Agenda and for it Council 119261 really district preservation person controls upon the Mount Zion Baptist Church in landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board under Chapter 25.12 City Limits Vicodin Adding to the table historical landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32. The Salem Massacre Committee recommends a bill pass.
Speaker 1: Kasper in back.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much. And I want to say special thanks, Reverend Belmonte and your team. Thank you so much for coming and to coming to my committee last week. It's a real pleasure to be able to recognize the Mount Zion Baptist Church for this historic preservation. And to my colleagues. I want to reassure you that the church supports us, that I believe you voted in January of 2018 to move forward with the incentives. And it's not often that we see all six of the criteria met and what we're going to be landmarking today, and those controlled features are going to include the site itself, I understand the sanctuary, the bell tower, many of the exterior features of this beautiful church. And I'm going to recommend that we add Mt. Zion Baptist Church. That's located at 1634, Reverend Dr. Samuel McKinney Avenue to our table of historic landmarks. So thank you very much. Good.
Speaker 1: Any further comments? I'll make one brief comment. And again, I want to thank the members and leaders at Mt. Zion Church for bringing this forward. The building itself, both interior and exterior, will now be a historically designated landmark, and I think that's extremely important. But I also think it's incredibly important to know sort of the the cultural landmark or the life landmark that this institution has had for so many decades and decades. And so I think that this that the building itself is only part of the story, an important part of the story. But again, as many of us witnessed it. Reverend McKinney's memorial service that lives have been changed, Seattle has been changed. There's been so much incredible work done by you and your children and those that came before you. So thank you for this part of the journey, part of the process, and certainly my personal honor to support this . And thank you for that child for bringing it to the fore committee. Okay. Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: By John Gonzalez, Herbold Johnson by Macheda O'Brien, sowhat president Harrell. Hi. Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The bill passed and Cher will gladly sign it. Thank you. Please read the next agenda item.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to historic preservation; imposing controls upon the Mount Zion Baptist Church, 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_05292018_CB 119259
|
Speaker 1: Thank you. The bill passed and Cher will gladly sign it. Thank you. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 5: Agenda item five Council 119 259. At the recent Director of Finance Administrative Services are the directors designee to execute a executed lease with the Department of Army for the city's continued use of an approximately 13,000 square foot warehouse facility at 1561 Alaskan Re South for the operation of Mount Saint Martin, the Borough's Shelter for homelessness. Homeless men over the age of 50 and I thank information and practice committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 1: Because we're in.
Speaker 4: Thank you. This space is a 13,000 square foot warehouse right down in Alaskan way near where the Coast Guard facility is. It's been operating for years. This will extend a five year lease so that the Catholic Community Services can continue to operate it. We were impressed and have been by the quality of services offered and I urge this body to support this lease. Normally the FEMA director would be able to sign it, but since it's 13,000 square feet, that exceeds his authority of 9000.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much indeed for the comments.
Speaker 5: Councilmember Skater Thank you, Mr. President. And I just want to say thank you for bringing this bill forward. Councilmember Bagshaw I also think this is a good example of where we as a city can be looking at all publicly available land either to house folks who are homeless right now or to build affordable housing. Just a quick plug for those who didn't have the benefit of coming to our committee last week, we had a presentation from Emma Leonard and folks at Enterprise, along with Future Wise, who looked at every parcel of available public land, including federally owned land, school board owned land, city, county, state, you name it, including non-profits. And I think as we look for places to create housing for those who are unsheltered in future affordable housing, permanent supportive housing. This is a great example of where we should be repurposing, especially Army land that's no longer being used. So I got my eyes set on a few more parcels and look forward to working with you to make it possible.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay. Please call the roll on. The pastor of the Bill.
Speaker 2: Bank, John Gonzalez, Herbold Johnson. Macheda O'Brien. SWAT President Harrell High eight in favor and unopposed bill.
Speaker 1: Pass and share of Senate Please read item six and seven.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services or the Director’s designee to execute a lease with the Department of the Army for the City’s continued use of an approximately 13,000-square-foot warehouse facility at 1561 Alaskan Way South for the operation of the St. Martin de Porres Shelter for homeless men over the age of 50; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05212018_Res 31811
|
Speaker 0: Bill passing share of Senate. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 6: Agenda item 12 Resolution 3181. Excuse me. Resolution 318 11. Recognizing the value of equitable development agreements and outlining how the agreements may be considered when evaluating the required community engagement processes and public benefit packages associated with free vacation and large development projects that are subject to review by the City Council. The committee recommends a resolution be adopted because remember.
Speaker 5: Brian, thank you. The this resolution will establish and recognizes the value of equitable, equitable development agreements outlining how these agreements may be considered when evaluating required community engagement process and public benefit packages associated with street vacations or other large development projects that are subject to review by the City Council. The purpose of resolution is to recognize Edas as a valuable community driven tool that centers individuals and organizations representing historically marginalized communities in the decision making process. The the concept of an actual development agreement came forward from community members who are participating in the review of the public. The street vacation process and the task force happened last year. And it's also been informed by the work that the the Community Benefit Coalition, I don't have that quite right, but that worked on the Convention Center and the work they did through the process of negotiating with the Convention Center for a package, the community package coalition. That's what it was on the package of community benefits. And well, the actual development agreements is exactly that process. It is certainly informed by what was successful in that process and some of the challenges they faced. I want to thank particularly folks from Puget Sound Sage, who did a lot of work to conceptualize equity, equitable development agreements and help with the language to make sure that communities most impacted and often marginalized and left out of the decision making process will have a voice at the table in defining what a set of community benefits makes sense. I also want to take a moment just to thank Susie Loving and my office and wish Whitson and central staff who spent well over over well over a year working on this whole set of packages. I really appreciate their astute guidance of the process and focus on the details of both the ordinances and the resolutions, including the NBA resolution.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Bryan. Any further comments?
Speaker 6: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I'm a skater.
Speaker 6: I just want to thank you, Councilmember O'Brien, for your willingness to delay for a week so that we could have the conversation with the folks who are Longshore, who are working in the maritime industry, and to incorporate their feedback. I'm so incredibly pleased how quickly that was resolved, and it really sounds like your office and central staff work quickly to identify a path forward though, so thank you for your incredible work with them just in the last week. But more importantly, thank you for bringing this forward. As I've had conversations with folks in the community over the last year and a half, what they have been calling for is truly a way to identify the public benefit for various development and and changes that are being implemented in our city. And I think what you have outlined here really creates a pathway for those community voices to be heard and for us to have a holistic look at ways that our city grows and expands. So thank you for your work to shepherd this through, and I'm excited to vote for it today.
Speaker 5: Well, thank you. It's I'm really proud of the work that we all collectively did in including a lot of community members. And I believe once this is passed and implemented, we will have a much better process for how we do screen notifications and hopefully we'll see equitable development agreements happening not just on vacations but on other projects in town.
Speaker 0: Or get any further comments. Those in favor of adopting the resolution please vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries the resolutions adopt and share with Senate. Please read the last the next agenda item.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION recognizing the value of Equitable Development Agreements and outlining how the agreements may be considered when evaluating the required community engagement processes and public benefit packages associated with street vacations and large development projects that are subject to review by the City Council.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05142018_CB 119245
|
Speaker 0: Very good. Any further comments? Those in favor of confirming the appointment? Please vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The most curious appointment is confirm. Please read the report of the Human Services, Equitable Development and Renters Rights Committee.
Speaker 1: The Report of the Human Services Equitable Development and Renters Rights Committee. Agenda Item nine Council 119 245 Relating to appropriations for the Human Services Department amending Ordinance 125 475, which adopted the.
Speaker 5: 2018 budget, lifting it provides and ratifying confirming.
Speaker 1: Certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Councilmember. So I want to.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Fresno. This is a council bill that lifts a proviso that council placed on it just funds allocated for a JAMA scan card readers. We discussed the issue in two committees before finally voting last week. The scan card readers allow homeless service providers to enter itemized data more quickly and will make for faster check ins improving the efficiency of getting people in the door. There are privacy implications for the HMO system as a whole, which is, I think, important to discuss. But the scan cards themselves do not substantially affect those broader issues in committee. We did amend the ordinance to add whereas clauses making explicit that clients can choose whether or not to have personal information and going into a Gemma's can get an anonymous anonymous scan card if they if they choose to do so. Council will also review these general privacy concerns. After I just completed the privacy analysis that we requested through a statement of legislative intent in last budget, which we expect to have completed at the end of this month, the committee recommend unanimously the Council passed this bill.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Swann. Any further comments that please call the role on the pastor of the Bill.
Speaker 3: O'Brien Sergeant, I beg Sean Gonzalez.
Speaker 1: I. Herbold Hi.
Speaker 3: Johnson Juarez mosquito i president Nero hi nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill pass and chair sign it please read items ten through 14.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE related to appropriations for the Human Services Department; amending Ordinance 125475, which adopted the 2018 budget; lifting a proviso; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05142018_CB 119249
|
Speaker 1: The Report of the Finance and Neighborhoods.
Speaker 5: Committee Agenda Item 15 Council Vote 119 249.
Speaker 1: Relating to lease agreement for a warehouse space authorizing the Director of Finance Administrative Services to enter into a lease agreement with me Warehouse LLC, a Washington limited liability company for warehouse space in the building located at 2021 22nd Avenue South and ratifying confirm research in prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Councilmember Bagshaw.
Speaker 3: Yeah, thank you so much. You remember a few weeks ago we sold the comp shop and they need additional space to move into. And so 15,500 square feet has been located at a negotiated rent of 13,475 a month. It'll be a ten year lease with 5 to 5 year options to extend. We asked if asked whether they felt this was a good deal. It provides for their needs and they answered affirmatively. And we recommend moving forward with this lease legislation.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any further comments? Concerns one.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Fresno. This council will approve the city renting warehouse space to house not only the com shop which I support, but it also rents space to the navigation team to stage their sweeps of homeless encampments, out of which I do not support in the fiscal node. It explains that they are renting a larger space than they would need just for the com shop to accommodate the navigation team. It does say that they were having trouble finding a location the size of just a gunshot, but I am confident that it must be possible to find an appropriately sized location for the gun shop or just a gun shop somewhere in Seattle. As I've said, the sweeps of homeless encampments are inhumane and ineffective. They just move people who have nowhere to go from one street corner to another, and sometimes the people end up in the same corner because they have nowhere else to go. The navigation team is a waste of city resources and I do not support the Council bill to rent additional space for its ever expanding operation. So I will vote no.
Speaker 7: Any further comments?
Speaker 0: Go for the color roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: O'Brien I so want no big shots.
Speaker 1: Gonzalez I.
Speaker 3: Herbold I. Johnson whereas mosquera i president Harrell I Adan.
Speaker 1: Favor one opposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and the chair will sign it. Please read items 16 through 19 collectively place.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to a lease agreement for warehouse space; authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services to enter into a lease agreement with MB Warehouse, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, for warehouse space in the building located at 2021 22nd Avenue South; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05142018_CB 119250
|
Speaker 1: Report of the Finance.
Speaker 5: And Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item 20 Council 119 250 Relating to taxation. Adding a new Chapter 5.37 and a new Chapter 5.38.
Speaker 1: Of Title five. The setting is more code and in many sections five point 30.1. 10.0.
Speaker 5: 65.50 5.0. 10.0. 40.0. 60.1. 50.1. 65.2 29.2 30th.
Speaker 1: Economists Code Committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 0: Okay, so procedurally, I'm sure everyone may want to say something. So it's just out of your chair. Councilmember Bagshaw So I'll let you sort of introduce the matter and then I know we have amendments in discussion, so I'll turn it to you first. I suppose we have a series of amendments and we'll take them. We'll take Amendment what's known as Amendment 24, I believe.
Speaker 3: First, if President. Harold, thank you. As Chair of Finance and Neighborhoods Committee, I am very pleased to turn this back over to full council today for a vote. And I want to acknowledge all the work that's gone on. Councilmember Gonzales Councilmember Herbold, for leading that charge, Councilmember Mosquito this weekend for stepping forward. I think we've got an amendment that I look forward to hearing all of you speak about and we'll see where the vote goes.
Speaker 0: Okay. So we have a some based legislation that had come out of committee Friday. I'm going to make the First Amendment. We have several amendments to vote on and discuss. I'm making what will be known as amendment number. Amendment number one. That's right. Limit number 24. 2024. Okay. What happened first 23. Okay. I'm making amendment number 24, which basically I think all of you know, it does remove the provisions of a payroll tax it. As a sunset date of employer tax of January one, 24. It reduces the employer hours tax from 500 FTE to 275 FTE, and it established an expectation that the City Council will conduct an assessment of the employee hours tax by 2023 or before the sunset tax to both understand its effectiveness, its effects on homelessness and affordability, its effect on jobs in our business, our policies toward the solvency of business acceptable business climate does a complete evaluation and assessment of this new tax revenue, and it's estimated this tax at 25 would generate approximately $48 million a year. We recognize the base legislation set as a target for our first year, right around 75 million. So we have commitments at least during the budget cycle and from other sources to still achieve that, that kind of spending rate spending plan, if you will, but at a lower a head count rate at two setting five. So this amendment that I'll describe is amendment number 24. And I think all of you are aware of it and you have copies of it. It's been on line. I move to the base legislation by moving amendment number 24. Is there a second?
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 0: Okay, discussion, please. And then I will call for a vote on this amendment and I will just go and order when I see the hands and I could wait. Customers What should go first? Note Council member Herbold, would you like to give it a shot? Sure. Thank you, Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So Amendment 24 is the result of a lot of talking and listening over the weekend and a strong feeling that by Sunday evening that this was really the strongest proposal that we were going to be able to bring forward with the necessary votes to sustain a potential veto. I've been really struggling with how I feel about this compromise because I've been really, really focused on the spending plan and what the what the dire needs are in this community, the dire needs and the human suffering that we are all faced with and so many of our residents have to live with day by day. When I step back and I look at this issue, the issue as it relates specifically to income inequality in this city and not just in the city, but all over the nation. I do feel that whereas the revenue that we will generate is not enough to fully address the problem and we have to count on the resources that King County it's one table process will be will be making as recommendations for additional revenue as revenue from the state. We really have to stay focused on on those needs. But when I step back and I look at the issues related to income inequality and the regressive nature of our taxation structure, and the fact that I and other other council members, folks out in the audience have been working since 2009 to restore an employee hours tax as as one way to address the fact that we have the most progressive taxation structure in the nation. When I look at that long arc of this campaign, that would not have been possible without the work that you all have done. And I look at how far we've come, not only as it relates to the size of this per employee hours tax, but in the increase progressivity that this tax has as compared to other employee hours taxes as the employee our tax has been considered over the last few years. It has evolved further and further more towards progressivity. In previous versions proposed between 2014 and 2016, there are no exemptions for small businesses or medium businesses in the last year's budget process. The exemption was for small businesses. Less than 5 million in gross revenues. This. Legislation raises the exemption to 20 million and why that is so important. Again, it's because we are truly the most regressive taxation structure in the nation, and Seattle itself is the most regressive taxation structure within the state of Washington. You know, Dick Conway, who's a local economist that the city of Seattle has relied on for our financial forecasting, has said that high tech jobs create two or three other jobs in the account economy through a multiplier process. That means the workers and their families in these lower income jobs and the higher income and jobs together place demands on the public sector for schools, roads and safety. He goes on to say, if the added costs of these public schools and services were to fall disproportionately on low and middle income households as they do under Washington's sales based tax system, those households would, in effect, be subsidizing the high tech companies and their employees. And that's why this is so important. That is why cities all over the country, high cost cities that are faced with the same struggles that we're faced with, are looking toward Seattle and how we are dealing with the regressive city that is created when a city is experiencing an influx of high income jobs, with increased costs of city services and not a lot of ways to pay for them.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Catherine. Thank you for your opinions. And we respect them, certainly. So I'm sure other ones are sure to wait for the right time to chime in so my patient, I could wait. I know I'm going to see some hands here sooner or later. So. And Councilmember Chance and.
Speaker 2: Just briefly.
Speaker 4: I think I want to say thank you to Councilmember Herbal. I don't think it was listening over the weekend. I think folks have been listening to each other for several weeks now, and I know it's taken a long time to get to this point, but I think the plan has. The bill today has eight sponsors for a reason. It has its sponsors because we spent a lot of time talking to each other and working with each other and listening to each other. And, you know, there are things in here that if I were to do this differently on my own, I would I know that that's the case for you, too, Councilmember Herbold, but I think that that represents a reasonable compromise that can allow us to make real progress toward solutions to get people off the streets and into permanent supportive housing. So I'm proud of the work that we've done here today, and I look forward to voting yes.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Johnson. Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I'm going to be supporting this amendment. But I want to be clear that. I think the bill before us unamended is the best path forward at $500 to raise $75 million a year. And and despite.
Speaker 7: My past is the better half right now.
Speaker 4: Despite a lot of conversations over the past week, including a lot this weekend, we could not find a path to get the number of votes we needed to put this in place. And so I am acknowledging that I am going to vote for this because I'm settling for this level of service. I think. I do think that with the nearly $50 million a year that this will raise, there's a lot of good things that we can do for people that are suffering out there, and we look forward to implementing that. But we also know, especially in light of reports that come out this this in the past week and what we've seen for four, frankly, four years, that there's a lot more work that needs to happen. I'm I as someone who introduced legislation during the budget last year that would have raised $25 million, I'm I'm excited that we're well above that level. But I also acknowledge disappointment that we're not where I think we need to be right now. But it's the best I think we can do at the moment.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Brian Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 1: Thank you, council president. I will also be supporting this particular amendment. And like Councilmember O'Brien and a probably some of my other co-sponsors on this legislation, we had hoped and I had hoped that we'd be voting on it and a different package that more accurately represented what I believed to be the needed investments in this city. So while I'm excited that we're about to take this vote and it will be in the affirmative to reestablish a head tax that was repealed in 2009, I am nonetheless also struggling with with what we're about, with the package that we're faced with. And so, you know, for me, even in the face of all of the reports and studies that support a $75 million sales specific contribution, it's regrettable that we were unable to find a path among our colleagues and with the mayor that they'd be willing to support a higher taxation rate than 275. So we are left with limited, viable choices to garner the votes that we would need to send a bill to the mayor's desk that would not immediately be vetoed. And as a policymaker, we, you know, make tough decisions every day and tough choices within the political realities of what this government is and is not. And this is one of those difficult choices. So while I'm pleased that this measure is moving forward today, I'm I'm also disappointed that we could not find support for more. Nonetheless, the nearly $50 million that we will additional dollars a year that we will have as a result of passing this measure is a significant new revenue stream , and it will help us increase our production of affordable housing units for those currently experiencing homelessness in our city. And I believe that the spending plan that we'll talk about later, in addition with the implementation of this ordinance, will will challenge the city's current status quo approach to addressing homelessness by focusing these dollars on additional production of units available to those people who are actually experiencing homelessness. And this is an approach that is necessary, according to Bart Poppy and the recent King County Auditor's report. We have to massively scale up the number of deeply subsidized, affordable housing units that are available to those people who are currently surviving and suffering on the streets in the city of Seattle. We hear a lot about a regional approach, and we hear a lot about a regional approach as though Seattle would never be a part of that regional approach, and that somehow we're out of our lane by taking this bold action today, or that somehow by recognizing what our commitment and what our obligation is here , that we somehow are are bucking up against a sense that we also need other folks in our government system to join us. And that's just simply not true. The city of Seattle has an obligation to take care of those people who are surviving and suffering on our city streets, whether they've been here for a day or whether they've been here for 20 years. And this investment is our city's, I believe, our city's proportional obligation to support the type of housing and services needed to help women, children, men of all races and abilities who are currently suffering on our streets. So I'm I am glad to be able to finally move this forward. I'm looking forward to sleeping a lot the next three days after this. At least at least I am going to get my rest because I know that the implementation plan is going to be absolutely critical. And I want to make sure that folks who are in the audience understand how important it is for us to be able to hit the reset here and be able to advance this conversation in a way. Through the budget process that will allow us to continue to make sure that the priorities that we are expressing through the creation of this new tax and through the passage of our spending plan, accurately reflects the priorities that we have to make sure that we're not just putting people into shelters, but that we are connecting people to four walls where they can be safe and healthy and can continue to remain in that space. So I'm going to take the next few days to to reflect some more on that and figure out how we can continue to work together as a council and as a community to making sure that the council priorities that we are going to adopt today are seen through to the very end and the very finish through our budget process and into next year.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Gonzalez. Okay. Thank you. Okay. A little longer than the other ones. Because my skater comes from a skater. Would you like.
Speaker 5: To? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. So today we're making a significant down payment and addressing the crisis of consciousness in Seattle. We have community members who are dying. They are dying on our streets today because there is not enough shelter. They are dying because there is not enough affordable housing to move people into from shelters right now. And as I said last week, people are dying on the doorsteps of prosperity. This is the richest city in the state and in the state that has the most regressive tax system in the country. We are trying to right size up our upside down tax system, and this is just one portion of that. We can no longer ask folks who are working family members to shoulder the cost of the housing that our community needs so critically. We've asked working families to pay more and more with property taxes and sales taxes. This is a progressive revenue option that allows for us to get money in the door immediately to build the housing that we need. But I want to underscore that this reflects only a portion of what we need to meet the approximate $75 million needed. And we cannot wait. We must continue to push forward for progressive revenue options. This is just the beginning of the fight. What we have in front of us is an opportunity to build the housing that our community needs. Folks drive through our streets every day and they see folks living outside. There's also so many folks who we don't see who are sleeping on people's couches, who are sleeping in the woods, who need housing now. We want to make sure that we're building the shelter and the housing to actually accurately respond to this crisis as the true public health crisis that it is. So, yes, it's a public health crisis. It's also a crisis of consciousness if we don't act. I so appreciate everyone who has helped to bring ideas forward. I want to thank the labor, community, housing and health advocates, the community at large. Thank you for continuing to ask us to do more than just the status quo, because the status quo is not working and we're not going to house people by building buildings that are only seven story units. We have to build massive amounts of housing on public land, keep it in public hands so that our public can be housed now. And as we build the housing that we need, as we build the city of the future, we must make sure that those who are building those buildings are getting good jobs, prevailing wage priority, hire community workforce agreements, and making sure that we have higher apprenticeship utilization standards and for calling for these things. I especially think the building construction trades for telling us that the status quo is not working and their members should be the ones who are actually building these units. So I will continue to push for those standards. I want to thank the workers who provide services day in and day out for the homeless community and those who are on the verge of becoming homeless because right now they are working for poverty wages. They are eligible for many of the housing units they are placing folks into. And if we don't also address the housing and health and workforce needs that our entire community needs, we will not be meeting our goal, which is to make sure that everyone who works in the city can afford to live here. So within this effort, we have built in community workforce agreements, priority higher standards, prevailing wage standards, apprenticeship utilization standards and workforce stabilization revenue to make sure that we are looking at this holistically. It's not just enough to build the housing. If those who are building it have to commute hours in and are not able to benefit from this down payment. So with this effort today, I want to underscore my deep appreciation for labor, for the community at large, for the faith community. And I see some of the members here in the audience with us. Thank you for reminding us that this is a moral decision that we're making. The budget is a reflection of our moral values and principles. And by our efforts today, we will be able to raise additional revenue, $50 million a year to help fill the gap slightly, but a significant downpayment in making sure that our budget more accurately reflects the values of this Council, which is that housing is a human right. Mr. Chair, if I might also I failed to mention I have a statement from folks who have been working directly with those who are homeless and unsheltered, on the verge of becoming unsheltered and an expression of their support for this package that I'd like to put into the public record and we'll also pass out to our colleagues.
Speaker 0: Please do. She read what you're reading and just passing.
Speaker 5: Oh. Would you like me to read it? I may. Thank you. Statement of Support for Meaningful Investments to Reduce Homelessness Crisis. We appreciate deeply the work that has been done by the sponsors of the legislation to create a large business tax, to make the scale investments that are necessary to meaningfully reduce homelessness in Seattle. We acknowledge the good face, the negotiations that we have been engaged in with Labor and human services and stakeholders to ensure a strong package of investments are needed. We support this because it includes the recommendation from the Progressive Revenue Task Force and specifically a strong concentration on new housing, including a mix of deeply subsidized and permanent supportive housing dedicated to those actually in homelessness, or below 30% of area median income because it includes rental supports and other strategies for immediate use of existing housing stock for permanent housing for the actually homeless population, because it includes emergency response strategies that are backed by data and were supported by the Progressive Revenue Task Force. And finally, interventions aimed at advancing public health by addressing conditions experienced by those living homeless. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So I'll say a few words. And then Councilor Swann want, you know, I know how to vote, Councilor. I know you're on the other side of this. I think you want to say a few words probably after me. So. So it seems to me that what this debate is about is the anger or fear of what this city is becoming. On the one hand, people are looking at the affordability of this city and looking at our homelessness and the death on the streets. And one would conclude that's what we're becoming and that's what this fight is all about. And then on the other hand, people are saying, well, now you're trying to drive out businesses and drive out good jobs and making policy or investment decisions that can kill our economy because we are a thriving city. That's what we're becoming. You know, phenomenal thing happen a couple of days, a phenomenal event. And I think some of you might have heard about it. That event was at Franklin High School. These women won a national debate, a mock trial, and they beat some of the best schools in the country. They beat a school, Exeter, out of New Hampshire, which is a private boarding school. They rose to that level of competition. These young women did. And it was unprecedented what they accomplished. And I tell you that story at Franklin High School, not just because of Sandy, too, but because I'm concerned about what jobs they will have to use these oratorical skills where our economy is heading into. When I look at this new investment stream, this new revenue tax stream, I think we have to convince the public that we're using it wisely and strategically. And I think we've failed in that regard as a city. And when I look at this, whether the number was 75 or as I proposed to 75 or even 500 or $1,000 for that matter, I think what's most important is the public has an assurance that we are investing wisely in the future and our present investment strategy, and I don't think we've accomplished that. We'll have some more comments on the spending plan. But I think, again, this proposal that we brought forward balances that balance, that balance between investing now for emergency services, but looking at our future. So for me, that's what this debate is about. I want to thank all of the advocates on both sides of this. I think for without it, we wouldn't have arrived at some kind of package that eight council members have sponsors. So thank you for that work. And having said that and having said that, I'll turn it over to council members. One, I ask you, I want to thank for with the exception of that outburst, actually, how severe this crowd has been. Thank you for that. Councilmember.
Speaker 6: Want to thank you, President Howell. I just wanted to clarify to everyone the process. This is this boat that is being taken now. And my comments are for replacing the existing legislation that got voted out of committee on Friday, which was the 75 million no sunset clause, the base legislation that will be if it gets majority order , which is going to be replaced by the $48 million big business tax. So this is not the vote on the final legislation yet. And I just want to clarify that, because as a representative of working people, I want to be able to fight until the last possible minute. Whatever we do win and what we don't win will be based on the strength of our movement. I really appreciate Councilmember Herbold acknowledging the role of the movement, but let's face it, the movement is the single most important factor, without which we would not even be having this discussion. And. And while council members talk about the sleepless nights they've had, I don't think it even begins to compare with the hard work and the dedication and the sleepless nights of so many hundreds of people in this movement. We and it wasn't just these last few weeks, if you remember, one of the more recent starts to this movement was when we occupied City Hall overnight in November. And at that time, the council majority voted against an even smaller tax. So here we are. And the message that we are sending is that working people, not just in Seattle, but in every other city, can have the courage to take on one of the most powerful corporations in the world and the richest man in the world. And you could build a movement that can win. However, let's have some sober thoughts right now. The need for at least 150 million in progressive business taxes was confirmed just last week by the study that many have mentioned, ironically, commissioned by the Chamber of Commerce, in which they determined that King County requires an immediate investment of over 400 million to build million dollars every year, to build 14,000 affordable units. And those for those who are concerned about data that is based on hard data, there is an unbelievable statistical correlation between rising rent and rising homelessness. So building permanently affordable housing is the proven solution to address the scale of the housing crisis. The guitar that I didn't. I suppose that. The old man of the movement, hundred and 50 million was cut in half by the first draft of the ordinance to 75 million that got voted out of committee. This amendment would carve out another third out of that 75 million. And we have to ask why? Whose interests are councilmembers Sally Bagshaw, Debra Juarez, Rob Johnson and Bruce Harrell defending when they fight to reduce the amount big business will be taxed.
Speaker 7: Well, that can be.
Speaker 6: Can they honestly argue that regular working people in Seattle do not desperately need the affordable housing a business tax would fund?
Speaker 0: Say? Mustafa, I'm going to warn you that that's disruptive and that's my warning, so I'm going to have you removed if that happens again. I understand. And from when I hear another one, they're.
Speaker 2: Going to say, you're going to get the.
Speaker 0: Same notice because I have to give you honors. I thank you very much for that one. Notice customers want, please.
Speaker 6: Thank you right now. But I also support anybody's right to speak. It's her right to disagree. I don't agree with that issue.
Speaker 0: Whether you support or not, the issue is we're going to comply with some decorum. Please proceed.
Speaker 6: Could the council members honestly argue that regular working people in Seattle do not desperately need affordable housing a business tax would fund? Or perhaps they would argue that the largest 3% of businesses already paid too much in taxes or that they could not afford it. Let's review the numbers. Last winter, Trump gave a massive tax cut to business, big business, cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. Amazingly, this corporate tax handout was written in a way to allow it to apply retroactively to any taxes companies like Amazon avoided paying in the past. So Amazon, through the Trump Trump corporate tax cut, received a $789 million tax windfall on their all unpaid taxes. Imagine if you failed to pay a parking ticket and after a couple of years the government decided to say, Oh, don't worry about paying that. That never happens for working people. But it does happen for the richest companies in the world. For some reason, council members that claim to oppose Trump's policies of corporate tax cuts are eager to push those same policies. Here in Seattle, the reality is there is no way that this tax will be a burden on big businesses in Seattle. Jeff Bezos has made so much money this year from the ballooning value of his Amazon stock portfolio that on average he has become $275 million richer every day. That means that every day he personally makes enough money to pay for all of Amazon's share of this tax for the next 13 years every day. If this amendment passes, he will he will have made enough money to personally pay Amazon's share of this tax every 58 minutes, 24 hours a day, including when he's sleeping. How can he personally make enough money to pay a year's worth of this tax? In less than an hour of sleep. And yet, elected officials are still worried that he's being taxed too much. Where was the concern for homeowners paying levies, but was a concern for workers paying sales taxes? Regular people are actually struggling to pay taxes. Amazon and other big businesses are not. This backsliding amendment is being put forward not only because council members harrell Suarez back Sean Johnson voted against taxing big business, but also because Mayor Durkan threatened to veto doxing. Amazon which donated $350,000 to our election campaign. Make no mistake, money is power under capitalism. I thank the council members who voted for the $75 million progressive tax in committee, and I urge them to stand strong today against Amazon's extortion and to stand with the housing justice movement, send a bill to the mayor and let her decide whether she will veto funding.
Speaker 7: For the housing.
Speaker 6: Let's let the city see whose side Durkan is on with Dawkins deal with Jeff Bezos. She has made it crystal clear where she stands. Rather than being the mayor of Seattle's working people and struggling small businesses, she has declared herself the mayor of Amazon's billionaires. I'd like to point out one other very, very crucial problem with this backsliding amendment. It places a five year sunset clause on this progressive business tax. In other words, five years from now, it would take a new ordinance to have it continue. That would mean that in five years time, in less than five years time, we would have to build another powerful movement just to win the same thing that we won that we would win today. It would be totally naive of us to think that Amazon and other big businesses will not use a similar brutal and extortionate tactic in four and a half years to attempt to stop attacks, to attempt to stop the attacks from being renewed. If we put a five year sunset in this legislation, I can guarantee that 4.5 years from now, Amazon will threaten to lay people off again, claiming it is because of the attacks again and use that as leverage to attempt to prevent its renewal. Power under capitalism is anything but equal. Amazon has disproportionately more power to avoid taxes than working class homeowners, and they have proved that they are willing to use that power to bully the city and its working people. It is unconscionable to ask the courageous tax Amazon movement to have to wage this political struggle again in five years. Instead, our movement should be free to build a continue to build for rent control or. To unionize new sections of Seattle's workforce, including Amazon's warehouse and tech workers.
Speaker 7: I want to see the.
Speaker 6: Council increasing the tax on business. 250 million. I know that's not going to happen. I think if not that, the council should should at least hold firm on a $75 million progressive business tax when the final legislation comes to a vote. I will be voting yes because that will be our movement's victory, and I will have some remarks then. But at this moment, I will vote against this backsliding amendment.
Speaker 7: Have you seen? We? Thank you.
Speaker 0: So we have we have this we have this backsliding amendment moved in second it. So any further comments from any councilman or worse. You yet the floor.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Hold on now. My name is Deborah Suarez. And I'm an a member of the Blackfeet Nation. I'm also a Latina. I was born and raised in this country because it's my country. I will not impugn the integrity or the motives of any of my colleagues. Because you are my colleagues. You are not my rival. You're not my competitor. You're my colleague. And I represent all of the residents and the people of the city of Seattle. Eight councilmembers worked hard to get to. Yes. Sometimes you have to lead. Sometimes you have to compromise and not bully. Sometimes you have to look beyond your own echo chamber in your own movement. Sometimes you have to look beyond your own personal world view. Political lines and slogan mill. Sometimes you have to do that as a woman of color. I did not get here by being part in the pocket of corporations, big business slumlords, the corporate Democrat or the prison industrial complex. All things that I've been accused of because God forbid I use my mind, my education and my upbringing, my wisdom to bring what I believe, what I believe is leadership. Here as an indigenous woman, as a Latina. Because I, like many of my sisters up here, worked hard. And I know you don't just get what you want because you want it. Sometimes you get what you want because you work hard for it. And it comes in increments. My people did not get the right to vote till 1924. I know what it is like to fight hard and to be an activist in it, advocate it, to move the ball forward. And that's how you get there. That's called leadership. I understand discrimination, racism, disenfranchisement. I know what it's like to be homeless, to live in a HUD home, to have food stamps, to be poor. I get all that. I been there. So I will not sit here and have somebody impugn who I am and how I got here that I don't care about people who are unsheltered. I am proud that I worked with my colleagues this weekend. I am proud that I sat down with Labor. I sat down with social services. I talked to business. I talked to everyone across the spectrum. And I want to particularly thank Councilman Mascara. Councilmember Herald. I'm Councilmember Herbert Councilmember Gonzalez. Because we worked hard. If you can't see that, then I'm sorry, but I'm going to vote yes today because I plan on being here and I plan on moving this forward. I plan on sheltering the unsheltered. And I don't just give up and I don't need a T-shirt to feel that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Okay, so we are going to vote.
Speaker 0: Amendment number 24 has been properly moved and seconded. I'm going to ask you to vote and raise your hand. So all those in favor of Amendment 24, please say I and raise your hand I those opposed. Say no one. Raise your hand. No, the ayes have it. 8 to 1. We have another amendment to the ordinance. And I'm going to sort of think out loud here. I don't believe Amendment 22 A is being brought forward, but I think 22 B, which exempts health care providers from 40 is. And Councilmember Bagshaw, I believe you'd like to make that motion and describe it, please.
Speaker 3: So we talked about this last week and we ended up tabling it. The impact on this would be to exempt businesses that are engaged primarily in the provision of comprehensive health care services. In particular, the polyclinic brought this to our attention. Polyclinic offers Medicare discounts, Medicaid discounts and no coverage services to almost 46,000 people a year. And they offer $148 million worth of services to low income and Indigenous. Councilmember Gonzales, you asked specifically for that, that data and also what would the impact be on them if they remained within the structure of this particular legislation? Their revenues would be about 350 to $400000 estimate. And the tax impact they since they will not reduce employee wages or they wouldn't and they couldn't, that would impact the care that they have offered by about $1,000,000. And why should Polyclinic be exempted from the jobs tax is because under the current legislation we have exempted all of Seattle's large health care systems and exempted them because they're nonprofit. And this amendment would ensure that like organizations are treated similarly. And I recommend that we pass this.
Speaker 0: Okay. So you move to amendment number 20 to be as their second. Second. Okay. So we moved in second, so. Okay. Any further comments on amendment number 22 be to the amended legislation?
Speaker 1: I have a quick question.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 1: I missed I missed I missed the part about and maybe I just misheard you, but can you repeat what central staff's evaluation is in terms of the revenue impact as a result of this amendment?
Speaker 3: Council central staff didn't give this to me. Polyclinic did. They said that their tax on them for their DHT revenues would be between 350,000, 400,000 that they would pay. And that would in order to cover that, because they wouldn't reduce wages. Couldn't reduce wages, it would reduce they would reduce the care that would be offered by about $1,000,000, $1,000,000 worth of care.
Speaker 0: Okay. Any more discussion on amendment number 20 to be?
Speaker 1: I just need to do the math really quickly.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: But go ahead.
Speaker 0: Okay. I'm going to call for a vote if everyone is ready. Councilmember What?
Speaker 6: This was.
Speaker 3: One.
Speaker 6: Of those issues that was not really clear. Just to clarify that nonprofit hospitals are already exempt based on their nonprofit status. So this amendment would only help hospitals that prioritize profits for their shareholders. And just like other for profit businesses, the intention of this tax is for it to come out of the business's profits. And we should be clear, in the absence of single payer universal health care in this country. There are people and corporations that profiteer off our deeply exploitative pay or die health care system. Let's not forget how Martin Shkreli brought the board the pardon to EpiPens and then drastically increase the price. Obviously, most of our profit hospitals are not anything egregious like that, but they are. But if they are for profit, then they don't need a loophole built in for them. So I will be voting no on this amendment.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Swan, Councilmember, your response?
Speaker 3: I just. What? I'm just responding to the question about shareholders. My understanding about the polyclinic is that the physicians at the Polyclinic own the polyclinic, and for that reason they're classified as a profit entity and they do pay federal income tax on the profits. And I'm not trying to conflate one with the other. I'm trying to preserve the kind of health care services that are available. And this entity provides 25% of their of care to those as part of a charity care hospital requirement. I just want to make sure they continue to do it.
Speaker 0: That's the Medicare and Medicaid numbers of patients that they receive, I believe. Okay. Okay. Caspar Herbold, thank you.
Speaker 1: I just want to, for the record, address a question that I had last Friday. I had asked how the 25% Medicare Medicaid standard compared to the Washington State Hospital charity care requirement. And I learned that there is no minimum amount of charity care required by hospitals by state law, although hospitals are required to prepare a charity care plan. And I also learned that under that charity care plan, sort of the mean contribution, because all hospitals are required to report on their charity care, the mean charity care is about 1%, but that Medicaid and Medicare are not included.
Speaker 3: As part of.
Speaker 1: That charity care planning that they have to do. And so these costs associated with Medicare and Medicaid have a much larger negative impact on finances than charity care themselves. So meaning the standards that folks have to fulfill in their charity care plans are less rigorous than the standards that we are setting out in this charity care requirement of of 25%, specifically for Medicaid and Medicare. That would have that's a more rigorous requirement and has a greater impact on on on these for profit medical institutions. And for that reason, I'll be supporting them in.
Speaker 0: Thank you Casserole for that additional research. I appreciate that. Okay, let's vote all those in favor of Amendment 20 to be which will exempt some health care providers from the please vote I in raise your hand i.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: If you oppose it, please say no one. Raise your hand. No. Okay. So that amendment passes as well. So so now work with me on this clerk. I believe those are the only amendments on the ordinance. And if we could vote on the full package now, then we'll move to the resolution. Is that correct? Okay. So we are going to vote on the amended legislation and now would be the time for you to say any closing remarks on the ordinance, not the spending plan. We don't want hear about the spending plan right now. We just talking about the ordinance. So does anyone want to have any closing remarks otherwise? I think we're ready to vote. Wait. Make sure. Councilmember Herbal, Eurasian Union. Okay, you got it.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I'm going to restrain my closing remarks for the typical thanks that we like to give our colleagues and the public and staff who have been working on issues of great import like this and really doing more than is fair to expect of of our staff and of our community partners in particular. I want to thank Councilmember Gonzales. It's been a real pleasure to have worked with you for the last six months on this issue, first as co-chairs on the Progressive Revenue Task Force, and then every step of the way as we've crafted the legislation. And I also thank, Councilman Mosqueda for your deep commitment to affordable housing and workforce stability and your ongoing support and collaboration throughout the process. I'd like to thank Councilmember O'Brien for your long term commitment to developing more progressive revenue and to ensuring that our region's most vulnerable people have access to the same opportunities as everyone else. And then finally, I want to give a shout out to my staff, particularly Sharon Perez Darby, who staff this issue for my office, as well as the council central staff who have been working tirelessly on with us, really working to come up with a new version every time that we have a new proposal that we were working to try to take to get some consensus around. So shout out to Danny Otter, Eric Lee and Tracy Radcliffe. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. Council member.
Speaker 1: I was just kind of.
Speaker 0: Going back.
Speaker 2: And forth and.
Speaker 1: I just yeah, you just have to choose between the injuries there, which for.
Speaker 0: The hands go up. Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 1: I wanted to just echo those those thanks as well. You know, over the weekend, a lot of our staff canceled or reprioritized a lot of their Mother's Day weekend plans. So I want to thank them for for all of the hard work and effort that they contributed to getting us to this point. So huge thanks to Tracy and Alan and Dan Cody, writer from my office, who has been dogged in his staffing on this issue. And I really appreciate it. I know it's been a lot of countless hours, so thank you, Cody, for all of the time and effort that you have spent on making sure that I get my math right and I'm sorry when I don't get it right. But I but I am really grateful for all of our all of our combined staff, including the staff from Councilmember O'Brien's office and from Councilman Mosquito's office, who have really contributed a lot of time to to to working late into the evenings to get us to where we're at and to make sure that we're prepared. And I would be remiss if I didn't think a lot of the advocates who have been really getting me up to speed over the last six months on these issues. So Alison Eisinger, Lisa Dugard, Lindsay grad from SEIU, 1199 Northwest, and many others who have really given me a tutorial in this space in terms of what it's really going to take to see transformational change. And so I just want to thank you all for your ongoing dedication and fervor and commitment to making sure that we move the needle here. And I look forward to working with all of you as we move forward to make sure that that our priorities continue to be transformational.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Gonzalez.
Speaker 3: Mr. Chair.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Mosquito.
Speaker 5: Thank you. You know, I think that we've all made some tremendous strides today. And I want to reiterate, we're going to need everybody to continue the work so that we can continue to get progressive revenue in the door. We're making a significant down payment today, but we want to make sure that folks are not only offered a place to stay so that they have a warm bed, but they actually get a home. Because as we create housing and health services, we know folks are going to continue to come here. They're going to come here for a good living wage job. They're going to come here to start their own business. They're going to come here as economic refugees and as climate refugees and as immigrants and refugees. And to be a welcoming city, we must build the housing. In order to do that, we couldn't do without your support. I just want to thank some of the folks who've been part of the task force and the efforts to push this forward. UFC W Local 21 and 1199. Thank you for participating in the task force to SEIU 775 9 to 5 Unite here locally and working Washington along with the Seattle King County Coalition on Homelessness. Thank you for sending the statement that I read today about your support for this effort and the spending plan that will be in front of us. Thank you to the public defenders of the building construction trades, the Martin Luther King County Labor Council. For all of your ongoing work and negotiation to make sure that we could find a path forward. I so appreciate it. And I'm happy to see that our workforce standards pieces are reflected in their thank you for all that work. I want to also thank our incredible central staff. Thank you so much to Dan Edgar, Allan Lee, Tracy Ratcliff, Eric Sons, Communications Team, Joseph People, Dana Robinson, still Stephanie Guzman. Also to all the allies that have already been mentioned, folks were working the entire weekend up until midnight last night. And to my staff especially, thank you to Seattle and Michael for your incredible work. I want to reiterate what Councilmember Suarez said. We got here because we put pen to paper. We got here because we took bold policy ideas and we put them into action. We got here because we listened to each other and we didn't accept. No, we kept pushing the ball forward. And even after today, we will continue to push for more progressive revenue. Thank you for all your work.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Skeeter. Well, can we get a little tell us a step closer to voting? I want to actually put it in play. I will move to pass counts bill 119250 as amended. Is there a second? Okay. Any more closing remarks? Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I want to also thank everyone who's been working on this, but specifically highlight the folks that came out last fall during the budget session and really did some work to get us almost across the finish line during budget. There are two things that I see at the high level that this piece of legislation does. The first is it creates significant investments to address the housing and homelessness crisis, who are facing and the community that came together last fall and has done all the work. From then until now has done an amazing job at creating broad awareness in our community of how great the need is and what are the types of investments we need to do. And I'm really grateful for that work. The second thing that I believe this legislation does is it starts to address the regressive of our tax system. You've heard numerous folks up here say that Washington state is the most regressive tax system in Seattle. Within Washington state has the most regressive tax system in the state. One of the things that I've seen in this process is that, well, I think most of us view the regressive tax system as a flaw of our system. It clearly benefits some. And when we start talking about changing that system, that benefits some. To make it more fair, there's a lot of resistance, and so we have a lot of work to do if we want to reverse that.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Katherine O'Brien. Elsewhere. Mosquito bite at that.
Speaker 5: You know, I just wanna say thank you, Katie Wilson. Thank you for helping to lead the coalition. Really appreciate.
Speaker 7: It. Thank you.
Speaker 1: I was also realizing I forgot to give a shout out to Katie Wilson. So we're like a hive mind. But Katie, thank you so much for all the work you've been doing on this issue and for being available to all of us to talk to us through these really important issues. So thank you, Katie. Raise your hand. I want everybody to know who you are.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Okay. Are we ready to vote? Council members who want. But to put the clock on.
Speaker 2: I'm just kidding. Secretary Clark.
Speaker 6: I would like to address my closing comments on this ordinance vote. To those of us in the movement who have volunteered thousands of hours of our time, donated our own funds, and put ourselves on the line for months and in some of our cases years to build a movement, to tax big business and build affordable housing. I'm sure I'm going to leave a lot of names out, but to name some who are on the front lines the Transit Riders Union, Housing for All Coalition, the Affordable Housing Alliance, the Labor Movement. We All Share Women in Black Nichols Ville, Socialist Alternative and the Democratic Socialists of America. I also want to dedicate my remarks to those of you who weren't part of the movement actively, but agree with us and are struggling yourselves to maintain a foothold in this city that is very quickly becoming a playground for the wealthy. What we win today for affordable housing would not have seen the light of day without the movement we have built. Big businesses like Amazon have many tactics to avoid paying their fair share of taxes, and it has required true dedication and sacrifice from hundreds of us to bring us to this point. And I cannot possibly overstate the respect and gratitude that I have for everyone in this movement. If we had had a stronger movement, that could have changed the balance of power between us and the Goliath even more. We could have won more. And if we had had a weaker movement than we had today, then we would have won less or possibly nothing. We all know that. What we win today. We'll make affordable housing available for hundreds of people and families who would otherwise have none or be forced out of the city. And we should not understand that incredible victory that we can win today. However, we are also very conscious of the total inadequacy of the current legislation to match the scale of the crisis. Compare the $410 million that is needed in the Seattle region to what is being passed today to deal with the affordable housing crisis. And I think we have to keep in mind that this is not a question of whether or not there is wealth in our city to fund a much bigger tax. It's a question of the priorities of the political establishment. The city has just decided, the city council has just decided to invest $1.7 billion in a fancy convention center expansion. This is a vanity project for the hotel industry. Yes, it will create construction jobs. And as a rank and file member of the labor movement myself, I fight hard for every possible union job that we can get . But think about it. If those $1.7 billion had all been poured into affordable housing, that would also have created construction jobs.
Speaker 7: And would have almost eliminated the crisis.
Speaker 6: The city's establishment has also spent $4 billion on an Alaskan Way Viaduct tunnel for the views and property values of downtown investors and poured half a billion dollars into street improvement in Salt Lake Union to accommodate Amazon's expansion, but cannot seem to find enough funds to solve this crisis. For the activists fighting to tax Amazon to build affordable housing in Seattle. We had important lessons through this movement. Number one, our movement should not negotiate against ourselves. Our original demand was 150 million, but many reduce that demand to 75 to compromise with what councilmembers were comfortable with. Of course, the minute some in the movement made that compromise, big, big business demanded more compromise. Today, we have seen that what we can win is entirely based on a defiance and a relative strength of our movement. Lesson number two The movement needs its own representatives rooted in the strength of the movement and in the struggle of working class people, rather than what is possible to achieve in negotiations with the political establishment and big business. Imagine if the four co-sponsors of Friday's legislation, rather than spending their weekend trying to come up with a watered down deal that is acceptable to other politicians. Had been out there with us on Saturday and all these weeks and months building the power of ordinary people, renters, homeless people. We need to go beyond good intentions. Lesson number three The power of the working class is in our unity. When there are divisions in the workers movement in general, all the labor movement in particular, it weakens the political power of workers everywhere and only bosses gain from that. When Amazon threatened our construction sisters and brothers jobs. Some in the labor movement were correctly very concerned. We were concerned. We take Amazon's threats seriously because we know that they have the incomprehensible power and wealth to follow through on their threat if they so choose to. Ideally, in the future, we can build unity in the labor movement to fight against the bosses. Threats together to defend all jobs in the in history. In history, there are countless examples of corporations threatening to or actually attacking jobs to try and undercut the workers movement. When the labor movement has been strongest is when it's been united and those threats have been defeated with mass demonstrations, occupations, strike actions, and sometimes even taking the businesses under Democratic public ownership. I. I recommend that our activists watch the documentaries, the Take and the Battle of Chile for examples of workers resisting these threats from big business throughout history, because these threats are nothing new. Remember in 2013, when Boeing tried to move jobs out of Washington state and extorted a giant tax break from Olympia ? The state legislature took only three days to give Boeing $8.7 billion, and Boeing moved their jobs anyway. I want to say clearly to the rank and file sisters and brothers in the building trades who are genuinely worried about defending well-paid union jobs. If your boss tries to lay you off, we in the housing justice movement will have your back. And.
Speaker 7: And if you.
Speaker 6: And we urge you to fight with us to make the Office of Housing Use Project Labor Agreements with priority hire and union labor in apprenticeship programs to build affordable housing in Seattle. And we are supporting you on all of that because it is totally contradictory to build affordable housing and then use labor that is not paid enough to live in Seattle. Finally. Finally. We have to ask today, one, to claim the victory for our movement and to remember that our struggle is not over. As long as big business controls the wealth in society and without controls what is built and where, they will continue to use that money and power to drive down wages in every city, in country after country, dry up, drive up the cost of housing, gender, and generally create a race to the bottom all around the world. The only response to that is to build a movement everywhere. That will threaten that when when big business threatens to move out, we will say, well, why do you move to every city is fighting for better standards of living for workers. But ultimately, we also have to remember that capitalism inherently puts a sunset clause on any reform that we succeed in winning. That is why we have to fight for a socialist world where workers have a democratic say in where the vast resources of big business are invested. I will vote yes on this legislation to raise close to $50 million per year from progressive business taxes. And I vote yes to funding affordable housing. And as long as you all continue the struggle to end the housing crisis, I will be here with you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Please call the role on the passage of the amended Bill O'Brien by.
Speaker 3: So aren't I. Begala Gonzalez.
Speaker 1: I. Herbold I.
Speaker 3: Johnson Suarez I.
Speaker 5: Macheda i.
Speaker 0: President Harrell, i.
Speaker 3: Nine in favor an unopposed.
Speaker 0: Percent sure was signage. Now we have a resolution was basically embodies a spending plan just one moment here and so. Please read that into the record.
Speaker 7: We about how I. Back. What are.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So. Thank you for ending the chat so we could continue with our spending plan. Please read it into the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to taxation; adding a new Chapter 5.37 and a new Chapter 5.38 to Title 5 of 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_05072018_CB 119240
|
Speaker 4: Report of the full council agenda item one Council Bill 119240. An ordinance relating to the Human Rights Code extending the amount of time available to a person to file a charge with the Office for Civil Rights regarding unfair employment, public accommodations and contracting processes. Special assignment specifying that discrimination includes harassment and amending sections 14.0 4.030. And others of the Seattle Mass will code introduced April 16th, 2018. Councilmember Herbold, thank you so much. This bill extends the statute of limitations on sexual harassment claims governed under Chapter 14 of the Seattle Code. This is the chapter related to human rights, as discussed in council briefings this morning. The content of this bill was discussed in my committee both on February 27th and March 27th, and the reintroduced bill before us today includes a title change based on that committee work. The question of Sexual Harassment Statutes of Limitation for the Office of Civil Rights claims brought before the up to the Office of Civil Rights was first brought to my attention by a constituent who reached out because she was experiencing sexual harassment on her campus. She had been bounced around from place to place. And when she was finally referred to the Office of Civil Rights, the current 180 day statute of limitations had already expired. She reached out to my office not to ask for help for herself, but to ask for help in changing the conditions that would make it harder for other people in her situation in the future. The bill itself includes three changes to the Seattle Municipal Code. It extends or maintains in some instances, the statute of limitation for administrative charges enforced by the Office of Civil Rights in the areas of employment contracting, public accommodation and housing discrimination. The extension is to ensure that people can have have the time to file a claim. That is half the time that one also has the right to file a private right of action. So specifically, this legislation extends the statute of limitation from the existing 180 days to a year and a half for areas of employment and contracting . It extends the statute of limitations for 180 days to one year. In the area of public accommodation and it maintains the current one year statute of limitations in the area of housing discrimination. Again, in each instance, the period that is the statute of limitations is one half the time that an individual has has a right to file a private right of action. The bill itself includes the term sexual harassment as a named form of discrimination that has OCR investigates. And I think this is really important because though sexual harassment is a form of discrimination, many people without the word sexual harassment being included in the code are unaware of that. The initial bill discussed at our February 27th briefing also included a definition of sexual harassment because of concerns about potential on an unintended consequences by actually adding a definition of sexual harassment into the law. I offered an amendment to the bill that removes that definition, and the reason being that often definitions change from time to time. And we don't want to be in a situation where we're unnecessarily limiting by our by our definitions in the civil code. Ultimately, my hope is that this bill will help provide an additional tool to people in our city who are experiencing all forms of harassment and sexual harassment in particular. We know that one of the reasons people don't come forward is they may not know that the experiences they're having are sexual harassment. And when even when people are aware that they're experiencing sexual harassment, they often don't know what avenues of recourse are available to them. And there are lots of good reasons why people don't come forward right away by clarifying that sexual harassment is a form of discrimination, that the Office of Civil Rights is authorized to investigate and providing a clear definition for discrimination. I hope that we can provide further clarity to people who are experiencing harassment and discrimination.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Any further comments? Okay. So I will move to pass counts bill 119240. Is there a second? Second. Okay, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 4: Rosetta I.
Speaker 3: O'Brien.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: So want I Bextra Gonzalez.
Speaker 4: I Herbold I Johnson.
Speaker 3: Whereas I President Harrell all right. I'm in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: Bill passed chair assignment.
Speaker 4: Chair.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry. Council President I just wanted to also before we moved on move on. Thank each the members of the Seattle Women's Commission, the LGBTQ Commission, the Human Rights Commission and the People with Disabilities Commission, as well as the staff from the Office of Civil Rights. And the folks who are with us today representing the Seattle Science Breakers, that their involvement, engagement was critical in moving this forward.
Speaker 2: Well noted. Well, no. Thank you for presenting that legislation. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 4: The Report of the Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Communities Committee. Agenda Item two Appointment 10053. Appointment of Vernita J. Barton as members Seattle Public Library Board of Trustees for Term two April 1st, 2023. The committee recommends the appointment be confirmed.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Human Rights code; extending the amount of time available to a person to file a charge with the Office for Civil Rights regarding unfair employment, public accommodations, and contracting processes; specifying that discrimination includes harassment; and amending Sections 14.04.030, 14.04.090, 14.06.020, 14.06.050, 14.08.020, 14.10.020, and 14.10.060 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_04302018_Res 31813
|
Speaker 0: Bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read the new agenda item number one, which will be resolution 31813.
Speaker 3: From the amended agenda resolution 318138 Resolution in support of the bid by the City of Seattle to host the National League of Cities 2024 or 2025. Cities Summit.
Speaker 2: Conference.
Speaker 0: Casper and Bexar.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much, Council colleagues. I know that this may have come as a surprise to you today. That's on the agenda. Last week, our office circulated this resolution. And the point is to invite our National League of Cities to come to the city of Seattle 2024 or 2025. As Tom Norwalk said the last time, they were heroes 2013. This is not a money ask. So in case any of you are concerned about having not seen any finances attached to this, there is not a money ask at this point. The request is that we sign a letter that invites the NLC to come to the city of Seattle. I have attended this National League of Cities Conference many times and I can tell you it's extremely valuable. And when people came to our city in 2013 that the economic impact was estimated to be about $8 million, the city at that time put $80,000 of our own resources in terms of time toward supporting and hosting. There is a host committee that will end up raising somewhere close to a half a million dollars, but that is not a request that's coming directly to the city. If we support this and pass this resolution today, the mayor will attach her own letter and that is attached to this resolution that will go to the National League of Cities, the woman who's head of conferences and meetings. And I ask for your support.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Appreciate the public testimony in that regard. Any comments, questions or concerns before we vote? Council member Gonzalez.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to to consider this resolution in front of us today. I don't think it's entirely fair to say that this is not a money ask. I think it will lead to expenditures by the city of Seattle. And I'm a little concerned that I don't have a clear understanding of what that level of commitment will be and so on. So, you know, I am I understand why the resolution is coming to us at this juncture. And I don't want to send Mr. Norwalk a message that I'm not supportive or of being convinced that this is that we've got all of the information we need to be considered here. So I just want to say that I'm going to vote no on this, not because I will not be supportive of the effort down the road, but just because I don't feel like I have all of the full information that I need to be able to get a full, robust understanding of the impacts of this resolution and the city of Seattle submission of this of this letter. So I recognize that this is just an initial exploration of the issue. And so I just want to be able to reserve my right later on to be more critical of the proposal. And so for those reasons, I intend to vote no on this resolution.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Casar, Councilman Beck.
Speaker 4: Sure. Just for those who may be concerned, likewise about what this could lead down the road, again, we're talking about 6 to 7 years down the road. And in 2013, our city staff, the amount of time that was estimated that they put in was $80,000. And the actual budget that I was handed about 5 minutes before this meeting from the 2013 NLC, the conference expenses was a total of $613,000, of which the city participated. But it was in fundraising, not coming out of our general fund. So I think with the what we know about the expected economic impact for our hotels, for people who are coming here, and as our workers are given getting more and more support that they are protected within our hotels, what the number that I was given to anticipate the economic value to our city in 2024 or 2025 is expected to be close to $14 million over 13, around 13 887. I think it's worthy of us looking into this. And as I say today, this is a resolution that will have a letter supported and attached by the mayor that simply says to the National League of Cities, we think this is a good idea. We invite you to come to Seattle, and I think I urge your support on this so that we can move it forward.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Councilmember Swan.
Speaker 6: Thank you, President. I understand that going through her remarks, you're saying that this is this resolution at this moment does not have any fiscal component to it. I do think, though, that the questions it raises are quite important. There is no money asked at this point, but I think it does point towards a direction over the horizon that I do not support. I do not think it is a good use of public funds to support a luxurious conference of the political establishment, to hobnob with the downtown Seattle Association. And the very fact that the downtown Seattle Association representative is here to speak in favor of it should be something of a warning for everybody to who wants to be supporting this. I also call to question the use of public dime and city council time to be doing the bidding of big business. When you say economic value to the city going to measure who is it? I mean, economic. If if the downtown Seattle Association is you're speaking in favor of it, then the economic value is for big business. And I also do not have the full facts at my disposal at this moment. But all indications are that it will be economic value for big business. And so I also intend to would. No.
Speaker 0: Thank you for that. Any further comments? I quite can. I didn't expect such a lively debate on this resolution. I will be supporting it. Again, I just think that it sends a message that we are interested in hosting this event. And I think as we grapple with the issues of the largest city in the state, that we would welcome a good conversation with other leaders, whether they be in business or politics or non-profits or in health organizations. We welcome that discussion, and I think that we can. Consider the fiscal impacts down the road. I'm supporting it just to send this signal that this which should be something we may want to pursue. Okay. Anyone else want to chime in before we vote?
Speaker 2: I just think for the record, it's just we continuously get asked to make sure that we are making fact based, data driven decisions from up here. And and and I and I want to be really clear that that's that is the filter that I am applying in my vote to this resolution. I don't I don't have enough details and information to draw the conclusion based on 2013, information that we will once again, six years from now, spend $80,000. Think the city has changed a lot since 2013. And I think we deserve an opportunity to be able to reserve an opportunity to ask these deeper questions before a majority of this council commits itself to saying yes to the impacts of bringing that and LC to the city of Seattle. And so I just want to lift up that. For me, it's really important to have that that level of intellectual integrity in terms of making sure that I'm looking at this resolution and what we're being asked to vote on with a lens of making sure that we know fully what those impacts are going to be. And I feel like we just don't know what that is. And I have the same concerns when we voted.
Speaker 1: For.
Speaker 2: The FIFA application things for World Cup, and those same concerns exists for me in the context of this resolution.
Speaker 0: Understood. Any further comments? I'll see. Councilmember skater grabbing the mic. Cosmos Getty on the floor.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate Councilmember Gonzalez's concerns. Initially raising questions about this ordinance. And the way that I looked at this as well was to put into context what the city would be responsible for. I will I will be supporting this resolution today. But I want to underscore that, similar to the amendments that I sponsored for the World Cup invitation that we I would like to very much be looking forward to incorporating labor standards, protections, environmental protections and being good stewards of the public dollar and looking at our fiduciary responsibilities should this be successful. But I will be voting yes on this. And I want to underscore my my concerns are similar. And we'll be looking forward to future legislation, should we be successful to make sure that we lift up environmental, labor and our fiduciary responsibilities.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Skinner. Okay. I think we're ready to vote. I know was three two thus far. So we'll see the way this one. Okay. Those in favor of adopting the resolution. Please hold I and raise your hand, I. Those oppose. Vote no and raise your hand, please. The motion carried, the motion carries and the resolution is dropped and Cher will sign it. Thank you for that lively debate. Okay, please read the next agenda item into the record, please.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION in support of the bid by The City of Seattle to host the National League of Cities 2024 or 2025 City Summit conference.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_04302018_CB 119238
|
Speaker 3: The Report of the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee. Agenda Item 12 Council Vote 119 238 Relating to the City Life Department amending subsection 21.40 9.1 30 point be set. I misspoke her to extend the department's authority to execute, implement and administer contracts for periods for up to six months for wholesale marketing activity. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Mosquito.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. As you heard, Council Bill 119238 is the third in a recent series that we put forward from our committee around energy efficiency and renewable energy measures that we are trying to implement at Seattle City Life here we're granting the authority for Seattle City Light to bid on and take bids for energy contracts in the wholesale market for up to five years, which I think will actually have a beneficial impact for our region. As we think about ways to reduce usage and to sell excess energy, this is potentially going to be helpful not only for our energy efficiency efforts, but also for the region and the nation. I want to note that this came out of committee unanimously and encourage vote.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Skinner. Any further comments? If not, please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Whereas I mosquera gather I o'brien i somewhat I beg Char.
Speaker 2: Gonzalez.
Speaker 1: Johnson, President Harrell.
Speaker 2: Eight and favorite on oppose.
Speaker 0: The bill passenger will sign.
Speaker 3: It. Mr. Chair, may I take a small moment for personal privilege? Issue me. Thank you, Mr. President. The point of personal privilege that I wanted to make is related to Wayne Shorter, who was the individual at Seattle City Lake, who worked there for a number of years as the power management director. He retired on Friday. He was there for his second to last day in our committee to see this bill move out of committee because he's worked on this for a very long time. He's earned the gratitude of this council for his commitment to Seattle City life and having the foresight to identify opportunities to leverage city lights, carbon free hydropower, efforts to help other communities reduce their climate impact while also generating more revenue for Seattle City Light. Because I didn't get a chance to say thank you to him and to his colleagues. Last Thursday, we wanted to make sure to extend a huge amount of appreciation for all of his work. We understand he's already begun his retirement. We hope this message receives him. Thank you for being a leader on this issue, for leading the development of this ordinance. We are grateful for your service and happy retirement.
Speaker 0: Thank you from Mexico for recognizing the work and their congratulations on their retirement. Is there any further business coming for the council?
Speaker 4: We had another meeting right after this.
Speaker 0: We do have a meeting. We will move into the Finance Committee for a revenue update and we will start that. It will tell me like 4:00 or.
Speaker 4: No, I think we should take a five minute break, 36 minute break, three, 5:00.
Speaker 0: Five.
Speaker 4: At the meeting.
Speaker 0: 350. And with that, we stand adjourned and.
Speaker 4: Could.
Speaker 0: Add whenever.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; amending Subsection 21.49.130.B of the Seattle Municipal Code to extend the Department’s authority to execute, implement, and administer contracts for periods of up to 60 months for wholesale marketing activity.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_04232018_CF 314327
|
Speaker 0: Bill passed and show Senate. Please read agendas items one into the report.
Speaker 3: The full council agenda item one Clerk 5314 327 four Unit lot subdivision application of you District Investments LLC to subdivide one parcel until 53 Unit lots at 70/515 Avenue Northwest Item to cancel 119 239. Appropriate approving and confirming the plot of a solar 15th in portions of the southwest quarter of the Northwest Quarter, section one township 25th , North Range three east W.M. in King County, Washington.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 2: Thank you. This is one of those land use issues that occasionally comes straight to full council. Our land use code requires that the council grant grants the plat approval of subdivisions within 30 days of the filing by the plant's owner. The action that we would take today would subdivide six individual parcels just between 15th and Mary Avenue Northwest off of 75th Avenue to 21 parcels, and further subdivide one of those additional parcels to 33 unit parts. As DCI Chester and central staff will confirm that the PLAT would meet all the required conditions and would request a do pass vote on the council bill and a place on file vote on the court filing.
Speaker 0: Very good. Are there any further comments or questions? Just Councilman Bagshaw?
Speaker 5: Councilmember Johnson, if somebody was living or walking in this area, can they walk through this? It appeared to me that there might be a way that an individual can do that just because there's public space. So it's not just a wall along 15th, but somebody can walk through it around these buildings. Is that open to individuals or is it limited just to the people who are owning the townhomes?
Speaker 2: The I am not familiar enough with the project to give you a straight answer, Councilman Maxwell. But Eric McConaghy of our Council central staff is the person who's been tracking this project and certainly could give you the rundown on of projects status and whether or not it's gone through the design review boards to an extent that would be satisfactory to you.
Speaker 5: Okay, very good. Thank you. I'll check in with Eric.
Speaker 0: Okay. So comfortable moving forward, everyone. I hope so. Okay, here we go. So we'll take the file first. Those in favor of filing the clerk file. Please vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries and the file is filed. I will move to pass counts bill 119239. Any further comments tonight? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Johnson. Suarez. Mosquera O'Brien. Hi, Sergeant Bakeshop. Gonzalez Herbold. Hi. President Harrell. Hi. Nine in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read the report of the Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Communities Committee.
|
Clerk File (CF)
|
Full Unit Lot Subdivision application of U District Investments LLC to subdivide one parcel into 53 unit lots at 7500 15th Ave NW (Project No. 3020759; Type III).
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_04232018_CB 119223
|
Speaker 3: Agenda item for accountable 119223. Relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to execute for and on behalf of the city. A Concession Agreement with Grantee Murray Seattle LLC. The Right to Exclusion to exclusive use and occupancy of the Golden Gardens Bathhouse Concession Premises for the purpose of providing food concessions for park patrons at Golden Gardens Park. The committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 0: Cast Member Worse.
Speaker 3: Thank you. This bill would approve the execution of a concession agreement between Mary Seattle LLC, the Department of Parks and Rec at the Golden Gardens. Beth House, Mary's Seattle LLC was selected to be the concessionaire through a highly competitive RFP RFP process in 2016, Mary's was rated highest among nine proposals. Mary is a woman owned small business that has been present at the farmers markets in Seattle. Mary's would pay the city annually $7,500 or 12.6 in sales, whichever is greater. Mary's has committed to sourcing sourcing products, produce, I'm sorry, from local farmers markets, supporting the annual beach clean up days and making 23,000 in facility improvements to the bath house. She has also been approved for a $50,000 loan from the nonprofit Ventures. This is one of the largest investments they've ever made to support a small business like Mary's. The committee recommends passage of the bill.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any further comments? If not, please call the role on the pastor of the Bill Johnson.
Speaker 1: I was. I was scared. I O'Brien. I think if she votes. Yes. Sergeant Bagshaw.
Speaker 5: That was in. I sorry.
Speaker 1: Okay. Gonzales, I herbal. Hi. President Harrell high aide in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and Cheryl Senate please read agenda item number five.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation; authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to execute for and on behalf of the City a Concession Agreement granting Miri’s Seattle LLC the right to exclusive use and occupancy of the Golden Gardens Bathhouse Concession Premises for the purpose of providing food and concessions for park patrons at Golden Gardens Park.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_04232018_Res 31806
|
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any further comments? Those in favor of confirming these appointments please vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries and appointments are confirmed. Please read the part of the Governance, Equity and Technology Committee.
Speaker 3: To be part of the Governance, Equity and Technology Committee. Agenda Item nine Resolution 31806 Adopting General Rules and Procedures of the Seattle City Council superseding resolutions 316 39 and 316 59. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended.
Speaker 0: Very good. So this resolution adopts basically attachment one to the resolution, which are general rules and procedures for our council as a governing body. And this document is a as it is a guide, if you will, to govern our internal management and procedures in conformance with both our city charter and customary practices of legislative bodies throughout the country. Guides and facilitates our duties and our meeting deliberations and our processes as well as the public, and gives us an understanding of council functions. As far as the process we used and you may recall that we tried to do this, look at it at least once a year in May, perhaps more thoroughly every two years, the fourth quarter of last year, a working group consisting of our city clerk and the deputy city clerks, central staff director and assistant city attorneys prepared and recommended amendments, both based on what we saw during the last year or two and what the public has commented on. And we received that review and feedback materials. And then in December, January, it all went out to you as a members of the dais in the City Council in March 30th. We email to all of our colleagues recommended final version. And again on April 2nd we had our first. It was uninjured action for our calendar and on April 2nd to April 16th, we took public comment comment. And then Tuesday, April 3rd was the first briefing at our committee. And on April 17th, the final briefing and the vote. I would like to thank some individuals that worked on this even before we do consider two amendments because they work so tirelessly on that, and I was very proud to work with them. The city clerk, Monica martinez Simmons, the deputy clerks, and Mayor Sanchez and Jodi Schwinn, central staff director Kirsten Armistead, and assistant city attorneys Jeff Slate and Gary Smith and legislation editor Brandon Esler. So thanks for all that great work. And again, I, I'm aware of two amendments and so I will turn the floor overdrive, please. Councilmember Mesquita for an amendment.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know that we have a joint amendment with Councilmember Gonzalez, myself, and Councilmember Johnson. Councilmember Gonzalez, do you want to speak first and then I will follow?
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I just got a little out of order. That's okay.
Speaker 6: So this is Amendment One to Resolution 31806. So I'm going to move the amendment first and then I'll speak to it second.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 6: So Amendment one two Resolution 31806 would insert on as Section D with regard to attendance, attendance requirements and excuses. A Section four, which would read, a council member shall be granted a leave of absence by submitting written notice to the President as soon as practicable of a personal situation that would entitle a city employee to family and medical leave or paid parental leave under Seattle Municipal Code Sections 4.26.010 or 4.27.02. Well, then the notice shall give a reasonable estimate of dates to which the leave of absence shall apply. So in effect, this additional language would allow a council member to take advantage of this the same provisions that are applicable and available to our city employees. So while council members aren't subject to the same limitations on leave as other city employees, it still feels important for us to acknowledge and provide a path for council members to be able to care for their families and have reasonable accommodations to do so. This leave is not designed to usurp or replace the current options for excused absences that are laid out in the council rules. And this option can only be taken advantage of under the same conditions and parameters of paid family and medical leave. The amendment provides a less cumbersome approach to individual votes of the full Council to permit electronic participation in the event that a Council member does exercise the choice to trigger this particular rule, as I just read from the language, notice must be provided to the Council President and the Clerk's Office for purposes of measuring quorum. And the amendment does not and will not mandate that council members participate electronically while on leave. It just simply allows for electronic participation if the Council member desires to do so while on leave. And this amendment only applies to meetings of the full council and not to committee, work or public hearings, should a council member not be able to participate electronically during the period of leave, they shall notify the Council President and the clerk as soon as as soon as practicable, practicable, again, for purposes of measuring quorum. And I'd like to just think council members Macheda and Johnson for their support, collaboration and joint effort on recognizing this within our council rules.
Speaker 0: Very good, councilmember skater.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm really proud to be a co-sponsor on this amendment with Councilmember Johnson and Councilmember Gonzalez. I think that this amendment, as we've talked about, really does provide balance. It provides choice, privacy and equity by allowing council members to take leave and participate with their families and also participate meaningfully with full council as well . This amendment also comes on the heels of groundbreaking policy to ensure working parents and electeds may be able to balance the needs of family and work. And I'm proud that Seattle is once again leading on this effort. You may remember some recent examples that speak to the need for this type of flexibility for working people, including those who are electeds. Gubernatorial ads for Maryland and Wisconsin show women running for office breastfeeding despite voter doubts that mother's ability that doubt mother's ability to juggle politics and family. I think this is a critical time in our nation's history. We saw record numbers of women and people of color and younger folks who are having younger families stand up to run for office. These types of accommodations are critical, and it's also critical, as we know, for those who need to take care of loved ones, their parents, our elders and our family members to make sure that we can be there with them. I also want to acknowledge that this is about creating a balance not just for genders, but across race and income. And I'm proud that Seattle has done this in a number of ways in the past for other workers, including including paid parental leave, paid family leave, paid sick days, paid sick days and other equity standards. So I think this is a true extension of our committee, of our council's commitment to making sure that all families can participate meaningfully in work. I just want to thank again Councilmember Johnson and Councilmember Gonzales for their work, their staff, my staff especially. I know my chief of staff, Central Creek, has spent a lot of time doing some research on this. And thanks a lot. Apartment Brandon, Gary and Jeff for their work in drafting this along with Amelia. Again, thank you so much for your work on this thanks to the Council president for your willingness and flexibility to include. This as well. I think we all want to be active and efficient partners with you on full council as much as we want to also make sure that we're there for our families when I need.
Speaker 0: Excellent. Katherine Johnson, just.
Speaker 2: Briefly, the thing that I like about this is it recognizes the council members are people, too. And I say that intending to get a laugh. But also, you know, in real life, there are circumstances that do pull us away from this wonderful job that we have. And this recognizes that though those life circumstances may be few and far between, we should recognize those moments, take them to be with family, but still not keep us away from the day to day responsibilities of being here on Mondays at 2:00. So I'm grateful to my colleagues for letting me join on on this endeavor and encourage your yes vote on this amendment.
Speaker 0: Okay. Any further comments? We'll call this amendment one. So has been moved and Second Amendment one has been moved and seconded. All those in favor of that amendment. Please vote I. I oppose the ayes have it. And Council member Herbal. I believe you have an amendment as well.
Speaker 6: I do. Thank you. I move to amend resolution 31806 Attachment one, Article 11, Section D one, and as presented on Amendment 2/2. Thank you. So I've tried to be a little bit more clear than I was this morning in my description. This amendment adds language to clarify the intent of the resolution in the section specifically regarding disruptions. It specifies.
Speaker 4: That failure to follow.
Speaker 6: The direction of a presiding officer or security official applies to the section on disruptions and specifically the provisions a through A included a through H included in that section. The way the language was written previously, there was some concern from the ACLU that without referring specifically to provisions A through H, it allowed failure to follow the direction of a presiding officer to be too broad. That was not never the intent in the first place. And all this language does is clarify what the original intent of of the the language in the resolution in this section.
Speaker 1: Specifies.
Speaker 6: There. So you contact my office after we shared the the amendment and they wanted me to extend my appreciation for moving the amendment forward and your support. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any further comments on this amendment only? Okay. So we're prepared to vote for this. I'll call it amendment number two. So those in favor of supporting amendment number two, please vote I. I oppose the ayes have it. Okay, so we have an amended piece of legislation and I think we're prepared to vote on that unless your further comments from any of my colleagues. Council Member BAGSHAW.
Speaker 5: Will this be effective immediately upon our vote? So it'll be used for this very evening, assuming it passes?
Speaker 0: Well, it's a resolution. I think it is effective immediately. Yes, it will be okay. Councilmember Swann.
Speaker 5: Thank you. President Hurdle This resolution makes several changes to the council rules. Many of those changes are small technical changes to make the wording of the rules more consistent and consistent. And I, of course, have no objection to those changes. And of course I supported the amendment. However, there are other changes that could hamper the public's ability to have a democratic influence on the decisions made by the Council. For example, there's a new council rule proposed that would read code at a regular city council meeting. No resolution shall be presented for adoption and no bill introduced unless reviewed by the law department and circulated via email to all council members, a central staff director and the city clerk by 5 p.m. on the preceding business day. And would this council rule would be fine. And also there is a question of consideration to ward staff members, but sometimes there are events or public events, political events that happen over the weekend or in the past week that the Council needs to or should comment on in a timely manner to have an impact. Sometimes the public approaches council to request a resolution on short notice, and I personally do not want to have to be in a position to tell people who have a righteous cause that they cannot be accommodated because a lot of Parliament has not finished reviewing the legislation and that 5 p.m. on Friday has passed. I think that many of the council rules he updates here are okay, but some are less democratic. So overall, I'll be voting no on this.
Speaker 0: Very good. And I want to thank Councilman Swann's office for letting us know. They did have some concern about basically the thought was to extend the review time for walk on bills and resolutions. And I would agree that there certainly are times where. And C is is we have to be able to be urgent for certain types of piece of legislation and the types of things that we do. We should have a mechanism by which to reach that, which is basically suspending the rules. But we appreciate you're describing to us. Sure. Your concerns. Any of the comments before we vote on this legislation? A skater.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I also want to just extend another note of appreciation for the work that you did in committee to accommodate the desire to add some language about increased access for those who speak English as a second language. I want to thank Linda and also Monica for your work from the clerk's office to make sure that we got this right. We in Seattle have made a commitment to making sure that those who speak English as a second language can participate in council meetings. The language that you see amended and Section eight really makes this commitment solidified in writing, making sure that upon reasonable request we can provide translation or interpretation services for individuals wishing to participate in our council meetings. And that includes both committee meetings and full council. I'm really appreciative of the inclusion of this language. Again, that's been included in Section eight from your committee meeting, Mr. President. And I also wanted to take a quick second to to announce. And for those who weren't paying attention to Councilmember Gonzalez's amazing committee hearing on Friday last week, we had the opportunity to hear from the folks CUC VU and also from Wax Joaquin talking about language access programs that the OIRA office includes. They have created a list, a comprehensive list of translation and interpretation services. They have put together a incredible language access toolkit that's available on our internal SharePoint website for all of our city departments, and they are working to make sure that we're putting into action the Executive Order ten that was passed last October by then-Mayor Burgess to make sure that Seattle is truly making our committee meetings and full council meetings accessible to everyone. And this was a wonderful presentation. I feel like that presentation, in combination with the language we've put into our policies today, making sure that those who speak English as a second language or limited English can absolutely participate in our democratic process. I'm really proud of the work that you've helped facilitate, Mr. President, and thanks again to Councilmember Gonzalez for highlighting this in her committee. I look forward to working with OIRA to make sure that all departments know how to access this information. The list and the interpretation and translation services so that everyone can have a meaningful language access plan in the future. Thanks to Maha as well, who was our Language Access Director, Language Access Program and policy specialist for the entire city. If you have not heard of her, I encourage you to look her up to make sure that all departments can get access to that information.
Speaker 0: Thank you for those comments. Again, I'd like to again think there's a lot of work that had gone into this particular review. 2017 presented a lot of procedural challenges and other types of challenges. And I want to thank again our members from the city clerk's office and our center staff director and central staff members and the law department, particularly Jeff Slate and Gary Smith. We look at, again, what makes sense in different jurisdictions, as well as always trying to respect one's constitutional right to participate in a public process. And there's really interesting case law that we try to use to assist us in making wise decisions. And again, I want to thank all of the folks who did some work on this. Okay. I think we're ready to vote. So those in favor of adopting the resolution as amended, please vote i, i. Those oppose vote no. No. Got the no. The motion carries the resolutions adopted. The chair will sign it. These are the next agenda item.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION adopting General Rules and Procedures of the Seattle City Council; superseding Resolutions 31639 and 31659.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_04232018_CB 119227
|
Speaker 0: Very good. Any further comments? Not those in. Those in favor of adopting the resolution. Please vote i i those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Please read the short title of the report for the Sustainability and Transportation Committee.
Speaker 3: The Report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee Agenda Item 13 Council 119227 Granting ACORN Development LLC permission to construct, maintain, operate below grade utility lines for a specific site, specific heat conveyance system and other related utilities committee recommends a bill passed.
Speaker 0: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 2: Thank you. So a current development is a development company owned by Amazon. So this this ordinance or granting is related to the properties adjacent to their campus where the spheres are. As folks may recall a couple of years ago when they started development on that project, they are to an agreement with the building across the street from the Western Building, which is hosts a bunch of computer facilities there or data warehouse. And the agreement was that they would capture the heat that is put off in the computers, heat, water, bring the water across the street to their facilities and use that waste heat from the computers to heat those buildings. That project has been moving forward very successfully. This ordinance today would allow them to expand across a couple of streets to future parcels they're planning to develop and use that same waste heat to heat additional buildings.
Speaker 0: Very good energy for the comments. That please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Johnson I was mosquera I. O'Brien So aren't I. Begala Gonzalez. Herbold. Hi, President Harrell. Hi. Nine in favor.
Speaker 0: Nine opposed the bill passed in the Senate. That concludes our agenda for this afternoon. Is there any further business coming for the council councilmember Mosquito.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. And just a quick follow up item I mentioned during council briefing today, and I mentioned it last Monday, we will have a series of activities for the community and council members to engage in from Monday through Friday next week to really honor Labor, recognizing its International Workers Day on May Day. And we will be having a series of events starting on Monday with our town hall at 630 at the Washington State Labor Council. Tuesday there's the annual march, which we will be joining in at 11 a.m.. There's also a book signing on the book Keep Marching, which will be down at Elliot Bay on Tuesday, May 1st as well. Thursday in our committee, we will have a feature from the University of Washington Labor Archives who will be giving an overview of labor standards, protections in the past and current, and an opportunity to hear from our own Office of Labor Standards about enforcement activities and issues on the horizon. Also, I really want to highlight this for our friends who are able to join us. We will have a showing of Dolores, the movie at El Centro de la Rosa. I hope everybody can join us. It will be a lot of fun on Thursday. May 3rd is going to be free starting at 630 and on Saturday we have our third Domestic Workers Community Listening Session, which will be at 10 a.m. Invite again all council members to attend that. And the last thing that we will be the King County Labor Council's conversation around affordable housing and building affordable housing, which we encourage folks to attend as well at the Labor Temple. So this information will all be on our website and I just wanted to encourage you all to come and please push out the information if you can.
Speaker 0: Thank you for those announcements. Is there any further business coming for the council? If not, we stand and journey. Everyone, have a great afternoon. Thanks.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE granting Acorn Development LLC permission to construct, maintain, and operate below-grade utility lines for a site-specific heat conveyance system and other related utilities under and across Blanchard Street between 6th Avenue and 7th Avenue, Blanchard Street between 7th Avenue and 8th Avenue, and 7th Avenue between Bell Street and Blanchard Street; specifying the conditions under which this permit is granted; and providing for the acceptance of the permit and conditions.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.