meeting_id
stringlengths 27
37
| source
stringlengths 596
386k
| type
stringlengths 4
42
| reference
stringlengths 75
1.1k
| city
stringclasses 6
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
SeattleCityCouncil_09292020_CB 119897 | Speaker 3: Agenda Item five Capital 119897 Establishing additional use for automated traffic safety cameras to reduce traffic congestion and increase safety in many sections. 11.30 1.0 90. An 11.50 point 574 code and ratifying.
Speaker 0: And confirming.
Speaker 3: Such prior acts.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. I moved to pass Council Bill 119897. Is there a second?
Speaker 4: Second?
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilmember Peterson, you are listed as a prime sponsor of this legislation and are recognized in order to address this item.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President And I'm co-sponsoring this bill with Councilmember Herbold, and I know that other council members have worked hard on this to make this a reality, including Councilmember Strauss. So Hope and others will speak to this as well. But I'll summarize the bill for folks right now. This is the long awaited block, the box transportation legislation. And this, as you as you know, the transportation expert on our city council central staff, Calvin Chao, wrote an excellent memo explaining this council bill in detail. The bill authorizes the city to take advantage of a new state law, to expand our use of automated cameras, to enforce rules prohibiting vehicles from blocking crosswalks and bus lanes. I know we're eager to have these cameras installed to help traffic flow along the Spokane Street Swing Bridge following the closure of the West Seattle Highbridge. State Government authorized. This is a pilot project that requires reporting of the results along the way and unless it's extended, it would expire in June 2023. I imagine will seek to have an extended. Ideally, the results will show that this legislation helped us to prioritize pedestrian safety and the efficient flow of public mass transit. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Peterson. Are there any additional comments? Remember her. Please. Thank you. I just want to speak specifically to the West Seattle related implications of this legislation, since the automated cameras will be used first on the Spokane Street lower bridge site has indicated that users and access to the Spokane Street Lower Bridge can be reconsidered after camera enforcement begins. And we get a sense of what the what the new traffic patterns are with with more robust enforcement on the restrictions. We know that general access is allowed on the lower bridge from 9 p.m. to 5 p.m., but at all other times general access is restricted to school busses, employer shuttles van pulls out essential workers access to for longshoremen and West Seattle businesses are the only vehicles that should be on the bridge at times other than 9 p.m. to 5 a.m.. And so it's really important that the general public observe these restrictions from 5 a.m. to to 9 p.m.. And again, by having more robust enforcement, we might be able to reassess whether or not we can allow more more sanctioned access to the lower level bridge at the at the time it's restricted from the from the general public. That could mean allowing more van pulls it could mean allowing more employer shuttles. It could mean allowing maybe essential workers who are not in a van pool. And it could mean looking at changes to the the times that the restrictions exist under state law. Only warning notices will will be allowed in 2020 and fines up to only $75 will be starting in 2021. Half of the funds that go to a state fund and the remaining funds may only be used for equitable access, transportation improvements and mobility for people with disabilities. I want to flag that the that the fiscal note for the bill. Identifies the need for additional officers in 2021 for the statutorily required review of tickets. There is a function that a sworn officer has to fulfill in reviewing the tickets before their issuance. And this is a statutory requirement in state law and in our ongoing efforts to to look at functions that uniformed officers are assigned. I want to just flag this as perhaps something that we should work with our state legislature on to allow either an employee or a non uniformed officer to fulfill this function. I want to also thank the 34th District Representative, Joe Fitzgibbons, a long, long champion of the state, legislation that allows the city to move on automated enforcement as it relates to transit lanes and blocking the box. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, are there any additional comments on the bill? Okay. Hearing no additional comments on the bill. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Morales.
Speaker 4: As.
Speaker 0: MOSQUEDA Yes.
Speaker 4: Peterson Yes.
Speaker 1: So what?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 4: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Suarez.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes. I'm in.
Speaker 1: Favor and and opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation? Item six Will the clerk please read item six into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE establishing additional uses for automated traffic safety cameras to reduce traffic congestion and increase safety; amending Sections 11.31.090 and 11.50.570 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09292020_CB 119876 | Speaker 3: Count capital 1198762 relating to. The Transportation network companies driver.
Speaker 0: Labor.
Speaker 3: Standards, establishing minimum.
Speaker 0: Labor and compensation.
Speaker 3: Standards for transportation network company drivers. The committee recommends.
Speaker 0: The bill passed. Tremendous. Thank you so much, Madam Park. Councilmember Mesquita, as chair of the committee, you are recognized in order to provide the committee report. Thank you very much. Council President, Council colleagues, I am really honored to be bringing forward this piece of legislation with all of you today. The substitute legislation dealing with providing key labor protections and wage standards to taxi drivers passed out of the Finance and Housing Committee unanimously. And in addition to that, all of the Finance and Housing Committee colleagues are co-sponsors. Thank you. Vice-Chair Herbold, Council President Gonzales, Councilmember Lewis and Councilmember Strauss. And I know this the enthusiasm for this piece of legislation is shared with other council colleagues as well. So I wouldn't be surprised if other people wanted to add their name, but I'm just so excited about this piece of legislation and the co-sponsors. I wanted to lift that piece up again and thank folks for your anticipated support today. This comes after many years of work, after five years of legislation, legislation attempting to provide basic standards for drivers in our city. We are finally making progress today. We are putting our values into law by making sure that their standards for workers who drive for Lyft and Uber and other transportation network companies that may come into the future, making sure people earn a basic minimum wage, making sure that their standards for workers to be able to take a rest when they're tired. This is critically important. When we heard testimony after testimony of people working 80 plus hours a week over the last few months. We've heard testimony of people not being able to afford their house or to be able to put food on the table for their family because they're just not even earning minimum wage. Today we are putting our values of wanting to lift up every worker and protect every worker in this city into action. Among many of the protections that we've been working on over the last few years. I'm exceptionally excited about the work to make sure that we are not treating these gig economy workers as separate, that we are creating a level playing field for all workers in this city. As a follow up to last year's legislation that provided deactivation rights to drivers this year, we heard from James Parrott and Michael Wright, who produced a study on trans TMC minimum wage compensation. This was a critical study that was really leading to our ability to take action this year. That study put into writing much of what we already knew, but it was imperative for us to be able to point back to this well researched body of work to make sure that we are putting action into place today. I want to thank the mayor's office for the work that they have done on this, in addition to the Office of Labor Standards. So thank you, Corinne Le Virus from Office of Labor Standards, Kyle Roth and Anthony Arriaga from the Mayor's Office for also your years of work on this. And as we mentioned before, the research that went into this was not just copy and paste from any other municipality. This was Seattle specific research that led to the policy decisions today and would not be possible without Korean, Apple and Amy or from central staff and several chief of staff in my office who put a ton of research and capacity and energy into plowing through the research that was provided to us and hearing directly from the testimony that was provided to put forward policy ideas that were well-founded, well researched, and were going to be meaningful for the community and specifically for the drivers. Really excited about the hard work that went into the legislation that is supported by the study, and that the legislation was developed in collaboration and with feedback from those who provided public testimony. The substitute version of the bill that we passed last week provides basic base wage standards for drivers, provides provides benefits like rest breaks and minimum fares. Transportation to consumers provides the opportunity to get compensated for cleaning time, at least 30 minutes for an eight hour period of driving, which is so critical not just for COVID, but for preventing the spread of diseases into the future as well. For those of us who sit on the Board of Health, we heard from direct from Director Zukin that this is not just COVID specific, that we will need to change our practices and norms around what cleanliness looks like in workplaces. But it is going to be the new normal and that is especially important, as we heard from the University of Washington researcher in close quarters in places like cars, which are the workplaces for taxi drivers, there's exceptionally important for those drivers to have clean workplaces and for them to be compensated for the time that it takes to clean their places of work, which is their cars. We're really excited about the protections that have been put into place here to have been able to learn from the experience out of. New York and fortunate to have learned from the legislation and to build not off of that, but to take lessons learned that freezes utilization rates to provide stability for taxi drivers. When this legislation is implemented, drivers will have basic standards that all other Seattle workers have fought so hard for and earned. And this is about basic standards for all workers. This is about equity. This is about health. This is about safety. And if you know me, this is a convergence of everything I care about. Labor protections and public health is sort of the core core drivers for me in public policy. And I'm really excited that we were able to work with all of you to get this piece of legislation over the finish line. I've already said a bunch of thank you to all of the folks that have been working so hard to make this piece of legislation possible. But I do want to thank the city central staff again, Amy Gore and Karina Bull. Carina really led the efforts on this and Amy stepped in for a lot of the work in the summer months here. We also want to thank Councilmember O'Brien, who led this work when he was on council. And we know that this was really critical. And so I hope he's watching. And while he's doing something really fun, I hope he is watching and also proud of the work that he did to lead us to this point. I want to thank Lyft and the Rideshare Association and drive forward and Uber and the Fair Share Coalition, along with Martin Luther King County Labor Council and the Drivers Union with Teamsters 117. Thanks to Dustin, Will, Joshua and Leonard for all of your research and all of your your support as we really try to work with drivers to hear directly from them about what kind of impacts this legislation would have. This is not just about basic standards and protections for drivers, folks. This is truly about public health and safety for all of us in this community. When we have drivers who are tired or not able to have their rest breaks and the labor standards and the clean workplaces that they need, it impacts all of us, our health and safety, whether it's passengers in the car or pedestrians on the street or other drivers out on the roadways. This is truly a public health measure that's in front of us and the right thing to do for labor protections. Looking forward to having a piece of good news to pass on as we head into the fall cycle here. Thank you so much. Thank you, Councilmember Mosqueda. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Councilmember Morales, please.
Speaker 2: Yes, thank you. Council President. So my I will say that I am interested in co-sponsoring this legislation and so I am. Moving for that. You let me do that.
Speaker 0: I think that that is very nice. Thank you and well, welcome. I am hoping that the with the council president's permission, the clerks would add the Councilmember Morales name and anybody else that would like to be listed as the co-sponsors when the legislation gets added to the record. Okay. Yeah. In the future, if we can flag those kind of interests earlier on and it would be it would be helpful to dealing with the realities around the procedures that will be needed to to accommodate those kind of requests. So I'm going to have to I'm going to have to call on the clerks to provide me with some procedural guidance on how to accommodate additional requests for co-sponsorship on the record.
Speaker 3: Councilmember Huizar is familiar, essential to adequate concerns to this bill. The council members must make a request to the sponsor, which is coming together with the consent of customers. Together, a.
Speaker 0: Councilmember may be added as a.
Speaker 3: Co-Sponsor.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I just want to be clear that I don't have to make a motion, it's just a request. And then customer mosquitoes, the sponsor can assent to that on the ballot. Correct. All right. So Councilmember Morales has made the request and I believe I heard Councilmember Mosqueda said yes. Yes. Are there any other requests to be added as co-sponsors? Councilmember Solent has raised her hand. Please go ahead.
Speaker 2: Thank you, President Gonzalez. I did send a request to Councilmember Mosquito's office on Friday, I believe, to administer co-sponsorship. The clerk can do that. I would appreciate it. And I also had some comments. So whenever you feel.
Speaker 0: Why don't we go ahead and deal with your request to be added as a co-sponsor and then we can open it up for your comments. Councilmember Mosquito, you've gotten another request for co-sponsorship. Yes, happy to add. Thank you. Councilmember Swan, we did receive your request but wanted to make sure to do it in an open public meeting so there wasn't any concern. Happy to have you and thank you for adding your name. Great, great. So for the record, Councilmember Morales and councilmembers want to have an open session, added their names to be co-sponsors of this council bills. As members and let the floor is yours for comments.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And I'm Richard Countryman, mosquito and city clerk, adding the name from my office for Co-sponsorship. I'm proud to stand with Uber and Lyft drivers and their Teamsters union in supporting this legislation. Today's victory for drivers builds on their own courage, courageous and persistent and organized efforts in fighting mega-corporations and billionaires. The rideshare and taxi driver victories in New York and California. The $15 minimum wage victory, which began right here in SeaTac in Seattle. I especially want to recognize the drivers who for years have endured poverty conditions and abuse from the companies, and whose tenacity in organizing and really their approach towards solidarity that has brought us to this moment. And I have no doubt I'm going to leave out many names, but I still wanted to mention a few names. Peter Cool Lata and John Cleary. Many of the drivers who spoke to the public comment, the perhaps hundreds of drivers that my office has spoken to over the years. Thank you to all of you and your courage and persistence and especially your efforts at organizing, despite having obstacles thrown in your path is really inspiring and should be inspiring for all workers from the first year of our Socialist Council office in 2014. Socialist Alternative. Those community organizers in my office and I have worked with the drivers as they have organized and fought our basic dignity and rights against the billionaire. Executives of these companies will shamelessly exploit both drivers and customers, basically working class people on both sides taking 30% of driver income for themselves, and also harvesting data about both the drivers and the riders for their own private profit. Today's legislation is an important step forward in the long fight for driver rights. It raises driver pay for the first time, accounting for the actual time that drivers are working, the true costs of maintaining and cleaning their vehicles, and the fact that drivers also need and deserve health and retirement benefits. This legislation will be a model for drivers in other cities, and yet it is not nearly enough. Even with these new compensation rates, drivers will still not be paid enough to live in Seattle today, with average rents in Seattle over $2,000 a month, and with corporate landlords snapping up and gentrifying entire neighborhoods in our city, it's becoming nearly impossible for drivers, most of whom are from working class immigrant communities to live in Seattle. They are being forced to commute longer and longer distances just to get into the city where most of the ride rides are. That's why, in addition to raising fees for workers such as these drivers, it is important that we build a fight for rent control without loopholes, further expansion of taxes on big business like the Amazon tax that we just want to find permanently affordable social housing and expanding tenants rights fully and most immediately a cancelation of rent, mortgage and utility payments for those who have been hit majorly by loss of income or loss of job in the pandemic and the recession. So many drivers, as with other workers, have lost income due to this pandemic and the recession. And we know that the current eviction moratorium is crucial, and that was fought for by workers and renters themselves, and it's providing crucial protection. But we know it is only putting off the coming eviction tsunami, as even many mainstream newspapers have reported. So I really urge the drivers, the Teamsters Union and all of the supporters to join my office, the tenants union of Washington State and the renters rights movement in demanding that rent and mortgages be accounted for workers who have lost income due to COVID. We also know the fight against Uber and Lyft executives does not end today. In fact, it should escalate based on this really important step forward. The executives will doubtless fight this legislation in court. They may even try to force a referendum. Just look at what these really billionaires are doing in California by. They poured in a record $181 million to try and repeal AB five, the new state law that gives drivers additional rights, including collective bargaining rights. The Los Angeles Times columnist recently noted in relation to the fight in California, quote, What's really at stake here? The quest for profit, unquote. So we should be under no illusions. These companies are in the business to make money and exploit both customers and their drivers, not to help either. So I just wanted to send a message of congratulations to all the drivers and to let them know that our office is ready to do whatever it takes to help continue this struggle. And also, once again, a message of congratulations and solidarity to the Teamsters Union and the entire labor movement in defeating the corporate challenge. And good luck to defeating the corporate challenge that we know will come after today's vote. Thank you.
Speaker 0: So much. Council members want. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Councilmember Herbert, please. Thank you so much. Just a few more notes to add of congratulations. Of course, I want to congratulate Councilman Mascara for her her staff's work on bringing this legislation forward. Really appreciate your your leadership. The fact that we are all interested in co-sponsorship is an indication of how this legislation is really history making. It's been in the in the making for a long time. And according to studies that have been done, this legislation will increase wages for drivers by 30%. I really appreciate as well all of the workers who have engaged in this conversation by meeting with me in my office hours and as well as sending us a petition from drivers with over 1600 signatures for increasing the per mile rate, providing transparency and fairness on company commissions, and raising the minimum pay per trip to $5. I want to just address some of the concerns that I've heard about this legislation, that somehow there's something wrong with legislation that benefits full time workers with a livable wage. For decades, cities across the country have regulated the total number of, for instance, taxi medallions and licenses available specifically in the name of protecting worker earnings. This is no different, and we should continue to do so. Flooding the market with drivers pushes down the cost to the customer, but it does so at the expense of workers. This is much like other gig businesses as well, where the costs of providing the service are passed on to the workers in the form of reduced earnings and benefits. In this case, taxes are repackaged services that have been historically provided. But it seems to be cheaper because the businesses have hired their workers as consultants, and at the end of the day, the workers lose out. They pay more taxes. They don't have benefits and are not subject to the minimum wage. Our efforts here in Seattle indicate that we are not going to allow contract workers in our city to be treated this way. I hope in the future we can work on similar legislation for other drivers drivers who do not move people but move goods such as delivery drivers of of packages as well as delivery drivers of of meals and food. I really, again, appreciate the work of Councilman Mosqueda in collaboration with the Teamsters and drivers throughout throughout the city. And really, I am proud to have been able to have the opportunity to participate in the deliberation on this legislation
Speaker 3: . Thank you.
Speaker 0: Any Councilmember herbals. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments on the bill. I will go ahead and close out debate and ask the clerk to please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes.
Speaker 0: Macheda Yes.
Speaker 4: Petersen Yes.
Speaker 1: So what?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 4: Strauss Yes. Herbold Yes.
Speaker 1: Juarez.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor and opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the court please affix my signature to the legislation? Okay, folks, item number 17, will the clerk please read the short title of item 17 into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to transportation network company driver labor standards; establishing minimum labor and compensation standards for transportation network company drivers; establishing provision of or reimbursement for personal protective equipment to transportation network company drivers during the civil emergency declared on March 3, 2020; establishing notice, posting, and data requirements for transportation network companies; prescribing remedies and enforcement procedures; amending Section 3.15.000 of the Seattle Municipal Code; amending the title of Chapter 14.31 and Sections 6.208.020 and 14.31.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and adding a new Chapter 14.33 to the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09292020_CB 119890 | Speaker 0: Agenda Item 17.
Speaker 3: Council Bill 119 890 Billings The Transfer of city real property for housing development trusts for the jurisdiction of a one foot strip of property from the Office of Housing to the Department of Transportation for y of way purposes. The Committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Madam Per customer Muscat. As chair of the committee, you are recognized in order to provide the committee report. Thank you very much, Madam President. This is a small but very exciting piece of policy that we are now able to put into action that builds on the work that we began years ago. Actually, in my first year at City Council. We passed legislation to allow for community and housing advocates to be able to acquire city owned land or utility own property that could be transferred to the city at no cost for the creation of affordable housing. And here we are putting that policy concept into action. We know that the price of land in Seattle has significantly increased over the last decade, with greater competition on available in making it much more expensive to build housing and to especially build affordable housing in our community. We need to take every opportunity that there is to acquire or to maintain city owned land in city hands or to transfer it to those who have the value of the city's commitment to ensuring affordable housing and core public services in our community have the opportunity to build on that property and to create housing and strong community opportunities such as community centers and childcare. In 2018, in partnership with our friends at the state legislature, we passed legislation that I sponsored to update the Seattle disposition policies to put into place the newly granted state authorization to make sure that we are prioritizing affordable housing for surplus lands and to embed an equitable development lens into that process. Last year, we authorized the first no cost transfer to the Office of Housing for Affordable Homeownership for the Loyal Heights property following that piece of legislation. And this year, this piece of legislation follows up on all of those steps to enable the department to transfer the loyal site to actually create the permanent affordable housing that's been desired on this site for so long. This will result in affordable, first time home ownership opportunities for the first time in this area, creating things like three bedroom townhouses that will be built by Habitat for Humanity on the site, along with preservation of trees that, long said about building affordable housing and creating community led development does not have to be in competition with trees. And here's a great example of where we're cutting back our offsets and we're creating opportunities for trees to remain in place and to be planted. I want to thank the Office of Housing and Habitat for Humanity for putting this project together and very much look forward to seeing families move into this site really excited about the opportunities that this provides for us. This project has received the permits and homes to be turnkey ready and for families to move in within the next year. November 20, 21st at the latest. Thank you so much to all the folks, especially in community who worked on this and in my office Erin house for her ongoing stewardship of these types of issues and our partners at the office of Housing. Really excited to see this finally move forward. Thank you so much. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Councilmember Strauss, please.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President. Thank you, catherine mosqueda. I'm glad and thankful to see this bill come forward. We know that housing in the Oil Heights neighborhood of North Ballard in 1970s was worth about $30,000 in the 1980s and was about $100,000 today. As it stands, one of the lowest prices for houses in the area is at $650,000. Many over a million. I am still a renter today because I can't buy into the neighborhood in which I grew up in. And this is an opportunity to welcome new neighbors who were able to buy into the neighborhood for the many decades previous to the last run on our real estate market. So I'm very, very excited to welcome these new neighbors. Just a couple of comments about the site, the site specifically in regards to Tres, thankful that the Office of Housing was able to preserve the trees along the perimeter. We know the trees provide an economic value and will be easier to cool and to keep warm. The units of housing there as well as it's just nice to look at them. Unfortunately, the trees that I used to walk by when I was walking home from middle school along 28 cherry trees or cut down a number of years ago. Again, beautiful, beautiful trees that I wish were still in the neighborhood. I'm glad that we've been able to retain the tree once again, highlighting the note from the committee, which is that by preserving these trees along the perimeter, we were we reduce the number of units on the lot by one. So while we'll have seven neighbors, we could have had a cost benefit analysis that we have to do in regards to unit housing. I have also heard some concerns about the need for green space in the area and that this could have been used for green space. I will just highlight that we have Boyle Heights Elementary School a couple of blocks away. Boyle Heights Community Center, a member of what's further. Sunset Park is very close by home gardens and hopefully as works because of the great work of neighbors. The garden patch is looking like it will still remain just a quarter mile away. So again, this provides access to general generational wealth in the Oil Heights neighborhood and an opportunity to buy into the neighborhood. And I'm glad to welcome our neighbors. Thank you very much. Council President Holmes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Strauss, are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments on the bill. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill or else?
Speaker 1: Yes. Must get a yes.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: So what?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 4: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 0: Herbold Yes.
Speaker 3: Suarez Yes.
Speaker 4: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor and opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the court please affix my signature to the legislation report of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee Item 18 Will the clerk please read the title of item 18 into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the transfer of City real property for housing development; transferring the jurisdiction of a 1-foot strip of the property from the Office of Housing to the Department of Transportation for right-of-way purposes; declaring the remaining property located at 7750 28th Avenue NW (“Loyal Heights Property”) surplus to the City’s needs; authorizing transfer of the Loyal Heights Property to Habitat for Humanity or its designee; authorizing the Director of the Office of Housing or the Director’s designee to execute and deliver a contract for transfer of land, deed, and related documents; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09292020_CB 119838 | Speaker 0: Agenda Item 18 Council Capital.
Speaker 3: 119838 relating to land use and burning amendments to have a comprehensive plan to incorporate changes proposed as part of the 2019 to 2020 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments Process.
Speaker 0: The committee recommends the bill passes amended. Thank you so much. Casmir Strauss. As chair of the committee, you are recognized in order to provide the committee report.
Speaker 4: Making Council President. State law allows the city to make amendments to our comprehensive plan once a year, with limited exceptions. This legislation is the annual round of amendments to our comprehensive plan based on proposals that were docketed for consideration last year. This year we are making two amendments to the comprehensive plan First Amendments to expand the boundaries of West Shalhoub Urban Village to the portion of campus of Providence. Mount Saint Vincent for the Mount Providence is seeking to renovate and expand the current uses on the property, including building additional senior housing service space. City staff conducting public engagement before proposing these changes. And we heard support from the local community members at the public hearing. The Second Amendment amends the Delbridge neighborhood plan based on the recommendations in the Work Village Action Plan. The Action Plan is the result of many years of engagement with the college community and was promoted by several factors, including planning for the Village Multimodal Corridor Project and planning for Sound Transit three and the community support for changes to the neighborhood plan. This legislation Warman the comprehensive plan and should not be confused with our next resolution, which sets the docket of potential amendments that we should consider for next year's comprehensive plan. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Strauss, are there any additional comments on the bill as members want, please?
Speaker 2: Thank you. I will be voting yes on this year's comprehensive plan amendments because I don't oppose what what is included. But I did want to mention specifically what's being left out of the bill, which I do find objectionable. In particular, there is no mention of developer impact fees. Developer impact fees can only be passed into law after they are put into the city's comprehensive plan, and the comprehensive plan is amended only once each year. So the fact that developer impact fees are not included in this bill means that there will be another year wait at least to make big developers pay for the impacts they have on our city infrastructure. Of course, we have to be clear, just amending the comprehensive plan to that effect is hardly the end of the fight that we've seen for six sites over six years. I've observed that developer impact. These are have been opposed by the to the nail by big developers and so making it happen actually will require a housing justice movement to fight for it. But I did want to mention that that is missing through the in these updates. And we know that there is a long and bureaucratic process for establishing developer impact fees before they can be passed. They need to be in the plan, a comprehensive plan, and before they can be put in the comprehensive plan, they need to be studied under the State Environmental Protection Act. And I do find it unacceptable that even though developer impact fees were included in the resolution the Council passed last year listing the issues that should be discussed for this study studied for this year's comprehensive plan. Mayor Durkan has refused to do that study. If we had developer impact fees available this year, we could have raised the funds to reimburse all the guards to metro busses. So as I said, I will vote yes. But also note that this leaves missing something extremely crucial. Thank you.
Speaker 0: He to remember. So what? Are there any additional comments on the bill? Councilmember Herbold. I want to speak to the things that I believe are in the bill and my support for the bill because of their inclusion. I want to thank Councilmember Strauss for making sure that we added additional language to Section B, requesting that I start work with Stsci and and object to review changes that could be made to the comp plan due to the closure of the West Seattle Bridge. Of course, also including the Del Del Ridge Neighborhood Plan Inclusion. Appreciate that. And then finally, appreciate inclusion of the request to the executive to study the designation of the South Park Urban Village . I know all that's in there, and I'm pretty sure Councilmember Strause, correct me if I'm wrong. I'm pretty sure that we actually did include the impact fee amendments so that we can actually make progress in implementing them in 2021.
Speaker 4: Checking with staff right now because as my comments just before I wrap up my comments was this bill should not be confused with the next bill, which sets the comprehensive plan document for next year. Just double checking. I do know that the study was conducted and that currently we are waiting on the hearing exam. It will take just 1/2 and I'll be right back with.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I'm sorry. I might be confusing the bills to. Madam President, if it's okay, may I confirm? Are we on the agenda? Item number 18. Yes, we are on agenda item 18, which is the bill related to the amendments to the comprehensive plan. Excellent. Thank you very much. Governor Swann, please.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Just wanted to clarify that the next bill does have it. And yeah, I think we're confusing the bills. This one doesn't as far. Right.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 0: Yes, go ahead, Counselor Strauss.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Just to clarify, yes, it is included in the following bill for further analysis, as requested by the committee Senator.
Speaker 0: Excellent. Any other comments or questions on the bill? Councilmember verbal yes. That I think all of the comments I just made for number 18, I won't repeat them. Transfer them to number 19.
Speaker 3: Awesome.
Speaker 0: All right. Any additional comments on this bill? Councilman, let's get a plea. I just want to say thank you to the chair of Land Use and Neighborhoods, and thank you, Councilmember Strauss, for shepherding us through this process. It's been really incredible for our office to be able to work with your office and with you directly on trying to get in as many components as we possibly could into this piece of legislation. Obviously, I'll talk about in the next bill a piece that we're looking forward to continuing to push on. But I really appreciate the way in which you have been inclusive of community comments. I know you've spent a lot of time not only in public comment, but also individually meeting with various constituents across the city on these issues that are of utmost importance to those who are calling in and testifying. And you're spending a lot of time outside of these public meetings meeting with folks on a one on one basis , too. So thank you for that work. I know it takes a lot of time and this is something that people are very invested in. So it is imperative that we have your leadership on this and you have done a tremendous job on this effort and look forward to working with you in the future years as we continue to advance these priorities that you got into this legislation. It's been a pleasure for our office to work with you, so thank you. Councilmember Mosqueda, are there any additional comments on the bill? Okay. Looks like we are ready. I will go ahead and ask that the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Morales must get a yes. Peterson.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Sergeant.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss Herbold. Yes. Suarez.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation? Item 19 Will the clerk please read the title of the now? Very well introduced item 19 into the record. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending the Seattle Comprehensive Plan to incorporate changes proposed as part of the 2019-2020 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment process. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09212020_CB 119881 | Speaker 4: The Report of the City Council Agenda Item one Capital 119881 relating to renovating key arena at the sale center operate from the mayor or the mayor says he needs to execute an agreement with the Seattle Arena Company LLC to establish roles and responsibilities for coordinating the design and constructing the transit only lanes on Queen Anne. Up north at first north, a transit queue jump at 470 north Andrew Pelican Street Design upgrades for the protection bicycle lane and additional improvements to Thomas Street.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. I moved to pass the council bill. 1219881. Is there a second? I think it's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilmember was a sponsor. You are recognized in order to address this item.
Speaker 4: Nike Council President Anthony Clarke stated, I'll just be a little bit more brief. This legislative legislation, as I share this morning, does authorize the mayor to execute an agreement with Arena CO to coordinate design and construction of street improvements and pedestrian and bike improvements. Arena CO, as I shared this morning, is responsible for contributing $594,000 of the estimated total cost of 990,000. For the improvement the Seattle Department of Transportation would fund the balance of the cost of the project's approximately 396,000 to a credit to the street use that arena CO would otherwise owe for the redevelopment project. Arena CO is expected to owe a total of approximately 3.5 million in street use fees associated with the project, and the MTA requires that the credited fee only be used for the design and construction of the transit improvements. Additionally, the Memorandum of Agreement specifies that Arena Comb would install a set of additional improvements for escort. The additional improvements include, and I just have five of them here, briefly raised driveways and concrete barriers for protected bicycle lanes, green bicycle boxes, new signage at signalized intersections, comma, street bicycle and signal improvements, and a curb extension on the northwest corner of Thomas Street and First Avenue North. In total restaurant staff estimate the combined street use of the credits of $841,000 resulting from the proposed MLA for installation of both the transit improvements and the additional.
Speaker 2: Improvement.
Speaker 4: Field. This code assumes the 15 zero four 100 allows for the escort director to credit up to 300,000 and use fees from an individual project in exchange for voluntary transportation. Improvement of equal value credits above this amount must be approved by Seattle City Council and Council authorization would be granted through passage.
Speaker 2: Of this bill. Council Bill.
Speaker 4: 119881. Therefore, I would recommend Council pass this legislation. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Suarez, for those remarks and those comments on the bill. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing none that will please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Macheda. Yes. Petersen.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: The want? Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbal? Yes. Juarez.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor. None oppose.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Agenda item two Will the clerk please read Agenda Item two into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to renovating KeyArena at the Seattle Center; authorizing the Mayor or the Mayor’s designees to execute an Agreement with Seattle Arena Company, LLC, to establish roles and responsibilities for coordinating the design and constructing the transit-only lanes on Queen Anne Avenue North and 1st Avenue North, a transit queue jump at 1st Avenue North and Republican Street, design upgrades for the Protected Bicycle Lanes, and additional improvements to Thomas Street. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09212020_CB 119889 | Speaker 4: New Agenda Item three accessible 119889 relating to historic preservation and person controls upon the Select Committee. The glamor presented by the Preservation Board under Chapter 25.12 of the code and adding it to the table of historical landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32 of the settlements.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. I move to pass Council Bill 119889. Is there a second?
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 0: We have been seconded to pass the bill. Councilmember Strauss as sponsor, you are recognized in order to address this bill.
Speaker 2: Thank you, council president and thank you, Councilmember Peterson for your grace of me not briefing you more than 2 minutes before this council meeting began. This would be coming forward, this legislation, as this is in your district, Councilmember Peterson, this legislation would impose controls and incentives on the VA community building, which has been designated by the landmarks . Preservation for the Community, is located at 1205 42nd Street and University District. It is a seven unit two story apartment building with mostly three and four bedroom units, and it was built in 1924. It is being designated in recognition of its distinctive characteristics of the eclectic style of architecture mixing Spanish, Mediterranean and colonial revival elements. The controls and incentives cover the site and exterior of the building and have been agreed upon by the landmark Landmarks Board in the property. Art. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Strauss, are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing not what the Kirk call the roll on the passage of the bill was.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Mesquita. Yes.
Speaker 2: Peterson Yes.
Speaker 1: The want?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold. Yes. Juarez.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzales.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Item three. Will the clerk please read item three from the published agenda into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to historic preservation; imposing controls upon the Villa Camini, 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_09212020_CB 119886 | Speaker 4: So every part of the Finance and Housing Committee agenda item for council vote 11986. The link to the transfer of city property located at 722 18th Avenue. Seattle, Washington operating the conveyance the property to Byrd Parkway, the Washington nonprofit corporation, consistent with the intent of Resolution 31856 and provides for the continued delivery of certain social services. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Councilmember Mosqueda, as chair of the committee, you are recognized in order to provide the committee report. Thank you very much, Madam President. Colleagues, I'm really excited about this piece of legislation in front of us. This is a piece of legislation that the community has been advocating for for many years, as we heard in the committee presentation. Almost a decade of work has gone into securing the site that Byrd Bar has offered. This is a site that has nurtured and invested in community. And now the individuals who work at Verve are the community that is supporting Byrd Bar are awaiting ownership to implement improvements and plan for the future. We had a discussion in the Finance and Housing Committee last week and heard from the Mayor's Office of Obesity, Department of Neighborhoods and Byrd bar themselves directly about the process to get here. Byrd Bar, by way of background, has served Seattle residents for over 50 years, providing basic human services like housing assistance, energy assistance, food bank and personal financial resources with special attention given to individuals from diverse backgrounds such as making sure that our elders are immigrants and refugees and people with disabilities have their needs met. That power is not shut off. That as eviction assistance is provided to those who are struggling to make ends meet. This building is an anchor in the community. The building also houses a community food bank. And in hearing from Andrea Kaplan, the Byrd Bar spokesperson, about what this transfer means, it means that the organization will be able to have its roots firmly in community and be able to invest in building on the property in the ways that have been long awaited by the community. And that is also important to have ownership in this transfer. This is one of several mutual and offsetting benefit sites or MLP sites that the city currently owns. But for all intents and purposes, the community organization that is leasing the site from the city has been the longtime store and has taken ownership and responsibility for the site in always but the deed and title. So in late 2018, the Council passed a resolution committing to collaborate with the Executive to ensure the transfer of the property and ensure that there was a recognition of the residents who've been there and to move the site over to their ownership in March of 2019. It has been a long process in getting here to this point today. I'm excited to move this forward. We did ask the question in committee about a long term leases like 99 year leases versus outright ownership. And I know that this is a question I will continue to be asking about moves. I know that there's other councilmembers. Oscar Peterson, thank you for bringing this up in the past as well to see what is the best use of public sites. And in this situation, hearing directly from Bird Bar and the folks in the executive office and departments. I'm fully supportive of transferring this over. I would encourage your support and move that we consider this today. Thank you so much because get it for that committee report. Are there any other comments on the bill? Councilmember Swan.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Congratulations to all the community members who have for years advocated for the birdbath, place and the central area senior center properties to be transferred to these community organizations to be retained fully for public use. They have struggled through literally years of red tape to make this happen. Over 100 of the community members, along with Bird Bar Place, the Central Area Senior Center and Afrika Down attended an important committee meeting my office held last year on April 23rd, which was in response to the mayor's office. Mayor Dawkins office stalling progress on the community's demands. And it was really inspiring to see so many central area community members, most of them retirees, chanting No more delays, no more delays repeatedly with reference to Durkan stalling. Thanks to Andrea Cobain and Diane Ferguson for their ongoing leadership. Finally, I urge Mayor Dawkins office to finalize the property transfer of the Central Area Senior Center. And in the words of central area seniors, we want no more delays. I'm happy to be voting yes on this legislation to finally transfer what better place to the community. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Any other comments on the bill? Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I just want to speak to my echoing of Councilmember Silence. Congratulations to the community for their advocacy and tireless persistence in making sure that we get this over the finish line. There are several other, as Councilmember Mosqueda mentioned, mutually offsetting benefiting leases, the central area senior center, Greenwood, Phinney Ridge and South Park among four that I can name off the top of my head. And I really urge the executive to move forward expeditiously with the transfer of these facilities as well. It has been a long awaited these these properties have been assessed for their appropriateness for housing. And it is the community has entered into many exercises with the executive under several administrations to demonstrate capacity to take over these properties. So just want to put a put a call out for the executive to work with those organizations that are ready to go and to provide capacity building for those organizations that still need a little bit more help.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, any other comments on the bill? Hearing on the quick. Please call the role on the passage of the bill Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Must get a. Macheda. Peterson.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: So what? The one?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Suarez.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes. And, Madam Karp, you call Councilmember Mosquito one more time.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Mosquito. Eight in favor, nine opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, madam. Work. Looks like we may have lost Councilmember Mosqueda. Not sure what happened there, but we'll go ahead and say that the bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Report of the Community Economic Development Committee. Item five Will the clerk please read Agenda Item five into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the transfer of City property located at 722 18th Avenue, Seattle, Washington; authorizing the conveyance of the property to Byrd Barr Place, a Washington non-profit corporation, consistent with the intent of Resolution 31856 and to provide for the continued delivery of social services; making findings of fact about the consideration for the transfer; authorizing acceptance of a negative easement restricting future development of the property; superseding Resolution 31837 for the purposes of this ordinance; and authorizing the Director of the Department of Finance and Administrative Services or designee to execute and deliver documents necessary to carry out the conveyance of such property on the terms and conditions of this ordinance. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09212020_CB 119887 | Speaker 4: There is part of the Community Economic Development Committee Agenda five Capital 119887 relating to community involvement and the oversight of the Equitable Development Initiative, establishing a permanent Equitable Development Initiative that I support. And adding new section 3.14 point 94.9 5.98. 6.987.98876. The committee recommends the bill as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Morales. As chair of the committee, you're recognized in order to provide the committee's report.
Speaker 3: Council President colleagues. Council Bill 119887 is to establish a permanent portable development initiative advisory board. This legislation implements the directive from council from a few years ago. Asking the Office of Planning and Community Development to recommend a permanent structure. The Advisory Board. The legislation creates a permanent board with 13 members. We did amend it in committee so that the appointments reflect community's input and request. There are three positions that would be appointed by the mayor be positions appointed by the council, and seven would be appointed by the Equitable Development Initiative as report. All appointments would be confirmed by council. The legislation has been requested by organizations that represent communities of color and includes language requiring board members to be drawn from communities that are most impacted by displacement and by systemic racism. The board's duties include elevating the voices and the needs of historically marginalized communities. I'm really excited about this. This work speaks directly to the larger conversation that we're having right now about how to improve community safety. We do that by investing in healthy communities and vibrant neighborhood commercial districts in housing that's affordable to families, by building affordable spaces for important community services like childcare facilities, cultural spaces, employment centers, locally owned retailers. And this idea advisory board will help make these kinds of decisions about future investments, can really build community health, wellness and community wealth. And that's how we improve community safety. When I think of each action coalition, city, collective, Africa, Town, Multicultural Community Coalition and all of the Interim Advisory Board members for their contribution to this work and for helping advance the creation of this permanent advisory board. And I urge passage by my colleagues today.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Morales, for that report. Are there any comments on the bill? Hearing none. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 2: It was on me.
Speaker 1: Yes. Morales. Mesquita. Yes.
Speaker 2: Peterson Yes.
Speaker 1: So what?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss Yes. Both Yes.
Speaker 4: Juarez Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor. None opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and they sure will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Agenda item six will occur. Please read item six into the record.
Speaker 4: Agenda Item six appointments 1615 Appointment at the Anti Danforth LGBTQ Commission for Timetable 30th 2021. The committee recommended the appointment be confirmed. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to community involvement in the oversight of the Equitable Development Initiative; establishing a permanent Equitable Development Initiative Advisory Board; and adding new Sections 3.14.994, 3.14.995, 3.14.996, 3.14.997, and 3.14.998 to the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09212020_CB 119883 | Speaker 4: To be part of the transportation to a region that I'm 21 capital 11983 amending ordinance 26, which is up the 2020 budget and 2025, 2023, 2025 CAP Improvement Programs Revising project allocations for the Madison BRT, Ragland Project and certain other projects important at 20 6000. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Peterson is chair of the committee. You're recognized in order to provide the committee's report.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President Gonzalez, this is Council Bill 119883. It's legislation from our Seattle Department of Transportation and will allocate more city tax dollars for the Madison Street Rapid Ride Bus Project, serving city councils, districts or city council districts three and seven to qualify the project for a relatively large grant from the Federal Transit Administration. The FTA required to provide a longer schedule and to fund a larger contingency. So the budget here is increasing from 121 million to 134 million. 5 million of that increase is coming from city tax dollars. I want to thank DOD and the City Budget Office for honoring my request to beef up their fiscal note that accompanied this Council bill to show the public the all the sources and uses of funds so we know where the money's coming from and how it's being spent. More clearly, the sources and uses, they illuminate several points. First, the good news. Only about 17% of this funding for this project is from city tax dollars. The purpose of the legislation, however, is to increase the amount coming from the city and to update the budget in general. This does have an impact to two projects and this fiscal helps to explain that. I want to make sure we keep a close eye on this project going forward. As with all big ticket projects, we want to make sure it's managed effectively. I do have confidence in our state's ability to complete the project and in supporting this bill today. I will be cautious in the future about diverting additional flexible city dollars toward big ticket projects like this during an era of budget deficits. We know the city has a lot of pressing maintenance needs, such as repairing our old bridges through our throughout our city. As we heard last week with the city auditor's report on bridges, at the same time, the climate notes that we just passed would probably point out that the net benefits of this project by reducing carbon emissions, by getting people out of their single occupancy gasoline powered vehicles. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Peterson, are there any comments on this bill? Councilman Strauss.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. Thank you, Chair Peterson for bringing this for the Madison Bus Rapid Transit Project is very high priority for me. We know that the rapid rides in Seattle and King County are not quite bus rapid transit. Bus Rapid Transit has its own lanes level. Boarding. All door boarding. And when bus rapid transit is able to be successful with all of its its implements, then it can meet the similar reliability as light rail, plus or minus about 3 minutes. We know that people will be more able to use and rely on transit when transit has a reliable travel time from its from when you pick it up to where you're going, if you know how long it's going to take, every time you ride the bus, you're more likely to take it. Also, we need to be able to have reliability within our city to have busses arrive every 10 to 15 minutes on corridors such as the Madison BRT. We know that in places like, again, Eugene, Oregon, who has true bus rapid transit, they are able to meet these frequency levels of service that our city so, so desperately needs . And so by creating on what transit only lanes throughout the city is going to be one way of doing that. And overall, we need to have more projects like Madison be BRT. And so this ranks very high on my priority list. I'm happy to support it today and I look forward to supporting it more in the future. Thank you, Council President. Thank you. Chair Peterson.
Speaker 0: Are there any other comments on the bill? Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 5: Thank you. So I, I really, I understand the importance of the medicine BRT Rapid Ride Line Project, and I appreciate that it's been in the works for many years. I was glad to see 7.3 million additional funding available from Sound Transit and 4 million in savings was available from the Lander Street Overpass project. And I start gets the credit for managing the Lander Street over project over street project in a way that allows this fund to be funds to be relocated. I do have concerns about the smaller funding source for another project that's been in the works for many, many years. The Fauntleroy Boulevard Project, namely $918,000 previously allocated to that project, is included in this reallocation. One constituent when we actually voted on this reallocation in the 2020 rebalancing package and this is a separate vote to to align the CIP with for 2020 with that vote. But when we took that that vote earlier, a constituent reminded me that planning work for this project goes back over 20 years. The project originated with Community, which is on a pedestrian unfriendly city and a very, very dense and increasingly dense area in an urban village. Last week, during Transportation and Utilities Committee, I had to leave for another meeting and I wasn't able to bring this up during committee. Thank you to Chair Peterson for doing so. You know, it's again important to realize that 100% designed for the project was reached in fall of 2017. I supported the delay of that project in January 2018 because the project overlaps with one of the options under consideration for Sound Transit's Light Rail project. Consequently, implementation was delayed until completion of the EIA process. But I only supported the the delay of the project because we also received a very strong commitment from DOT about the funds that had been allocated for the project and as Dots Fauntleroy Project website notes, Sound Transit's decision on light rail alignment is the next step. And they go on to say, and I quote, We remain committed to the goals of the Boulevard Project. If Sound Transit's light rail design for West Seattle does not impact Fauntleroy way, we will move forward with the full project as design. If Sound Transit's design impacts on the right way, we will work with Sound Transit to implement streetscape improvements on Fauntleroy way that align with the goals of the Fauntleroy Boulevard project. Now it appears that Eastport is planning to propose redirecting not only these funds in 2020, which I agreed to in principle, but a significant amount of the 13 million enlisted in the city for the project in the proposed we. I believe they are going to make this proposal in the 2021 budget. Essential staff estimates involve a $9 million redirection. So Sound Transit's draft year is scheduled for early next year and the final year for 2022. It seems very premature to reallocate funding for the project in advance of that decision. I definitely appreciate that I did some short term improvements with the over $13 million allocated for for this area, for transportation improvements in this area. And they did so a couple summers ago. But those were definitely intended as temporary improvements and not a substitute for the project. I recognize that this issue is tangential to funding for the Madison Street Rapid Ride. It only affects a small portion of the new project funding. I want to make sure that I state my concerns in advance of the 2021 budget. I let Eastport know after the committee vote last week that my support for the Madison BRT funds is strong, but that I was seeking a commitment from start to reconsider this plan to divert between 9 to $13 million from the Fauntleroy project in 2021. I believe they're doing so is a real mistake and the community would feel and I would as well, that a promise was broken. If it moves forward with what I understand is a 2021 decision to divert the rest of those funds. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Are there any other comments on the bill? Councilmember Peterson, please.
Speaker 2: Just I want to thank Councilmember Herbold for bringing up that issue that, you know, I know we don't want to. Live an austerity budget scenario. And and yet there is a budget deficit. And during the 2021 budget, we'll have lots of, we'll say, robust discussions about how to allocate funding. And Councilmember Herbold, I'd be happy to work with you if that budget comes down and that project is negatively impacted, we can, you know, happy to happy to be an ally as we try to find funding from other projects that may not be as much of a priority as Fauntleroy, just.
Speaker 0: Thank you for that. Are there any other comments on the bill? Hearing none. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Morales. I must get to.
Speaker 4: My.
Speaker 1: Petersen. I the what? Yes. Strauss. Yes. HERBOLD Yes. SUAREZ Yes. President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will a quirk please affect my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Item 22 Will the clerk read the short title of item 22 into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 126000, which adopted the 2020 Budget, including the 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); revising project allocations for the Madison BRT - RapidRide G Line project and certain other projects in Ordinance 126000 into the 2020-2025 Adopted CIP; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09212020_CB 119857 | Speaker 4: Agenda Item 22 Constable 119857 related the city department clarifying that residents living in the city department owned housing in the Diablo and Salem communities are subject to the City Life Department's rate. The committee recommends Bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Come Summer Pearson as chair of the committee, you are recognized in order to provide the committee's report.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. Council 119857. Simply clarifies that residents of housing owned by Seattle at the Skagit Hydro project pay regular rates for electricity. The only exceptions are, if otherwise, provided in a collective bargaining agreement or by explicit terms in a hiring letter. Accountable 119857 passed the Transportation Utilities Committee unanimously.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Peterson, are there any comments on the bill? Hearing that. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Macheda. Yes. Pietersen?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: The one? Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Verbal. Yes. Juarez.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez. I nine favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it with a clear plea to fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Item 23 Will the clerk read the short title? Excuse me, did we just do item 23?
Speaker 4: You're on target.
Speaker 0: It is 23, right? Correct. Okay. Sorry. Well, will the court please read the short title of item 23 into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; clarifying that residents living in the City Light Department owned housing in the Diablo and Newhalem communities are subject to the City Light Department’s rates under Chapter 21.49 and 21.56 of the Seattle Municipal Code; amending Section 21.56.030 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09212020_CB 119871 | Speaker 4: Agenda Item 24 Capital 119 871 relating to the three departments establishing updated eligibility requirements for net metering and customer requested net metering aggregation and arrangements can recommence pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Peterson, as chair of the committee, you're recognized in order to provide the committee report.
Speaker 2: Thank you. As we know, net metering is the electrical billing system whereby customers in Seattle City like it to roll the meter backwards if they generate power with solar panels. There are two changes. This one shifts the calendar year for calculating the quantity of solar electricity that customers have provided to city life, and it will allow customers to combine two meters aggregation for purposes of calculating the quantity. These changes to city lights net metering program as required by state law and are very modest impact. Council Bill 119871 passed the Transportation and Utilities Committee unanimously.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Are there any comments on the bill? Hearing none that will the court please call the roll on the passage of the bill Lewis.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Morales Macheda. Hi, Peterson.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: So what?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold. Yes. Suarez.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor, nine opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the Court please and fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Item 25 Will the clerk please read the short title of item 25 into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; establishing updated eligibility requirements for net metering and customer-requested net metering aggregation billing arrangements; and amending Section 21.49.082 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09212020_CB 119885 | Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the Court please and fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Item 25 Will the clerk please read the short title of item 25 into the record?
Speaker 4: Agenda Item 25 Council Bill 119885 Wellington City Department Amending Section 21.40 9.34 of the code to enable a broader suite of voluntary renewable energy programs. Options to City Light Customers. The committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Peterson is chair of the committee. You are recognized in order to provide the committee report.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council president. This is another minor Seattle see light measure that facilitates green energy projects. It broadens the scope of projects that customers can participate in. The ability to provide green energy for low income households is made easier by this. There are no fiscal impacts to Seattle City Light Council Bill 119885 passed the Transportation and Utilities Committee unanimously.
Speaker 0: Thank you. In there any comments on the bill? Hearing none with a clip. Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Morales. Morales. Yes. Mesquita. Yes. Petersen.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: So what?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Suarez. Yes President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Line in favor and opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Adoption of other resolutions. Item 26. Will the clerk please read the short title of item 26 into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; amending Section 21.49.084 of the Seattle Municipal Code to enable a broader suite of voluntary renewable energy program options to City Light customers. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09212020_Res 31968 | Speaker 4: Adoption of the Resolution Agenda 26 Resolution 319 68, providing an honorary designation of Union Street between 34th Avenue and 35th Avenue and second Q BURNETT Street.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. I will move to adopt resolution 31968. Is there a second? Second it's been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution councilmember so on. You are the Prime sponsor and are recognized in order to address this item.
Speaker 3: Thank you, President Gonzales. I'm really happy and proud to sponsor the solution four for an honorary street designation of a portion of East Union Street between 34th, 34th and 35th Avenue in District three. In honor of Douglas Q Barnett, who played a monumental role in developing theater in Seattle's black community over the course of his life, he founded New Black Arts West, headed up over 40 productions and acted in over 30. Thank you so much to Mr. Barnett family, Eric and Maisha Barnett, Stephanie Johnson and other community members who testified in public comment and who have also written to my office and to the Department of Transportation over the course of the last few weeks . Also, thank you so much, Jacob Monet, who first approached my office with this proposed street naming. New Black Arts West was established in the central area in the 1960s. First performing at the Douglas Trood library, moving to the building that is now but place before eventually moving to East Union Street, a few blocks from the Seattle offices of the Black Panther Party. And I think that this is a happy coincidence that the city council will be voting on the street, naming on the same day that the Central District Post Office has also opened up in in in the same neighborhood. And also, once again, thanks to the advocacy of the local community members. Mr. Barnett's legacy is an important part of the central area history and it is clear from the community members who spoke today and have spoken in the past that I have discussed and I've discussed his legacy with my office, that Mr. Barnett has had an incredible impact on our community and our city and is very much missed. And this renaming commemorates appropriately the legacy he leaves behind him. Thank you.
Speaker 0: A councilmember silent for those remarks and for bringing forward this resolution. Are there any comments on the resolution? A hearing. Nun Will the police call the roll on the adoption of the resolution? Madam Clerk, you might be a mute.
Speaker 1: Excuse me. Lewis.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Morales Macheda. Most get a. I.
Speaker 2: Peterson I.
Speaker 1: Want.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Purple? Yes. Juarez.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor, nine opposed.
Speaker 0: The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the Court please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Agenda Item 27 Will the clerk read the short title of item 27 into the record?
Speaker 4: Agenda Item 27 Section 31969. Setting the time and place for a hearing on the appeal was barred from the findings and recommendations report at the hearing. Examiner on the final assessment role for Local Improvement District Number 6751. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION providing an honorary designation of E Union Street between 34th Avenue and 35th Avenue as “Douglas Q. Barnett Street.” | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09212020_Res 31969 | Speaker 4: Agenda Item 27 Section 31969. Setting the time and place for a hearing on the appeal was barred from the findings and recommendations report at the hearing. Examiner on the final assessment role for Local Improvement District Number 6751.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I will move to adopt resolution 31969. Is there a second? I think it's been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Juarez, you are the prime sponsor and are recognized in order to address this item.
Speaker 4: Thank you. As the clerk shared and I share it again this morning, but briefly again, this bill sets the time and place for the hearing regarding the waterfront Lyd, that we have been working on for a few years now. From the findings and the hearing regarding the appeal and the findings and recommendations of the report of the hearing examiner in which that report came out last year, and we had a recent one that just came out two weeks ago, this would be the final assessment role for the local improvement district number 6751. The resolutions that the hearing for December 1st in the public after the name Communities Committee to meet the requirements of equalizing judicial rule must take action this week with the resolution. This is a mandatory and procedural matter. I recommend council confirm resolution 31969. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Casmir wise, are there any comments on the resolution? Harry Manuel, the clerk. Please call the role on the adoption of the resolution.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes.
Speaker 0: Macheda Yes.
Speaker 2: Petersen Yes.
Speaker 1: LE Why.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 2: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold Yes. Juarez.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez Yes. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Other business. Is there any other business to come before the Council? Hey, hearing none. Colleagues, this concludes the items of business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting was rescheduled to Tuesday, September 29th, 2020, at 2:00 PM. Again, next week's regularly scheduled city council meeting was rescheduled to a Tuesday, September 28th, 2020, at 2 p.m. in recognition in observance of Yom Kippur, which is on Monday, September 28th. The City Council will also hold a special meeting tomorrow, September 22nd at 3:00 p m That does conclude all of our items of business for today. So I hope that you all have a wonderful afternoon. We are adjourned. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION setting the time and place for a hearing on the appeal of Lou Bond from the findings and recommendation report of the Hearing Examiner on the final assessment roll for Local Improvement District No. 6751, and directing that the City Clerk provide any required notice of the hearing in the manner required by law. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09142020_CB 119878 | Speaker 2: Agenda Item three Council Bill 1129878 relating to the employment authorized execution of a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Seattle and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District Wide 160 Local 79 and ratifying confirming certain prior acts.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. I moved to pass Council Bill 119878. Is there a second? Can. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill as sponsor of the bill. I'll address it first and then open the floor to comments. This Council bill authorizes the execution of a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Seattle and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District Lodge 160 Local 79. The parameters of this collective bargaining agreement were approved by the Labor Relations Policy Committee, and its key agreements include the following terms. The agreement is a three year agreement on wages, benefits, hours and other working conditions for the time period of January 1st, 2019 through December 31st of 2021. The bargaining unit includes approximately 40 regularly appointed city employees of the city of Seattle, and the agreement does include retroactive wage adjustments. Like many of our other collective bargaining agreements for 2019 and 2020, and it also includes a reopen on annual wage increases for the year of 2021. Finally, the collective bargaining agreement does include agreements on shared health care coverage, payments and other matters, such as the employee contributions to the premiums for the Washington State Paid Family Medical Leave program. And I recommend and encourage my colleagues to support the passage of this council bill this afternoon. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing none. Will the court please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Juarez?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Mosquera. Yes. Peterson. Yes. So what? Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Purple? Yes. President Gonzalez?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor, nine opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Agenda item four Will the clerk please read item four into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment; authorizing execution of a collective bargaining agreement between The City of Seattle and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 160, Local 79; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09142020_CB 119827 | Speaker 2: They reported a land use in neighborhoods committee agenda item five Capital 119 827 relating to land use concerning and that is chapter 23.32 seven the code at page 208 of the official land use map to resell land in the Rainier Beach neighborhood. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Madam Clerk. Councilmember Strauss, you are the chair of the committee and are recognized in order to provide the committee report.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President CB 119827 would rezone two areas of the Rainier Beach to facilitate the development of affordable housing in the neighborhood. The two resound areas are within a quarter mile along Rainier Avenue South. In total, about 2.72 acres. One area is near the intersection of South Rose Street and the others at the intersection of South Cloverdale. South Road Street area is currently split, zoned and this proposed zone would change a portion of it to low rise three and another portion to neighborhood commercial to allowing for the offices of services that need to accommodate affordable housing to be present on site. Bellwether housing is seeking to construct the affordable apartment building with family size 2 to 4 bedroom units serving households between 50 and 60% of the area. Median income in the South Cloverdale Street area is currently zoned neighborhood commercial two and would be rezone to neighborhood commercial to 65 foot rather than 55 foot . How height limits the amount Baker Housing is seeking to construct a mixed use building there with 2 to 3 bedroom family sized units affordable, also with 50 to 60% of urban median income. Their proposal includes ground force floorspace for the Rainier Beach Food Center operated by the Rainier Valley Foodbank. The Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee did hold a public hearing on this proposal in August, and we did not receive any opposition to these reasons as well as OK'd has provided for the record. And the record reflects how and why these reasons need to come through our committee at this time and in this manner. Thank you, council president. That's the report from the committee.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Strauss for that report. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Customer. Morales, please.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I just want to thank the ladies committee and Councilmember Strauss in particular for inviting me to participate in the committee meeting last week and just share my thoughts. As I said, this is a legislative reserve that coordinates that serves the strategic purpose of the city in terms of increasing affordable housing, meeting our goals for for racial equity in the plan, and also providing really important services in an area of low economic opportunity and high risk of displacement. So these are these are important projects that are underway and will be really critical to the neighborhood. In addition to providing housing, they will also provide a community food center with a commercial kitchen, provides a more dignified shopping experience for the clients of the Renner Valley Food Bank. And then the housing project also could be slated to provide some child care, which we all know is desperately needed in the city. A child care facility. So. Here to support. And I want to thank the Land Use Committee for the work that they did on this.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Morales, for those remarks. Councilman. Councilmember Strauss, anything else to add?
Speaker 4: Nothing to further at this. Further to add at this time. Thank you, council president.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Okay. Seeing and looks. I'm sorry. I didn't realize that there was other councilmembers with comments. I apologize. Councilman Mosqueda, please. Just a quick note to say how excited I am to support these projects that pair affordable housing with co-located services and equitable development features like child care and job training services, small business incubation and community space. We talked a lot about this in the last committee meeting, and councilmembers Morales and Strauss have already mentioned it. But I think that these are great examples of what we continue to strive to do in the city to place these amenities next to transit. So it's a really great opportunity for us to highlight all of the work that I think we envision when we talk about development done right and through the community lens. And it is possible because the Raynor community has spent so many years advocating to advance. For example, as Councilman Morales, Morales said the Food Innovation Center in the neighborhood while also investing in affordable housing. And we're doing this through the equitable development lens to ensure good jobs for community members. I am hopeful, though, that in the future it doesn't take as long as it did to get this project underway and that we continue to do everything that we can as this council continues to lift up priorities like this to make sure that we're investing in what community has identified as priorities to prevent against displacement and also to create economic resiliency is a great example of that, and I want to underscore my appreciation for it, but also know it took a long time to get here and next time I'm hoping it won't take so long. So thank you so much. And Councilmember Strauss, excited that you got to over the finish line. Appreciate it. Happy to support. Thank you so much because members get it. Any other comments on the bill? Harry, will the court please call the role on the passage of the bill or as.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Louis.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales Mosqueda.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 4: Peterson Yes.
Speaker 1: A lot.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss Yes. Herbold. Yes. President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor, not opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Folks. We have other business. I understand because Verizon has an item for other business. Please customers one.
Speaker 3: Thank you. President Gonzalez, I move to be excused from the city council meeting tomorrow, Tuesday, September 15, 2020, because I must legally recuse myself from the issue that will be under consideration.
Speaker 0: Their second.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: I guess Ben moved in and seconded it. And, Madam Clerk, you remind me. Do I need to call this to a roll, or do I just need a call for an objection?
Speaker 2: Captain Gonzalez, Amelia Sanchez. You can do either or you can ask a decent objection or you can ask us to call them.
Speaker 0: All right. I will simplify this and say, is there any objection to Councilmember Cifuentes request to be excused from tomorrow's special council meeting of September 15th, 2020 at 1 p.m.? Hearing no objection to the request to be excused is granted and that Councilmember Swan will be excused from for a special full council meeting at 1 p.m.. Is there any further business to come before the council? Okay. My further business is we got to get more childcare a.s.a.p. Okay, colleagues, this concludes items of business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on Monday, September 21st at 2 p.m.. Of course, the City Council will hold a special meeting tomorrow, September 15th at 1 p.m., and I hope that you all have a wonderful afternoon. We're adjourned.
Speaker 1: This. Thank you. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending Chapter 23.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code at page 208 of the Official Land Use Map to rezone land in the Rainier Beach neighborhood. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09082020_CF 314455 | Speaker 6: Agenda item eight Clerk File 314455. Seattle Information and Technology Department request for a six month extension for the Filing of Surveillance Impact Report due on September 1st, 2020.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. I will move to get approved and file clerk file three one, four, four, five, five. Is there a second.
Speaker 2: Second?
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to approve and filed. Clerk filed 314455. Councilmember Peterson, you are the prime sponsor of this item and are recognized in order to address it. Please.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President. Colleagues, I'll be brief. As I mentioned at council briefing, due to various delays associated with the COVID pandemic, our Seattle Information and Technology Department is filing a six month extension for the surveillance impact reports. We will receive these no later than March. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Peterson, are there any comments on the clerk file? Hearing none will occur. Kirklees call the roll on the approval and filing of the clerk file.
Speaker 1: For both? Yes. Whereas. Councilmember Suarez. Hi. Lewis. I. Rallies. I was set up by Peterson. Yes. Swan Yes. Strauss Yes. Council President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The motion passes and the clerk file is approved and filed. Items nine through 11 Will the clerk please read? Items nine 311 into the record.
Speaker 6: Agenda items nine through 11. Appointments 1595 through 1597. The reappointment of Mary Ellen Russell as member Seattle School Traffic Safety Committee return to March 31st, 2022 and the reappointment of Margaret Macaulay and Leland Branch. Bruce for terms to March 31st, 2023. | Clerk File (CF) | Seattle Information and Technology Department request for a six-month extension for the filing a Surveillance Impact Report due on September 1, 2020. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09082020_CB 119835 | Speaker 0: The motion carries and the appointments are confirmed. Okay. Moving on now to committee reports of the Land Use Committee item 17, will the clerk please read the short title of item 17 into the Record.
Speaker 6: Report of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item 17 Council Bill 119835. An Ordinance relating to land use and zoning. Correcting typographical errors, correcting section references, clarifying regulations and making minor amendments. The committee recommends that the excuse me, the committee recommends the council pass the bill as amended. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Sorry about that mount clerk I got ahead of you. I apologize. Okay. Item number 17. Councilmember Strauss, as chair of this committee, you are recognized in order to provide the committee report. Please.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President. This is the land use omnibus bill, which is considered roughly annual, roughly once a year and makes technical and clarifying amendments to our land use code. The Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee made several amendments to this legislation, including removing confusing language regarding unit lot subdivisions in response to resident communication. We changed. We made a change that will make it easier to include decks and patios on detached dwelling units and a compromise amendment regarding long term bike parking requirements for affordable housing and senior living facilities. There are there is a substitute amendment to consider today before we consider the base legislation, and that substitute makes several technical corrections and clarifications. The substitute also makes minor changes to the bike parking requirements to clarify the allowance for up to five steps to access bike parking only as applied to exterior stairs and to allow a waiver from that step. Maximum for townhomes and row houses that are built steeply are on sloped sides. I think that there might be a little bit more work to do here and understand that it's important to move forward today. I can address, though, Councilmember Peterson's landmark amendment as it comes up. Thank you, council president.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Strauss, for addressing the Bass legislation and the substitutes. I'm going to hand it back over to you to formally move the substitute version of the bill.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I will move to post. Substitute. To Council Bill 119835.
Speaker 0: Okay, colleagues, we are entertaining a motion to amend Council Bill 119835 by substituting version three for version two. Is there a second? Becca, thank you so much. It's been moved and seconded to amend Council Bill 119835 by substituting version three for version two. Councilmember Strauss, you already addressed the substitutes. Is there anything else you'd like to add?
Speaker 4: Not at this time, other than it made some technical and clarifying changes on technical nature.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Strauss. Are there any other comments on the substitute? Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 3: Council president. Will this be the time where I would move to amend the substitute?
Speaker 0: Okay. No, the substitute is not formally adopted yet. So once we we have to adopt a substitute before any amendments to the substitute can be considered. Thank you for asking that procedural question. Any other comments on the substitute? Hearing? None. Will the clerk please call the roll on the substitute?
Speaker 1: Our bold. Yes. Whereas.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: MORALES Yes. What's better? Yes. Peterson.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: So on. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Council President Gonzales.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Not in favor and then opposed.
Speaker 0: The motion carries the amendment is adopted and the substituted bill is before the council. Councilmember Peterson, I understand that you have an amendment, so I am going to hand it over to you to formally introduce the amendment, and then we will open it up to discussion.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Council President and thank you, Chair Strauss, for shepherding this bill forward. This omnibus land use bill. At the most recent land use committee, I had introduced an amendment to cancel the request from the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection to take the authority from the Landmarks Board regarding landmarks sites. That amendment tied in a vote of 2 to 2 in the Land Use Committee and was therefore not incorporated in the version of the bill that advanced. And we just talked about the substitute since the time of our committee vote, we confirm that the Landmarks Board has not officially weighed in on this move to take authority from them. In addition, historic Seattle opposes that change to strike the words cites from the bill so or to the right to add the word cites to the bill. So this amendment that I have recirculated this morning gives council members a chance to consider this amendment if they weren't on the land use committee and those who might have been okay with it previously to reconsider it. This memo was crafted by central staff and approved by the law department, and so I'd like some moves to amend Council Bill 119835 as presented on the amendment. Amending Section 17 of the bill, which was distributed earlier, basically striking the word sites so that the authority for sites would still stay with the Landmarks Board and that it's something that Stsci can come back with later if they want to.
Speaker 1: Is there a second?
Speaker 0: Was that you can't remember her. It was okay.
Speaker 1: Sorry.
Speaker 0: We accidentally spoke over each other, so I appreciate it. It's been moved and seconded to amend Council Bill 119835 as presented on the amendment. Are there any additional comments on the amendment? Councilmember Strauss, followed by Councilmember Hertel.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council president. Thank you, Councilmember Peterson, for your robust work on this amendment. I will be voting no on this amendment, as I did previously in committee, and my office has spoken with our central staff and staff from Department of Neighborhoods Historic Preservation Program and South Park Reconstruction Inspections. Many of the concerns I've heard over email seem to be describing changes that are not proposed in this bill, and I understand that confusion in this in this manner is not helpful. So everything is working quickly and we're trying to work together. So that's why I really commend Councilmember Peterson for continuing to work on this. The proposal that this amendment seeks to remove is simply a technical correction that would not have a wide ranging impact that that has been thought. Specifically, these changes would not remove or weaken any authority of the Department of Neighborhoods or Landmarks Preservation Board currently has. The Landmarks Board currently does not have jurisdiction over use. And so that is how the building is used that already belongs with the sale of apartment construction and inspections, the Landmarks Board would continue to have authority over any physical change to the designated features of a landmark structure or site. That does not change with with this amendment. Seattle Department of Construction Inspections already has the authority to grant nonconforming uses, so they already have the authority to grant this nonconforming use to landmark structures if they meet the criteria. This includes the proposed uses compatible with the existing structure. The uses that are allowed within the zone are impractical to provide. In the landmark structure or do not provide inadequate. Financial support to maintain the landmark. And that the use is not detrimental to the surrounding uses or public interest. So they have to already be allowed in this area. This change would not change the existing authority other than to clarify that it applies to the landmark site as well as the structure. So the reason that the site, the we're focusing on this word site versus structure is because the existing authority already exists within the building. And so now we're talking about what is occurring outside of the building on the on the same property. The exclusion of sites from the code seems to have been a previous oversight and code drafting rather than a policy choice. I understand that there are policy implications, and that's why Councilmember Peterson, rightly so, has brought this forward again. And I think that there we could and should have that that policy conversation if if warranted. The current distinction between sites and structures leads to weird constraints in these land use decisions. For example, CCI could approve a child care center inside a landmark structure as a nonconforming use. However, if that structure has a parking lot outside or an outdoor area for kids to play, Stsci could not approve using that parking or outdoor space to support the child care facility because it is part of the site rather than the structure. So to kind of sum all of these changes up, there's no changes to how the Landmarks Board Authority operates. The board will still have authority over any physical changes to designated features, just an addition of sites to sitka's existing authority. I also understand that Stsci first consulted with Department of Neighborhoods Historic Preservation staff last year, but that does not mean that more robust conversation needs to occur. So unfortunately, it sounds like we have crossed wires in working remotely as virtual meetings can be difficult, and I hope that my comments clarify the proposal. This is not something that I'm going to, you know, fall on my sword about. I think that there are important conversations to have about how we use the sites of our historically designated. Buildings. I just wanted to clarify that the what we're discussing here about the site, the one the parking lot, the space around the buildings is already within the code for the building and it impacts only use and not the structure. And so, again, I really want to thank Councilmember Peterson for bringing this forward, continuing this conversation. And thank you, colleagues, for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Strauss, Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 5: Let's see here. Okay. Thank you. So, you know, I think really for me, this hedges on this question of whether or not this is a tactical amendment or not. And, you know, we have a long standing practice of how we handle legislation that is part of the omnibus bill coming out of C.I. for the land use code . And to my knowledge, the understanding is that because it's a very large bill, it covers dozens of different code sections. In this case, this bill is 121 pages long. We have an agreement that we handle only technical amendments in the omnibus bill, and that we have an agreement and a commitment from the executive that the bills that are there have impacts on policy and that aren't technical in nature, are bills that we hear separately because of a heightened interest on behalf of the public and because of the existence of stakeholders, in this case, stakeholders that we have that we have a charter to give us advice on properties such as the the the incentive program that zoning code relief for historic sites. And so I don't believe this change is technical in nature. One of the things that Eugenia Woo said is adding the word with I'm sorry, with historic Seattle, adding the word site or sites might seem like a minor thing and it's not one word can have a lot of meeting when it comes to legislation and land use and zoning. The proposed addition of site or sites is not a correction of or of a typo typographical error. It is not correct section references. It does not clarify a regulation and it is not a minor amendment. Again, this is not a distinction. Our discussion on whether or not this is a good amendment or a bad amendment, merely that we have an agreement and a commitment with with stakeholders, with ourselves, with the executive of the types of of changes that we will consider in omnibus legislation. And then just wanting to also quote Barker, who is a former Land Works board member, when she said to basically shift authority from these sites, from our land landmarks board to the executive through this. This bill, she says, is a disservice to the hard work that the Landmarks staff and the Volunteer Landmarks Board perform. And I really think that Landmarks Preservation Board input would be would be invaluable in a discussion around what what may be useful inappropriate zoning code relief as an incentive to provide more flexibility for existing landmarks, whether or not they are properties or sites. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Alex, any other comments? I see councilmember Luis think elsewhere Mosqueda than Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much, Madam President. So I agree with everything that Councilmember Herbold just said in terms of really queuing up the posture of where this lands for me, in terms of the context of what the change is and and how it's packaged into the omnibus legislation. And I do want to hear, especially as someone who, like many of us formerly served on an on a city border commission from the landmark board on the the impact of this change. I'm especially given Eugenia Wu's email from historic Seattle earlier, really underscoring that historic Seattle does have some concerns with this legislation. And really for me, I was one of the councilmembers in the committee that did vote for this amendment before. I was certainly all kind of potentially changing my vote in the committee today. I do think the email from historic Seattle was really impactful, given that they are a very critical stakeholder on our mission of historic preservation, especially as relates to the critical work they've done around place. Make the Washington Hall and the Good Shepherd Center and just a lot of the organizations they put a lot of investment in gives me a lot of respect for for what they do or don't think is important in this world of historic preservation in the city of Seattle . And I would certainly like to work with them more, as they said, not necessarily to oppose this change forever, but to to see what a more deliberative process, to discuss some of the implications around the potential change of the site and sites, language that could have bigger implications. So for those reasons, I am going to vote for this amendment again today and and appreciate Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 4: Bringing it forward again.
Speaker 0: I think Councilmember Mosqueda was next and then Councilmember Morales. Thank you very much, council president. I want to underscore the comments that.
Speaker 1: Council.
Speaker 0: Member Strauss made today and as chair of the committee, what he has brought to light in the last few conversations that we've had. So to add to the conversation that we had this morning, I want to reiterate that this omnibus change only applies to single family zones. So this will not apply to, for example, the Beacon Hill Garden House, which was mentioned earlier today from our friends in Beacon Hill. This is not within a single family zone, so that is not going to be affected. Furthermore, nonconforming uses may be approved on landmark buildings already. This is already a practice. So this is a technical change in nature. The omnibus change would extend this to include sites and approving nonconforming users through the administrative conditional use process is the jurisdiction of CCI after consulting with the Department of Neighborhoods. The Landmarks Preservation Board does not have jurisdiction over this use. I just want to say that one more time, because I think there has been some.
Speaker 1: Confusion out there.
Speaker 0: The Landmarks Preservation Board does not have jurisdiction over this use. This is not shifting any role that they currently have. Additionally, any physical change to the designated features of a.
Speaker 6: Landmark building.
Speaker 0: Or site is the jurisdiction of the Landmarks Preservation Board. And that authority is not changing within the omnibus omnibus building code. So Councilmember Strauss said this already, and I'm just lifting this up.
Speaker 1: To.
Speaker 0: Underscore the importance so that this doesn't get lost in the in the discussion around this, because I know some of these topics can be somewhat contentious. We're very interested in preserving landmarks. We want to make sure also that we're looking at opportunities for the best use of public spaces or other spaces to serve the public. But this again, this does not change the jurisdiction of the Landmarks Preservation Board within this code. This is a technical change. Department of Neighborhoods and CCI treat landmark buildings and sites the same deal and has authority over physical changes at end of our building and the CCI. And again, I want to reiterate. The nonconforming uses may be approved on landmark buildings. Already the omnibus change would extend this to include sites and approving non-conforming use through the administrative conditional use process is again the jurisdiction of CCI. After consultation with feeling, I'll be supporting this. That wasn't clear from my earlier comments and just now. Thank you very much. You can have some of us get a customer. Morales. Just to clarify, I'll be supporting the bill Aziz Ansari and Councilmember Peterson. I'm not supporting the amendment. I just want make that clear. Sorry about.
Speaker 1: Okay. So I. As I understand it, you know, this is as an omnibus bill, supposed to be technical in nature. And I will say that it does sound like it's getting sticky because there is a deeper policy issue being addressed. And what seems like a minor word change in May leaves more questions about unintended consequences. We did have a conversation today with central staff who pointed out that there are no pending applications would be impacted by this change. But it is also my understanding, and maybe Councilmember Strauss can clarify this is one property that would benefit from this right now, from this kind of a change. So I think for me, the question is that clarity around what what would be impacted by this beyond just one potential project and how that relates to, you know, does a policy change being made for one purpose? Or if there is a deeper or a broader implication here as we're trying to make a decision.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Strauss, that question was addressed to you. So you're welcome to respond.
Speaker 4: Great. Thank you so much. And thank you, Councilmember Morales. My understanding is, as I explained before, the deeper. The long term benefits of this are that a building's use and the site's use could both be considered by the Seattle Department of Construction and inspections rather than this situation which we have today, which the use is only able the decisions can only be made within the building. And I think that childcare really is a great example because the State Department of Children, Youth and Families requires both parking and outdoor space. And so when we're looking at it from that type of technical change, allowing a department to make a decision based on an entire facility is is important. Now, when it comes to the one site that I've heard repeatedly also brought up, I don't it's not my understanding that there's an application and maybe Councilmember Peterson can enlighten us more about that site, because it's not within my district and it's not something that I've had my my fingertips. Right on top of. So when I hear that there is a bit of confusion regarding whether this is a policy change or a technical change. And that's why I said earlier, this is it's not the end of the world. It's not something that I'm going to die on my sword for. Because if there is a policy change, if this is a policy implication that people need to have a conversation about, then that's fine. And that's something that we should do when we're looking at especially historic buildings and single family zones, which comprise the majority of the city of Seattle. This could create cumbersome red tape that could be unnecessary in places. Now, if we need to protect certain aspects of our historic sites or historic sites and buildings, I think that that's really important. And that's why the Landmarks Board's jurisdiction over this does not change. Because the look and feel of. The historic site will not be altered by this one work change. It is simply the use of child care facilities. It is why I keep going back to that example, because child care facilities do require parking, drive up, load, unload and outdoor outdoor use, whereas most other uses are able to be confined into into the building. I do believe that the site that has repeatedly come up has a restriction for educational uses. But I'm not going to read it. I'm not going to wade into those waters because I don't have enough information to discuss it appropriately. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Hey. All right. Going to. It's. It's your amendment, so you get the last word. Councilmember Peterson, I'm going to just make a couple of brief remarks before you. You you do that. So my understanding of what we're voting on now is, in fact, an omnibus bill. It is designed to reflect technical corrections to the land use code as a cleanup effort. And frankly, I feel like we're making a mountain out of a molehill on this one. And I do think and believe that it is a technical correction. We have heard language both from Councilmember Strauss and Councilmember Mesquita, and I have not heard any any concrete citation to specific language that proves otherwise that Stsci already has the authority to make these sorts of decisions. And if that is true, and I don't have to have a reason to believe it is not true, then this language is clean up and is simply designed to make sure that the decision making by SDI is consistent as it relates to the site and use issues that Councilmember Strauss has highlighted. So I intend to vote no on this amendment and I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Peterson to close out debate on this amendment so that we can go ahead and call it to a vote and and address the underlying bill accordingly. So, Casmir Peterson, sorry. Now we're going to close that. We're going to close out debate. I'm sorry, Councilmember Peterson. And please.
Speaker 1: You.
Speaker 3: Thank you. And want to thank everybody who did call in and who wrote to us with their concerns about this from the different communities across the city. And, you know, there it's whether it's about a use or not because it talks about configuration of the site, which is is more than just use configuration of the site is is what CCI wants to put in there and have authority over. And so I'm it's precisely because of this confusion as to whether it is substantive or not that it's, in my opinion, should be pulled out, which is what this amendment would do to enable CCI. If they really feel that this is necessary change, that they can just come back and we can daylight everything and have a full, robust discussion about it. But it's just not appropriate in an omnibus bill traditionally to have what could be considered substantive change. And so I just asked my colleagues to consider approving this amendment, and then we can discuss this at a later date about the use and configuration of various sites and open space, etc.. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Peterson, we're going to go ahead and again close that debate because we've had a long conversation about this during council briefing. We're having a long conversation about it now, and there was a long conversation about it in the committee. So we are, I think, at the the end of the road here, and it's time for us to make make a call one way or the other. So I'm going to ask that the clerk please call the role on the amendment as proposed by Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 1: For both. Yes. Whereas. No. Lewis.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales now. Let's get to know. Peterson.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Salon? Yes.
Speaker 4: Strauss No.
Speaker 1: It's our council president Gonzalez now. Four in favor, five opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Madam Park. The motion fails and the amendment is not adopted. Are there any further comments on the bill as amended? Councilmember Rosetta And then Councilmember Strauss, you'll have the last word since you're the sponsor of the bill, because we're almost there. Thank you, Madam President. Again, thanks to Councilmember Strauss for shepherding this omnibus bill through. I want to say thank you for the work that you did to include amendments, technical in nature, to make sure that we codified the intent of what we passed through the ADU and dating legislation last year. This is going to go a long way to making sure that unclosed decks and rooftops over patios can extend to make sure that there's more ability for people to enjoy their ideas. And that is with rooftop areas. Because as we create greater density in the city, we know that we want to create a city that's livable and walkable and accessible for all ages and abilities. I know that we use our rooftop as our backyard because we don't have a backyard. And this is where we have our dinners on our patio and our kiddo plays and we visit with our elders. So I'm looking forward to supporting this legislation for a number of reasons, but especially I want to thank you for working with our office to include that technical amendments and make sure that we were clear on that effort. And I hope that that will go a long way for the livability of the city.
Speaker 1: Thank.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilor Mosquito. Are there any other comments on the bill? Councilmember Strauss, last word is yours.
Speaker 4: Just again, want to thank Councilmember Peterson for bringing this amendment forward and other amendments forward. Councilmember Herbold also spoke to the importance of omnibus bills making technical and not policy changes. And I know that in days of working virtually and remotely, that it can be confusing what is technical and what is policy. And I appreciate everyone's willingness to work together. Some of the other, as I said previously, some of the other confusing language that we removed was regarding what unit subdivisions, which again could be viewed as either technical or it could be viewed as is policy already discussed was the patios and decks for a use. And also I want to highlight the there was a lot of work put into one amendment regarding long term bike parking and I know that there's now there could be some additional work to clean it up in the future. Just that in this moment where we continue to hear how divisive everything is, this was a moment where people came together and really were able to compromise and find a solution that works as best as it can for everyone engaged. And so I want to thank my colleagues on the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee and thank everyone all excellent public stakeholders and city departments who weighed in on this very long bill. Thank you, Council President and I look forward to the passage of this omnibus bill.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Strauss, for all your work on this particular bill. Well, Kirk, please call the roll on the passage of the bill as amended.
Speaker 1: Revolt. Yes. Yes. Whereas. I. Lewis. Yes. Morales. What's that? Yes, Peterson.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 1: Sergeant. Yes. Strauss Yes. Council President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Eight in favor.
Speaker 0: One Oppose the bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affects my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay. Committee reports we are now going to hear from the Transportation and Utilities Committee agenda item 18. Will the clerk please read Agenda Item 18 into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; correcting typographical errors, correcting section references, clarifying regulations, and making minor amendments; amending Sections 22.214.040, 22.214.050, 23.22.062, 23.22.100, 23.24.040, 23.24.045, 23.28.030, 23.40.060, 23.41.004, 23.41.012, 23.42.048, 23.42.112, 23.44.008, 23.44.010, 23.44.014, 23.44.016, 23.44.026, 23.44.041, 23.45.506, 23.45.512, 23.45.518, 23.45.522, 23.45.545, 23.47A.008, 23.47A.012, 23.47A.013, 23.48.005, 23.48.020, 23.48.025, 23.48.220, 23.48.225, 23.48.245, 23.48.720, 23.48.724, 23.48.740, 23.49.008, 23.49.011, 23.49.014, 23.49.056, 23.49.166, 23.52.008, 23.54.015, 23.54.025, 23.54.030, 23.54.040, 23.58C.040, 23.58D.006, 23.66.342, 23.69.032, 23.73.009, 23.73.012, 23.84A.004, 23.84A.032, 23.84A.036, 23.86.007, 23.90.018, and 25.09.060 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and adding a new Section 23.48.007 to the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09082020_CB 119745 | Speaker 6: The Report of the Transportation and Utilities Commission Commission Agenda Item eight Teen Council Bill 119745. An ordinance granting the University of Washington permission to maintain and operate five existing pedestrian sky bridges located around the perimeter of the U. Doug Campus. The committee recommends that City Council pass as amended the Council bill.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Councilmember Peterson, you are chair of the committee and are recognized in order to provide the committee report.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President. I'm pleased to present this agreement for your adoption at the last meeting of the Transportation Utilities Committee. This was presented for adoption. However, concerns were raised about failure to include an explicit provision regarding compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act ADA. As a result of those concerns, an amendment was prepared by DOD and University of Washington, and that amendment was adopted by the committee at its August 19 meeting and is now part of the ordinance before us. So I recommend approval of Council 119745, which would provide permission for a University of Washington to maintain and operate five existing pedestrian sky bridges.
Speaker 0: Thank you. PETERSON Are there any comments on the bill? Hearing no comments. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: For both? Yes. Whereas. I. Lewis.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Musketeer? Yes.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Sergeant. Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council President Gonzales. I favor none of those.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please a fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Agenda Item 19 Will the clerk please read Agenda Item 19 into the record?
Speaker 6: Agenda Item 19 Council Bill 119865 An ordinance relating to street and sidewalk use amending ordinance 125706 and the street use permit fee schedule authorized by section 15.0 4.074 of the Seattle Missile Code and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE granting the University of Washington (UW) permission to maintain and operate five existing pedestrian skybridges located around the perimeter of the UW campus as a Campus Pedestrian Skybridge Network, for a ten-year term; specifying the conditions under which this permit is granted; providing for the acceptance of the permit and conditions; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09082020_CB 119865 | Speaker 6: Agenda Item 19 Council Bill 119865 An ordinance relating to street and sidewalk use amending ordinance 125706 and the street use permit fee schedule authorized by section 15.0 4.074 of the Seattle Missile Code and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Peterson. As Chair of the committee. You are more than welcome to be recognized first, unless you would like to hand this over to Councilmember Strauss to address the bill.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President Yes. Councilmember Strauss has done a lot of work on this and so I'd like to turn it over to him if you would like. Otherwise I can address it as well.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 4: All right. I just want to thank you. Councilmember Peterson, chair of Transportation Utilities Committee. This bill was intended primarily to address sidewalk cafes and street cafes. Permitting, I did hear during public comment some other concerns, and I would have liked to be able to address those earlier on. And again, anyone who's engaged in land use, please don't hesitate to reach out to our office. We look forward to working with all stakeholders and Councilmember Peterson, who's done some really great work on this, and we work really well together. So all that to say is that sidewalk cafes and and cafe streets are really going to be the way that we create an economic ability, the ability for our economy to exist during COVID times, because outdoor transmission is lower than indoor transmission. And so the ability to use our public rights of way for economic activity is incredibly important. And this bill not only allows that, but also allows that to be free of charge so that we are ensuring that our economy is able to restart as quickly as possible and outdoors in an outdoor setting. We've seen these sidewalk cafes and street cafes and Seattle together, streets popping up across our city. And it's a really amazing feature that I think will have a lasting impact in a positive way for the city of Seattle and how we eat, dine, shop and and speak to one another, whether it's in COVID or once we're out of this pandemic. Thank you. Councilmember Peterson, would you like to add anything on to that?
Speaker 3: Councilmember Strauss Well said. And also just to remind everybody, this did pass unanimously out of the committee with all five members of the committee.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Peterson, Councilmember Mosqueda. I see your hand up and colleagues of anyone else would like to make comments. Please do let me know. Thank you. Council President Ford, the chair of transportation and for the prime sponsor of the bill. Actually, just a quick question, if you don't mind. And to catch us up, I wondering if you can talk about the timeline of some of these street cafes and the permitting process. I saw some comments online about the short duration of some of the permitting and a desire to either see the duration extended or in some cases , to make these locations permanent so that we can have some super black spots across our city as a possible positive outcome of this policy change. Can you comment a little bit if it's appropriate, Madam President, just on the duration and the possibility of extension or permanent nature? Sure. Councilmember Peterson, would you like to take that question?
Speaker 3: Yes, it is. For just a few months. It is supposed to be about during COVID pandemic. And first, we need to collect the data on how it how it's going, what the impacts are to other businesses who might not be getting these permits to who might want more parking nearby or bus routes, etc.. So we're collecting it's going to be collecting data on this so that we can determine what to do on a more permanent basis, if at all.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you. Council President. Thank you. Councilmember Peterson. I would say that these permits were set up as quickly as possible by start working to respond to the COVID pandemic. So much like some of these other emergency responses, there was a short timeline associated with them. I think that with any pilot project, this one included, we will see the benefits and we'll also see what doesn't work so well. I am going to champion that we make these permanent features within our community because I think street cafes and sidewalk cafes are even before the pandemic. I was a very large fan of these. And to your point, the super blocks where we're able to really create a pedestrianized space that still allows for deliveries, operations, people with all ages and abilities are able to access that space and the three minute to go orders as well. There's a real opportunity here. I'm going to champion to make these permanent, and I would hope that my colleagues would join me in that. And with that, I want to thank Scott for working as quickly as possible to get this temporary permit available free of charge.
Speaker 0: Thank you both very much. Thank you so much. Are there any other comments by my colleagues? Okay. I would just say that I did reach out to the Department of Transportation related to some concerns that we received sort of in the in the in the in the 11th hour here about and we heard a little bit about this in public comment about the impact of this bill on street use fees on on construction of affordable homes. And unfortunately, my understanding is that Ascot did, in fact, do a presentation for the organization that reached out to us via letter and in public comment today, and that they received no concerns or feedback at that time. Again, that doesn't that doesn't mean that that there weren't concerns. It just means that that there was an opportunity and the opportunity was not taken at that time to provide any concerns. And again, the Department of Transportation believes that the intention of this proposal is to actually reduce the cost for townhouse type developments, and that projects outside of urban centers should remain pretty even. The increases proposed in the street use fees will primarily be in the downtown core. So Director Zimbabwe and his team are are happy to connect with any of us colleagues that continue to have concerns about this particular issue. And I look forward to supporting the bill as it is introduced today with the understanding that obviously there there could be there will be more to come on this policy issue as flagged by Councilmember Strauss in terms of. The potential long term nature of this kind of a program. So that being said, let's go and close that debate. And I would ask that the clerk call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Or both? Yes. Whereas. I. Lewis. I. Morales, I. We'll get up. PETERSON.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Sergeant. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Council President Gonzalez. I vote in favor and oppose.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Agenda Item 20 Will the clerk please read item 20 into the record?
Speaker 6: Agenda Item 20 Council Bill 119867. An ordinance relating to the city's traffic code amending sections 11.4 6.10 and 11.4 6.020 of the Seattle Invisible Code to revise permissible areas of operation and the right of way and other public pathways for electric personal assistive mobility devices and motorized scooters. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to street and sidewalk use; amending Ordinance 125706 and the Street Use Permit Fee Schedule authorized by Section 15.04.074 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09082020_CB 119858 | Speaker 6: Agenda Item 21 Council Bill 119858 An ordinance relating to the financing of the West Seattle Bridge Immediate Response Project creating a fund for depositing proceeds of taxable limited tax general obligation bonds in 2021. The committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. This is agenda item 21. In the previous conversation, we had a conversation about agenda item 20 and 22. As I mentioned, we will vote on items 20 and 22 separately and in the order that they were published on the agenda. So we have this minor interruption of item 21 to have a conversation about this particular item before we take up the second scooter related bill. So item 21 and Councilmember Peterson, you are chair of the committee and are recognized in order to address this item.
Speaker 3: And you? Council President Yes. So Council 119858 is for the West Seattle Bridge and it's authorizing to enter fund loans. That state needs to have sufficient funding to conduct the preliminary work on the bridge. The total $70 million. The loans will be repaid with a bond sale in 2021. So obviously lots of choices that will be coming up later in terms of repair replace that this money is needed now just to do the shoring up work. And I want to thank Councilor Herbold for her leadership on this issue as well.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. Councilmember Herbold, would you like to make some remarks?
Speaker 5: I would very much just want to really uplift how important this funding is and for what it's actually going to be used for. Not only is it going to be used for the stabilization work that and the monitoring that has to be done regardless of whether or not there's a decision to repair or replace the bridge. But it's also being the funds are also going to be used for repairs and enhancements to the lower bridge, which we're also reliant on in this time during the the closure of the upper level bridge for priority transit, use of freight use and emergency vehicle use. In addition, this funding is going to be used for the traffic and mobility mitigation projects, including the West Seattle. The Reconnect with Seattle Project. That DOT is circulating a draft set of recommendations for all of the communities that are most impacted by the closure of the bridge with a really strong equity focus on on focusing on making important transportation investments to mitigate the impacts of having all of these vehicles going through their neighborhoods as part of the detour routes, specifically in neighborhoods that have suffered for lack of from lack of investment over overpass years. The funding is also being used for the planning and design of a long term replacement. Again, we're working on designing a long term replacement because even if we choose repair, there will be a need for a replacement some time in the future. And so it makes a lot of sense, I think, to to do that design work on the on the front end. Also included in the in the funding package is a preliminary to your work plan with an emphasis on broad community engagement efforts. And it includes emergency repairs, bridge stabilization, work monitoring, planning and design, repairs and enhancements to the Spokane bridges, as I mentioned earlier, and traffic and mobility mitigation projects that is all contained in this two year work plan. I also want to thank Chair Peterson for his work in stewarding this legislation, my colleagues, for their consideration of passage of the legislation. The West Seattle community, as well as the South Park, Georgetown and SODO communities have been deeply impacted by the closure of the bridge through at least the end of next year. Many have lost the access to the rest of the city in the region and others are seeing increased traffic in the southern portion of the peninsula, near access points in Highland Park and south Dulwich. While South Park has seen increased traffic as as has Georgetown as well, looking forward to continue to work with Massdot and the technical advisory panel and the Community Task Force on that cost benefit analysis to inform that decision in early October on whether to repair or replace the bridge. This is this is all really important work not just for folks on the peninsula, but for the region. This is a major a major thoroughfare that serves the entire region and is really important for for for freight and and other other other economic development needs for for our entire region. It's really, I think, important to emphasize that this is the decisions we make are broader than the needs of just West Seattle. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold, for those remarks. Are there any other comments on the bill? I just want to say thank you to Chair Peterson for the Transportation Utilities Committee and of course, to you, Councilmember Herbold, for your ongoing work and advocacy on addressing the regional impacts of the West Seattle Bridge Safety Project. And I know that there were there will be a lot of tough decisions coming before us about the bridge and financing and addressing the long term needs and impacts of that of that failing in structure, infrastructure. And really do appreciate your all's attention to the details and ongoing advocacy on behalf of not just District one and portions of District two, but for the entire region. And I just think that's absolutely worth emphasizing one more time. So thanks again for all of your work. Looking forward to supporting this particular council Bill. Okay. If there are no other comments on the bill, I would ask that the clerk. I will ask the clerk. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Revolt. Councilmember her goal.
Speaker 0: She's working on it. We're just a.
Speaker 1: Yes. Thank you. Whereas I. Lewis.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Burrell's as. Musharraf? Yes.
Speaker 3: Peterson Yes.
Speaker 1: So. Arndt Yes.
Speaker 4: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 1: Council President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Mean, in favor and oppose.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the court please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Item 22 This item has already been read into the record and we have also addressed the substance of this bill and had debate. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the financing of the West Seattle Bridge Immediate Response project; creating a fund for depositing proceeds of taxable limited tax general obligation bonds in 2021; authorizing the loan of funds in the amount of $50,000,000 from the Construction and Inspections Fund and $20,000,000 from the REET II Capital Projects Fund to the 2021 LTGO Taxable Bond Fund for early phases of work on the bridge repair and replacement project; amending Ordinance 126000, which adopted the 2020 Budget, including the 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations to the Seattle Department of Transportation; and revising project allocations and spending plans for certain projects in the 2020-2025 CIP. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09082020_CB 119868 | Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the court please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Item 22 This item has already been read into the record and we have also addressed the substance of this bill and had debate. I will make one last call for any other comments on this bill before we call it to a vote. Seeing no other comments on the bill will occur. Please call the roll on the passage of the Bill Herbold.
Speaker 1: Yes. Whereas I Lewis. Yes. For Alice? Yes. Well. Sarah. Yes. Peterson.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So, aunt. Yes? Strauss.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council. President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Am in favor one oppose.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Item 23 Will the clerk please read Agenda Item 23 into the record?
Speaker 6: Agenda Item 23 Council Bill 119866 An ordinance relating to Seattle Public Utilities creating a restricted cash account for depositing donations and gifts authorizing the general manager, CEO of Seattle Public Utilities to accept donations and gifts into the account for the purpose of providing financial assistance to its low income customers. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to use of City right-of-way by free-floating scooters; amending Section 15.17.005 of the Seattle Municipal Code; adopting a Free-Floating Scooter Share Program Fee Schedule; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09082020_CB 119866 | Speaker 6: Agenda Item 23 Council Bill 119866 An ordinance relating to Seattle Public Utilities creating a restricted cash account for depositing donations and gifts authorizing the general manager, CEO of Seattle Public Utilities to accept donations and gifts into the account for the purpose of providing financial assistance to its low income customers. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Councilmember Peterson, as chair of the committee, you are recognized in order to address this item.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President. So I'm pleased to present and support this bill from Seattle Public Utilities to set up a donation account. This is similar to the one that Seattle satellite has so they can accept donations to help their low income customers pay their bills. And this is Council Bill 119866, which was approved by a committee.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. Are there any comments on the bill? Hearing? None. Will the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill for both?
Speaker 1: Yes. Whereas. I. Lewis. Yes. Morales s. ROSQUETA Yes.
Speaker 3: Petersen Yes.
Speaker 1: On, yes.
Speaker 4: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 1: Council President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor and opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Items 24 through 26 will please read items 24 through 26 into the record. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; creating a restricted cash account for depositing donations and gifts; authorizing the General Manager/CEO of Seattle Public Utilities to accept donations and gifts into the account for the purpose of providing financial assistance to its low-income customers. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08172020_CB 119846 | Speaker 3: Agenda Item seven about 119846 granting s m r e marketsite LLC permission to maintain and operate pedestrians garbage in cross post alley at the north margin of Union Street for 15 year term renewable for one successive 15 year term. But find the conditions under which this premises guarantee providing for the acceptance of the permit and conditions and disarming search and prior acts.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Madam Clerk. I moved to pass Council Bill 119846. Is there a second packet? It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilmember Peterson, as sponsor of the bill, you are recognized in order to address this item.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. Council Bill 119846 would bring new permission to maintain the SkyBridge over post alley at Union Street at the south end of the Pike Place Market. The SkyBridge provides a connection between market side apartments and first half. Escort recommends approval, and our central staff expressed no concerns for this renewal.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Peterson, are there any comments on the bill? Hearing? None. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the Bill Strauss?
Speaker 1: Yes. Purple. Yes. Whereas.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Petersen.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Seven in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay. Agenda item eight Will the clerk please read the short titles of items eight through 14 into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE granting SMRE Marketside LLC permission to maintain and operate a pedestrian skybridge over and across Post Alley at the north margin of Union Street for a fifteen-year term, renewable for one successive fifteen-year term; specifying the conditions under which this permit is granted; providing for the acceptance of the permit and conditions; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08172020_CB 119850 | Speaker 3: Agenda Item three 314 Capital 119 815. The Department Transportation Authority and the director of the Department Transportation to acquire a second record on behalf of the City of Seattle. A quick claim deed from King County Capital 119851364. City for streets or alley for Capital 119852. Accepting 21 ticket purchase easements for public sidewalks and emergency vehicles. Street or alley turn around 4%. Flexible 119853. Accepting variances for street or alley purposes. Capital 119854. Accepting various street deeds for street or alley purposes. Capital 119855. Accepting 21 property easements for public sidewalks, walkway, pedestrian alley, utility, bicycle and bridge purposes taxable 119856. Accepting variances for street or alley purposes.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk, for reading those items into the record. The clerk has read items eight through 14 into the record. Each bill will be moved for a separate vote. And Councilmember Peterson, I understand, is prepared to address all seven items at once and then answer questions related to all seven in order to help move us through these agenda items. So we will begin with item eight. So again, we're going to move each item separately, but Councilmember Peterson is going to address all of all of the items in his remarks. So I will move to pass Council Bill 119850. Is there a second?
Speaker 2: Second?
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilmember Peterson, as a sponsor of these bills, you are recognized in order to address items eight through 14.
Speaker 2: Things you can do as the president. So the first one Council Bill 119850 accepts for small parcels from King County. These are remnant parcels located across the city and have generally functioned as rights of way both state and central staff recommend approval of Council Bill 119840350. Excuse me. Now for the next few items council bills 119851 through 119856. These items nine through 14 on today's agenda, allow me to just read from the central staff memo, which sums it up perfectly from Calvin Chao. So these council bills are packages of property deeds and easements acquired by the city as a result of permitting decisions on private development activity. Typically, these transactions are bundled into legislation throughout the year and transmitted to council on a rolling basis due to the reduced city council schedule during COVID 19. These six counts have been transmitted together and would authorize several property transactions at once. Eastern and central staff recommend approval of this legislation.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Councilmember Peterson, are there any questions on any of the eight excuse me, seven, seven items read into the agenda? Okay. Hearing none. We're going to go through each one of these if there are no comments on items eight through 14. So last call any any comments on items eight through 14? Hearing. Anon will go ahead and have the clerk call the roll on the passage of council. Bill 119850.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbals. Yes.
Speaker 3: SUAREZ Yes.
Speaker 2: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 4: Morales Yes.
Speaker 2: Petersen Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Seven in favor, nine opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And I'd ask that the clerk please affects my signature to the legislation. Hey, item nine has already been read into the record, so I will move to pass Council Bill 119851. Is there a second second? It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Are there any other comments on the bill? Hearing on will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the Bill Strauss?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbals? Yes.
Speaker 3: Whereas death.
Speaker 1: Luis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Peterson.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez. Yes. Seven in favor. None oppose.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay. Agenda item number ten has already been read into the record and described. So I will move to pass Council Bill 119852. Is there a second second? It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Are there any other comments on the bill? Hearing none. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Strauss Yes. Purple, yes.
Speaker 3: Suarez Yes.
Speaker 2: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales Yes.
Speaker 2: Petersen Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez. Yes. Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign. It will declare the fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Agenda item 11 likewise has been read into the record and described by Councilmember Petersen. So I will move to pass Council Bill 119853. Is there a second?
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Are there any comments on the bill? Hearing none. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the Bill Strauss?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Verbal. Yes. Suarez.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. S. Peterson.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez. Yes. Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Item 12 has been read into the record and described by Councilmember Peterson, so I will move that past council. Bill 119854. Is there a second second? It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Are there any comments, any additional comments on the bill? Hearing? None. Will the clerk please call the role on the passage of the Bill Strauss?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbals. Yes. Whereas.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Peterson.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez. S seven in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Agenda item 13 has likewise been read into the record and described by Council member Peterson. So I will move to pass Council Bill 119855. Is there a second.
Speaker 2: That.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill? Are there any additional comments on the bill hearing? None. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the Bill Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold. Yes. Suarez.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Peterson.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez. Yes. Seven in favor. Nine oppose.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the court please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay. Last property and easement bill here. Item number 14. Again, this bill has been read into the record and already described by Councilmember Peterson. So I will move to pass Council Bill 119856. Is there a second second? It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments on the bill. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Verbal. Yes. Whereas.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Lewis. Yes. Morales.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Peterson.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzales. Yes. Seven in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay. Agenda item 15. Madam Clerk, this is still in my script, but I believe it might have been removed. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Transportation; authorizing the Director of the Department of Transportation to acquire, accept, and record on behalf of The City of Seattle a Quit Claim Deed from King County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, located in a portion of Block B, Supplementary Plat of Edes and Knight’s Addition to the City of Seattle, a portion of the Northwest quarter of Section 32, Township 26 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, a portion of Block 1, Ross Home Addition, and a portion of Block 48, Yesler’s 2nd Addition (Supplemental) to the City of Seattle; designating the property for street purposes and laying it off as right-of-way; placing the property under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08172020_CB 119857 | Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay. Agenda item 15. Madam Clerk, this is still in my script, but I believe it might have been removed. Is that correct?
Speaker 3: I'm not at this point. Council president. Council president. Councilmember Peterson is prepared to move to refer this item.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you so much. Well, the clerk please read item 15 into the.
Speaker 3: Agenda Item 15 Capital 119857 relating to the City Life Department clarifying that residents living in the city elect apartment owned housing in the Diablo and New Haven communities are subject to the City Department's rates under Chapter 21.49 and 21.56 of Economic Code and amended section 21.50 6.0, 38% of the code and ref site and confirming certain paragraph
Speaker 0: . Thank you, Madam Clerk. Again, I understand that this bill requires additional attention, and there is a proposal that it be referred to the Transportation and Utilities Committee. So going to hand it over to Councilmember Peterson to make your motion for the referral of this bill.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council president, you have lots of executive departments trying to get legislation through. We just passed a lot of legislation. And so this one I think would benefit from brief discussion in committee. So I move that council bill 119857 be referred to the Transportation and Utilities Committee for further consideration.
Speaker 0: And thank you so much for that motion. Are there comments on the committee referral? Herein, none. Will the cleric please call the wall on the adoption of the committee referral draft.
Speaker 2: Could I get a second?
Speaker 1: Second? I second.
Speaker 0: My my script didn't call for a second, so I assumed that the city clerk did that accurately and that the motion did not require a second. Madam Clerk, can you please confirm that that is accurate?
Speaker 1: It can't have a second, but if it didn't have a second, then we move forward to call the vote. It would be just fine.
Speaker 0: There you go. So we.
Speaker 3: Are we.
Speaker 0: Are chugging along without that second, because it didn't seem to be necessary. I appreciate it. Okay. Well, the clerk, please call the roll and adoption of the committee referral.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold. Yes. Suarez.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Petersen.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez. Yes. Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The motion carries in. The bill is referred to the Transportation and Utilities Committee for further consideration. Thank you so much, colleagues. Agenda item 16 Will the clerk please read item 16 into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; clarifying that residents living in the City Light Department owned housing in the Diablo and Newhalem communities are subject to the City Light Department’s rates under Chapter 21.49 and 21.56 of the Seattle Municipal Code; amending Section 21.56.030 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08172020_CB 119859 | Speaker 3: Agenda Item 16 Capital 119859 Believe to taxation delaying the effective date of the heating oil tax on Heating Oil Service provided and provided under Chapter 5.47 of delaying the date of the Office of Sustainability and Environment First Annual Heating Oil Tax Program Status Report.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. I need to pass Council Bill 119859. Is there a second second?
Speaker 4: Again.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilmember Morales, I understand you are the sponsor of the bill, so you are recognized in order to address this item.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Yes. So Council Bill 119859 would delay for one year, as I mentioned this morning. The effective date of the heating oil tax that was adopted in 2019. As I said, the intent of the original ordinance was to tax heating oil in an effort to accelerate the rate of conversion from oil heat to electric heat pump systems. In response to community feedback about the impacts of this tax on low income and middle income households, particularly during COVID, O.C. is proposing, we delay implementation for one year. And just to give you an example of why this could be cost prohibitive for many families, we know that the average cost to convert oil to electric heat and decommission an oil tank is about $13,000 per tank. And that doesn't include the costs for clean up if those tanks have leaked under somebody's home. So that can run 40, $50,000. So this is really especially when some of these homes that have oil heating are very old and there's a high likelihood that these tanks could potentially leak or be damaged in transition. It's important that we take a pause on implementing this tax so that we set up systems to be able to support families better. The is the memo that you all received indicated we are also looking at some possible changes to the Pollution Liability Insurance Agency. I'll talk about that in a moment with the amendment. But we do want to make sure that families are getting all the assistance they can with loans or grants to be able to afford the cost of making the switch. And until we've got those set up, we want to push back the start date of this for a year.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you so much, Councilmember Morales, for that description of the underlying bill. I do understand that you have an amendment, as you just alluded to. So why don't we go ahead and address the amendment first and then we'll have an amended version of the legislation before us, and then we can open it up for questions on the bill as amended.
Speaker 4: So I move that we amend Council Bill 119859.
Speaker 0: Is there a second? It has been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment One. Morales. Please feel free to address Amendment One.
Speaker 4: Thank you. So this amendment would request that the Office of Sustainability in the Environment provide a status report to council by June of next year, June 1st, 2021, regarding the rulemaking for the Pollution Liability Insurance Agency's new Heating Oil Loan and grant program. We are especially interested in how that program will avoid creating undue economic hardship on low and middle income homeowners with oil, heat, and how the city will implement the Heating Oil Tax and home conversion program to protect low and middle income homeowners from undue hardship. Additionally, the report should include a summary of feedback from key stakeholders about whether the effective date of the tax should be September 1st, 2021, or if there should be an additional delay at that time due to economic conditions or the status of COVID. Who knows where we will be next summer or any other factors that might be in play at that time?
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Morales. Are there any questions on questions or comments on Amendment One? Okay. Hearing none. Well, the clerk please call the role on the adoption of Amendment One.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbals. Yes. Whereas.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Petersen.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez. Yes. Even in favor not oppose.
Speaker 0: The motion carries in. The amendment is adopted. And now we have an amended version of the bill in front of us. So are there any further comments on the bill as amended? Caring Land Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 1: We appreciate it. I just wanted to for a little bit of history around amendments that I offered when we first pass this legislation last year. I, like Councilmember Ellis, was very worried that the legislation would have a negative impact on seniors and low income people, since they are most likely to have their homes heated by oil. And so I have proposed an amendment to address these concerns, and they were supposed to report back to us on their impact, on their analysis of the impact of the bill on seniors and to fully fund conversions for low income households. I also proposed an amendment to delay implementation of the tax from July 1st to September, September 1st. So here we are. Further, further delay, delaying implementation and still razor laser focused on trying to find out more about what the impacts would be on seniors and low income people who are most likely to have their homes heated by oil. And really appreciate Councilmember Rouse's amendment and bring the legislation forward so we can ensure that the Council will receive a status update in advance of.
Speaker 2: September 1st, 2021.
Speaker 0: Thank you for those comments, Councilmember Herbold. And I also appreciate Councilmember Morales bringing this forward in conjunction with the Office of Sustainability and Environment to make sure that we are in a now these period of time where the economy is so uncertain. It is even more important for us to make sure that we have all the relevant information before us to understand any disproportionate impact that may result and unintentionally and unintended by this particular council bill that we passed last year. So appreciate. Appreciate you bringing it forward. Are there any other comments on the bill? Councilmember Morales, anything else to add?
Speaker 4: I think we're good.
Speaker 0: Okay, great. With that being said, I'd ask that the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill as amended.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold. Yes. Suarez.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Peterson.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez. Yes. Levin. In favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Item number 17 Will the clerk please read item 17 into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to taxation; delaying the effective date of the heating oil tax on heating oil service providers under Chapter 5.47 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and delaying the date of the Office of Sustainability and Environment’s first annual heating oil tax program status report. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08172020_CB 119847 | Speaker 3: Agenda 1017 Capital 119847 delayed to start consultation the posting controls upon the Canterbury port landmark designated by the landmark specification for.
Speaker 0: Akhenaten clerk. I will move to pass Council Bill 119847. Is there a second?
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilmember Strauss, you are the sponsor of the bill and are recognized in order to address this item.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. Council Bill 119847 imposes controls on the Canterbury Court. This legislation acknowledges the designation of the Canterbury Court as a historic landmark by the Landmarks Preservation Board and imposes controls and incentives. The Canterbury Record is a Tudor style apartment complex that was built in 1929 and the University District just south of the future light rail station. It is designated based on its distinctive visual characteristics of the Tudor revival style and the controls in this agreement applied to the site and the exterior of the building.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Strauss, are there any comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments on the bill. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold. Yes. Suarez. Yes. Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Petersen.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez. Yes. Vote in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will it please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Agenda Item 18 Will the clerk please read Agenda Item 18 into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to historic preservation; imposing controls upon the Canterbury Court, 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_08172020_CB 119848 | Speaker 3: Agenda Item 18 Capital 119848 relating to start conservation appropriate controls upon the University of Washington Engineering Annex, a landmark estimated by the Landmarks Preservation Board.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. I move to pass Council Bill 119848. Is there a second?
Speaker 2: Tactically.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilmember Strauss, you're the sponsor of the bill and are recognized in order to address this item.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember 119848 Control imposes controls on the U. Dub Engineering Annex. This legislation acknowledges the designation of the University of Washington's Engineering Annex as a historic landmark and imposes the controls. This engineering annex was built in 1909 as it as part of the Alaska Yukon Exposition Exposition and is being designated because of its association with both the exposition and the university's historic history. It has very distinctive visual characteristics, and something that's interesting to note is that the majority of the buildings built for the Alaska Yukon Pacific Exposition were built as temporary structures. So this was built as one of the few permanent structures and was the first boundary this side of the Mississippi that the public could view. This was built as a demonstration site where folks could see how the the foundry works and how you smelt metal into tools and other important things that they were using in Alaska. On the way for the gold rush. This controls the controls in this agreement apply only to the site and exterior of the building.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Strauss, are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments on the bill will please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Verbal. Yes. Suarez.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Peterson. As president. Gonzalez. Yes. Seven in favor, not unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Park. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Agenda Item 19 Will the clerk please read item 19 into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to historic preservation; imposing controls upon the University of Washington Engineering Annex, 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_08172020_Res 31965 | Speaker 3: Décembre 2021 Resolution 31965 delegating temporary authority to the city clerk to set the time and place for hearing any appeals from the report. Findings, recommendations and decision of the hearing on the final assessment role for Local Improvement District Number 6751 and directing that the City Clerk provide any required notice of a hearing in the manner.
Speaker 0: Required by law. Thank you, Madam Cook. I will move to adopt resolution 31965. Is there a second second? It's been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution. I am happy to report that Councilmember Juarez is with us this afternoon as the sponsor of the resolution. She is going to address this item in a fashion that is much more. That is much better than the way I did this morning. So I'm happy to have you here and hand it over to her to address this item, Cosmo Juarez.
Speaker 3: Thank you, President Gonzalez, particularly for leading the introduction around the waterfront lit assessment this morning. In defense of you, however. This has been going on for many years, so you shouldn't hold yourself out to be not doing a good job. I think you did a great job anyway. This is a necessary piece of legislation and administrative and required by law. The Council may not approve the final assessment role for the waterfront with that the local improvement district, without revealing and deciding upon appeals of the hearing examiner's recommendation on the final assessment role. And I'll come back to that in a minute. Council President This resolution delegates temporary authority to the city clerk to meet the deadline to set the time and place for appeals in case the deadline occurs during summer recess. That would be from August 24th to September 4th. Appeals will be referred to my committee, the Public Assets and Native Communities Committee, and this resolution stipulates that the clerk must schedule no earlier than December 1st to accommodate for recess and budget proceedings. As I shared the letter, the local improvement district and the unpacked it lid number 6751 which that means it is the 6,751st Lyd to be approved or on the on for us to consider. We've been doing lids since the early 1900s. We've been working on this with the waterfront for well over three years, working with the sale of waterfront folks and businesses, nonprofit condo owners, property owners, commercial property owners working with the Office of Waterfront for over four years, which has been great working with Marshall Foster and Jerry Costa. If you recall Council President about two years ago, I believe we hired a hearing examiner to get public comment and concerns that would be noted about this tax to be imposed. We were working with law in the executive to adjust the tax, the amount, the deferral and the time frame and calculation of such tax. We had a report from the hearing examiner last fall and we expect one final report, the final assessment rule. We're hoping that that report comes in late August to late September. So basically, this resolution is just a protection in the event that the report by the hearing examiner is filed during the recess. And this would just give the clerk the authority to and Erick's on the line to, I'm guessing, to go ahead and hold this. And so we had an up council had an opportunity to put it in our committee and make a decision. As you know, this kind of tax requires notice to those affected and those who may want to appeal. So with that being said, I would encourage my colleagues passage of Resolution 31965. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Juarez, for that description of the resolution and for your ongoing work on the waterfront. Live through your committee. Also want to thank the hearing examiner for all of the work they've been doing in response to your direction and vision on how to structure the substantive an appeal process issues in a way that is fair and equitable and transparent really appreciate all of the work that the hearing examiner and his staff have been doing. And lastly, just want to say thanks to our city clerk's office, who's also going to be playing a role now. So I will be gladly joining you in support of this resolution.
Speaker 3: Madam President, may I make an inquiry? And if you want to note this, that. We are still in a quasi judicial phase. A law that we are not allowed to be taking any kind of personal emails or comments from the public while this is still under the guidance and jurisdiction, if you will, of the hearing examiner.
Speaker 0: Absolutely. I made comments to that effect this morning at council briefing, and I think it's important to note it again here in open public session during our full council. So appreciate that reminder and admonition to council members related to this particular quasi judicial matter.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Absolutely. Any other comments? Any additional comments on the resolution? Hearing and seeing none. Will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the resolution?
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold. Yes. Suarez.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Peterson.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez. S seven in favor. None opposed.
Speaker 0: The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will. The Court is the fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Item 22 Will the clerk please read item 22 into the record? | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION delegating temporary authority to the City Clerk to set the time and place for a hearing on any appeals from the report, findings, recommendation, and decision of the Hearing Examiner on the final assessment roll for Local Improvement District No. 6751, and directing that the City Clerk provide any required notice of the hearing in the manner required by law. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08102020_CB 119818 | Speaker 3: Every part of this select.
Speaker 0: Committee agenda item one cancel.
Speaker 3: 119818 and many.
Speaker 0: Audience 126000 which adopted a 2020 budget including the 2023 2025 capital improvement program.
Speaker 3: The committee recommends the bill passes.
Speaker 0: Meadows, Councilmembers Macheda Gonzalez, Lewis Morales. Peterson Strauss in favor with the councilmembers who want opposed. Thank you, Clark. Okay, folks, I am going to recognize, Councilmember, that as chair of the Select Budget Committee in order to provide the committee report. Please. Thank you, Madam President. And if it pleases the President, me, I make a quick statement to encompass all of the bills that are in front of us regarding the budget. We have only read the first agenda item into the record related to the capital improvement program. So we would need to read. All of the budget. I'll hold it. Okay. Thank you, Madam President. Well, that was not. That was not reflected. Your intent to do that was not reflected in my script. So I think I would prefer if we go through it bill by Bill in the first one is related strictly to capital improvement program budget actions for 2020. Thank you, Madam President. I don't have any additional comments on this just to say this is one of many bills in front of us to rebalance our 2020 budget so that we are recognizing the restricted reserves that are in our hands. And to do so with the values that this councilors put forward over the last few months as we've taken on this budget. Thank you. Comes Marie Musgrave for those comments. Are there any other comments on the first bill which again is Council Bill 119818 related to the 2020 budget, including the 20 2025 capital improvement program. Council members want.
Speaker 2: Thank you. This is the first of several votes the city council will take today to adopt the city's new budget as a whole. The People's Budget Summer 2020 campaign my office socialist alternative and certainly the hundreds of Black Lives Matter activists who have courageously marched on the streets and braved police violence have fought for and won many of the progressive amendments, including a very small reduction to the Seattle Police Department. And I will speak to that more on agenda item number ten when those issues come up for a vote. Unfortunately, as a whole, this city budget does not meet the needs of working class people or the communities specifically who have experienced disproportionately the violence of the police department. Unbalanced budget cuts, tens of millions of dollars from the essential work of the city across departments like parks, roads and libraries. Rather than increase the Amazon tax on the wealthiest in our city in order to illuminate the need for austerity. On balance, this budget continues to spend more of the city's discretionary funds on the police than on any other department. In fact, this bill includes $3 million in increases to the police budget as a result of grants from the United States Department of Homeland Security. That is more than all the so-called defunding of the police budget a department agreed to by the majority of the council combined. I will reserve most of my comments about the budget for agenda item ten. Before that, I will be voting yes on the budget bills that simply accept grants or do other things unrelated to austerity. But I will be voting no on this bill and several other bills coming up that implement austerity budget. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sawant, Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. I just wanted to make note that this bill includes attachment B. Attachment B is the creation of a new capital improvement page for the Seattle Department of Transportation's West Seattle Bridge. Immediate Response. Just thank you to my colleagues for supporting me and bringing this forward. It will be very useful to us as we discuss the the Interphone loan that's proposed for some of the 2021 and 2020 cost for the West Seattle Bridge that we'll be hearing in Councilmember Peterson's committee very soon, as well as our upcoming September through November budget discussions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold, and thank you so much for your ongoing advocacy related to that important infrastructure project for District one and the entire region. Really appreciate it. Colleagues. Anyone else have any comments or questions on the bill? Looks like no one else does. So I will let Councilmember Mosqueda, as the prime sponsor have and the chair of the committee have the last word here, and then we'll go ahead and call the roll on this first Bill. Thank you very much, Madam President. And I recognize it's a long day, so I'll save my comments for the last bill as well. Look, I just want to set the record straight about what we're doing today. We have, as a council, come together as a collective to identify ways in which we can put our priorities, our values forward, and do so in a way that lifts up our commitment to being anti-austerity. Anti-austerity, and how we're responding to COVID in terms of caring for our most vulnerable and anti-austerity in terms of our commitment to raise progressive revenue. That's what we've done over the last few months with this entire council coming together. It's been a marathon. It has been an incredibly long few months as we've worked together to identify ways that we could reflect community priorities from spearheading conversations about new taxes and new strategies to right size up our upside down tax system. So thank you council members growth and so on to talking about making sure that there's additional funding for transportation. Thank you much to Councilmember Peterson to making sure that there's economic recovery for businesses. Cosmo Strauss You've been leading on that to ensuring meaningful disinvestment from police. Councilmember Herbold, thank you for helping to lead and get pen to paper on these amendments and that we've effectively transferred those dollars to the right places. Councilmember Lewis, you've been helping to ensure that we've been following through on where those dollars are going to making sure, finally that we are doing the right thing and we are taking our time. Councilmember Suarez has been critical in lifting up that voice and guiding us in each and every step of the way has been Council President Gonzalez. So I am proud of the packages in front of us today. We have not been asked often over the last few decades in this city to come together for a midyear 2020 rebalancing package. And as we've done so, we've tried to pull in your ideas to make sure that we're reflecting community priorities, but recognizing in just seven weeks our fall budget process starts with that. Thank you for all of the work that you've done, colleagues, that there is a series of amendments in front of us. But I just want to set the record straight on balance. We've rolled up our sleeves on balance. We've done some hard work. And on balance, we're not just wringing our hands were we're committing to actions here today. So thank you. Council President. Thank you, Councilmember Mosqueda, for that framing. Really appreciate it. With that being said, colleagues, I'm going to ask the clerk to please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Peterson.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: So what?
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 3: Strauss.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Purple? Yes. Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Morales. Yes. Must get a.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 3: President Gonzalez Yes. Seven in favor. One opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And I would ask that the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation. Okay. Item number two Will the clerk please read the short title of agenda item to into the record?
Speaker 3: Agenda Item two Cancer Ball 119819. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 126000, which adopted the 2020 Budget, including the 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various funds in the Budget; adding new CIP projects and revising project allocations for certain projects in the 2020-2025 CIP; abrogating positions; modifying positions, and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08102020_CB 119819 | Speaker 3: Agenda Item two Cancer Ball 119819.
Speaker 0: Authorizing and 2020 acceptance of funding from non city sources. The committee recommends that the bill pass. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Councilor Mosqueda, again as sponsor of the bill and chair of the Budget Committee. You are recognized in order to address this item. Thank you very much, Madam President. Nothing much to add besides the robust conversations that we had during the committee. I want to thank central staff for their robust analysis of where we could identify each and every dollar to help in this moment of crisis, both through the public health crisis and the economic crisis that's in front of them. I appreciate all the work they have put into it in addition to all of our council colleagues. Thank you. Thank you. Customer must get out. Any other comments on this bill? Hearing? None. I'd ask that the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Peterson.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 3: So what?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 3: Strauss Yes. Herbold Yes. Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Morales. Yes. Macheda.
Speaker 0: Yes. President Gonzalez. Yes. Eight in favor, none opposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. I'd ask that the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation. Item number three Will the clerk please read agenda item three into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE authorizing, in 2020, acceptance of funding from non-City sources; authorizing the Mayor or Mayor’s designee 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_08102020_CB 119820 | Speaker 0: Yes. President Gonzalez. Yes. Eight in favor, none opposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. I'd ask that the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation. Item number three Will the clerk please read agenda item three into the record?
Speaker 3: Agenda item three Council Vote 119.
Speaker 0: 820 126000 which adopted the 2020 budget, including the 2025 2025 Capital Improvement Program. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Okay. Councilmember Mosqueda once again is sponsor of the bill and chair of the committee. You are recognized in order to address agenda item three. Thank you very much, Madam President. As with a number of these bills, this is another attempt for us to look at carry forward the 2019 carry forward ordinance and appropriate the unexpended non-capital appropriations. This is prudent for us to do in the time of crisis, appreciate the work of central staff and our teams. Thank you so much. Are there any other comments on the bill? Hearing on will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 3: Peterson. I so want.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 3: Strauss.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Verbal. Yes. Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 4: Morales. Yes.
Speaker 0: Macheda. Yes. President Gonzalez? Yes. Agent seven Unopposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it and ask that the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation. Item number four Will the clerk please read agenda item four into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 126000, which adopted the 2020 Budget, including the 2020-2025 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_08102020_CB 119821 | Speaker 0: Agenda item.
Speaker 3: For cancer.
Speaker 0: 119821. And many audits 125724, which adopted the 2019.
Speaker 3: Budget, including.
Speaker 0: 2019 through 2024 Capital Improvement Program. We recommend that the bill pass. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Councilmember, mosquito sponsor of the bill and chair of the committee. You are recognized in order to address this bill as well. Thank you, Madam President. Nothing to add in addition to the comments I made on the previous bill as well. Thank you so much. Are there any other comments on the bill? All right. Hearing that. And will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: PETERSON All right.
Speaker 3: So what?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: STRAUSS Yes.
Speaker 3: HERBOLD Yes.
Speaker 1: LEWIS Guests.
Speaker 3: MORALES Yes. Let's get a. Yes. President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 3: Eight, Agent Faber. And unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Park. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And as the clerk, please, to fix my signature to the legislation. Item number five Will the clerk please read agenda item five into the record? Agenda item five Resolution 31951 authorizing the exception to the level of general fund support to up park and recreation due | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 125724, which adopted the 2019 Budget, including the 2019-2024 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_08102020_Res 31951 | Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Park. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And as the clerk, please, to fix my signature to the legislation. Item number five Will the clerk please read agenda item five into the record? Agenda item five Resolution 31951 authorizing the exception to the level of general fund support to up park and recreation due to exigent economic circumstances. By 3/1 vote of the City Council, the committee recommends that the resolution be adopted. Thank you, Madam Park Councilmember Mosqueda as sponsor of the resolution. You are recognized in order to address this item. Thank you, Madam President. Nothing else to add to this one. Thank you so much. Are there any other comments on the on the resolution? Did I see your hand? Because first a lot. Customers silent, please.
Speaker 2: Sorry. This is agenda item five. This one and the next one. Agenda item six. Lift the legally required minimum investment in the Parks Department and the Department of Transportation. If this was being done purely as an accounting measure to swap different types of funds in order to allow the city to fund the best priorities, of course I would be supporting this. However, that is not the reality of this austerity budget. The reality is, this year, the mayor has chosen to cut parks and roads rather than supporting the Amazon tax, let alone urging that the Amazon tax be increased so that austerity is averted. When we were voting on the Amazon tax earlier this month, my office proposed an amendment to increase those big business taxes in a very small way to cover all budget shortfalls so that no austerity would be needed. As I said, this could have been done with a very small increase in the Amazon tax paid for by the wealthiest who have been enjoying a tax haven in our city for years. Unfortunately, no other council member supported that amendment, and as a result, we are now faced with this austerity budget, including these resolutions that are legally required to invest so little into roads and parks. I believe I will be voting no on this resolution, which allows austerity in parks and the next council bill, which allows austerity in the Department of Transportation. And my comments apply to both items. If the. Majority of council members agreed with me and instead wanted to avoid austerity by increasing the taxes on big business. And of course I would be open to that at any time and would be happy to bring that forward at any time. But at this moment, I will be voting no. And I don't think you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Swann. Any other comments on resolution 31951? Agenda item number five. Hearing and seeing none. I'd ask that the clerk. Please call the role on the adoption of the resolution.
Speaker 1: Petersen I.
Speaker 3: Don't know.
Speaker 1: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 3: Verbal. Yes. Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Morales. Yes. Macheda. Yes. President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 3: Seven in favor. One opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. And as with the clerk, please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Okay. Agenda item number six. Will the clerk please read item six into the record? | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION authorizing an exception to the level of General Fund support to Seattle Parks and Recreation due to exigent economic circumstances, by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08102020_CB 119822 | Speaker 0: Agenda item six Council Bill 119822 relating to the 2020 budget spending, the minimal annual general fund appropriation to the Department of Transportation Budget as required in Ordinance 1247 9611 Levy to move Seattle ratifying confirming certain prior acts or by three fourths vote of the City Council Committee recommends that the bill pass with council members must gather for votes Gonzalez, Flores, Luis Morales, Peterson and Strauss in favor and council members to opposed. HQ. Madam Clerk, Councilmember Mosquera is sponsor of the bill and chair of the Committee. You are recognized in order to address agenda item number six. Thank you, Madam President. No comment. No additional comments on this. Thank you. Hey, thank you so much. Any other comments? Colleagues on this particular bill. Councilmember Peterson, please.
Speaker 1: It's just for the benefit of the viewing public. If it looks like we're moving through these budget items really fast, it's because we talked about them at length this morning, last Wednesday. And so I just want to take this moment to commend our budget chair, Teresa Mesquita, for her leadership in shepherding this massive legislative package through the Budget Committee. You know, there was a lot of work from lots of people in city government, from the executive, city budget office, city council, central staff. And I just it seems like we're moving fast, but there's lots of work that's been done so that folks want to see prior statements. They can look back to Wednesday or this morning. But right now, we're ready to vote. So thank you.
Speaker 0: I assure the viewing public that there will be many words shared by probably every single council member towards the end of this committee hearing. So where we're saving up our energy for the final big vote. Consistent with what Councilmember Peterson said, these are not non-controversial bills, relatively non-controversial bills that we have had almost 60 days worth of conversation about in the Budget Committee process. But thank you for that. That flag, Councilman Peterson. Okay. So we are now on agenda item sticks and seeing no additional comments from colleagues. I will ask the clerk, call the roll on the passage. Peterson.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 0: So what?
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 3: Strauss.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Herbold. Yes. Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Morales got a lot together.
Speaker 0: Sorry, I. President Gonzalez.
Speaker 3: Yes. Seven in favor. One opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And I'd ask that the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation. Okay. Agenda item seven Will the clerk please read agenda item number seven into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the 2020 Budget; suspending the Minimal Annual General Fund Appropriation to the Seattle Department of Transportation budget as required in Ordinance 124796, the Levy to Move Seattle; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08102020_CB 119824 | Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Please affix my signature to the legislation. Agenda Item nine. Will the clerk please read Agenda Item nine into the record? Agenda Item nine Council Bill 119824 Relating to the city's response to the 2020 COVID 19 crisis and venue ordinance 126000, which adopted the 2020 budget. The committee recommends the bill pass as amended. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Jasmine Mesquita. As chair of the committee, you are recognized in order to address this item. Thank you, Madam President. Again, I'll be brief due to the time. I just want to thank our central staff and all of our council colleagues for their tremendous amount of work to make sure that the federal dollars were going appropriately to care for those in our community. We want to be good partners with the state and the feds as we try to collectively respond and provide not just good governance, but proactive governance, making sure that we're addressing the crisis that is presenting itself, helping prevent folks from falling into homelessness due to economic crisis, but also making sure that people have the appropriate housing and public health services. I appreciate our congressional delegation for all of their advocacy to make federal dollars available. Much, much more is needed. That is part of the reason that we stepped up at the city level and are trying to offer relief for COVID, but appreciate the dollars that have been made available, trying to stretch those as far as possible. And our colleagues today with your amendments. This these dollars will make a tremendous impact. So thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Mosqueda, are there any other comments on the bill? Seeing and hearing none that will the clerk please call the roll on a passage of the Peterson? I saw. What?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Strauss.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Herbal. Yes. Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Morales.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 3: Macheda.
Speaker 0: Yes. President Gonzalez. Yes. Eight in favor, nine opposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passed, as in the chair will sign it. I'd ask that the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation. Okay. Agenda item ten. Will the clerk please read agenda item ten into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE related to the City’s response to the 2020 COVID-19 crisis; amending Ordinance 126000, which adopted the 2020 Budget; accepting funding from non-City sources; changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various funds in the Budget; declaring an emergency; and establishing an immediate effective date; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08102020_Res 31962 | Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. And as a Kirklees affixed my signature to the legislation OC committee reports of the City Council. We are going to continue now with new item 12. So I will move to adopt resolution 31962. Is there a second?
Speaker 1: Second.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to adopt Resolution 31962. Councilmember Lewis, you are the prime sponsor and are recognized in order to address this item.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. Having discussed this extensively during a briefing and a little bit during the Budget Committee meeting, I'll just say that this is a. Critical part of the next actions this Council will take on the additive portion of our process of right sizing. Our first response that says this Department of Public Safety, which is envisioned to be created by this resolution and a lot of the other attended parts of this resolution are critical to really laying out a roadmap to show what a successor system can look like and how we can put some of these things that are currently done by sworn officers into the responsibility of different types of first responders. I look forward to continuing this work next year and getting a department like this underway. I really think it's at the crux of showing to the people of the city who we've been working with throughout this process and really what the future could look like and really challenging the imagination of people in the city to think about the impact of the successor system. So I want to thank Camille Brown in my office for all the work that she's done in putting this together. I want to thank I wish on central staff for I'm really doing a lot of work cobbling this together of the last couple of days and particularly over the weekend where there were a couple of last minute changes. I want to thank Councilmember Herbold and Councilmember Suarez for co-sponsoring and providing a lot of the context of this. And with that, I'll just leave it there. Thank you.
Speaker 0: I thank you, Councilmember Lewis. And actually, before we move on, I just realized I didn't have the clear agenda. I knew agenda item 12 into the record. So I'm going to ask the court to read item 12 into the record and then we'll continue to take comments. Agenda item 12, Resolution 3196 to a resolution relating to.
Speaker 3: Policing and public safety.
Speaker 0: Establishing the Council's.
Speaker 3: Intent.
Speaker 0: To create a civilian led Department of Community Safety and Violence Prevention. Identifying actions in 2020 to remove certain functions from the Seattle Police Department and provide funding.
Speaker 3: For a community led.
Speaker 0: Process to inform the structure and function of the new department. Requesting modifications to policing practices, requesting reporting to the Council, providing guidance on layoff decisions, and establishing a work program and timeline for creating a new department. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Apologize for that procedural oversight. Okay. So this motion has been moved in, seconded. This resolution has been moved and seconded, and it is now subject to additional debate. Councilor Lewis, thank you so much for doing the initial comments and description of the resolution. Colleagues, are there any other comments on the resolution? Councilmember Herbert, please.
Speaker 3: Thank you. So we've talked a lot about this resolution over the last several weeks. I really appreciate Councilmember Lewis's leadership in proposing it and his willingness to work collaboratively, collaboratively on crafting a resolution that expresses council's intent around rebuilding community safety. And also, I appreciate the contributions by Councilmember Suarez, who was also a co-sponsor. And Councilmember Peterson. We've taken a large number of votes around the 2020 budget and the SPD budget in particular. In the last week or so, we've spent a lot of time hashing out the important details with the help of our central staff and our legislative staff. Sometimes it's easy to lose the forest for the trees, which is why this resolution is so important. This is our opportunity to begin to lay out Council's vision for what true community safety can look like in Seattle. With this resolution, Council is starting to define our ideas informed by our constituents, by community, by advocates and activists, and yes, even the mayor's office and the police department. This resolution itself does not transfer services to a civilian led department, but it says it's our goal and that really matters. It gives community members a way to hold us accountable for that continued progress that they are insisting on. And it invites the executive into further conversation with the Council on the best path forward to realize this vision. The resolution contains specific, actionable changes, and we've talked twice about the content of those changes already today. I'm not going to go over them again, but I'm going to say that they are profound changes. And that's not about congratulating ourselves, that we've accomplished a mission that is still way far off and there are many votes ahead of us. But to mark the moment at which the council begins the journey. A poll that was taken between July 22nd and July 27 found that 53% of likely voters supported the general idea of a plan that would permanently cut the police department's budget by 50% and shift that money to social services and community based programs. 32% expressed support for what was described as the council's approach. Ostensibly, that meant an immediate 50% cut. 43% expressed support for what was described as the mayor's approach, which was a cut with the plan we have before us today a budget and a resolution that when SPD cuts are annualized and transfers accomplished in 2021 represents a plan forward for our future decisions for a goal that a majority of Seattle residents support. Again, this is a starting point, and of course, there's much more work to be done to realize this visit, this vision. Starting in just a handful weeks, when the council begins its full budget process, looking at the 2021 budget, our work is far from done. But with our vote today, we start the journey. I want to thank the incredibly detailed and thoughtful work of decriminalize Seattle and King County Equity now, whose ideas have informed this resolution and much of my work on the 2020 balanced budget rebalancing. And I want to thank the tens of thousands of people who have written, called, provided comment and marched tireless tirelessly. And at times at great personal risk to keep the pressure on us. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Robles, for those remarks. Are there any other comments on the resolution? Councilor, Arsalan.
Speaker 2: Thank you. As I mentioned earlier today in the Budget Committee, I will be voting yes on this resolution stating the council's intent and hopes to defund the police in the future. However, our movement has to be clear that a non-binding resolution stating the intent to hope to study the defunding the police in the future is simply not a substitute for actually defunding the police. Our movement is clearly expected to accept these nice words about the future intentions as accomplished fact. But unfortunately, I believe that would be a serious mistake. As we have seen over and over again in Minneapolis, the Democratic Party led city council promised to change a city charter to totally reorganize their police department and a socialist alternative in Minnesota had predicted, rather than take any action as the city's highest legislative body. The Minneapolis City Council punted the question to the charter commission and again, as Socialist Alternative, I predicted the charter commission has said this is not possible. So after all the pomp and circumstance of defunding promises, the Minneapolis Democrats are not defunding the police. And yet in Seattle, three weeks ago, after my office had pledged to fight to defund the police by at least 50%, six Democrats on the council also promised 50% defund. What do they have voted to reduce the police budget by less than $3 million and then have added $3 million to the police budget through the second quarter supplemental budget. Last Wednesday, I proposed defunding the police by 50%. Now every other council member voted no, saying the budget cuts would not be done until November. And then I proposed defunding the police by 50% starting on November 1st, and no other council member would even second that proposal. To be clear, defunding the police cannot be an accounting trick. Moving traffic and parking enforcement out of the Seattle Police Department. But keeping its operations unchanged is not what our movement meant by defunding the police. By defunding the police, we need ending the repression of our communities. I want to point out that the resolution states, and I quote, quote, Section seven, the city council will not support any budget amendment to increase the city's budget to offset over time expenditures above the funds budgeted in 2020 or 2021. End quote. But in practice today, the same day this council is making this promise to this resolution, the majority, which is seven of the eight councilmembers present, also voted to pass agenda item number one. The second quarter supplemental budget, which adds in-line 1.11 $1.3 million to the police department for, among other things, overtime. This is a small thing and in large build that includes many other budget changes that are not objectionable. But it is also the only way that these fine words can be violated. That is also not the only way that these fine words can be violated. And I raise this example to illustrate the point that the City Council needs to be held accountable for what they actually do, not for the promises they make. And today, what the council has done is failed to defund the police. Again, as I said, I will vote yes because I fully support the intentions of this resolution. But at the end of the day, genuinely willing, defund the police and an end to police violence will require a sustained movement that is democratically organized and is independently organized of the political establishment. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, colleagues. Any other question? Excuse me. Any other comments on the resolution? Having no additional comments, will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the resolution?
Speaker 3: Peterson I want.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strouse Yes.
Speaker 3: Herbold Yes. Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Morales. Yeah. Mosquera. Yes. President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 3: Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it with the clerk. Please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Okay, colleagues, we're going to move along to other items of business here. We are now going to take up item number two. I think it's item number 30 teen. Item number 12 from the regular agenda. I'm sorry. You're correct. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The previous item was new item 12. We are now at old item 12. So will the clerk please read item 12 into the record? Agenda Item 12 Council Bill 119839 Relating to Appropriations for the Office for Civil Rights amending Ordinance 126000, which adopted the 2020 budget and lifting provisos. Thank you, Madam Clerk. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION relating to policing and public safety; establishing the Council’s intent to create a civilian-led Department of Community Safety & Violence Prevention; identifying actions in 2020 to remove certain functions from the Seattle Police Department and provide funding for a community-led process to inform the structure and function of the new department; requesting modifications to policing practices; requesting reporting to the Council; providing guidance on layoff decisions; and establishing a work program and timeline for creating a new department. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08102020_CB 119839 | Speaker 0: So will the clerk please read item 12 into the record? Agenda Item 12 Council Bill 119839 Relating to Appropriations for the Office for Civil Rights amending Ordinance 126000, which adopted the 2020 budget and lifting provisos. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I will move to pass Council Bill 119839. Is there a second can? It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Considering what else, as the prime science sponsor of this bill, you are recognized in order to address the item.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President. This bill is lifting proviso for $170,000 to the Office of Civil Rights for work that's been done around the criminal legal system. The idea here is that we need much better coordination and alignment of efforts across various work groups and initiatives and different structures that have been set up over time by the city . As I mentioned this morning, the goal here is to eliminate some of the duplicative work that is happening as these different initiatives seek to engage community to get input from community. There are certainly a lot of interest from community members in participating in engagement in surveys and sharing their expertize and knowledge about what community wants as it relates to how our criminal legal system works or doesn't work. But because there is there are so many different things happening, it is really burdensome on community to be asked to repeatedly. Participate in these so that so that's part of the goal is is to ensure that these multiple requests for engagement and serving are better aligned and better coordinated and just to move the work forward in a much more coordinated way as we think about how to make investments in our city and in the in the work that the Office of Civil Rights and other parts of the city are doing for community safety.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Morales, are there any other comments on. Item 12 cheeseburger bill, please.
Speaker 3: Thank you. So this is a body of work that had been hosted in my former committee last year related to the civil rights work in my committee. I really appreciate that comes from Rawls as a lot of my co-sponsorship of the bill as a little bit of background. In the 2020 budget, the Council voted to allocate $170,000 from a proposed probation pilot program for high area individuals and to use those funds differently. The proposal was to use 140,000 for partnership, outreach and engagement related to the criminal legal system and 30,000 for community engagement sessions related to the criminal legal system realignment. And I just I want to lift up the history around this because on a weekly call that I and some other councilmembers have had with decriminalize Seattle and King County Equity. Now, the question came up, what happened to those funds that we worked to get cut from the probation pilot program? And serendipitously, we are talking about releasing them to the community now, given the heightened attention to the criminal justice system in the context of COVID. Office of Civil Rights is proposing this use of the $170,000, which central staff has access to meet the proviso language. The goal is $60 million for community mitigation of COVID 19 impacts on houseless communities that are part of the population identified by the High Barrier Work Group. $80,000 is for expanding economic opportunities for formerly incarcerated communities. Working Group in collaboration with the Office of Economic Development. And $30,000 will be for community engagement with regards to COVID 19 related changes in the criminal legal system done in collaboration with City Council central staff in order to move forward with this plan. CCR is requesting that council lift the proviso that's what this legislation does. And again, this is, I think, really the beginning of bringing community in to to lead us as policymakers around criminal justice reform and the creation of a high barrier working group to make sure that those voices are centered. Thank you.
Speaker 0: If you can't remember her words. Are there any other comments on this item.
Speaker 1: Who.
Speaker 0: Keep hearing? None? I will ask the court to please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Peterson.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: So what?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 3: Herbold Yes.
Speaker 0: Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Morales. Guests.
Speaker 0: Let's get to. Thank you. Sorry for the delay.
Speaker 3: I am President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 3: Eight in favor. None opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The time just.
Speaker 3: Before.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And the Kirklees effects my signature. It's in the legislation. Item number 13, will the Kirklees read agenda item 13 into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to appropriations for the Office for Civil Rights; amending Ordinance 126000, which adopted the 2020 Budget; and lifting provisos. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08102020_CB 119841 | Speaker 3: That's an item.
Speaker 0: 13 counts for 119841 relating to gig workers in Seattle, establishing labor standards, requirements for premium pay for gig workers in Seattle, and adding sections.
Speaker 3: 100.0.
Speaker 0: 15.027 and point 200 of Ordinance 126094. To make technical corrections declaring an emergency and establishing an immediate effective date all by a three course vote of the City Council. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I move past council bill 119841. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. It's been we've been seconded to pass the bill. Councilmember Herbold, I believe you are going to speak to this bill. So if that's the case, I'm going to hand it over to you to address. That was going to be my resource.
Speaker 3: I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 5: Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Councilmember Lewis. Floor is yours.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. You know, I don't know. We discussed this so much, I. I don't really have anything else to I had, quite honestly, in the interest of time, given how how late it is, I'll just I honestly just want to rest on my earlier comments, if that's okay.
Speaker 0: That's perfectly fine. We have been having conversations about this in council briefings, so totally appreciate that. Are there any other comments on the bill? Okay. Hearing and not it hasn't the clerk. Please call the roll on the passage of Peterson.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 3: The one?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 3: Strauss.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Herbold. Yes.
Speaker 0: Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Morales. Yes. Yes. President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 3: Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And I guess the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation. Okay. Agenda item number 14. Will the clerk please read the agenda? Item 14 into the record. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to gig workers in Seattle; establishing labor standards requirements for premium pay for gig workers in Seattle; amending Sections 100.015, 100.027, and 100.200 of Ordinance 126094 to make technical corrections; declaring an emergency; and establishing an immediate effective date; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08102020_CB 119842 | Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And I guess the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation. Okay. Agenda item number 14. Will the clerk please read the agenda? Item 14 into the record. Agenda Item 14 Council Bill 119842 Relating to gig workers in Seattle establishing labor standards requirements for paid sick and paid safe time for.
Speaker 3: Gig workers working in.
Speaker 0: Seattle and amending Sections 100.0 15.0 80 of Ordinance 126091 to make technical corrections. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I moved to pass Council Bill 119842. Is there a second? Second? It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. A state I believe you're you're going to take the lead on speaking on this bill, so I'm going to hand it over to you. Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, this is a technical amendment that clarifies that this ordinance only applies to independent contractors and not individuals who are already covered by Seattle's paid sick and safe time ordinance. And this should be pretty self-explanatory. But we were told by the Office of Labor Standards it would be helpful to have this in code. So that is what we are doing today. Thank you, Councilmember Mesquita. Are there any other comments on the bill? Seeing and hearing none. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill? Peterson.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: So what?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 3: Strauss Yes. Herbold Yes.
Speaker 1: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 3: Morales Yes.
Speaker 0: Macheda Yes. President Gonzalez.
Speaker 3: Yes. Eight in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. The bill passes and the chair will sign it and ask the Burke. Please affix my signature to the legislation. Okay. Agenda item 15 Will the clerk please read agenda item 15 into the record? Agenda Item 15 Resolution 31961 affirming the rights of members of the press, legal observers and medical personnel covering the protests | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to gig workers in Seattle; establishing labor standards requirements for paid sick and paid safe time for gig workers working in Seattle; and amending Sections 100.015 and 100.080 of Ordinance 126091 to make technical corrections. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08102020_Res 31961 | Speaker 0: Thank you so much. The bill passes and the chair will sign it and ask the Burke. Please affix my signature to the legislation. Okay. Agenda item 15 Will the clerk please read agenda item 15 into the record? Agenda Item 15 Resolution 31961 affirming the rights of members of the press, legal observers and medical personnel covering the protests against police brutality. Thank you, Madam Burke. I will move to adopt resolution 31961. Is there a second second? It's been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution. Cameron will say that you are the prime sponsor of this resolution. I understand that you have a substitute version, so I'd like to suggest that before we make general comments that we get the substitute before us and then we can open up comments on the substitute version of resolution 31961. Thank you, Madam President. I move to amend Resolution 31961 by substituting version four for version to a second. Is there a second? Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Thank you. To substitute the resolution. Councilmember Mosquito, would you like us to just go ahead and take a vote on the substitute and then we can make we can make comments about the substitute version. Yes. And unless our colleagues is there, we did have a conversation about the contents of what is in the substitute version. Is there any need for additional description by the prime sponsor about what is in the substitute? A hearing nun will go ahead and ask the clerk to please call the roll on the adoption of the substitute. Peterson.
Speaker 3: So what?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 3: Herbold. Yes. Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Morales.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 0: Let's get to. Okay. Yes. Yes.
Speaker 5: President Gonzalez?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 3: Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The motion carries, the substitute is adopted, and version three of the resolution is before the council. I'm going to hand it back over to Councilmember Mosqueda to provide us with her remarks about the resolution as amended. And then I will open it up for general comment and debate, and we will then take a final rule on it, because we're just in you, Madam President. And just for the record, I believe we have version four in front of us, given the amendment that was circulated. Just want to double check that. That's what we voted on.
Speaker 3: Yes. Correct.
Speaker 0: That was an error on my my part of the script. I apologize. Okay. Thank you. Just wanted to make sure because President, I know it's been a long day, so I. I just thought I'd chime in there. Council calling the resolution in front of us affirms that the free press have the right to cover protests in our community. We know that during the last few months of the protests that we've seen here in Seattle and across the country, journalists have been subject to tactics that serve to intimidate or discourage reporters from performing their jobs, their responsibilities to observe these events and report them to the public. Local media outlets have said that the ruling that we have seen from the local court has and that would require them to turn over photos and videos taken at protests, threatens journalists role and prevents them from being seen as neutral. Observers could further erode trust between the public and the local media. This is a concern that we on city council want to make sure that we address head on. We want to make sure that those who are reporting in our streets are free from intimidation when covering protests. Increasingly, as we saw covered and crosscut recently, journalists have reason to fear for their physical safety. I'm quoting from Crosscut right now when they say that covering events like protests journalists have given I'm sorry, when covering events like protests, journalists have reason to fear for their physical safety. Forcing journalists to give their work to police would make them less welcome and increase those risks. Protests have constantly been some of the most dangerous on the site jobs for journalists working in the United States. And that has increased over the past three years, saying much of the violence comes sorry, much of the violence comes from police committing acts of violence against journalists, but sometimes protesters also lash out. This amendment addresses these issues no matter what our political opinions are. It's important that journalists have the ability to cover protests safely, to be safe, to feel safe, and that they're right to cover the protest is protected. And that's especially true when it comes to our police force. These are members who work for the city. We want to make sure that those who are covering these protests are not subject to the issues that we've seen repeatedly here in the city of Seattle, where reporters have been hit with flash bangs, experienced tear gas and have also been arrested in our city and incarcerated for hours as they awaited release. This resolution also applies to legal observers and medics who are at the protest to ensure that their legal rights and their safety is also protected at protests. These legal observers and medics have also been subject to gassing, flashbangs, arrests and intimidation. Reports from the past month include legal observers who have been targeted by the police and medics who've been trying to aid protesters being pepper sprayed and hit in the face and also experienced flash bangs hitting their bodies. It is embarrassing that the city of Seattle is highlighted in a more recent Amnesty International report. The report is entitled The World is Watching Mass Violations by US Police of Black Lives Matter protesters. It covers atrocities committed right here in Seattle in the chapter that is titled Human Rights Violations in the Policing of Protests. And Seattle is the first story that is highlighted in this report on page 22. And if I might briefly call your attention to one of the stories that has highlighted many of, you know, the story of Rihanna in that a 26 year old student who was struck in the chest by a flash grenade as she was kneeling down approximately 20 feet in front of the Seattle police line. She and her friends had been distributing food that evening at protests. She moved to the front to talk with police to de-escalate the tension. Shortly after talking with the officers, India was hit with a flash grenade. An intensive care nurse who is standing at the aid station behind the protesters said that she could smell the pepper spray and hear what that sounded like when the bombs exploded everywhere as people started rushing toward the aid station. She was treating four different people at the time, flushing chemical irritants from their eyes and trading welts on their arms and legs from being hit with flash grenades as she was treating them. Someone started screaming. She's been hit in the chest. She's been hit in the chest. Yet even as the medic and other medics scrambled to treat in there. Police continue to fired tear gas, flash grenades and rubber bullets at them and the aid station. Police then advanced on the aid station, firing flash grenades and pepper balls. Inside the station was clearly marked with identifying signs and red crosses and filled with tables stacked with water bottles and first aid supplies. This is why this resolution is important, both for members of the press or legal observers who we've seen on camera repeatedly being sprayed with pepper spray, and for medics who are trying to care for those who've experienced this type of trauma in our streets. We do have some positive news this morning, and that is why the resolution is amended in front of you to include a new Section five. The positive news is that according to a stipulated injunction from the Western District of Washington, SPV will be enjoined from using chemical irritants or projectiles against certain protesters. And the ruling says the federal judge in Oregon also stated that although the First Amendment does not enumerate special rights for observing government entities, the Supreme Court has recognized that newsgathering is an activity protected by the First Amendment without some protection for seeking out the news. Freedom of the press could be eviscerated. This is incredibly important that these decisions were made today. We want to make sure that we're doing everything we can to not only separate members of the press from being seen as an arm of the government or an extension of the police, but that we're constantly thinking about how we protect them in the moments that they're covering folks expressing their First Amendment rights, in addition to making sure that legal observers and medics are protected as well. I appreciate all of your work, council colleagues, as we raise up this resolution and recognize that this follows on the heels of the unanimous votes that we've taken to prevent these types of weapons from being used in our streets. Obviously, much more work to be done. And I know this council's committed to that. But I think that this resolution is an important step in reaffirming our commitment to protecting members of the press, legal observers and medics during this time. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Mosqueda, for those remarks. The resolution looks like we have a I think a couple more folks who are interested in speaking. So I'm going to head over to Councilmember Peterson first as one of the co-sponsors, and then we'll hear from Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Council President and thank you, Councilwoman Mosqueda, for introducing Resolution 31961 and for welcoming me as a co-sponsor. This resolution is very important to me because I'm passionate about the crucial role that a free press plays in a healthy democracy. We must always protect journalists, including those who cover protests and demonstrations so they can shine a light on the truth by providing accurate and independent reports. Social media posts and government issued reports are not a substitute for professional journalists. As a highly respected journalist, Walter Cronkite said, freedom of the press is not just important to democracy. It is democracy. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Peterson comes from rehearsal.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I want to thank Councilman Muscat for bringing this forward. Back on July 10th, I guess that is a month ago today, I wrote to the mayor in chief regarding the arrest of a journalist, Andrew Buncombe of the Independent and the threat of arrest of other journalists. I have not yet received a reply. And as a reminder, it's really important to recognize that the municipal code and the police department's policies, as it relates to orders to disperse, specifically exempts journalists. Nevertheless, since then, journalists are still reporting having chemical irritants or projectiles used on them and not just reporting it. I viewed it on live stream, including Omari Salisbury of Converge Media, and his threat of arrest was one of the reasons for that.
Speaker 0: The letter earlier.
Speaker 3: Using these devices on journalists has in effect the same impact as threat of arrest and arrest. It results in journalists being unable to cover the events that they are there to report on and thereby informing the public. The operation of the free press is a linchpin of American democracy. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Councilmember Harold, are there any other comments? Councilmember Swan.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I will, of course, be voting in favor of this resolution opposing police officers, targeting journalists, arresting and abusing them, and demanding that they turn over their video footage. And of course, the same goes for legal observers and medics. I would just add that this is a resolution, which means it does not have the force of the law. And even if it were an ordinance with the force of the law, we have seen what has happened with the police department and especially under Mayor Durkin's authority. We would need to remember the laws of Seattle have already prohibited police officers from targeting journalists in the way they have done, and it still goes on, which means that the resolution will be insufficient to defend the freedom of the press in Seattle. But it is still important for the Council to pass this resolution. And because this is our final police department related item this summer, I wanted to take this opportunity to thank the members of the City Council for their help in preparing the budget amendments from my office. As I mentioned at Wednesday's Budget Committee meeting, city council staff have been working on the agenda items, you know, almost round the clock that day. They were working until just before midnight at least, and that was far from the first time it happened for the Budget Committee was the case the night before. And, you know, that Budget Committee and so on. And I know there are several other examples of it. I want you to particularly thank the people who worked directly on the amendments proposed by my office, of course, Central Staff Director Garrison arrested than either Patty White. Green. Allie Banerjee. Lisa Gay. Aisha Bianca Drummond. Greg Doss. Karina Boyle. Yolanda Ho. Jeff Sims. Lesch Watson, Guido Freeman and Calvin Joe. My gratitude to each and every one of them. They have worked incredibly long hours in the budget in general and our movement has depended on them to write many versions of amendments, to respond to every criticism of the amendments that our communities need. And I know that others in the movement also appreciate their work. I also wanted to quickly also publicly thank all the socialist community organizers in my office Jonathan Rosenblum, Nick Jones and Adams and Koski, who have done exemplary and self-sacrificing work. And, needless to say, thanks to the hundreds, if not thousands of people who have given of themselves in this fight, the fight will go on. I look forward to seeing everyone during the People's Budget campaign in the autumn. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Cause there wasn't any other comments on the resolution. It looks like no other council members have comments on that because we're asking that you have the last word. If you could close out the debate and be great. Thank you. Council president. I want to thank Councilmember Peterson for his co-sponsorship of this resolution. I also want to thank Asha and Ali from central staff and several from my staff for working on this resolution and council members out of Portland, Oregon, who now, I think three weeks ago unanimously passed a similar resolution so that we could we could really build on that across this region. Unfortunately, we've seen very similar tactics used in other cities as well. One element that I'd like to lift from the ruling today, it says, as described by the Ninth Circuit, when wrongdoing is underway, officials have a great incentive to be blindfolded, to blindfold the watchful eyes of the fourth estate. When the government when the government announces it is excluding the press for reasons such as administrative convenience, preservation of evidence or protection of reporters safety, its real motive may be to prevent the gathering of information about government abuses or incompetence. This is a critical time that we're in. This is the tip of the iceberg in times of in terms of the type of accountability that I think our city demands, in terms of the images, livestreaming videos that we've seen. I'm proud of this council for taking this step today to pass this resolution. And I know that there will be more to come to provide safe avenues for journalists, for medics, for legal observers and for protesters. Thank you very much, Madam President. Thank you so much, Councilmember Skinner, for closing out debate on the resolution. So I am not going to ask that the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the resolution as amended.
Speaker 1: Peterson I.
Speaker 0: Want.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 3: Herbold Yes.
Speaker 1: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 3: Morales Yes. Mosqueda.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 3: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes. Agent Favre.
Speaker 3: None opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Sident. The resolution is adopted as amended and the chair will sign it. And please affix my signature to the legislation. Okay, colleagues. Is there any further business to come before the council? Seeing no further business colleagues. This concludes the items of business on today's agenda at our next City Council meeting is scheduled for Monday, August 17, 2020 at 2 p.m.. That again concludes our meeting for today. I hope that you all have a wonderful evening and we are now adjourned. Thank you, everyone. Oh. Councilmember Herbold, I believe you are going to speak to this bill. So if that's the case, I'm going to hand it over to you to address. Things are going to be my rules.
Speaker 3: I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Councilmember Lewis. Floor is yours.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. You know, I don't know. We discussed this so much, I. I don't really have anything else to had, quite honestly, in the interest of time, given how, how late it is, I'll just I honestly just want to rest on my earlier comments, if that's okay.
Speaker 0: That's perfectly fine. We have been having conversations about this in council briefings, so totally appreciate that. Are there any other comments on the bill? Okay hearing as he nodded at the clerk gave call the roll on the passage.
Speaker 3: Up the Peterson.
Speaker 1: High.
Speaker 2: The a. Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 3: Herbold Yes.
Speaker 1: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 3: Morales Yes. Yes. President Gonzalez. Yes. Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And I guess that the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation. Okay. Agenda item number 14. Will the clerk please read the agenda? Item 14 into the record. Agenda Item 14 Council Bill 119842 related to gig workers in Seattle establishing labor standards requirements for paid sick and paid safe time for gig.
Speaker 3: Workers.
Speaker 0: Working in Seattle and amending Sections 100.0 15.0 80 Ordinance 126091 to make technical corrections. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I moved to pass Council Bill 119842. Is there a second? Second? It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill comes from a state I believe you're you're going to take the lead on speaking on this bill, so I'm going to hand it over to you. Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, this is a technical amendment that clarifies that this ordinance only applies to independent contractors and not individuals who are already covered by Seattle's paid sick and safe time ordinance. And this should be pretty self-explanatory. But we were told by the Office of Labor Standards it would be helpful to have this in code. So that is what we are doing today. Thank you, Councilmember Mosqueda. Are there any other comments on the bill? Seeing and hearing none. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill? Peterson.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: So what?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 3: Strauss Yes. Herbold Yes.
Speaker 1: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 3: Morales Yes.
Speaker 0: Macheda Yes. President Gonzalez.
Speaker 3: Yes. Eight in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. The bill passes and the chair will sign it and ask the court please affix my signature to the legislation. Okay. Agenda item 15 Will the clerk please read Agenda Item 15 into the record? Agenda Item 15 Resolution 31961 affirming the rights of members of the press, legal observers and medical personnel covering the protests against police brutality. Thank you, Madam Burke. I will move to adopt resolution 31961. Is there a second second? It's been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution. Cameron will say that you are the prime sponsor of this resolution. I understand that you have a substitute version, so I'd like to suggest that before we make general comments that we get the substitute before us and then we can open up comments on the substitute version of resolution 31961. Thank you, Madam President. I move to amend Resolution 31961 by substituting version four for version to a second. Is there a second? Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Thank you. To substitute the resolution. Councilmember Mosquito, would you like us to just go ahead and take a vote on the substitute and then we can make we can make comments about the substitute version. Yes. And unless our colleagues is there, we did have a conversation about the contents of what is in the substitute version. Is there any need for additional description by the prime sponsor about what is in the substitute? Eight hearing, none will go ahead and ask the clerk to please call the roll on the adoption of the substitute. Peterson.
Speaker 3: So what?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 3: Herbold. Yes. Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Morales.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 0: Let's get to. Okay. Yes. Yes.
Speaker 5: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 3: Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The motion carries, the substitute is adopted, and version three of the resolution is before the council. I'm going to hand it back over to Councilmember Mosqueda to provide us with her remarks about the resolution as amended. And then I will open it up for general comment and debate, and we will then take a final vote on it because it was great. Thank you, Madam President. And just for the record, I believe we have version four in front of us, given the amendment that was circulated. Just want to double check that. That's what we voted on.
Speaker 3: Yes. Correct.
Speaker 0: That was an error on my my part of the script. I apologize. Okay. Thank you. Just wanted to make sure because President, I know it's been a long day, so I. I just thought I'd chime in there. Council colleagues, the resolution in front of us affirms that the free press have the right to cover protests in our community. We know that during the last few months of the protests that we've seen here in Seattle and across the country, journalists have been subject to tactics that serve to intimidate or discourage reporters from performing their jobs, their responsibilities to observe these events and report them to the public. Local media outlets have said that the ruling that we have seen from the local court has and that would require them to turn over photos and videos taken at protests, threatens journalists role and prevents them from being seen as neutral. Observers could further erode trust between the public and the local media. This is a concern that we on city council want to make sure that we address head on. We want to make sure that those who are reporting in our streets are free from intimidation when covering protests. Increasingly, as we saw covered and crosscut recently, journalists have reason to fear for their physical safety. I'm quoting from Crosscut right now when they say that covering events like protests journalists have given I'm sorry, when covering events like protests, journalists have reason to fear for their physical safety. Forcing journalists to give their work to police would make them less welcome and increase those risks. Protests have constantly been some of the most dangerous on the site jobs for journalists working in the United States. And that has increased over the past three years, saying much of the violence comes sorry, much of the violence comes from police committing acts of violence against journalists, but sometimes protesters also lash out. This amendment addresses these issues no matter what our political opinions are. It's important that journalists have the ability to cover protests safely, to be safe, to feel safe, and that they're right to cover the protest is protected. And that's especially true when it comes to our police force. These are members who work for the city. We want to make sure that those who are covering these protests are not subject to the issues that we've seen repeatedly here in the city of Seattle, where reporters have been hit with flash bangs, experienced tear gas and have also been arrested in our city and incarcerated for hours as they awaited release. This resolution also applies to legal observers and medics who are at the protest to ensure that their legal rights and their safety is also protected at protests. These legal observers and medics have also been subject to gassing, flashbangs, arrests and intimidation. Reports from the past month include legal observers who have been targeted by the police and medics who've been trying to aid protesters being pepper sprayed and hit in the face and also experienced flash bangs hitting their bodies. It is embarrassing that the city of Seattle is highlighted in a more recent Amnesty International report. The report is entitled The World is Watching Mass Violations by US Police as Black Lives Matter Protesters. It covers atrocities committed right here in Seattle in the chapter that is titled Human Rights Violations in the Policing of Protests. And Seattle is the first story that is highlighted in this report on page 22. And if I might briefly call your attention to one of the stories that has highlighted many of, you know, the story of Rihanna in that a 26 year old student who was struck in the chest by a flash grenade as she was kneeling down approximately 20 feet in front of the Seattle police line. She and her friends had been distributing food that evening at protests. She moved to the front to talk with police to de-escalate the tension. Shortly after talking with the officers, the was hit with a flash grenade. An intensive care nurse who was standing at the aid station behind the protesters said that she could smell the pepper spray and hear what that sounded like when the bombs exploded everywhere as people started rushing toward the aid station. She was treating four different people at the time, flushing chemical irritants from their eyes and treating welts on their arms and legs from being hit with flash grenades as she was treating them. Someone started screaming. She's been hit in the chest. She's been hit in the chest. Yet even as the medic and other medics scrambled to treat in there. Police continue to fired tear gas, flash grenades and rubber bullets at them and the aid station. Police then advanced on the aid station, firing flash grenades and pepper balls. Inside the station was clearly marked with identifying signs and red crosses and filled with tables stacked with water bottles and first aid supplies. This is why this resolution is important, both for members of the press or legal observers who we've seen on camera repeatedly being sprayed with pepper spray, and for medics who are trying to care for those who've experienced this type of trauma in our streets. We do have some positive news this morning, and that is why the resolution is amended in front of you to include a new Section five. The positive news is that according to a stipulated injunction from the Western District of Washington, SPV will be enjoying from using chemical irritants or projectiles against certain protesters. And the ruling says the federal judge in Oregon also stated that although the First Amendment does not enumerate special rights for observing government entities, the Supreme Court has recognized that newsgathering is an activity protected by the First Amendment without some protection for seeking out the news. Freedom of the press could be eviscerated. This is incredibly important that these decisions were made today. We want to make sure that we're doing everything we can to not only separate members of the press from being seen as an arm of the government or an extension of the police, but that we're constantly thinking about how we protect them in the moments that they're covering folks expressing their First Amendment rights, in addition to making sure that legal observers and medics are protected as well. I appreciate all of your work, council colleagues, as we raise up this resolution and recognize that this follows on the heels of the unanimous votes that we've taken to prevent these types of weapons from being used in our street. Obviously, much more work to be done. And I know this council's committed to that. But I think that this resolution is an important step in reaffirming our commitment to protecting members of the press, legal observers and medics during this time. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Mosqueda, for those remarks. The resolution looks like we have, I think, a couple more folks who are interested in speaking. So I'm going to head over to Councilmember Peterson first as one of the co-sponsors, and then we'll hear from Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Council President. And thank you, Councilwoman ROSQUETA, for introducing Resolution 31961 and for welcoming me as a co-sponsor. This resolution is very important to me because I'm passionate about the crucial role that a free press plays in a healthy democracy. We must always protect journalists, including those who cover protests and demonstrations so they can shine a light on the truth by providing accurate and independent reports. Social media posts and government issued reports are not a substitute for professional journalists. As a highly respected journalist, Walter Cronkite said, freedom of the press is not just important to democracy. It is democracy. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Governor Peterson, from rehearsal.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I want to thank Councilman Muscat for bringing this forward. Back on July 10th, I guess that is a month ago today, I wrote to the mayor in chief regarding the arrest of a journalist, Andrew Buncombe of the Independent and the threat of arrest of other journalists. I have not yet received a reply. And as a reminder, it's really important to recognize that the municipal code and the police department's policies, as it relates to orders to disperse, specifically exempts journalists. Nevertheless, since then, journalists are still reporting having chemical irritants or projectiles used on them and not just reporting it. I viewed it on Livestream, including Omari Salisbury of Converge Media and his threat of arrest was one of the reasons for that. The letter earlier using these devices on journalists has in effect the same impact as threat of arrest and arrest. It results in journalists being unable to cover the events that they are there to report on and thereby informing the public. The operation of the free press is a linchpin of American democracy. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Councilmember Herbert, are there any other comments? Councilmember Salaam.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I will, of course, be voting in favor of this resolution opposing police officers, targeting journalists, arresting and abusing them, and demanding that they turn over their video footage. And of course, the same goes for legal observers and medics. I would just add that this is a resolution, which means it does not have the force of the law. And even if it were an ordinance with the force of the law, we have seen what has happened with the police department and especially under Mayor Durkin's authority. We would need to remember the laws of Seattle have already prohibited police officers from targeting journalists in the way they have done, and it still goes on, which means that the resolution will be insufficient to defend the freedom of the press in Seattle. But it is still important for the Council, the resolution. And because this is our final police department related item this summer, I wanted to take this opportunity to thank the members of the City Council for their help in preparing the budget amendments from my office. As I mentioned at Wednesday's Budget Committee meeting, city council staff have been working on the agenda items, you know, almost around the clock that day. They were working until just before midnight at least, and that was far from the first time it happened for the Budget Committee. This was the case the night before. And, you know, that Budget Committee and so on. And I know there are several other examples of it. I want you to particularly thank the people who worked directly on the amendments proposed by my office. Of course, Central Staff Director Garrison arrested Dan Reader Barry White. Green. Allie Banerjee. Lisa Kay. Asha Venkatraman. Greg Doss. Carina Boyle. Yolanda Ho. Jeff Sims, Lesch Watson, Keith Freeman and Calvin Joe. My gratitude to each and every one of them. They worked incredibly long hours in the budget in general, and our movement has depended on them to write many versions of amendments, to respond to every criticism of the amendments that our communities need. And I know that others in the movement also appreciate their work. I also wanted to quickly also publicly thank all the socialist community organizers in my office Jonathan Rosenblum, Nick Jones and Adams and Koski, who have done exemplary and self-sacrificing work. And, needless to say, thanks to the hundreds, if not thousands of people who have given of themselves in this fight, the fight will go on. I look forward to seeing everyone during the People's Budget campaign in the autumn. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, because there wasn't any other comments on the resolution. It looks like no other council members have comments on that because we're. Muscala you have the last word. If you could close out the debate, I'd be great. Thank you. Council president. I want to thank councilmember peterson for his co-sponsorship of this resolution. I also want to thank Asha and Ali from central staff and several from my staff for working on this resolution and council members out of Portland, Oregon, who now, I think three weeks ago unanimously passed a similar resolution so that we could we could really build on that across this region. Unfortunately, we've seen very similar tactics used in other cities as well. One element that I'd like to lift from the ruling today, it says, as described by the Ninth Circuit, when wrongdoing is underway, officials have a great incentive to be blindfolded, to blindfold the watchful eyes of the fourth estate. When the government when the government announces it is excluding the press for reasons such as administrative convenience, preservation of evidence or protection of reporters safety. Its real motive may be to prevent the gathering of information about government abuses or incompetence. This is a critical time that we're in. This is the tip of the iceberg in times of in terms of the type of accountability that I think our city demands, in terms of the images by streaming videos that we've seen. I'm proud of this council for taking this step today to pass this resolution. And I know that there will be more to come to provide safe avenues for journalists, for medics, for legal observers and for protesters. Thank you very much, Madam President. Thank you so much, Councilmember Skinner, for closing out debate on the resolution. So I am not going to ask that. The Court Please call the roll on the adoption of the resolution as amended.
Speaker 1: Peterson I.
Speaker 0: So want.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 3: Herbold Yes.
Speaker 1: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 3: Morales Yes. Mosqueda.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 3: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes. Agent Faber?
Speaker 3: None unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Sident. The resolution is adopted as amended in the chair will sign it. Please affix my signature to the legislation. Okay, colleagues, is there any further business to come before the council? They seeing? No for their business colleagues. This concludes the items of business on today's agenda at our next City Council meeting is scheduled for Monday, August 17, 2020, at 2 p.m.. That again concludes our meeting for today. I hope you all have a wonderful evening and we are now adjourned. Thank you, everyone. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION affirming the rights of members of the press, legal observers, and medical personnel covering the protests against police brutality. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07272020_CB 119833 | Speaker 5: The report at the Select Committee on the Transportation Benefit District Funding Agenda. Item one Capital 119833 relating to a cell cellphone use tax, providing for the submission to qualified electors at the city at an election to be held on November 3rd, 2020. Your proposition to collect resale and use tax to fund transit and transportation programs in Seattle. The committee recommends that the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Madam Clerk. So here is what I think we need to do, because there's a lot of moving pieces on this particular council bill. So if there is no objection, we will first hear from the committee chair, Councilmember Peterson, to present the committee report, and then we can consider the possible seven amendments in the following order. I would propose that we consider Amendment two, which was published on the agenda. That is, Councilmember Morales's proposal to increase the tax rate from 4.1% to 2.2%. Then I propose that we consider Amendment six, which was not published on the agenda. That's my proposed amendment. That would increase the tax rate from 0.1%, 2.15%. And then there are there is another potential Amendment six B that was not on the agenda and would require the rules to be suspended. That is being potentially brought forward by Councilmember Mosqueda. And it would amend it would be an amendment to remove the increase to low income to the low income spending cap category with those with any additional funds being directed to transit service. We also have Amendment eight. We could then consider Amendment eight, eight or eight be also not on the agenda. That amendment would be brought forward by Councilmember Herbold and would propose to increase the emerging service category cap. Then we could consider amendment number one, which is on the agenda that's being brought forward by Council Member Strauss and proposes structuring the levy change, changing the time length of the levy from four years to to a six year term. And then we would hear amendment number seven, eight or seven D also not on the agenda, but amendments being brought forward by Councilmember Strauss, which would be technical fixes to clarify the term of the measure. If the term of the measure is extended to April 2025 or April 2027. And then lastly, we could consider amendment number three, which was on the agenda. That's my amendment to include explicitly essential workers in the low income spending category. So so if there is no objection to that order of discussion of the amendments, then we will consider them in that order. Madam Chair. Madam President, could you just repeat the numbers for me real quick, if you don't mind? I got the descriptions, which I appreciate, but I just wanna make sure I got that right. Okay. Amendment to. Amendment six. Potential Amendment six be. Amendment eight A or HB. Amendment one, Amendment seven A or seven B. And then we will conclude with Amendment three. All right? It's. It's it's like we're having a select committee meeting of the study over here, but here we go. Okay. I didn't hear any objection. No objections. All right, let's rock and roll. So here we no objection in the order of the expression of events will be considered in that order. Councilmember Peterson, as chair of the committee, you are recognized in order to provide the committee report.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President, colleagues, our Transportation Benefit District has been operating successfully for the past six years after voters approved the current version in 2014. On Friday, July 17, our Select Committee on Seattle Transportation Benefit District funding unanimously passed Council Bill 119833 to renew funding for that important transit measure. And we voted on all seven of the published amendments at that time. A theme at committee was to prioritize transit service over road works, which we did by moving more dollars for remote work into transit and requiring that a majority of all new funds go toward transit service. I think we can all agree it's disappointing that Tim Iman's initiative, 976, which was rejected by a whopping 76% of Seattle voters, has removed approximately half of the funding source. We hope to overturn that measure in the courts. If we do overturn I nine, seven, six, I support doubling the car tab revenues that we are allowed to increase as a council. At the same time, we can't ignore that ridership on King County metro has plummeted by over 72% during the COVID pandemic. Moreover, a second wave of the coronavirus is an imminent concern, as we've seen with our governor last week, imposing additional restrictions. Yet I am upbeat on the future and the future of transit. It's going to the demand is going to increase. And I'm hopeful we're going to get back to the high levels that were prior to the nation, and that will continue to increase that transit ridership. Today, there are additional amendments for consideration, and while we are likely to hear a robust debate about some of these amendments, just hope the general public sees that there is unity and that we all support transit and want to renew this measure. What are the key amendments or two amendments for debate today? Is it about the tax rates? One of the amendments proposed to double the tax rate to double the sales tax 2.2%. I am not able to support a doubling of the sales tax for all the reasons that we don't like sales taxes. I am pleased to see the compromise amendment from Council President Gonzalez to make sure we get more revenue for transit than the proposal that was transmitted to us. This amendment would increase to 0.15%, which we discussed a little bit this morning. So council president, after we vote on all the amendments, said, I'd like to make three final remarks before the final vote, if possible.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Absolutely. The prime sponsor of the legislation I was always gets the last word before we call things to vote. So. Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson, for that. Those introductory remarks. It is 3:25 p.m. now, so i think we should go ahead and get started on the amendment work. So let's go ahead and start with amendment two and the primary sponsor of that is Councilmember Morales. So I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Morales to make her motion to formally put amendments to before the council.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President I move to amend council bill 119833 as presented on Amendment two.
Speaker 2: On the agenda.
Speaker 0: Is there a second? It's been moved and seconded to adopt amendment to. Councilmember Morales, you are the prime sponsor of that amendment and you are recognized in order to address your amendment. Please.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Colleagues, we had a robust conversation about this this morning, but for the benefit of the public this afternoon, I want to thank you again for the discussion that we had last week about this amendment. As I said, I am working to try to protect as much as possible service hours, up to 150,000 service hours for our neighbors, even as we do struggle with an increase in a sales tax. I withdrew it last week to allow more time to hear from stakeholders. And I want to say that after speaking with several community organizations in my district, including across Refugee Women's Alliance, Interim El Centro de la Raza, when America began Safe Streets Rooted in Rights. The MLK. Lincoln County Labor Council. Teamsters 117. I've decided to bring the amendment back for consideration. These stakeholders understand what's at risk if we move something to the ballot that will reduce transit service so drastically. So I don't want to belabor the point. I will just say that the point 2% increase is an effort to protect the transit system that we've already invested in. And cutting Seattle's investment to 30 million a year will wipe out that system and harm those who need transit the most. So I am moving this amendment and asking for my colleagues support.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Morales, for those remarks and really appreciated the, as you put it, very robust conversation around all of these amendments this morning. So this is a continuation of that conversation, of course. Colleagues, any other comments on Amendment two? However, I'm a skater. Please. Thank you, Madam President. As I said this morning, I'm supportive of the efforts to continue to increase the amount of funding that is going to these critical transit services. We know the Economic Opportunity Institute has calculated the impact at 0.1% sales tax increase would have on households and estimates that the amendment would mean an annual cost of about $9 per household, making about $25,000 a year, or about $12 per household making around $50,000 a year. So we can't under underestimate the impact of that dollar amount on working families. But we also know that cutting transit, which is a lifeline for the very same folks that we're concerned about having to pay this tax would have a much more regressive and harmful impact without being able to get to work or childcare or there are other critical services like medical appointments. We've heard from folks who are supporting this effort from labor partners and Sage and other folks today. So I will continue to support this effort. And if this does not pass, I will also support the other proposal from Council President Gonzalez. Looking forward to making sure, though, that we are doing everything that we can to get additional dollars in hand to preserve where possible or reduce the burden of the cuts that are expected. And I appreciate the efforts that have been put forward today to do just that. Thank you, Councilmember Mosqueda, for those comments. Are there any other comments on Amendment two? Oh, council members a lot, please.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Sales taxes are a terribly regressive tax that put the burden of funding transit on poor and working class people, leaving big business and the super rich relatively untouched. And many council members have acknowledged this reality. If, on the other hand, we allow the cuts to happen, it will impact workers who depend on transit for basic mobility. Some of those same working families who are hit by the regressive taxation and as was mentioned in public comment, it hits people with very low incomes, people with community members with disabilities in many different ways. And it will hurt transit workers, union members of 8587. The choice between increasing the sales tax and austerity cuts to budget hours is a false choice where working class people and the marginalized communities and poor people lose either way in deciding whether to support this amendment. What's decisive is whether other concern for me is whether other council members would be willing to support progressive funding alternatives to this. Regressive tax. I mentioned in committee ten days ago that legally it is not true that sales taxes are the only option for funding transit. Yes, the transportation benefit districts are a legal construct and have certain identified funding sources. However, there is nothing in the law. There hasn't been anything in the law that would prevent the council from passing some other progressive general fund tax and using those funds to pay for bus service. For example, the City Council could pass an ordinance to increase the tax rate in the just passed Amazon tax. Increasing those tax by a quarter of a percent would be sufficient to raise those funds to eliminate the transit budget charge without any sales taxes at all. I ask the question at that time, would council members agree to support that? Another example is the city could put on the ballot a point 2% increase in the D.A. tax rate and use that instead of sales taxes because they are not regressive like the sales taxes. It is less progressive. The taxes are less progressive than the Amazon tax because the Amazon tax only taxes the largest 3% of big businesses . But they are more progressive than sales taxes because sales taxes hit the poorest households the most. Ten days ago, I asked if any council members would seriously support either of those progressive options instead of the regressive sales tax and budget cuts. And I said that, if so, I would be happy to make that motion. I indicated that I would abstain from a vote. 4.2% sales tax rate on the committee to give time for the City Council members to signal support for a progressive alternative. Unfortunately, I have to share with members of the public that in the past ten days I am not aware of any other council member supporting shifting transit funding away from sales taxes towards other avenues for progressive taxation. And the reality is, the political establishment in Seattle and elsewhere always tries to put the burden of taxes on working people unless there's a movement to fight back. We won the Amazon tax only because we had a massive and democratically organized movement with a ballot measure that was a credible threat to big business. The fundamental lesson of the false choice that we are left with today instead of progressive taxes is that the political establishment cannot be trusted to support the interests of workers unless they are forced to do so by a sufficiently powerful movement. However, faced with this situation, my office must vote to either accept the mayor's proposed cuts to Metro, which is not acceptable, or to vote to increase regressive taxes on workers. As I said, both choices are bad. But as many community members have said in public comment today and before, the budget cuts would be the most harmful. And for all those reasons, I will be voting yes on increasing the proposed sales tax rate by an additional 2.1%.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Salon. Are there any other comments? Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 2: Please. Thank you. Council President, as I stated in my comments earlier this or this morning, the duration is what's most important for me. Just by listening to my colleagues comments and consideration between .2.4 and 5.1. I'm not hearing a majority of comments because that's all we have to go off of here on either 1.1 or 2.2. I'm wondering if there is some folks are coalescing around one spot. Maybe that's a question out of order, but I figured I would ask it in open session.
Speaker 0: Governor Strauss will be considering a 0.15 amendment in the future. Right now, we're having no conversation around the Amendment two, which is Councilmember Morales's proposal for a point to increase, of course, can't compel colleagues to to say what they don't want to say. But there is obviously the alternative proposal of Amendment six, which is my .15. People are welcome to to signal preference one way or the other if they're comfortable doing so. And if not, then we'll, we'll we'll know where the where, where folks lie once we call the amendment to a vote. Councilmember Herbold, you're.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I will be supporting the Amendment six. I have expressed my concerns in the past about increasing taxes that have a disparate impact on low income people. And the sales taxes is one of the most regressive forms of taxation. I understand from the analysis that increasing the sales tax from 0.1%, 2.2% will be for car owning lower income households. It will be outweighed by not having to pay the car tax car, I think I should say car owning households generally will be outweighed by not having to pay the car tax as well as car owning lower income households. It's the low income households who don't have a car that would, under this proposal, see their total tax burden rise by increasing the sales tax 4.1% to 4.2%. I understand that there is a good conversation about whether or not the loss of transit service outweighs the the negatives around having the total tax burden rise for low income households who don't have cars. But I do believe that Councilmember Gonzalez puts forward a a good compromise to help address the the the the negative impact of of of loss of transit service to those to those households, and also while minimizing the progressivity of the taxation. And so I will be supporting that. I also, as Councilmember Gonzalez explained this morning, I have concerns that this is the first tax measure that we are going to be putting on the ballot in a post-COVID time, where people are very impacted across many, many socio socio economic economic spectrums, negatively impacted by the economic realities of COVID 19. And this is this is so important to our to our city that I just really don't want to risk losing it. And so I am maybe perhaps cautious and risk averse. But I want to thank Councilmember Morales for the the work that she has done over the last week to generate support for an increase. I believe that support for an increase will transfer over to a 1.15% increase. I also want to thank the the the. Transit Advisory Board for four. There were weighing in both on the size of the tax as well as the term of the tax. So things to get.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, colleagues. Any other comments on Amendment two? Councilmember Lewis, please.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much, Madam President. You know, frankly. I'm still in a place where I would like to see no increase of the sales tax at all over the the 0.1%. I understand that there are a lot of. Trade offs that that would involve in terms of service future service cuts or potential service reductions. I continue to be very optimistic that the city is going to prevail in our litigation to unlock car taps again as a component of our transportation benefit district strategy. That Council magically we will be able to work with the county on a regional successor that could potentially go up to $100 on the car tabs above and beyond the $60 car tabs that we have currently had on, and that that revenue could have a massive impact, especially on a county wide basis, to restoring those transit hours . But, you know, that's still a risk and there's still a lot that needs to be worked out for that to happen. So I do think it's warranted to send to the people of Seattle the 1.5 number so that we can have that option to go up that high in the event that we're not successful in Olympia, litigating in the court that the repeal of Simon's initiative. I would also signal that it would be my intent to seek only renewing the existing point one in the event that we are successful and that we do unlock those car tabs. For my comments this morning. But in the meantime, to avoid the worst of the reductions in service, I would support the the 0.15 that has been proposed by Council President Gonzales. I'm hoping that we would actually not have to realize that sales tax increase based on the successful result of litigation. So I just wanted to put that out there. And I do want to thank Councilmember Morales for giving us the option of having this discussion, because I know that it was a amendment that was walked on last week, but I think it was important that this was thoroughly vetted, that there was a really lengthy conversation about these impacts. And I do think that the compromise that the council president has put forward is is a good one, and it's what I intend to support.
Speaker 0: Thank you, colleagues. Any other comments or questions about amendments to. Seeing and hearing none. Councilman Morales, any any last words that you'd like to offer or would you just like us to have. Well.
Speaker 3: Let's just do it.
Speaker 0: I know. I see. For those of you who can't see the entire grid of the council, there's many of us who are fanning ourselves. So we hope everybody staying safe in this heat. Okay. Without there being additional discussion, I'm going to go ahead and ask the clerk to please call the role on the adoption of amendments to
Speaker 1: . Morales i macheda II.
Speaker 2: Peterson No.
Speaker 1: I. Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes. Lewis No.
Speaker 1: Her bold.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 1: War is.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 1: Council? President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 1: Or in favor five opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Madam Clerk, the motion fails. An amendment to is not adopted. So we'll go ahead and move to Amendment six. I will move to amend Council Bill 119833 as presented on Amendment six, recently distributed. Second second it's been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment six as sponsor of this amendment. I will just briefly address it and then open it up for debate and discussion. Colleagues, we talked about this quite a bit this morning. I just wanted to reiterate that I think that at the end of the day, it's important for the members of the public to know that this city council is committed to increasing the original proposal that we received from the mayor to ensure to mitigate against deep service cuts to our frequent transit network. Again, as we mentioned and discussed during this morning's council briefing, even under 8.15% model, even under a 0.2% model, which would have been the maximum amount legally allowable for us to to send to the voters. Even under the maximum taxation amount, we are still expecting cuts to service from King County Metro as a result of the COVID 19 economic crisis and the significant decrease in ridership. In large part because our system relies on people paying fares in order for it to be viable. And so I think it's important for us as council members to. Fairly and accurately communicate to our constituents that the Seattle Transportation Benefit District is not going to be additive if passed by the voters as it has been in years past. But instead it will function to be a base and to hopefully allow Seattle the flexibility to buy the services that we need. But we will still be reliant on King County Metro to provide those services and to and to and to commit to providing those available services. So just really quickly, at .15 percent, it will in essence, provide us with an additional $14 million a year, according to the Seattle Department of Transportation. This would allow us to buy about 30000 hours for West Seattle, and between 120000 to 165000 service hours would be available system wide, depending on some policy decisions that we will have to make during the budget and on community outreach and feedback that we would consider as a council before finalizing the spend plan. Once the levy is approved but with, we will also get the potential if we do the math there, it gets us to a potential total range of 150000 to 200000 total service hours in a 0.15% tax scenario, tax rate scenario with the currently available revenue forecasting. So for a sense of scale and under normal circumstances, 175,000. 175000 hours could maintain our current estimated investments in the frequent transit network, including 30, 15 and ten minute service and night owl functions. But again, with Metro's 2021 service being being still quite uncertain, we, I think, are being prudent in and going with the .15 percent route and making sure that we can make some specific decisions about the budget once the levy is approved, I think is going to be helpful. So the. Sorry about the interference there. Parenting while making an argument about an amendment. Love it. Okay. So I'm going to try to focus here instead of multitasking. So I really appreciate, hopefully, the support that folks can give. This potential amendment, Amendment six. I think it's a reasonable alternative. I do want to thank Councilmember Morales and her staff. I know Lakisha and Alexis have been working really hard in your office, Councilmember Morales, to advance the prior amendment. And so I think I think it is important for us to recognize that right now we're having a conversation about how much more revenue we can generate in order to mitigate against deeper service cuts. And I appreciate the opportunity to work with all of you on bringing this forward and on making the best case possible to our voters who will be asked to tax themselves in order for us to continue to fund really critically important transit services. And I'm really happy that one of the amendments that we will be considering that I think is really critically important is an amendment that would include essential workers in our low income program. I just think that is so important for us to do, especially given what we know about who essential workers are in our city. And so I look forward to folks support of both Amendment six and Amendment three that will be considering later on this afternoon. That being said, I'm going to pass it on and see if anyone else has any comments or questions about Amendment six. Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. Council President. I know you and I had lots of conversations over the last few days trying to figure out what the best path forward is here. So I do want to say that I will be supporting this amendment, you know, for all the reasons we've been talking about for the day. We need to make sure that we are able to increase or preserve as much transit as possible, as much service as possible for our community. And I think this is an important step for us to take. So I do plan to support this.
Speaker 0: I think it gets more remote. I, I appreciate the support because when we say that I think you council president, I echo Councilmember Morales's comments. I want to thank the both of you again for continuing to make sure that there's additional dollars on hand in addition to Councilmember Peterson. Thank you for stewarding this through to this point so that we can have a final vote to the council president. I would very much like to support this amendment and if possible, include friendly amendments that we had not circulated before noon. And so I would love to have Amendment Six being in front of us if it's possible to suspend the rules to consider that as you consider Amendment six. Okay. Hold on here. Yes. I have one of my procedures script here. It would be appropriate for us to have. Consider your amendment to my amendment before we take a vote on Amendment six. So. So why don't we go ahead and go through those steps now, Councilman ROSQUETA? Thank you. Madam President, I assume that there is no objection. Then if I go ahead and make the motion to consider Amendment 60. Oh, thank you so much for that. I'm so sorry. I am needing more coffee today. Okay. Councilman Esqueda, I. We are going to go ahead and consider our amendment. Your amendment to Amendment six that was not circulated by noon that you would like to present, that did not meet the council rules. The council rule will need to be suspended before we can consider it. If there is no objection in the Council relating to the circulation of amendments, by noon will be suspended to consider Amendment six be. Hearing no objection. The council role is suspended and council members get it. Now you may proceed with moving your amendment. Thank you, Madam President. I move to amend Council Bill 119833 as presented in Amendment six, which was recently distributed. Second. Okay. So it's been moved and seconded to adopt amendment 60 and and consumers get a you may now address your Amendment six. Okay. Thank you so much, Madam President. Again, thank you to you and your office for your partnership on this potential amendment to Amendment Six. Amendment 60 proposes to increase the rate to 1.5% at 3.15%, as the council president has described it and as we discussed this morning. But it does not change the spending caps under 60. The spending caps would remain as they are in the bill as it came out of committee. And this means the increased revenue would be spent on transit services as well as the other items that are included in there. I really appreciate the conversations that we have this morning. We want to be honest and recognize that as we move forward in this recession, there obviously will be cuts of various nature together. This council member sorry, this council is working through these amendments to make sure that we're prioritizing key services, especially as Councilmember Morales described this morning, specifically in her district that are coming from more black and brown communities, lower wage workers who are especially reliant on transit right now to get to essential services and essential jobs. I want to thank Council President Gonzales for her Amendment three, which she just alluded to as well, which will specifically call out essential workers, which I think is a critical component of this proposal. Amendment six be in front of us really helps to make sure that we're supporting the goal of increasing the ability for individuals to access key transit services and making sure that we look at frequency and services as as this proposal moves forward or is implemented. I absolutely support the ongoing conversations around transit passes for low income individuals and essential workers. And I think that we have an opportunity to partner with the with the county. The county has an upcoming launch of their free and low cost fare program this fall, and that program will focus on leveraging existing lift infrastructure to fully subsidize metro services for customers who earn at or below 80% of the federal poverty level. So as we work in partnership with Metro, it'd be great for us to continue to promote our value as a council that we want more people to access transit services, making sure that the program can accommodate essential workers and have a better understanding where the needs are. And as we do so, I think that the amendment in front of us really make sure that we address what we continue to hear from a lot of the folks who call them today and community members around the city that we want to see how we can address the cuts in services and frequency that we're already hearing about. Folks who are concerned that low wage workers and especially communities of color are able to maintain access to transit services. So I'm really excited about this friendly amendment and working in partnership with the prime sponsor, Council President Gonzalez, to put forward this change so that we can really balance. I think, what we heard from in terms of the regional goals in the letter that came from the Council President audio about duty at King County and our ongoing commitments to make sure that we increase sorry that we preserve as many routes as possible and lessen the reductions in in key services so that we can promote ridership , especially for our most marginalized neighborhoods, so that more people have access to transit and essential services. Thank you. Councilmember Mosqueda, are there any questions or comments on this amendment? I do consider it a friendly amendment. Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Yes. So my question is, is that given that these are caps, not minimum spending requirements, I'm not quite sure why we wouldn't want to increase the cap for access to transit for youth, low income and seniors. Given that our proposal that we are we have before us now is talking about an increase in overall revenue. If we are going to increase the revenue collection from 1/10 of a percent to 0.15%, that's going to result in an increase in overall transit capacity. And it seems like having a funding of of a funding cap of 10 million is based on a 10th of a percent assumption of revenue. So I just think if we are expanding the capacity of transit, we also have to be able to contemplate the expansion of access of these these populations to 2 to 2 transit. And again, the that the 23 million in Councilmember President Gonzalez's amendment isn't required spending. It's a it's a maximum number of dollars to be spent. And so I'm just concerned that we're not allowing ourselves to consider, for instance, $11 million in spending, given that we have this this this increase in encompassing capacity contemplated by the increase in the size of the tax.
Speaker 0: As a mosquito. Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, Councilmember Herbold, for your questions. I would I would start by saying we know that even though it's just a cap, we know that those numbers can be very powerful. And we don't want to set expectations that we're going to have the ability to go to a certain level or that any money is going to be drawn away from other transit services in frequency. We also heard pretty strongly from community partners, including in transit and in labor, that services and frequency are some of the biggest priorities that they wanted to see invested in and. This is this is, I think, an effort to also say that there's ongoing investments in Pasos at our county level. So it would be a nice partnership to make sure that we're not drawing dollars over to certain areas, even though it's just considered a cap.
Speaker 4: I'm just concerned that if we're expanding frequency of service and numbers of routes and we're not also expanding the ability of low income people, seniors and young people to access that, that we may be doing ourselves a disservice. I'm not suggesting that 23 million as the cap is, is the right number, but it certainly seems like it should be something higher than the $10 million that was based on a on a 10th of a percent revenue spend.
Speaker 0: A customer must get any anything, anything else to respond to Councilmember Herbold at this point? No. I mean, I think these are the hard choices that were forced to make with very few dollars. I think that it's not necessarily and it's we are trying to preserve as many rounds as possible. We're trying to preserve frequency as much as possible. And we don't want to have folks have access to passes when the busses isn't coming, maybe every 20 minutes and starts coming every 40 minutes. I think the the we're making these tough decisions about access to passes versus frequency of service. And I think that when we partner with the county and we basically just lift the cap, we're able to then have the passes continue to go into effect with the county partnership and try to preserve as much frequency as we can with the number of routes and services that we have in place. So it was really trying to find that right, right. Hybrid between both making sure people have passes and that the busses actually came. And I know there's other members who have been working on this in the in the text of Morales's bill. I know that that was something that you were also grappling with. But I think that it's a it's both our need it and we're just trying to raise the cap so we're not drawing a line that we might not be able to meet. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or comments on proposed Amendment six be. I would just say that I, I struggled with this question as well. I think really the policy question before us is whether we want to still stay committed to these low income programs. I think the answer to that is yes. And the question becomes at what level? And and I think that, you know, we could increase it by a little bit or we could increase it by a lot, which was my original amendment. But I think ultimately what the other policy question is here is what we want to see in terms of the overall health of the frequent transit network city wide that is accessible to to all transit riders, regardless of of income. And so I think I think for for that reason, I can understand why Councilmember Mosqueda is bringing forward Amendment six B, which leaves the low income programing intact, but at the level associated with a 0.1% proposal that was originally submitted to us, while still saying that the additional revenue generated from a 0.15% proposal can and should be used to focus on frequency and and and enhanced transit services throughout throughout the city. So so I'm you know, it's a it's a it's a tough call. But but I'm but I will likely support Amendment six B and favoring sort of a preservation of the entire frequent transit network through that model. So. Because remember Peterson?
Speaker 2: Thank you. And I don't know if it helps others making a decision, but the memo that we got from central staff breaks out the budget that Scott was planning going forward. They set the buckets, the categories at higher levels than what they're budgeting. So. They're only budgeting 7 million for the low income passes for on average. So the $10 million pocket is provides a lot of cushion for it to go up. If that helps folks today.
Speaker 0: That is helpful. Thank you, Councilmember Peterson. That's a good good reminder. Appreciate it. Okay. Any other questions or comments on Amendment six be. Anything else. In closing remarks, Councilor Mosquito just wanted to thank you. You summarized sort of the tough policy decisions in front of us better than I did. I apologize for that couple colleagues, but I really appreciate working with your office and the council members here today to advance this robust proposal that you have put forward, council colleagues, and to continue as much as we can in this really tough economic time to make sure that we're providing as much access to transit services and support to access passes as we know that the recession will be long and these services are really critical. So I appreciate the work that we've done with your office council president, and thank you for your flexibility on this commission. Absolutely. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and close out debate on Amendment 66 B, and ask the court to please call the roll on adoption of Amendment six, the Morales.
Speaker 1: Morales. Right. I guess. Okay. Thank you. Mosquera. I. Peterson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: So what I. Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: HERBOLD.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Whereas. Yes. Council. President Gonzalez?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Not in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Okay. Are there? The motion carries an amendment. Six B is adopted. Are there any other comments on Amendment six as amended? Okay. Hearing none. I think we talked about this a lot during council briefing. You've talked about we've debated it a lot here. So I'm going to go ahead and ask the clerk, call the role on the adoption of Amendment six as amended.
Speaker 1: Morales.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Let's get to I.
Speaker 2: PETERSON No.
Speaker 1: So, aren't I. Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Lewis, I. Herbold.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Whereas.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council. President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Eight in favor. One opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. The motion carries an amendment six, as amended is adopted. Thank you so much. Colleagues, we're going to go ahead and move in the order I describe. So we are now going to consider, I believe, Amendment eight B and this is going to be from Councilmember Herbold. And please correct me if I got the the letter the letter wrong, but I do think it's eight B, so I'll go ahead and recognize you in order to have you move your Amendment eight B Thank you.
Speaker 4: I move to amend council bill 11 9833 is presented on Amendment eight B recently distributed.
Speaker 0: Is there a second?
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment eight. The Council member. Honorable. You are recognized in order to address the amendment.
Speaker 4: Again, much like I argued in the last amendment, this does not require additional funding. It increases the funding cap for emerging mobility needs related to COVID 19 response in recovery and the closure of the West Seattle Bridge in proportion with the increase of the size of the levy to from 6 million to $9 million. It increases the funding gap again for both emerging mobility needs related to COVID 19 response and recovery. So that that relates to the social distancing requirements of Metro, but also for the closure of the West Seattle Bridge and impacts to West Seattle and South Park residents. The estimate has indicated that the bridge, as we all know, will be closed through the end of 2021, at least. And that is if a repair is chosen. Obviously, much longer if a replacement is chosen. Last week they indicated repair could take even longer than previous estimates and or could last longer. Sorry, it could could last longer than previous estimates. And my my request to Metro was to give me some information about how it how 8.1% steady with the addition of service would be how how it how the emerging needs funding in in that particular scenario would sort of stack up to two service capacity pre COVID 19. And the response from metro is that with a 10th of a percent with the, the, the spending for emerging needs, it would be, it would allow for capacity that would be close to pre-covid-19 levels, but not at those levels. And again, we need in West Seattle and South Park to do a mode shift from 17% of people taking transit, just 30% of people taking transit. There's no way we are going to be able to meet those goals if we are only able to add capacity that is close to pre-COVID 19 levels. Some of the improvements that Metro has indicated would require third party funding, like additional STP, include upgrading the water service to two boats up to all day and all year round, adding 773775 water taxi shuttle improvements and or a new third route. Again, rapid ride C service frequency upgrades for both peak and off peak. Robust service between Admiral and downtown doesn't exist right now. And similarly, Route 50 service frequencies upgrades to the Sodo link station. These are all things that are going to need additional revenue above and beyond what we're contemplating right now. King County Metro presented last week before the West Seattle Bridge Community Task Force and noted that their plans do include adjusting service in the event that there is a high bridge instability and or long term closure of the low bridge, which could shift even more towards a need for the water taxi. So again, this is not allowing for the change in the in the cap does not require this level of spending. But it would allow additional it would it would allow for additional spending of an additional $3 million going from nine 6 million to 9 million. And again, that is 6 million to 9 million specifically or West Seattle bridge related spending. That also includes the COVID 19 response and recovery spending. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. Are there any comments or questions on a proposed Amendment eight be? How's my Rosita? Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, I am sorry if you've already said this, but can you repeat for us what type of stakeholder has been done or conversations with the department about what impact this sort of earmarking would have on the proposed use of dollars already?
Speaker 4: So again, it's not it wouldn't be earmarking. It's not it doesn't require the spending. But there already is an emerging emerging needs category that is for both COVID 19 recovery and emerging needs associated with the West Seattle Bridge closure. We spoke with King County Metro last week about what the impacts would be and what what these additional dollars could be spent for spent on. I just gave the list of those things water, taxi, the shuttle, the shuttle to the water taxi. And let's see, what else should I say? Additional peak in off peak service to a rapid ride. This is all information from from metro and robust bus service between admiral going downtown which absolutely does not exist right now and depot frequency upgrades to the station. And so it's an additional maximum of $3 million. Again, not all $3 million annually for the emerging needs associated with the West, yet a bridge closure, but also associated with COVID 19 response and recovery, which is very focused on on making sure that there are there is is the ability to add service commensurate with the the needs to reduce the number of people who are on each bus.
Speaker 0: Colleagues any other. Questions or comments on proposed Amendment eight. The. Councilman Peterson, please.
Speaker 2: So, Councilmember. Horrible. Just to clarify, I know one of the themes here is where we're increasing more dollars toward transit service. And so the the concern with the different categories is that they might be for things other than transit service. But just to clarify for me, subsection E that you're you would be amending includes transit service.
Speaker 4: It is it is only transit service. These are only transit service.
Speaker 0: So I think the the issue is, you know, I think the policy question is, is do we want to increase the amount in the emerging needs bucket to what I think would be a total of 9 million if your amendment passes and I get that.
Speaker 4: Number right at a total of nine, up from six.
Speaker 0: From six. So it would increase that fund by $3 million for emerging needs. So I guess the policy question is, you know, would we rather have the additional $3 million? Go to emerging needs that are not yet known or or do we want it to go to sort of existing needs that we're aware of now in terms of transit services?
Speaker 4: I mean, again, we have we have to shift our are the number of people taking the bus from 17% who are taking the bus pre-covid-19 percent. So that is a very known need and perhaps emerging needs is not the right term.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I was just going to pivot to that by saying that that, you know, I think I think these are emerging needs appears to be the category of things that that are still developing, but that we are aware are a gap in how we are able to meet the transit needs of riders throughout the city. And certainly the points you make about West Seattle in particular are rather significant. Even in pre-COVID, with with maximum transit services being provided, most busses, if not all of the busses in and out of West Seattle were just packed to the gills. And so I think we're going to see even more of that in the future. So. So I, I am going to support Amendment b8b with the understanding that it is going for transit service projects that will help our mobility across across the city and with the understanding that capital projects and needs related to capital infrastructure is dealt with in a different part of the levy. And also we are looking at a lot of federal, regional, state, county resources to address that the capital base needs of them. So so I'm I feel comfortable after this discussion and in supporting Amendment eight, the. Okay. Any other comments or questions? All right. I'd ask that the clerk please call the role on the adoption of Amendment eight be hours.
Speaker 1: No. Macheda. Rashida. Peterson.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: So aren't.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Lewis. Yes. Herbold.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Whereas.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council. President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Councilmember was get I didn't get your vote. Okay. Okay.
Speaker 0: So can you. I'm sorry. Can you call and council members get out one more time?
Speaker 1: Sure. Councilmember Mosquito? Yes. Seven in favor, two opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The motion carries an amendment. Eight B is adopted.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 0: We're going to move along now to Councilmember Strauss, who is going to move Amendment one. So, Councilmember Strauss, I will hand it over to you to make your motion.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President I move to amend council 1833 as presented on Amendment one on the agenda.
Speaker 0: Is there a second? Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Thank you. To adopt Amendment one. Councilmember Strauss, you are recognized in order to address Amendment One.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. I spoke at length this morning at council briefing for the viewing public reference. Understanding that we have lost the fourth today and many more agenda items on make this brief here. Six years allows for the continuity of service that four years does not provide. It allows us to have a predictable and dependable length of time for us to be able to fund our service. When we look at regional transit benefit districts, which I believe that we need to move to, there is still the opportunity for a regional transportation benefit district to be created in four years as well. And if that is the case, it is still important for Seattle to maintain some of its leverage within King County Metro, to be able to provide the level of service that Seattleites desire and require. So again, this is not in competition to a regional measure. This creates a continuity of service. If for you, if you have a habitat for years and the regional service, the regional authority was to be stood up, there would still be a six month gap in our ability to collect and implement the level of revenue and the services that we want. I do have another amendment to address that issue should this amendment fail and or pass. So we are able to make changes in the future. We are able to go back to voters. What we know now and today is that within this pandemic and this. It's. Static surprises, etc. It's hard to tell what next week will look like much less than four years from now. 2020 was set to be the year for a regional merger. I think that it is important that we have the 40. To run this Del Transportation Benefit District for six years. Even if we make changes in that. Thank you, Mr. President. Those are my remarks.
Speaker 0: If you can't remember. Strauss Are there any comments or questions on Amendment One?
Speaker 5: Council president, if I may, it's councilmember suarez.
Speaker 0: Yes, please. Councilmember. Whereas.
Speaker 5: Thank you. We had a lengthy discussion on this July 17th, if you'll recall, at ten in the morning, in which the motion to reduce this from 6 to 4 passed. And I was concerned then about reducing the term or the duration from 6 to 4 years. In light of some of the comments that we talked about before, the vehicle license fee in 1976, and my concern that Lou Seattle will expire and also some of the transportation dollars that we seek from the county and that particular election year also that the Transit Advisory Board wanted six years. And I tend to look to people who have subject matter expertize and who are pretty much waist deep in this stuff to advise us, hence the Transit Advisory Board if we are going to it. 1.1 people wanted to double the tax but lessen the year and then complain that this is a sales tax that's regressive or a tax on people. That seemed inconsistent to me. So in light of today's vote, we're now we have a compromise of we're going to the amendments that passed that we are not going to double the tax that we had a compromise. And thank you, GONZALES, Castro. GONZALES And look into that. We can look at a tax of .15 percent. And with Council Member Herbert's recent passage that we just did on her amendment, which I think was phenomenal, I again, I'm going to voice my support that this should have stayed at six years. And I can only say that it's a taxing authority. And our ability to have something on the ballot when we agree to tax ourselves is very powerful. And just a quick note. I know there's been a lot said today about a lot of things, and I'm not going to talk a lot because I don't think there should be an award show where we have to thank everybody in God. I just want to say that. I just a big proponent of putting things on the ballot when it comes to a tax. It doesn't mean that I'm against or for. It means, I think that people should decide and we should give them credit for that, that they have an idea of what's going on. The proposition that this council member me that somehow I'm against the police, against things and for the police is categorically wrong. Again, I'm back to a plan, a percentage. How we get there, what we decide to put out to the voters and what we don't, and that we have a respectful conversation about how that happens. And I'm sorry for that. Also, I note that, you know, I wasn't I wasn't able to be there this morning. So anyway, I am going to voice support for Councilmember Dan Strauss's amendment that the duration of this should go back to six years, not for for the reasons that were stated earlier. And Council President, thank you for giving me the opportunity to vent just a tad.
Speaker 0: Not at all. Thank you so much for your comments. Are there any. I see. I see more hands up. So we will now hear from Councilmember Lewis and Councilmember Herbold. We'll follow him as well. Lewis.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much, Madam President. So, as with the other day, I remain committed to the four year. I mean, I think all of us can agree that this is not a ideal transportation benefit district, given that all of our tools are tied up either in court or they haven't been invented yet. I think forcing the conversation earlier, as I discussed this morning during briefing, is the better course forward to get what I think we would all like to see, which is the county wide transit benefit district with the $100 car tap fees and with a with a 1% sales tax that is more broadly assessed rather than only on taxpayers. I would like to see that sooner rather than later. I think that setting it at four years creates that sense of urgency, and that is why I'd like to stick with it. I don't want to see the the imperfect transit benefit district we're going to make. Last more than that. It needs to last longer than it needs to.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold, please.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I first want to thank Councilmember Strauss for bringing this back before us. I really appreciate this as somebody who voted in the minority last time in support of the six years. But we're having another another opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of both terms. I really believe that a six year term will give us more leverage in negotiation. We can opt not to collect funds in years five and six in the event of a successful regional measure. If and as it relates specifically to us having more leverage in a regional measure, if this is a six year term, I think that's simply because if Seattle has funding in place, our bargaining position is better. And one of the reasons why this is so important is because our measure includes funding for programs to support transit, access to low income residents, seniors and youth core, including the Work Opportunity Program, which, as we know, provides transit passes for Seattle Public School students in grades K through 12, as well as students participating in the Seattle Promise Scholarship Program, as well, again, as programs targeted to seniors and public housing residents. I think, again, our bargaining position is stronger to preserve the funding for these kinds of programs with the six year levy. And if a four year levy is on the verge of of expiring. Also, if a four year King County measure failed in 2020 for the county or the city would need to go to the ballot. And perhaps very early 2025, as we had to do after the April 2014 countywide measure, failed with 46% of the vote that year. So again, that doesn't give us very much time to come up with an alternative measure. And I just I don't want to repeat the experience this year when we were hoping that the county would put a regional ballot on a regional measure on the ballot. And as as we've seen, we've had to scramble a bit here to to get our version on when that didn't happen. I served on the Regional Transit Committee last year, and it was definitely challenging for King County Council members who wanted to be able to move forward. I don't want our city to be left in the position that we were left in, in 2014 and again this year, when we had to vote on a really quickly developed measure. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, are there any other comments on proposed Amendment one? Casimiro Mosqueda. Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to signal, as I did at the beginning of today's discussion, that I will be supporting moving from four years to six years again. I know that we are all committed to working on a regional approach. The resolution that Councilmember Peterson and I are bringing forward later today will help with that stated commitment as we work for both more progressive options and faster options in our region. The STV package of six years supports better long term planning for that, and nothing prevents the city from replacing us with a regional package in four years to those conversations continue with the county and that they go well. So I did support four years previously. Now that we've increased the amount and we have some progressive revenue in hand, I think it makes sense to go to six years and ensure that we have the substantial amount of work, that we have more money to help with some of our critical services as we continue to engage with our county partners. So I'll appreciate both of these items going hand in hand and I'll be supporting six years. Any other comments? Everyone else.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Just quickly, I just want to restate my concurrence with Councilmember Lewis. I do think that we need to have the opportunity to have the conversation sooner with our regional partners. I don't think even with the additional funding that we are going to be able to have now that this is the package that will truly meet the needs of our community. And I think the sooner we can move toward a regional solution and encourage a different kind of conversation about how we fund transit in the area, the better all of our neighbors will be served. So I plan to continue supporting this. Sorry. Continued support for years over six.
Speaker 0: Okay. Any other comments, colleagues? Oh. Councilmember Strauss. Close out debate, please.
Speaker 2: Just wanted to say thank you to you Council President and Councilmember Juarez for your grace and spaces we take at a large, important issues before us all, virtually. And while there is a series and layers of other crisis facing our nation. So thank you for your patience, grace and space with me as we delve into the duration of this. Benefit District. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay, colleagues. So I'm going to go ahead and close out debate. And I'd ask that the clerk please call the roll on adoption of Amendment One.
Speaker 1: MORALES No. No. Sarah, I. Peterson.
Speaker 2: I just.
Speaker 1: So. No. Strauss. Yes. Lewis.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 1: Herbold.
Speaker 4: I am sorry. Yes.
Speaker 1: Suarez.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 1: Council President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Now.
Speaker 1: Five in favor, four opposed.
Speaker 0: The motion carries an amendment, one is adopted. Are there any further comments on. Oops. Sorry. Hold on a minute. Yeah. Motion carries and amendment one is adopted. We're going to go ahead and now move to Amendment. Seven. BE Which is Councilmember Strauss's amendment. So, Councilmember Strauss, I am going to ask you to make your formal amendment of seven B so that it can be before the council.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President A move to amend council bill 119833 as presented on seven feet.
Speaker 0: Is there a second? Second, it's been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment seven. Councilmember Strauss, you are recognized in order to address the amendment.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. I'm bringing forth this amendment. Technical correction. This is meant to cover the delay in tax collection that occurs in the Department of Revenue implements a new measure. It would have been useful in the last measure. And assuming the sale transportation benefit district passes at the ballot box, we will still need to have a collection. We will have a collection gap. And this amendment ensures that the next time we're faced with this choice, we will be funded through the implementation of the next measure. Which means that there. This will ensure tax collection from January 1st, 2027. The first 2027 income tax.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Strauss. Any questions about Amendment 70? Okay. Hearing, then we will go ahead and call the roll. I'll ask the clerk to call the roll on the adoption of Amendment seven B or else.
Speaker 1: Yes. Must. Yes. Peterson.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Excellent. Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes. LEWIS Yes.
Speaker 4: HERBOLD Yes.
Speaker 1: Whereas.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Council President Gonzales.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The motion carries an amendment. 70 is adopted. We are now going to move to the to amendment three. So I will move to amend Council Bill 119833 as presented on Amendment three on the agenda. Is there a second?
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment three as sponsor of the amendment. I'll address it really quickly. Pretty simple, straightforward amendments. We add a recital clause that acknowledges that transit provides mobility to essential workers as they perform essential functions to combat the COVID 19 emergency. It also revises Section two, Item C, to allow the low income program a bucket of dollars to be spent and used to provide transit passes for low income medical workers, health care workers, first responders, pharmacy workers, grocery store workers, and other workers deemed essential by any state order. So so the effect of this is to simply include essential workers in that levy spending plan if the voters approve the levy. I'm happy to answer any questions or hear any comments on Amendment three. Colleagues. Any. Any questions or comments? Okay. Hearing them, I will ask that the clerk please call Madam President. Oh, yes, please. I just wanted to chime in and say thank you for bringing this forward. I think that it's really smart to include this amendment here today to make sure that essential workers are explicitly called out and that we emphasize our ongoing support, not just for the work that they're doing right now, but for programs to support them. And during this crisis that is covered, we know that there is increased need for us to continue to elevate this this type of work and make sure that we're not decreasing services there. So I just want to say thank you, because I feel like this amendment strikes a very nice, healthy balance of what we want to accomplish and the emphasis on essential workers. Thank you so much. Casper Mosqueda, any other comments on Amendment three? Seeing none, I would ask that the clerk please call the role on the adoption of Amendment three.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Must get a.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Peterson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Salon? Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: LEWIS. Yes. Herbold.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Suarez.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council. President Gonzales.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The motion carries and Amendment three is adopted. And we will go ahead and now move to the substantive bill. There are no additional there are no additional amendments for us to consider on this council bill. So I will make a general call for any comments on the council bill as amended. And Councilmember Peterson, you will get the last word when we close out debate. Colleagues, any questions on the council bill as amended? Seeing none. Well, I'll go ahead and recognize Councilmember Peterson for final remarks, and then we will call the roll on this bill.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. You sure the no more amendments? No, I'm just kidding. This is a good day for public transit. Many were concerned that with the turmoil and uncertainty of the COVID pandemic and economic recession, we might not be able to renew the funding for this transportation benefit district. In fact, our colleagues at King County had to temporarily abandon a regional measure as they shifted their attention to the public health crisis. So it was up to us here in Seattle to beat the clock before the money for transit expired. Fortunately, we share a common ground that public transit is an essential and affordable option to move the most people in our region. As we look forward to a vibrant economy and a healthy planet. And despite the divisions and conflicts that many people might see reported in the media, the mayor and the city council can pull together and row in the same positive direction when we direct our energy toward the hard responsibility of governing. It was healthy for us to have this robust, yet respectful debate on the tradeoffs of the various details and then to compromise to move it forward. It may not be perfect for each of us, but it is necessary for everyone. We are ready to send that Seattle Transportation Benefit District to the voters. Let's do this.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Peterson, for those remarks. I just wanted to before we have the clerk read excuse me, before we have to call the roll. I did want to take a quick moment to publicly thank Kelvin Chow from our council central staff policy analyst who's been working on this issue and really appreciate all of his work. And as you can, as the members of the public will see, we have kept it we kept him busy until the very last minute with all of these important amendments for our consideration. So thank you to Cowles. I wanted to thank my my own chief of staff, Brianna Thomas, for her work in shepherding the various amendments from my office through the process. So thank you all for the good conversation. And let's go ahead and have the clerk read excuse me, have the clerk call the roll on the passage of the bill as amended.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Sarah. Yes. Paterson.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Swans? Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes. LEWIS Yes.
Speaker 4: HERBOLD Yes.
Speaker 5: SUAREZ Yes.
Speaker 1: Council President Gonzales.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. I'd ask that the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Moving through our committee reports, we are now going to consider agenda item two. Will the clerk please read item two into the record? The clerk might be on mute. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to a sales and use tax; providing for the submission to qualified electors of the City at an election to be held on November 3, 2020, a proposition to collect a sales and use tax to fund transit and related transportation programs in Seattle. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07272020_Res 31960 | Speaker 0: Will the clerk please read item two into the record? The clerk might be on mute.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Every part of the City Council Agenda Item two Resolution 31960 relating to transit funding to the City of Seattle resolved to work with King County on a future countywide transit measure. Pursue progressive revenue options to replace the sales and use tax. I focus on equity and sustainability.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. I will move to adopt resolution 319860. Is there a second? Second? It's been moved and seconded. And I'm going to go ahead and recognize Councilman Mosqueda, you're as the prime sponsor of the resolution. You are recognized in order to address this item. Thank you, Madam President. In order to put the resolution as amended in front of us, I'd like to move to amend Resolution 31960 by substituting version four for version three. Second, it's been moved and seconded. Thank you to adopt the substitute councilmember Mosqueda. You are recognized in order to address the substitute. Thank you very much. And again, colleagues, I think this is a very exciting vote that we just took. So the resolution here today is coupled with the important piece of legislation that we just voted on to send to the ballots. It's complex in its nature that we're facing economic crisis at the same time that our lower wage households and most vulnerable families will need government services even more so, given the uncertainty that's created due to COVID and the impacts of Initiative 976 on the economic downturn. The proposal that will be on the ballot will be critical to making sure that people can access needed services. But the resolution calls for us to continue to do more. We know that there is uncertainty in economic recovery in front of us. We know that it is important for us to continue to invest in the resiliency of our community and that we can do so as we couple and work together with our county partners. Particularly, it's important for us as a region to continue to invest in our lowest income communities who are disproportionately people of color and disproportionately impacted by COVID and the economic recession and frankly, the inequitable economy that we had prior to COVID. Transit is a lifeline for all of our communities as we try to promote the use of transit and non car modes of transportation. It's important for us to continue to invest in those systems, especially for making sure that lower income folks and all Seattleites are able to access transit in this downturn in spite of lower ridership over the last several months due to COVID since estimate was approved in 2014. Transit ridership has increased significantly in Seattle. We needed the measure that we just passed, and we also need our county partners to continue investing with us to create a progressive system that will directly benefit our entire region, including low income communities. So the resolution that's been put forward in front of us is really a partnership, a partnership with King County, the jurisdictional partners, community advocates, transit advocates to re regionalize transit spending and create a future that is planning for a county wide transit measure. This resolution works towards replacing regressive sales tax and uses taxes in a more progressive way to fund transit services in Seattle with other progressive revenue sources. We've spent a lot of time over the last few weeks talking about the regressive nature of the tools in our tool belt, and we just talked about it this afternoon. The resolution in front of us puts forward our commitment to making sure that future transit packages are moving towards more progressive nature of transit sources, revenue sources for these important transit needs. And we'll also be raising revenues so that we can have a more robust investment in transit services around our region. The resolution, as I mentioned this morning, follows a letter sent by council president council by King County Council President Councilmember Bellucci and signed by Executive Constantine and King County members Coles and Bousquet and the group who affirmed their intention to engage in conversations around regional transportation benefit district conversations. Part of their letter reads Transit has provided much needed mobility options for essential workers and first responders and has helped to ensure that the people throughout King County have had a way to get to essential services, including grocery stores and medical treatment. Even with transit services significantly reduced in response to COVID, the network has continued to function, currently providing more than 125,000 trips a day. During the last few months of the pandemic closures, for instance, we've seen that the routes with the least reduction in ridership have primarily been from those in South Seattle and South King County. Those communities are using transit still to make sure that they can access key, essential trips to workplaces, to shopping, to childcare and other critical services like health care. I'd like to thank Councilmember Peterson for co-sponsoring this resolution and Mayor Durkin for concurring on it, as our understanding is that they will concur. I also want to thank advocates who spent time on both the legislation that we just passed and specifically the resolution in front of us from transportation choices rooted in rights, MLK, Labor and Puget Sound sage also to Blake Trask from Councilmember Paul Duties Office and my office. Thank you to Sigal, Perry and Aaron House for all of their work, both on the resolution and on the previous STB package that we just approved. Really appreciate your work. Thanks to Councilmember Peterson for helping shepherd us to this. Thank you so much. Are there any other comments on the resolution? How's Mercyone?
Speaker 3: Thank you. I will be voting in favor of this resolution for regional funding for Metro because working class people need transit service beyond Seattle's city limits, and especially as the cost of housing has pushed more and more working people, especially working people of color outside city limits. However, it is also important that we not allow the idea of regional funding to be used. As an excuse by any any any body in the city council to be used as an excuse for opposition to local progressive transit funding options. I'm not implying that this resolution is doing that, but I'm just saying that in general, I think we have to be aware of that because I recall when we started fighting for the Amazon Act in our movement, the Mayor and the Chamber of Commerce immediately responded by saying the issues of housing and homelessness were regional problems, which we don't disagree with. The regional problems, in fact, this is a nation wide problem. And but they said that therefore the city of Seattle should not tax big business to address them. I support the county or state enacting progressive taxes on big business or super rich to fund transit. In fact, I will warmly welcome any such development, but I don't think that given the past decades trajectory, we can we can just wait for them to do so. We will have to continue fighting to implement progressive developer impact fees. And I certainly in my office will be continuing that to fund transit and to use developer impact these funds transit in 2021. And I urge the ordinary people in the movement that we not be sidetracked by the vain hope that we have heard many, many times of progressive county funding or regional funding in general.
Speaker 0: There any additional comments? Customer referral, please.
Speaker 4: Thank you. So just real quickly, I want to just speak as a councilmember who represents a district at the southern edge of Seattle that we've really taken a deep, deep dove in our discussions around the Seattle Transportation Benefit District about how bus service doesn't stop at the city limits and the logic for designing routes doesn't necessarily fit with city boundaries. In fact, some of the bus service that very large numbers of people depend on have more stops outside of the city limits than within the city limits. So it's really important in designing this levy and in future levies that we struggle with how to provide service and what level of service for routes that go across the city limits but that our constituents desperately rely on. And this resolution or regional approach to transit funding is really important for that reason and many others as well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Herbold. Any other comments on the resolution? Hearing none at the Clark. Please call the role on the adoption of the substitute Morales.
Speaker 1: Yes. Macheda?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Petersen.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Sarwan. Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold. Yes. Whereas. Council President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Eight in favor, nine opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. The motion carries the substitute as adopted in version four of the resolution is before the council. Are there any additional comments on the resolution as amended? Okay. Hearing man, I'd ask that the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the resolution as amended.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. To.
Speaker 0: Sorry. Yes.
Speaker 1: Peterson.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Slant? Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: HERBOLD. Yes. Council President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Eight in favor and opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The resolution, as amended, is adopted in the chair, will sign it as the clerk sees it. Fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Colleagues, really quickly, if there is no objection, Councilmember Juarez will be excused from the remainder of the July 27 city council meeting. Hearing no objection. Councilmember Suarez is excused from the remainder of today's city council meeting. Thank you so much. I'd now ask that the clerk please read agenda item three into the record. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION relating to transit funding; declaring The City of Seattle’s resolve to work with King County on a future countywide transit measure, pursue progressive revenue options to replace the sales and use tax, and focus on equity and sustainability concerns. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07272020_Res 31956 | Speaker 5: Agenda Item three. Resolution 31956. Establishing City Council's Goals to implement Internet for All Seattle Edition of enabling all residents to access and adopt broadband Internet service that is.
Speaker 0: Reliable and affordable. Thank you, Madam Park. Councilmember Peterson, we'll get to you right now. So just wanted to queue you up there. I will move to adopt resolution 31956. Is there a second?
Speaker 2: Second?
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you so much. Councilmember Peterson, you're the prime sponsor of this resolution that I had an opportunity to co-sponsor with you, and I'll hand it over to you in order to address the resolution.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Council President. I will also be reading the remarks from Councilmember Juarez, who's also another co-sponsor. So this, colleagues, is the Internet for all resolution resolution 31956. I announced and distributed the resolution on May 18 and we introduced it officially on July six. And we are happy to have the leadership of Council President Gonzalez and Councilmember Juarez and I know other Council members support this. So thank you for your commitment and leadership to this, the social justice technology issue. I do want to acknowledge the Executive for their efforts thus far to pursue digital equity and to acknowledge the over 25 meetings. My staff had initial preliminary meetings with stakeholders. This will continue this outreach and engagement process. Our Department of Information Technology will continue this process, really this resolution. Kick starts the process of expanding access and adoption of Internet that's reliable and affordable. There is a substitute resolution. So Council President can remind me on the parliamentary procedure for that. That substitute simply makes minor and technical corrections and fleshes out a few sections. Staff distributed this. It's on the agenda today. The big picture is that this is just a resolution that outlines our aspirational goal. It states the importance of providing Internet access to all residents in Seattle and begins the work of hearing back from our Department of Information Technology. In a city that prides itself in leading the world in technology, the COVID crisis has laid bare the inequities and injustice of the digital divide. We can no longer allow limited Internet access to prevent learning, to impede our workers or to hinder our small businesses and nonprofits. In the words of a local nonprofit leader here in Seattle that supporting this resolution. Inequities in Internet access lead to disparate outcomes. Access to the Internet has become a fundamental way people participate in society. This proposal will move us closer toward equitable Internet access. It's time to ensure reliable and affordable access to the Internet as part of our city's vital infrastructure for social justice, for education, and for economic development. Let me now please read the comments from co-sponsor Deborah Juarez. Councilmember Juarez writes, With the advent of the COVID crisis, inequities in our society have been exposed. We have seen schoolchildren unable to access school work because of lack of access to technology. We've seen small businesses challenged to adapt to an economy that is more dependent on the Internet than ever before. This resolution presented today will help us take a solid step forward. We need to expand Internet access and make it more affordable to empower all students to participate in remote learning and to enable our small businesses to succeed in this new economy. I, Councilmember Juarez, have long advocated for equity and access by working with groups such as literacy soars. Our public library system and I'm pleased to have been a co-sponsor on this resolution to further expand Internet access for all. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Peterson. We do have to get a substitute version before us. So I would look to you to make the formal motion to introduce substitution version three for version to be.
Speaker 2: Yes. I'd like to move the substitute version to resolution 31956 as published on today's agenda.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Is there a second?
Speaker 4: Second?
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the substitutes. Councilmember Peterson, I know that you just addressed the substitute. Are there any additional comments either from you or other colleagues on the substitute? Hey, hearing none of the Clark, please.
Speaker 1: Probable. Sorry.
Speaker 0: Okay, now, that's. That's okay. We're just voting on a substitute bill right now so that we'll will be voting on the on the whole whole thing in just a minute. Okay, great. So let's go ahead and have the clerk call the role on the adoption of the substitute.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Mosquito? Yes. Peterson.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: So want. Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Verbal? Yes. Council President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: I thank you so much. The motion carries the substitute is adopted and version three of the resolution is now before the council. And I'm going to go ahead and open it up now to colleagues for further comments on the resolution. I think I saw Councilmember Sawant first, then Councilmember Morales, and then Councilmember Herbold as a person, please.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I will be voting yes on this resolution, of course. Comcast and other for profit Internet service providers are not interested in internet for all or even in quality internet for some. Actually, they are interested in their own profits. That's why they make the internet so expensive. And that's why they sign up. Sign you up at one rate only to have your bills skyrocket. That is why your internet runs is at 1/10 the advertised speed. If you're lucky. What we really need is municipal broadband run like a utility. Public utility. My time with the council, I've seen many, many studies and reports on Internet for all and on municipal broadband. This resolution requests another report, and I will support that. But what has been missing in all these years is not another report. What has been missing is the political will to take on Comcast and actually build out a municipal broadband network in the city. Political will is the central component here because Comcast is completely opposed. Pass and other telecom corporations are completely opposed to municipal broadband. And winning municipal broadband, therefore, will require elected officials willing to take on the might of Comcast. The people's budget movement in the past has fought for the funding to build the pilot. It was proposed by one study that is building municipal broadband as a public utility in one neighborhood. Seeing learning lessons from that and then building out and building it out in the entire city. But at that time, the majority of the council did not agree. This autumn, though, this coming autumn, this year, the people's budget will bring that proposal back, the proposal to have a pilot program for municipal broadband. And I believe that all council members who will vote yes on this resolution today should vote yes on that proposal also. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. So what next stop is Councilmember Morales? And then we will hear from Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 3: Thank you, colleagues. I do appreciate this resolution. Several years ago, I was working with the Upgrade Seattle folks to try to get municipal more interest in municipal broadband at the city council. So I do think it's important that we seek out the kind of solutions that other cities have tried and, you know, understand what lessons they've learned about municipal broadband. I would love to see that language restored. Well, I'm looking at the wrong version of the resolution. But I think more importantly, what I want to say is that there are two things that make sure we continue to bear, Doug, as my Texas family would say. A commitment to ensuring that the dog, once policies are followed so that whenever the city digs up the street or constructs a bike lane, that they put that publicly owned fiber down, that 90% of the costs of expanding a network in the first place. The second thing is that, you know, as Councilmember Stewart was saying, we've got stacks of reports. We know that this is an important tool, especially. That issue has been brought into relief in light of COVID and the understanding of how deeply inequitable access to Internet is in our community, especially for young kids who are struggling with trying to get their schoolwork done. So I really think we need to commit to a plan, a shovel ready municipal broadband plan, so that if there is any federal stimulus money that might be coming down the pike in the next couple of years, we can apply and we have our project ready to go. I think develop developing a plan for how we would build that out could really support any efforts that we want to make for potential federal money. You know, and we will need hundreds of millions of dollars to get this done. But Chattanooga did it. I think we need to be prepared to do it, too.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Morales for those comments. Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 4: Thank you. So as we all know, everybody gets really excited about Internet for all. But in the past, when the city has studied implementing municipal broadband, the capital costs have proven to be a really big barrier. And it's my hope that we can, through the work of this resolution, allow for the consideration and study of more creative methods to building a municipal broadband network. Last year, I was really excited about a statement of legislative intent that I had proposed, and the statement of legislative intent would have directed Seattle Public Utilities to examine the feasibility of utilizing the city's white water pipe infrastructure for developing a municipal broadband network. I put forward the slide last year. Unfortunately, the budget does not bring it forward, and I was inspired by the success in an accord where they achieved significant cost savings and drastically minimized street disruptions by not having to rip up the streets because they were able to feed fiber optic cable into the water pipe. So I want to thank Councilmember Peterson and his staff for including mention of exploring this creative method to build a municipal broadband network. And then lastly, I want to just echo what we all know to be true, that the public health emergency has laid bare the gaps in access to so many essential services in our city. Access to Internet is no exception. And COVID 19 has showed us that it is more important now than ever that the city must ensure that everyone has reliable and affordable access to the Internet so that we can work safely from home, and so that our children have reliable access to continue their education.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. Are there any other comments on the resolution? Okay. Oh, customer data, please. Thank you to the sponsors of the resolution. Can you just quickly summarize for me what the next steps are after this passes today, which I'm going to enthusiastically support?
Speaker 2: I sure. I'll go ahead and take that question. The next steps are. It puts it in the court of the executive. So the which who we've been talking to during the development of this resolution, they're already doing digital equity work, but we need them to come back to us with their initial short term, long term solutions and how they're going to put forward the action plan for implementing this. And so they're going to come back. Ideally, we'll be having the committees in September. So they're going to come back in the middle of September right before the budget is unveiled by the mayor for this fall budget process. In case there are any financial implications for what they're proposing to do. So, hope to hear back from Seattle Department of Information Technology, Wednesday, September 16 and the Transportation and Utilities Committee.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. I thank you, Councilmember Peterson, for for that description. I think the resolution, the substitute version, aside from reestablishing and reiterating the city council's goals around enabling Seattle residents to access and adopt a broadband Internet service that is both reliable and affordable, and it does also do a thorough and succinct gap analysis. So this gap analysis would include lists, would include no cost and low cost programs that are already available in the city of Seattle, while also then looking at where the actual gaps in affordable Internet access and adoption for Seattle residents exists. And so this would be, I think, an update to excuse me. It would it would be sort of that novel approach that Councilmember Herbold has been sort of referenced. And so I think I think for me, the biggest part about this is sort of really getting into that gap analysis. It's also an opportunity for us to look at lessons learned from other cities who've been able to be successful in this effort. And then and then also creating an action plan that details recommended steps for that the city of Seattle can take to to expedite universal universal access to and adoption of affordable broadband Internet service for Seattle residents. And to do that in the construct of meaningful partnership with nonprofit organizations, business community, philanthropic interests, Seattle public schools, etc., etc.. And so it also, I think, will be important that action plan also include questions around the infrastructure, what resources might be needed in order to implement the action plan and and a timeline that that we would like to finally have as part of a clear workplan action plan on this. Because for those of us who've been serving on the council for a while, we know this is not the first time we've we've addressed issues related to broadband access. And so and so I think it's important for us to to make sure that we're advancing the ongoing analysis around Internet for for all. So I was really proud to be able to work with Councilmember Peterson and his office on co-sponsoring this resolution. And we'll belabor all of the points that folks have made. Obviously, we are seeing in this pandemic the disproportionate impact of the lack of Internet access when most of us are functioning almost entirely in our professions via the Internet. And and I think it's it's it's so important for us to finally pull together an action plan to implement the many previously stated goals of the city. And now is is the time to do that. So really excited about the opportunity to advance this resolution and advance this body of work. Any other questions or comments on the resolution before we call this to a vote? All right. Hearing none. I would ask that the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the resolution as amended.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Must. S Petersen. S Swans. Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: HERBOLD.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council president Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Eight in favor and in oppose.
Speaker 0: The resolution as amended is adopted and the chair will sign it and as the clerk, please affix my signature to the legislation. Okay, folks. Agenda item for us that the clerk please read. Agenda item four into the record. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION establishing the City Council’s goal to implement Internet for All Seattle, a vision of enabling all Seattle residents to access and adopt broadband internet service that is reliable and affordable. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07272020_Res 31958 | Speaker 5: Agenda item for resolution 31958 Approving Memorandum of Agreement with Seattle Pacific University regarding the establishment of Composition and Roles for Citizens Advisory Committee for Preparation of a Master Institution. Master Plan for Seattle Pacific University.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. I will move to adopt resolution 381958. Is there a second?
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. It's been moved and seconded by Councilmember Strauss, a sponsor of the resolution. You're recognized in order to address the item.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. Agenda item number four, which is Resolution 3198, approving a memorandum of understanding subsequent to the resolution. This resolution is an early step in this process for applying for new media institutions back to the city. Once a major institution informs the city of its intent to complete a new master plan. They're required to form Citizens Advisory Board or Advisory Committee in consultation with the Department of Neighborhoods. This resolution approves the new memorandum of Understanding with South Pacific University to establish its Citizens Advisory Committee and its membership. The membership of the committee has been recommended for approval by Department of Neighborhoods and has already been done informally because these masterplans are quasi judicial in nature. We should not be discussing the merits or demerits of the masterplans themselves. Rather instead, keep conversation limited to the memorandum of understanding or agreement up before us. Read this again on the subject of the judicial process.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Strauss, are there any comments on the resolution? Hearing. Man Will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the resolution?
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Mosquera. Yes. Peterson.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Silent. Yes. Strauss. Yes.
Speaker 2: LEWIS Yes.
Speaker 1: HERBOLD Yes. Council President Gonzalez?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Eight in favor, nine oppose.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it and ask that the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation. Agenda Item four. Will the clerk please read item? I'm sorry. Five. Well, the clerk please read item five into the record. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION approving a Memorandum of Agreement with Seattle Pacific University regarding the establishment, composition, and rules for a Citizens Advisory Committee for preparation of a Major Institution Master Plan for Seattle Pacific University. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07272020_Res 31959 | Speaker 5: Agenda Item five. Resolution 31959. Approving a memorandum of agreement with Seattle Central College regarding the establishment, composition and Rules for Citizens Advisory Committee for Preparation of a major institution masterplan for Seattle Central College.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. I will move to adopt resolution 31959. Is there a second second? It's been moved and seconded. Councilmember Strauss, you are the sponsor of this resolution and are recognized in order to address the item.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. Agenda item number five is this is similar to the reform which is approving a memorandum of agreement with South Central College this time. So it serves the same purpose as the previous resolutions in specified for South Central College. We will again approve the Memorandum of Agreement with South Central College to establish their own Citizens Advisory Committee and its membership. Membership of this committee has also been recommended.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Strauss, are there any comments on the resolution? Hearing? No. Will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the resolution?
Speaker 1: Morales I. Mosquito.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Peterson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: So what.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Lewis. Yes. Herbold? Yes. Council President Gonzales?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Eight in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. And as the clerk fees affix my signature to the legislation. Okay. Agenda items six through eight. Will the clerk please read items six through eight?
Speaker 5: Agenda Item six through eight appointments 1586 through 1588 Appointment of patients Messrs. Andrew Malaba as members of the Planning Commission for April 15, 2021, and appointments of Catherine Direct and Lawrence Squires as member Seattle Planning Commission for Term two, April 15th, 2022. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION approving a Memorandum of Agreement with Seattle Central College regarding the establishment, composition, and rules for a Citizens Advisory Committee for preparation of a Major Institution Master Plan for Seattle Central College. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07202020_CB 119812 | Speaker 5: Every part of the Select Budget Committee agenda and one constable 119812 amending ordinance 126000, which stopped the 2020 budget making appropriations for an emergency fund for public assistance during the COVID 19 Civil Emergency. The committee recommends that the bill passes amended by the council with the. Yes, he recommends the bill passes amended. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Okay, so let's go ahead and dig into this particular item. Let's see. Councilmember skate as chair of the committee. You are recognized in order to address this item. Thank you, Madam President. And just to be clear, did you want items one and two together or item one as a standalone? Thank you for the reminder. Clarke Madam Clerk, can you please also read item number two into the record just to allow for debate on both? But we will take votes separately on both issues, but just to allow for discussion of both. I'd appreciate it if you could also read an agenda item to.
Speaker 5: Agenda Item two Resolution 31957 Establishing spending details by year end program area for the spending plan adopted by the audit of Capital 119811 that establish at the authorized use of the proceeds generated from the payroll expense tax authorized by the ordinances reduces capital 119810. The committee recommends that the resolution be adopted. This amendment council members must gather purpose. Gonzalo Suarez, Luis Morales, the watch and Strauss in favor with an abstention from Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 0: Thank you, madam. Claire. Again, thank you, Councilmember Musketeer, for the reminder to read both into the record. Appreciate that. I will go ahead and hand it over to you because we're mosquitoes chair of the committee so that you can address both both items. There are a couple of amendments for some amendments for consideration. And I will go ahead and take those up after you do a general introduction of both the Council bill and the resolution, what is yours? Thank you, Madam President. I want to thank my Council colleagues for your tremendous work on items. One Council Bill 119812 and item two Resolution 31957. Together, these make up the jump start revenue spend plan, both for immediate COVID relief and ongoing support for small businesses, working families, seniors, our most vulnerable, and our business community as we create a more resilient economy as we recover from COVID. I'll speak to both items real quickly in order to tee up our future conversations for both the bills and the amendments. Just like, again, reiterating my tremendous appreciation for all of you, your offices, our central staff, the community at large, and my office. My office spent hundreds of hours on the phone with community partners working through the details of the Jumpstart Spend plan and the previous proposal to raise revenue. This was built off of tremendous advocacy and organizing efforts and community and among organizations who are calling for a more progressive proposal to be in front of us, to pass progressive revenues so that we can address the immediate crisis that is presenting itself because of COVID and the ongoing need for us to invest in housing and support services to create a more equitable economy. I'm really proud of the work that we have put together here as a council. As a full council, we have come together and we've provided feedback to each other and incorporated information that came directly from communities, including from organizations who are led by communities of color, including from feedback from large and small businesses, including feedback from labor unions and immigrant rights organizations, housing advocates and homeless advocates, transportation and environmental justice advocates . As you look at this final proposal in front of us with the detailed spend plan and emergency COVID relief, it has the input from a tremendous amount of individuals and organizations who we deliberately worked with to create the spend plan and the COVID relief. It invests in promoting health and creating jobs and reigniting our economy in a more equitable way. It includes small businesses and immigrant rights advocates and environmental justice. Those are folks who get credit. We want to make sure that the folks who put pressure on from the outside tax, Amazon organizers and activists, individuals and communities who for years have been calling for progressive fare. Now you all get credit and council colleagues, you get credit. We got this over the line. We worked tremendously hard and in a collaborative way to make history. We're pushing forward a tremendous amount of support for our most vulnerable communities and reinvesting in our local economy, because that is what the data says to do. And all cuts, budget or austerity approaches in the time of a recession only prolong pain for both local economies and our most vulnerable residents. So the detailed spend package, the proposal in front of you for immediate COVID relief will help support families, small businesses and our most vulnerable. Because you all came together and we pushed this proposal forward with tremendous feedback and input. I actually think that having conversations with folks via Zoom and calling in options created more opportunity for community partners to provide public testimony. People who were able to call in between shifts, people who are home taking care of loved ones were able to engage in this public policy process in addition to our traditional avenues that we've offered when we are meeting in Non-Covid times. The public input on this has been tremendous, and we want to thank all of you for your input to the COVID relief proposal, to the long term spending proposal, and to the Jumpstart tax package. This is what happens. This is what it looks like to lift up the voices of those shut out by establishment politics of the past, who listen to what a community needs, who find ways to get to Yes, this is what happens when we have folks in office who don't accept the way things have always done, who aren't going to just give lip service, voice of action, who are smart, collaborative, progressive and frankly, this council. We're tired as well. We are tired of being in a declared state of emergency for housing and homelessness for year after year and not seeing more money go into housing. In fact, this was the third year in a row where the mayor's proposed budget reduced the city's input on housing. We're tired of being in a state of emergency for homelessness and seeing the number of homeless folks grow year after year without a safe place, especially in a COVID setting to be in non congregate shelters like the CDC demands. We are tired of being in one of the most prosperous cities in the nation and lauded for our progressive values. Well, one in four children go without the needed food that they need because of food insecurity. And we're tired of the same old rhetoric about the need for austerity and the need for cuts being drummed up on the cusp of a depression. When we know that cuts only prolong recessions and the past cuts that we have seen imposed in our state and in our region in the past time of a recession only hurt families and businesses. We need alternatives. And this progressive revenue proposal and the spend plan and COVID relief offers that create a solution. We're tired on behalf of our constituents, and that's why we're acting. We're tired of those constituents are tired of doing everything right, but not being able to get ahead, not being able to keep a roof over their head or put food on the table because they realize and they've been calling on us to have action for so many years because in doing everything right, they still see an economy that prioritizes the few while leaving the many behind. So this is our way to push back. This is our pushback against status quo politics in an in the middle of a deadly global pandemic with the highest rates of unemployment and business closures ever. We are doing something that has been proven to invest in our most vulnerable, to spur local economic activity and create a more resilient and equitable economy by passing Jumpstart Revenue Plan and the detailed spend plan today. We are offering relief relief to families that they will be able to pay rent, relief to individuals, that they will be able to put food on the table. Relief to small businesses. That they will have flexible dollars they've been asking for to pay for what they need to open businesses again and put people back to work by passing Jumpstart. We have identified the resources that resources needed to provide COVID relief in this year to make sure that people's urgent needs are met due to COVID . Next year, we're investing in core government services to keep parks open, to keep libraries open, to make sure child care can function. To make sure that the basic services that we rely on every day don't have a cliff. And in the out years, we're investing in building housing, housing those who are homeless and investing in small business supports. I want to make sure that folks know we have done this in a thoughtful, in a creative and a deliberative manner. We have not spent down the entirety of the emergency funds to clarify any misperceptions that are being put out there. We are offering relief, assistance, security and stability. So again, thank you for doing all that you've done to make sure in 2020 we have emergent needs met in 2021. We maintain essential government services like parks and safe streets and libraries. And in 2022 that we invest deeply in supporting a diverse business and local economy and housing those who need support. Now. I really appreciate all that you've done. We've put forward a smart proposal. We've used the very few tools that we have in our toolbox and a legally sound way. We are rebuilding our economy in the out years, and we're investing in those who need the support right now. I really appreciate all that you've done and I'll have some more closing comments in a bit, but just so incredibly proud to work with all of you and to work with the entire community, organizations and individuals who've helped make Jumpstart and the Spend Plan and Relief Package a reality today. Well, said council member Muscat. It makes me all excited about calling this to a vote soon. Okay, folks, we do want to hear comments from folks about the bill and the resolution. We do have a couple of amendments that we've got to work through. I will take those separately. So before we open it up, as we traditionally and typically do, to hear comments about the the the bill. I'm going to go ahead and ask Councilmember Strauss to address Amendment One as published on the agenda. So I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Strauss to walk us through his, I believe, two amendments. And then we will consider that amendment and call the bill to a. Excuse me. Then we will consider amendments to the resolution, and then we will have two amended versions of legislation before us and open it up for general comment. So, Councilmember Strauss, you are up first. I'm going to go ahead and hand it over to you to address to move your Amendment One and to open up debate for that.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President. Just double checking to hear what I thought. I heard. You would like me to move the amendment. Is that correct?
Speaker 0: Yes, if you. I don't.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 0: You're not required to. But it is your opportunity to move your amendment. So if you wish.
Speaker 4: Wonderful. Thank you so much. A move to amend council bill 119812 as presented on Amendment one on this agenda.
Speaker 0: Is there a second? I can. It's been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment One. Councilmember Strauss, you are recognized in order to address the substance of the amendment.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President. Amendment one would increase the Small Business Stabilization Fund Grant Funds eligibility to 25 FTE. Last week I spoke to my you as my colleagues and the public about the need to change the requirements from fixed employees to full FTE full time equivalent to allow for part time worker to also have consideration for part time workers. What I have heard in the interim is that the need to increase that threshold to 25 is there and is in our cities. So this amendment increases eligibility for the Small Business Stabilization Grants funded by the bill to include nonprofits and businesses with up to 25 FTE ees as an increase from ten. I had heard a lot of concern about the impacts of COVID on restaurants specifically and the anticipated wave of potential closures that could be coming soon. Resident restaurateurs from District six and across the city have told me that FTE ten FTE is not high enough for them to capture many of the restaurants in need of our support . While restaurants are a labor intensive industry, it often exceeds ten FTE fees, and restaurants also oftentimes survive on the narrowest of margins. So in addition to raising the cap on FTE, this amendment would also add language ensuring that businesses that have already received a grant through prior funding are not eligible for a second grant and adding a geographic equity as a consideration in the distribution of of the grants. The reason that the coming round for the second grant is being put in in this amendment is because we do not have enough money in our funds to even serve all of the small businesses that I have applied to want to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to receive funds before people come for a second dip. So. Those are my comments. Council President and I appreciate the consideration.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Strauss, for that description of Amendment One. I'm going to go ahead and open it up for debate. I've already received one message. And that is from Councilmember Juarez, who would like to make comment. Colleagues of anyone else would like to make a comment. Please signal by raising your hand or sending me a message in the chat box. Okay, go ahead. I see you, Councilwoman Morales. First up, Councilmember was.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I will be supporting this amendment. As with Councilmember Strauss, I have been hearing a lot from small businesses citywide, not just District five in particular, also from the SBA, from the queer community on Capitol Hill and their small businesses, that it simply would not work and essentially wait many of them out if we did not do an increase from 1050 to 25. And I think I don't need to go into all the detail about where we're at with this recession and small businesses and COVID. But my point is, in order to, at least to some degree, keep some of these businesses open who are barely hanging on. I will be supporting this amendment. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Morales.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Council President.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 5: I will say that I am struggling with this amendment.
Speaker 1: I know.
Speaker 5: That we have you know, we just.
Speaker 1: We just included language in.
Speaker 5: Our Green New Deal and our equitable development language in.
Speaker 2: The earlier.
Speaker 5: Part of the progressive revenue package.
Speaker 1: That really highlights the greater disparities that we have in some neighborhoods. You know, we funded EPA because of the history of.
Speaker 5: Redlining that has left greater disparities among Southend neighborhoods. So, you know, I'm struggling a little bit because I completely.
Speaker 1: Understand the need to.
Speaker 5: Support small businesses across the city. And I know we want to make sure that every neighborhood, you know, that the.
Speaker 2: Businesses.
Speaker 1: In every neighborhood, commercial district get access to.
Speaker 5: Technical assistance and operational support that can that can help them. So I also understand that as a former restaurant worker myself, that many businesses have lots of part time employees. So I understand increasing to 25 FTE is I guess what I would say is if we want to adjust the criteria so that more businesses are eligible, that's one conversation.
Speaker 1: But we know that businesses who receive funding already in the first round.
Speaker 5: Were predominantly people of color. And from my perspective, this amendment would eliminate the opportunity for future funding for.
Speaker 2: Small businesses.
Speaker 1: Owned by immigrants and people of color and just sort of perpetuating the generational wealth gap. So I am.
Speaker 5: Not going to.
Speaker 1: Support this amendment.
Speaker 5: And I will say that I fully support Amendment two are being offered by Councilmember Strauss, but I can't support Amendment one.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Councilmember Morales, Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 1: See here. I'm off mute. Great. So I have a question. You know, I heard loud and clear from when they started this small business stabilization fund that they're they're narrowing of the eligibility to five employees was their best way of ensuring that eligibility was narrowly focused on using an equity lens, narrowly focused on low and moderate income business owners in communities of color, and that in increasing the number of employees for businesses, it makes it a little bit more difficult for us to make decisions with that kind of equity lens. And we've already agreed to increase the eligibility from 5 to 10 employees for for eligibility. And so I just want to see if the if the sponsor, Councilmember Strauss, has any information related to specifically the number of eligible businesses with this increase to to 25. My understanding is that already received 5500 eligible applications for the first round of funding, which was only available at that point to businesses with five or fewer employees . And even though 5500 eligible applications were received, they were only able to make 250 grants. So I'm just wondering, do we have, again, estimates of the number of businesses that would be eligible and and then the number of of grants it would be possible to make with these new funds if we increase the eligibility to to 25
Speaker 0: . I remember Strauss.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Thank you, Councilmember Harold. I do have that information. I don't have it at the tip of my fingertips. So let me see if I can't find it and just send you an email. Right now, I know that you are correct that this would enlarge the pool of eligible businesses to a great degree, which is also why I brought the other two elements to this amendment about not being funded a second time and distribution across the city. I will just raise that. There's even with that distribution across the city, there is still going to be a focus on equity versus just spreading peanut butter across across a number of different businesses. So let me try and find that email about the level of number of businesses that would be able to receive this funding.
Speaker 0: Any other questions or comments on Amendment One? Okay. I'm not seeing any colleagues. I like Councilmember Morales, am also struggling with this amendment. I did oppose it in a version of it in committee last week. My position has not changed. I think that the points or the questions by Councilmember Herbold are, you know, my primary concern about increasing the amount. So it's important for us to you know, and I was in I worked with Councilmember Strauss on increasing it from 5 to 10. That was work that we did in partnership in order to sort of modulate where we, you know, sort of where we're setting the line for for the size of a small business at about five was probably too small. Ten seemed a little bit more appropriate to really target in on those mom and pop main street shops that we really are hoping to be able to provide assistance to. My concern with opening it up to 25 FTE is it seems to me to be a pretty aggressive pendulum swing in the opposite direction. And, you know, 25 of those could be up to 50 employees or maybe even more. And I worry that when we start getting into that number, that volume of employees, that we're no longer talking about a small business in the way that we intend. So for that reason, I'm going to continue to oppose this particular amendment. I certainly appreciate the spirit and the intent with which it was brought forward. But but those issues have unfortunately not been resolved for me from my perspective and from the feedback that I've heard from some small business owners, particularly those small businesses who are owned by folks of color and or immigrants and refugees. So that being said, it sounds like we are ready to take a vote here. So I am going to ask the. I'm sorry. Councilmember Strauss, please.
Speaker 4: Just wanted to highlight. Thank you. Council president. Just wanted to highlight that we did work in partnership to make the initial change. And I and I appreciated being able to work with you on that. Just saying thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmembers Grass. I always appreciate working with you as well. Okay. So with that being said, let's go ahead and have the clerk re call the roll on the passage of Amendment one.
Speaker 1: Lewis, I. MORALES No. Macheda. I. PETERSON.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 1: So what.
Speaker 3: They.
Speaker 1: Excuse me. I'm sorry. So long.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Purple. They? Juarez.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez. Now.
Speaker 1: Five in favor, four opposed.
Speaker 0: The motion carries an amendment. One is adopted. Are there any. I'm sorry. Before I open it up for general debate. I understand there is a Second Amendment also brought forward by Council Member Strauss, so I'm going to recognize you, Councilmember Strauss, in order for you to move the amendment.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President. Sorry, I'm just having some technical difficulties with these screens. Thank you for your time and thank you for the consideration. Colleagues on my amendments, I move to amend Council Bill 119812 as presented on an amendment to on the agenda.
Speaker 0: Is there a second? It's been moved and seconded to adopt amendment to. Councilmember Strauss, I'm going to hand it back over to you and recognize you in order to address amendments to the Council.
Speaker 5: If you don't mind. And there is a recently distributed version two of Amendment two that I just want to make sure was before the city council, before Councilmember Strauss addressed amendment number two.
Speaker 0: You're saying that I need to suspend the rules?
Speaker 5: See. It's only a correction. It does not it does not change the facts of the amendment. It just corrects some technical numbers in the amendment. So it matters. It's all in line. And numbers try to see what it might addressing and whether she was able to.
Speaker 0: Okay. So we don't. Madam Clerk, just so I'm clear on the procedure here, we don't need to amend the motion language that was just made by Councilmember Strauss. You just need him to, for the record, address what the changes are to the most recently distributed version of Amendment two.
Speaker 5: Correct. Okay.
Speaker 0: So the bill has excuse me, the amendment has been moved and seconded. And so, Councilmember Strauss, again, I'm going to ask you to address Amendment two as it was recently circulated. So in doing so, if you could explain for the record what the difference is between the published version of Amendment two and the recently circulated version of Amendment two that would be required per our city clerk.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President. This the changes between what was just attached to the agenda and what was distributed is a simply. Let's see the updated amendment. And this is simply an admission to AIDS funding increase in Section four as reflected in the table and corrects the table y number to the column to reflect the added funding increase
Speaker 0: . Thank you so much, Councilmember Strauss. Would you like to make any other remarks or comments about Amendment two?
Speaker 4: Yes, thank you. Council president. This amendment would add $4.7 million to the to the funding for small businesses support. I came to this number because it would bring the total funding for small businesses support to 25% of the 2020 Jumpstart expenditures, a request that I've heard from small businesses. And despite what some have said today, this does not run down our rainy day or emergency funds. To complete an additional $4.7 million means about 450 more small businesses in our communities will receive grants. That may be the difference between weathering this pandemic or closing down for good. I recognize that there is a concern with spending additional dollars out of the revenue stabilization fund, which is why this amendment is about half the size of the previous amendment that I brought last week. As with the other 2020 expenditures, if this amendment passes, I will be bringing an amendment to Resolution 31957 to replenish the Revenue Stabilization Fund in 2021. We know that when small businesses stay open and keep employees, more people are able to spend money in our economy. This is exactly how and the importance of the middle class. When the middle class has the dollars to spend in the economy, it keeps activity moving as well. More taxes are collected as these businesses stay open. I urge my colleagues to consider the crisis that small businesses are facing right now and allow us to scale our response to the stimulus package. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Strauss. Are there any comments or questions? Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. And I want to thank Councilmember Strauss for bringing this forward, as I did last week. I think that it is important that we talk about what we can do for the small businesses that are struggling throughout this crisis and trying to really make ends meet under really unique and extreme pressures. I just think that given the amount of borrowing that we are doing from our emergency reserves, I am not in a position where I am going to vote to dig even deeper into the remaining amount of slack that we have capped into these reserve funds. Just given all of the other spending that we are committing to and knowing that next year we are going to have to rely on these reserves for a potential additional round of balancing and that preserving. What slack we do currently have in here is something that that I want to make sure that we maintain a commitment to and not dig any deeper. The other thing that I would cite is, is it does look like we are going to get another round of community development block grant money in the in the near term, or at least the executive seems to be optimistic that we're going to get another round of community development block grant money. Those funds have formed the core of our direct relief to small businesses. So we we have that potentially to look forward to to to come into this space. You know, I do think that part of our fall project in looking at the 2021 budget should include some discussion around some kind of tax relief for small businesses as well. And I know Councilmember Strauss has been a leader on that. I think that those are the things that I would would prefer to focus on rather than continuing to draw down from our reserve funds. So I am going to going to respectfully vote against this. It is hard to vote against it, but I do think that just based on how much we are currently spending or borrowing to be more accurate from our reserve funds, maintaining that the small amount of slack that we do have is is an important priority. So for that reason, I'll be voting no.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Lewis. Any other questions or comments? Councilmember Peterson, followed by Councilmember Mosquito.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council president. Thank you, Councilmember Straus, for advancing this. I was happy to support the previous amendment. I do have some concerns with this one. We did receive a correspondence from Deputy Mayor Mike Fong, noting the executive's concern with with spending more of the revenue stabilization fund and zeroing out the emergency fund. I do support the bill as a whole and intend to vote for the bill as a whole. But to do more at this time, I have concerns with you. Just wanted to explain. Explain that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Peterson. Councilmember Mosqueda. I thank you, Madam President, and thank you to Councilmember Strauss for bringing this forward. Similarly, I appreciate where you were coming from with this. I did support the previous amendments. I am not going to be supporting this one. I want to push back on the false narrative out there that somehow we are using all of the emergency reserves, which is not true in the underlying bill. And in fact, it wouldn't be true with your amendment. Even if it were to hang, there would still be some reserves there. But in line with the initial crafting of the bill and what other council members have said, I think we are intentionally leaving a reasonable amount of funding in the emergency funds for the next year if needed. I will not be supporting this. I do appreciate you bringing it forward and I hope that this offers clarification on the misinformation that was put out about the emergency reserves. I'll say more about this later, but I think this whole conversation really underscores the importance of us having these rainy day funds in emergency reserves. If ever there was a time to use them, it is now. So I think we have done that in a responsible way with the underlying bill. I appreciate where you come from. Sadly, I'll be on on this today, but I really appreciate your work on this and look forward to working with you to support small businesses as we move forward with implementation and getting these dollars out the door. Thank you, Councilmember Mosquito, for those comments. As usual, the sponsor of the amendment will have the last word. Are there any other council members who have any comments or questions on amendment.
Speaker 2: To see.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Peterson?
Speaker 2: Hi. Yeah, I just wanted to clarify my earlier comments. So there are the two funds emergency fund and Revenue Stabilization Fund, and I guess there is money left over from the combined funds. I acknowledge that. I just technically, I think we're are we draining down the emergency fund, but the revenue stabilization fund will have some money left over. I just wanted to clarify. I wasn't trying to. I wanted to clarify that I was just specifically talking about the One Fund. But then there's the other fund that will still have money left over, whether we pass Councilmember Strauss's amendment or not. So thank you for letting me clarify that.
Speaker 0: Absolutely. Any other comments or questions on Amendment two? Uh oh. And I'm sort of scanning. Looks like no other council members have a comment here. Councilmember Strauss, do you have the final word?
Speaker 4: Thank you, council president and colleagues for your consideration. Just again, restating that to combat the false narrative that is out there, even with or without this amendment, we would not have been spending all of the rainy day funds, as has been described by some in the city government over the last couple of hours. So with or without this amendment, their city council is not fully utilizing all of our capacity to fight a pandemic and a number of in an economic recession with dollars that have been saved over past years to fight such recessions and unforeseen emergencies. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Truss. Appreciate that. Okay. Colleagues, I'm going to go ahead and close out debate on Amendment two and please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment two as recently circulated.
Speaker 2: Lewis No.
Speaker 0: Morales.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 0: Macheda. So.
Speaker 2: Peterson now.
Speaker 1: So what?
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 5: Strauss.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 5: Purple.
Speaker 1: They. Juarez.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 1: May I get Morales vote? Morales. I thank you. President Gonzalez.
Speaker 5: Now.
Speaker 0: Three in favor.
Speaker 1: But three in favor, six opposed.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you so much. The motion fails. An amendment to is not adopted. Are there any other further comments on the bill as amended? Councilmember Mosqueda, did you want to have the final word or do you want to speak now? Sure. I just actually was going to offer some clarification for the viewing public on a potential amendment that I was thinking about. And I'm not going to walk on related to tiny house villages, except now's a good time to clarify that. Madam President. Let's announce an amendment to the council bill as opposed to the resolution. Yeah, that's correct. Okay. Let me let me go ahead and recognize you in order to address what could have been an amendment. But is it an amendment? And then we'll take we'll take comments on the bill as a whole, as amended from other colleagues. Councilman Mosquito. Wonderful. There was some conversation last Wednesday about the amendment related to tiny house villages and non congregate settings. While I voted last week to retain the flexibility that I thought was needed to include COVID relief spending with regards to non congregate spending so that it could be used for tiny house villages and things like hotels and motels. I was thinking about offering some clarifying language because we know how important it is for all non congregate settings to have the support that they need for addressing the current COVID crisis, like addressing the ongoing shared bathrooms and shared food areas or eating spaces. And I am really conscious, though, of the fact that tiny house villages, along with hotels and motels, are a much better alternative to existing congregate settings. We were thinking about bringing forward an amendment to clarify some of those pieces just for the viewing audience and for folks who did testify today. The amendment that folks were referring to was adopted last Wednesday, and so the 3.6 million is specifically allocated for tiny house villages. I think to the degree that we can get those villages stood up in quick time and that offers relief to folks who are currently in congregate settings or outside in the elements to have a room , a roof and a secure place to live. Obviously, that's a much better location. We really want the mayor and the executive team to spend those dollars and to the degree that there's any hang ups or concerns. I'm sure we'll be following up with all of the advocates from the house, housing and homelessness advocates to make sure the money gets out the door. But just to offer that clarification, I'm not going to be bringing forward a clarifying amendment today, and the amendment stays within the bill. Thank you, Councilman ROSQUETA. Are there any comments on the bill as amended? Oh, Councilmember, please. And then Councilmember. So.
Speaker 1: So thank you for the opportunity to provide some closing comments on this really critical action that we are about to take. This is necessary and crucial support to limit the damage being done by this public health emergency and to ensure that Seattle residents, small business owners and nonprofits have the support they need to survive right now. We've learned in the past that engaging in austerity, budgeting and slashing programs only leads to a prolonged struggle to recover, both for individual businesses and individual households and for our economy as a whole. This, for me, is the lesson of the Great Recession the legislation takes to heart and makes targeted investments where they can do the most good. Focusing on small business owners that make our city a special place to live and are operating under significant uncertainty and providing jobs to people in our community and nonprofits that are working tirelessly to care for the people most impacted by COVID and also providing essential jobs in immigrant and refugee communities who are shut out by other forms of relief. And for people who are struggling to pay their rent and those who are attempting to survive unsheltered as well as for small landlords who also rely on rent to pay their bills. And then finally, as it relates to very, very critical food relief, this bill puts a premium on helping households who are struggling to put enough food on the table and whose meal programs have been otherwise shut down. Again, I really appreciate that this has been so targeted for our investments throughout the end of 2020, and I appreciate the opportunity and the privilege to work with council members as well as the broader community who has who has weighed in on this , not just the taxing legislation, but also the spending plan. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold, for those remarks. We're going to hear now from Councilmember Swan and then Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Today's vote by the Seattle City Council, along with the historic Amazon tax victory earlier this month, represents the culmination of three years of determined grassroots rank and file organizing. Our movement has forced the city establishment to dedicate at least $18 million per year from the Amazon tax revenues for publicly owned, permanently affordable housing for black , working class and poor families in the Central District, and has dedicated funds for the Green New Deal and tiny house villages. Our religious one because we overcame the opposition of big business and the political establishment who have fought us every step of the way. Make no mistake about it, the Amazon tax and today's filing for black community housing in the Central District are not the result of political, quote unquote, collaboration with big business, but rather a product of a working class movement led by socialists, by workers, by unions, and by BLM activists. Activists because of whom we won the first of its kind ban on the use and purchase of chemical weapons by the police. And we now see Mayor Durkan attempting to undermine that legislation and also doubling down on her loyal representation of big business interests by refusing to sign the Amazon tax that has been approved by the majority of the Council. Hundreds of voters have volunteered to join this truly grassroots movement. We held for action conferences. We organized protests. We organized a car caravan. But social distancing during the pandemic. We marched in Olympia when they attempted to pass legislation banning our city from taxing big business. We organized the grassroots of the labor movement and progressive organizations. And most importantly, we launched a tax Amazon ballot initiative to represent a concrete and material threat to big business, which was operating in the backrooms to undermine the Amazon backed legislation in the City Council. And in fact, on the streets as part of the Justice for George Floyd movement, we gathered 30,000 ballot initiative signatures before 20,000 in just the first 20 days of the protests. Big businesses themselves have admitted that they were forced to concede to the tax Amazon and the Black Lives Matter movement. As Dave Hooper of even Stellar Restaurants, a company that viciously opposed the Amazon tax and the $15 minimum wage, said, quote, Our industry would have been disproportionately hammered by the Morales proposal. I was trying to protect our industry for sure from the competing proposal that I thought was incredibly harmful, unquote. These quotes and the quote by former Mayor Ed Murray in which he admitted that it was the 15 ballot initiative and he said, I believe that coffee now had the potential of passing and that would have been incredibly detrimental to our restaurants and small businesses, unquote. These are quotes from big business representatives. And they are. They remind us that the interests of the super wealthy and of working people and the poor are diametrically opposed to each other. And what is considered extremely progressive for ordinary people and the majority, the big business and wealthy interests consider it harmful to them, even though they have massive cash reserves and the overwhelming wealth of our society. Even though it's the majority that goes to work and creates that wealth. And that's why it requires a political struggle to win victories for the majority. The political establishment, corporate media and others are fighting to make people believe that progressive change changes like Amazon Tax come from sitting down at a table behind a third door with someone like Steve Hooper to come to a happy compromise. But in real life, the compromises we see are a reflection of the balance of power in society. So if working people understand that this is about power, then we can win greater gains in the future because we will focus the strategy of our movement on building worker power and empower the marginalized and the oppressed. Not to mention the renters who are now going to be facing a tsunami of evictions as soon as the moratoriums are lifted. If, on the other hand, the establishment succeeds in convincing people to put their faith in collaboration with big business, then it will end up building the political power of big business even further and will make future victories for working people and people of color far less likely. I'm thrilled to be able to vote yesterday on the ordinance and the resolution in order to make available tens of millions to fund emergency COVID relief for our communities and the potential to build affordable housing for black and brown communities in the Central District and other parts of the city, and funding the Green New Deal and immediately establishing five new tiny house villages. All of this has been hard fought and hard won. We will need similarly emboldened movements to win gains in the next three weeks. In the summer, budget vote of the Seattle City Council, for which will be on the budget for the remainder of 2020. For those who may have participated with the People's Budget Campaign every year, the last year we will be voting on the fall budget in the in the fall of 2024. The budget of next year. So let's make sure we immediately geared up for winning the victories we want to win in the People's Budget Summer 2020 campaign. We are demanding the police department be funded by at least 50%, which means defunding them by at least $85 million for the rest of this year, and demanding that those funds be transferred into socially constructive causes in the black and brown communities. And to make sure that the city's jobs, the inhumane and ineffective sweeps of homeless neighbors and to fund rent are organizing and eviction defense. So I invite everybody who is watching this to the People's Budget Summer 2020 Rally and March on Tuesday, July 28, at 6 p.m. at Seattle Central College. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. So once we all now. From Councilmember Lloyd.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I'll be brief so we can we can get to the final question here on voting on this today. But I did just want to briefly say that I'm really excited that we're taking this big this big move as a council to really make strong, noticeable and meaningful progress on what was our original state of emergency this year, the massive crisis of so many of our neighbors living on the streets in a in a state of homelessness, sleeping in vehicles, sleeping in tents, and making sure that we as a city are acting with the sense of urgency that that demands and making sure that there is there's meaningful progress that all of us in Seattle want to see. Regardless of our position, we all have that same interest, which is to get folks who are living unsheltered inside, where they can live with dignity and where they can have the support that they need. There are several measures in this plan that we're passing today that will provide that immediate relief in partnership with but with providers and with with our neighbors. And how we have shaped this over the last several months, I'm really proud to have worked with the sponsors and with other members of this council and with Councilman Morales on the amendment regarding the tiny house villages, among other investments that we've made. And Councilmember Mosquito, your leadership in making sure that this was at the forefront of your mind in drafting this relief, to really respond to the the massive amount of tents in our streets with folks in them with nowhere to go. And honestly, the without having those outputs from doing outreach, not making meaningful progress throughout the spring and the early summer. So I'm glad that we finally are doing that. I'm glad that we can finally go back to our constituents and say that we are taking action urgently to have movement on this in 2020 and hopefully the beginning of of even more to come throughout the rest of this plan. So thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Lewis, are there any questions, any additional comments on the bill as amended? It looks like there are no additional comments from other colleagues. I also want to say thanks to Councilmember Mosqueda and her staff for all of the work that you all have done to get us to this point. Obviously, last week was a momentous occasion or a couple of weeks ago it was a momentous occasion because we actually voted on the substantive bill. This is another opportunity for us to, again, prioritize those areas of funding that we think are critical in the city's effort to recover from the economic crisis caused by this pandemic, and appreciate the opportunity to continue to be supportive of taking local action where we have not seen action from our state legislature or from our region in terms of addressing the regressive nature of our tax system. And so I do appreciate your ongoing effort to pull together to make sure that we have an opportunity to ask the wealthiest corporations to pay their fair share and to give the council an opportunity.
Speaker 1: To.
Speaker 0: Clearly articulate where it is. We want to see prioritization of expenditures. It is my hope that the executive will actually spend these dollars. We can only appropriate dollars. We cannot force the executive, the mayor, to actually spend any dollars at all. But it is my hope that will choose to spend the dollars, as opposed to allowing folks to not reap the benefits of the appropriation choices the City Council is about to make today. By passage of both this Council bill and the upcoming resolution. So thank you, Councilwoman Mosqueda, for your leadership on this. I know there is much more to come through our ongoing budget deliberations. And with that, I'm going to hand it over to you to close out debate on this council bill and the resolution so that we can take a final vote and consider the last pieces of the resolution. Thank you. Council President And thanks also for your stewardship as we helped put together the timeline and the framework to get this bill over the finish line. Council colleagues. It's been through hundreds of conversations with businesses, immigrant rights groups, environmental and housing groups with labor and businesses that Jumpstart came together and everyone said these two things . Residents in Seattle want solutions and they want leadership. Jumpstart Seattle offers solutions and the leadership needed to provide immediate COVID relief and support in the out years to weather this crisis. This proposal that is in front of us, both the revenue that we passed two weeks ago and the detailed spend plan and COVID assistance here was thoughtful , inclusive, strategic, smart and carefully crafted. We welcomed anyone to the table who wanted to advance progressive revenue in Seattle as the prime sponsor of Jumpstart. You can accuse me of a lot of things, but everyone knows I'm inclusive, deliberative and data driven, and you don't have to take it from me. We pulled together economic experts from around the country, economists who said the same thing from Economic Policy Institute, from the University of Massachusetts, from in the Public Interest, from front and center, from Budget and Policy Center. Together, they said that past recessions have proven that when governments invest in small business, housing assistance, food assistance and support for small businesses instead of cuts on austerity, local economies can weather crises in a more equitable way and local economies rebound faster. There is a proven return on investment in the strategies that we're advancing today. We have shown that when we invest in our community and our most vulnerable, there is a multiplier effect and we all benefit. We have very few tools in our tool belt in the state of Washington. We have chosen in the city of Seattle to use one of the tools that is a progressive tool to raise revenue in this vital time. And the proposal in front of us is on solid legal ground. The same attorneys that the mayor relies upon for her legal advice help advise us on crafting this policy. And it is a known fact that payroll taxes are a commonly used tool that one one that's a progressive tool that cities can rely on to raise revenue . We intentionally built off of the legally sound strategy that business and labor and community groups were negotiating in Olympia. And I want to thank Representative Mac Reid for her leadership in Olympia and for her ongoing input on the Jumpstart proposal. When the bill stalled in Olympia, we immediately reengaged with some of the same folks who were engaging in Olympia to assess how we can move forward in Seattle, to act as a good partner with our state and our regional efforts to not just say we're going to wait for the next year, but to truly engage and step in when the state and the region was not able to advance so that we could provide immediate COVID relief and outyear support. So, yes, of course, there's other progressive tools that I have been an advocate for for over a decade, and that includes income tax, that includes capital gains. Thank you, Councilmember Lewis, for advancing those conversations. That includes corporate income tax. But until we have some of those tools that we can advance, we need to provide relief. We are going to do so in a responsible way here with the payroll tax that's in front of us. And of course, I would support an income tax. As we know, the mayor wants that and so many others. We've talked about an income tax, but we cannot in a responsible way implement a flat rate income tax without a rebate. In the conversations that I've had with the mayor, I have been very clear it would be irresponsible for us to impose a flat rate income tax without a rebate for our lowest wage workers and know they can't afford 500 or $600 back to the city in a time when they can't afford to pay rent or put food on the table. This Jumpstart Progressive Payroll Tax bill is the most responsible and most progressive tax proposal we could put in front of us to act in good faith with state and county actors as we advance other progressive strategies. I will remain committed to working on progressive revenue just as I have over the last decade. We will continue to fight for more relief for our lowest wage workers, for small businesses to right side up our upside down tax code. Absolutely. That will continue to happen. And in fact, we're so committed to it. We wrote a predictability clause into the legislation so that if action were to happen at the state or local level, we would also accommodate that in our statute. But we have to be realistic. Those that support is not coming in the immediate future and Jumpstart proposal offers that relief that we need for communities, for small businesses, and for our most vulnerable right now. I want to echo the council president's comments. And while the bill itself was not vetoed. The mayor has not committed to getting the funding for COVID relief out the door, which is critical. The critical effort for us all is to make sure that the mayor allocates the COVID relief dollars as specified in this law after today's vote, because any delay would mean the consequences for our city's health and recovery would be dire. It would be a dereliction of duty not to get this out. And by definition, dereliction of duty. It means a shameful failure to fulfill one's obligation. It is our obligation to provide immediate relief right now to those who are facing COVID crisis. It is our obligation to make sure that immigrants and refugees who've been left out of federal assistance get the support they need. It is our obligation to help small businesses open up so that they can hire more people when they're given the green light under COVID. And it is our obligation to make sure more people can keep a roof over their head and put food on the table so that they can be healthy, sustain themselves and their family, and weather this crisis that has COVID. So this is not a theoretical exercise in crafting progressive policy. We are doing this in the midst of a public health crisis, a pandemic where housing and food insecurity is not just a moral crisis, it is a public health crisis. We're in the midst of a civil rights uprising where black and brown folks are getting hit with higher rates of COVID 19, higher rates of hospitalizations and higher death rates. And coronavirus is leading to more black and brown communities getting laid off, being on unemployment or without the necessary supports that they need from state and federal governments . We're nine and ten black owned businesses who applied for federal support through PPE didn't get it because of the long history of racist lending practices. So we are doing this again as a good partner, stepping stepping up and offering progressive revenue, stepping in where the federal government has not been able to and where the state government has not been able to convene yet. We are doing this to make sure that we've done it in a smart way to offer relief and make sure that these dollars get out immediately. So we look forward to working with you, to working with the mayor's office and our entire community to make sure folks can realize the assistance that has been offered in the COVID relief bill and in the out years in the Jumpstart spending plan that is now detailed in housing. We've continued to hear that there is a greater need for individuals to have access to affordable homeownership opportunities and this and rental assistance. And the proposal in front of us deliberately focuses on undoing historic injustices and building resilience and prosperity for black, indigenous and people of color residents. We're really excited about few elements in this proposal that I want to highlight. I'm really excited about how this will invest in the work of Creative Justice and Africa town. And and it also focuses on really great programs like the ones that Councilmember Wirth lifted up today from community passageways for for efforts like the Youth Achievement Center that will be able to provide multiple multipurpose buildings for wraparound services. This is exactly what Jumpstart envisions when it thinks about coupling housing and social services and community assets together, especially in neighborhoods that have been hardest hit by redlining for the immigrant and refugee population, we know that there's thousands of undocumented families in Seattle who were laid off and intentionally excluded from the CARES Act at the federal level . So we've included 8 million in direct cash assistance to small business support and for assistance for immigrants and refugees throughout Seattle. We've heard from small businesses that they just need flexible dollars, give them the flexibility to hire people back. That changed the structure of their business to create more protection for their employees and their patrons. And we've offered flexible dollars in response to what those small businesses have said, that they need it to the tune of $18 million, and that includes child care support because many small businesses told us they can't open up without additional child support for their kiddos or for their employees. They need childcare assistance and we've planned for the future in this in the small in the in the spend plan. Proposal that is in front of us in just a minute. We've worked with business and labor and community activists and environmental justice folks. In fact, Katie Garrow from the Martin Luther King County Labor Council and Alec from 350 Seattle convened a group of 33 leaders plus them to and representing labor, climate, environmental justice, affordable housing groups. And they put together the proposal that we saw in the amended version which focuses on Green New Deal. Matt Ramsey said this resolution simultaneously addresses climate crisis by seeking the reduction in Seattle's greenhouse gas emissions, the lack of affordable housing, job training, opportunities in the green economy, and addresses the health disparities in Seattle's neighborhoods disproportionately impacted by pollution. This is precisely what the goals of the Green New Deal are. He says he's honored to have worked alongside our office and members of Labor, housing, climate, environmental justice communities with a final and final amended version in front of us. You know, the mayor had a quote in the mayors launch on green and just COVID 19 recovery plan, saying that COVID had laid bare the same inequities that are exacerbated by climate change, which disproportionately impacts communities of color, and that we need to address these by addressing long term wealth creation that is of that advanced the health and well-being of black and brown indigenous communities and not just focus on excluding those folks after the fact, but must pursue solutions that address short term impacts and long term. We agree, and this proposal does just that. It invests in making sure that we are acting on Green New Deal proposals, acting on Green New Deal issues, making sure that we're investing in communities hardest hit in both frontline and fenceline, communities that we've invested in creating affordable housing. Because we know that as more people get pushed out of the city, the biggest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions is car pollution and allowing us to make sure that there's more affordable housing in the city that people live and want to work and stay makes it makes us on the path towards a greener economy. These are the issues we're addressing when we came together and put together the Jumpstart proposal in front of us. This is the moment that we're responding to the city's call for leadership and action. Together, we have come up with the solution. I want to thank again the community, all of my council colleagues, all the activists and all the organizations that have involved with, both pushing for more and coming together with creating these solutions in front of us. We have the blueprint to create a more resilient economy. How is more of our community members feed those who are dealing with food insecurity and make sure that our small businesses have the resilience, resiliency that they need? Finally, I just want to thank my office secretary Aaron House Ed Cuevas and Aretha Basu. In addition to all of the folks on central staff and the communication staff who have been working with us to get the information out community and to incorporate all of your amendments and the final proposal in front of us. We could not do this work without you and the community at large. So thank you very much. Again, colleagues making history, but we've got to get these dollars out the door. That will come next. Thank you, Councilmember Mosqueda, for this final remarks. We're going to go ahead and close out debate on this council bill. I'm going to ask the clerk to call the roll on the passage of the bill as amended. Colleagues, in order to make it easier for our city clerk's office to count your votes in the proper column, there is a request that you vote. Either I for yes or no for no, because a and they sound very, very similar. So if you intend to vote no, make sure it's a no as opposed to nay. And that's something that I'll make sure to occasionally remind us about in order to make sure that we have a clear record for the clerks. So that being said, I'd ask that the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill as amended.
Speaker 2: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 5: MORALES Yes.
Speaker 0: Macheda. Yes. Peterson.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: So what? Yes. Straps?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Purple? Yes. SUAREZ.
Speaker 5: Yes. President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor, nine opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Madam Clerk. I hope that helped. The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it at the clerk. Please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Okay, folks, we're going to go. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 126000, which adopted the 2020 Budget; making appropriations from the Emergency Fund for public assistance during the COVID-19 civil emergency; making an appropriation from the General Fund for public assistance during the civil emergency; and making appropriations from the Revenue Stabilization Fund for public assistance during the civil emergency; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07202020_Res 31957 | Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Madam Clerk. I hope that helped. The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it at the clerk. Please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Okay, folks, we're going to go. Had moved to agenda item two. It's already been read into the record and it has been debated in terms of the substance of the resolution. So I'm going to go ahead and move us into discussion of Amendment one. Councilmember Strauss, I'm going to recognize you in order to move your amendment to Resolution 31957.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council president as my. As the amendment that is connected to this in the last bill was not passed. I will be withdrawing this amendment.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much for creating that record. Colleagues, Amendment one is withdrawn, so we will not have any additional amendments to consider to the resolution. Are there any other comments on the resolution before we call it to a vote? Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Apologized council president for sending you a forensic text.
Speaker 1: I did want a.
Speaker 5: Chance to.
Speaker 1: Comment.
Speaker 3: Before we.
Speaker 5: Take the final vote. I do want to start by thanking you. Council member must get up for all of the work that you and your office have done here in 2017. I was part of the chapter of Seattle campaign. I'm sure many of you remember that it helped to pass the citywide income tax.
Speaker 3: I organized the D2 town.
Speaker 5: Hall where we got our then City Council representative Bruce Harrell to commit to supporting the plan. And I was very excited when it passed. As we know, that is as it was passed is not a not option, an option for us right now.
Speaker 3: In 2018, the employee.
Speaker 5: Our sex passed and then was.
Speaker 3: Repealed.
Speaker 1: And this year we've heard the.
Speaker 5: Hand-Wringing from many of our state legislators and other elected officials about why we should wait for the state or the county to pass progressive revenue. I will say that many of these same electeds have been in office for five, ten, 20 years and have not taken.
Speaker 1: Action themselves.
Speaker 5: On passing progressive revenue for the citizens of Washington. So here we.
Speaker 3: Are in 2020.
Speaker 1: Finally passing a citywide progressive revenue spending plan, knowing that we have.
Speaker 2: Already passed the jump.
Speaker 1: Start tax. And thanks to our veto proof majority that.
Speaker 5: That is about to become law. Today is so important for the people of Seattle, because today we're letting them know that we will shift the burden of paying for services from those who are the poorest in our city, to those who are the most privileged from individual households to the largest corporations in the city. And we do that.
Speaker 1: So that we fund more affordable housing or permanent.
Speaker 5: Supportive housing to address our homelessness crisis.
Speaker 1: The COVID relief we just passed and through the Equitable Development.
Speaker 5: Initiative and Green New Deal allocations.
Speaker 1: We commit to investing in communities.
Speaker 3: Of color.
Speaker 5: To reverse the pattern of displacement and gentrification that we've seen in this city for generations. I want to thank my staff, especially Lakisha Farmer, who's been leading this work in our office. I want to thank the people of District two who contacted my office over the.
Speaker 1: Last several months and also to thank the advocates who organized to let this council know that not only that progressive revenue is a priority for equitable financing.
Speaker 5: Of public.
Speaker 2: Services.
Speaker 5: And for critical anti displacement work, but also for community self-determination. Puget Sound Stage and South Core have been especially important and will continue to be my touchstone as we think about how to pass legislation that is equitable for communities of color. And finally, I want to thank my colleagues for supporting a plan that will benefit Seattle in the near term through an economic recovery, which we hope will begin very soon and into the future. Thank you for being bold and for doing what's right for our city.
Speaker 0: I remember Morales. And my apologies for not seeing your message. Thank you for thank you for speaking up. I really appreciate that. Colleagues, any other comments about either the council bill or their resolution that we're going to take action on? But. Okay. Well, let's go ahead and have the clerk call the roll on the adoption of the resolution.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Muscatel. Yes. Peterson.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: So what?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Purple? Yes. Juarez.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor, nine opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Madam Clerk. The resolution is unanimously adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Congratulations. Colleagues. But most importantly, congratulations to the people of the city of Seattle who have been fighting the good fight for many, many years. Thank you, colleagues, for your ongoing work in collaboration to get this across the finish line. This is representative democracy right here and really excited that we are choosing to take bold action as opposed to kicking the can down the road in the hypothetical hopes that some other elected body will show up to rescue us. I don't believe that that is likely to occur and the urgency of now demands that we take action now, as opposed to waiting another cycle to see if someone else comes to our rescue. So thank you, everyone, for your hard work, for your engagement, and for your steadfast representation of the people that we are called upon to dutifully represent. Thank you so much, everyone. And right. Absolutely. Okay, folks, moving on to agenda item three, ask the clerk, please read the short title of item three into the record. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION establishing spending details by year and program area for the spending plan adopted by the ordinance introduced as Council Bill 119811 that established the authorized uses of the proceeds generated from the payroll expense tax authorized by the ordinance introduced as Council Bill 119810. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07202020_CB 119832 | Speaker 5: Agenda Item five Capital 119832 relating to floodplains adopting interim regulations consistent with the Federal Emergency Management Agency regulations adopted. Updating excuse me, adopting updated national flood insurance rates map to allow individuals to continue to obtain flood insurance or PHENIX Flood Insurance Program and amending Chapter 25.6. Section 25.0 9.0307 of the code.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. I will pass Council Bill 119832. Is there a second second? It's been more than seconded to pass the bill. Councilmember Strauss, you are the prime sponsor of this bill and there are no amendments. So you are recognized in order to address this item.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President. This legislation is federally required by FEMA in order for the city to continue participating in the National Flood Insurance Program. In February, Femail published updated flood insurance rate maps and new flood insurance study for King County. This requires all King County jurisdictions to update their floodplain regulations to comply with the National Flood Insurance Program. This legislation would adopt a few FEMA recommended changes on an interim basis in order to meet the federal deadline of August 19. While Stsci prepares the permanent record regulations, recommendations on permanent regulations are expected within the next six months, as this is an interim measure that is federally required to keep us in compliance with federal regulations. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Strauss, for those remarks. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Councilmember Herbals.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So I just want to say a few comments because of the 185 properties that are being added with this update. 131 of those properties are in District one. 44 of them are single family properties. Eight are low rise one and two, and the rest are commercial or industrial. Although this legislation does make it possible for people to apply for national flood insurance under the national flood insurance rates, and that those the the the insurance varies from property to property. The average in Washington is about $700 a year. And without being on on the flood map, you can't take advantage of of getting flood insurance. This legislation also requires properties to get flood insurance. We've contacted DCI to find out whether or not there is flood insurance for low income individuals whose property is now deemed to be in the flood flood zone. At this point, there is no such assistance program. And I just want to I just want to flag for the interest in the interest of transparency, the fact that there are a lot of impacts to property owners in District one. And and although there is a benefit from this legislation in that property owners in in in the flood zone on the map can apply for flood insurance, whereas you can't if you're if you're not on the map, the downside is it requires you to apply apply for flood insurance. So I understand that that's a that's a difficult position for some folks. And I'm going to I'm interested in continuing to find out more about whether or not there are options for low income individuals who are responsible for this increased insurance. Thank you.
Speaker 0: And. Q Councilmember Herbold, are there any other comments or questions on the bill? Seeing and hearing none. I would ask that the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Let's get to. Yes.
Speaker 2: Peterson Yes.
Speaker 5: So what?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 5: Strauss.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Purple. Yes. Whereas.
Speaker 5: Uh. Yeah, I guess.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: I think I think, I guess counts as a yes. Madam Clerk.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 0: All right, that's better. Thank you. You get two binary options. Yes or no? My line is yes.
Speaker 5: Nine. I'm fluid.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. I'd ask that the clerk please fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Okay, colleagues, we have reached the part of our agenda for other business. Is there any other further business to come before the council?
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 2: All right, Madam President, I did just want to publicly recognize and thank Captain Sims on my staff for all the work on that commercial lease legislation. I, I forgot in my closing remarks to say that. But I do think it is important to recognize that the staff members on the second floor who are so critical to the legislative process and assure from central staff work as well. So thank you for indulging that.
Speaker 0: Thank you for taking a moment to acknowledge staff. Always an important thing to do if we want to see things continue to get done. So appreciate that, Councilmember. Data, please. I think council president. I think you've done a really good job of this in. Convening weekly and having these conversations remotely. We know that it's hard out there with so much stress happening, with both COVID related health concerns, economic concerns and increasing demands for calls for us to respond to civil rights demands upon our entire nation. And I just want to say how much I appreciate everybody in these stressful times. We've seen a lot of reports about how important it is to take care of yourself, be kind, be respectful, and continue to push for change. But to take care of each other and to take care of one another, we don't care that enough. So thank you for all of the messages that you've sent about supporting one another and being kind and respectful in this time when we are in very stressful conditions. And I know that the Council is trying to respond to many of the pressing issues here, but just want to say how much I appreciate all of you and to our community at large. Thank you for continuing to take care of our neighbors. And just a reminder to be kind of nice. Thank you, Councilman Muscat, for those remarks. Any other business to come before the council? I want to echo those sentiments. Last week I sent out a couple of messages to our legislative department. One was to remind folks to engage in self-care. This is stressful work that we are engaging in. I appreciate all of you. And, you know, we may have policy disagreements, but at the end of the day, I deeply and profoundly respect each one of you as my colleagues and as residents of the city of Seattle and just really appreciate the opportunity to continue to work with all of you on some of the toughest issues facing our our constituents. So remember to also engage in self-care and to remind your staff to engage in self-care as well, and looking forward to continuing to work with all of you on the issues that are going to be barreling our way over the next few weeks. So with that being said, colleagues, this this does conclude the items of business on today's agenda. Our next city council meeting is scheduled for Monday, July 27th, 2020 at 2 p.m.. I hope that you all have a wonderful afternoon and a good rest of your week with friends, family and staff . We are adjourned. Thank you, everybody. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to floodplains; adopting interim regulations consistent with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations; adopting updated National Flood Insurance Rate Maps to allow individuals to continue to obtain flood insurance through FEMA’s Flood Insurance Program; and amending Chapter 25.06 and Section 25.09.030 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07132020_CB 119826 | Speaker 3: Agenda Item one Capital 119826 relating to grant funds from non city sources, operations director at the Seattle Department of Transportation to accept specified grants and execute related agreements for and on behalf of the city.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Clerk. I will move to pass the council. Bill 119826. Is there a second section? It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilmember Peterson, you are listed as the prime sponsor of the bill, so you are recognized in order to address this item.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council President colleagues, this is Council Bill 119826. It's accepting 3.5 million essentially for the West Seattle Bridge. The money is from the Federal Surface Transportation Program and is going to our Seattle Department of Transportation. I'd like to thank Council President Gonzales and Durkan for their votes at the Puget Sound Regional Council a few weeks ago to prioritize these funds for the West Seattle Bridge.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Peterson, for that description. Is there are there any additional comments on the bill? Councilmember Verbal, please.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I want to echo Councilmember Peterson's appreciation for both Madam President Gonzalez, his vote at APEC, as well as the mayors. Thanks as well to Councilmember Peterson for being the sponsor of this bill. Just want to provide a little bit more detail about the purpose of these funds. 2 million of these funds are identified to conduct what I was calling a type, size and location study for the eventual replacement of the West Seattle Bridge. Does not mean that we've decided that that is the that is the direction that we are pursuing between the options of replace and repair. But it gets these funds in place to do that work so that if that decision is made, we have that information. The remaining 1.5 million of the grant award will be used to support specifically the transportation demand management programs that respond to the West Seattle Bridge closure and focus these programs on providing alternatives to single occupancy vehicle trips between West Seattle and downtown. Want to note for West Seattle residents that the Council Central Staff Memo notes specifically that the funds related to the type, size and location study allows start to explore replacement concepts such as rebuilding the bridge or an immersed tube tunnel. It further notes that it would be the basis for an environmental review of alternatives and developing cost estimates. There's a great deal of interest in West Seattle for what's called an immersed tube tunnel. It's not a it's not a board tunnel or drill tunnel. It's built offsite and basically dropped into the water. And so just want folks to know that Scott was forward thinking enough to include this concept as eligible for funds associated with the type, size and location study.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Herbold, for those comments. Are there any other comments on the bill? Excellent. We will go ahead and move along. It was my pleasure to advocate alongside Mayor Durkan for these additional flexible dollars to look at the scope of work as described by Councilmembers Peterson and Herbold, and really appreciate this bill coming forward so that we can begin this crucial infrastructure work. An analysis of infrastructure work for residents of West Seattle. But also it is. Again, I want to remind folks that West Bridge is critical to mobility for the entire region, including those who come, including for those folks who do not live in West Seattle. It is just so key to the region's strategies around mobility and so important for us to make sure that we address those issues from a broad perspective, not just because of the direct impact to West Seattle residents, but also to the impact in, for example, Councilmember Morales's district two that is adjacent to your district, Councilmember Herbold, but also in addition to the people who just rely on the West Seattle Bridge to get to and from home, but who may not live in in West Seattle. So I'm really proud to be able to support this bill and to continue to support efforts at the regional level, to continue to advocate for additional dollars that might be available to us to to really get this replacement or repair done in the most expeditious way possible. If there are no other comments on the bill, I will go ahead and ask that the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Whereas I.
Speaker 2: Know this. Hi. Morales. I. Mesquita. I. Petersen. I so want.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 0: Strauss i.
Speaker 2: Herbold i. President Gonzalez I. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And I ask the clerk. I'd ask the court to please affix my signature to the legislation. Will the clerk please read agenda item two into the record?
Speaker 3: Agenda Item two Capital 119815 relates to the settlement or authorizing the director of the South County Department to execute a Second Amendment to the easement agreement with Westlake Center LLC, previously authorized by. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to grant funds from non-City sources; authorizing the Director of the Seattle Department of Transportation to accept specified grants and execute related agreements for and on behalf of the City; amending Ordinance 126000, which adopted the 2020 Budget, including the 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations for the Seattle Department of Transportation; revising allocations and spending plans for certain projects in the 2020-2025 CIP; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07132020_CB 119815 | Speaker 3: Agenda Item two Capital 119815 relates to the settlement or authorizing the director of the South County Department to execute a Second Amendment to the easement agreement with Westlake Center LLC, previously authorized by.
Speaker 1: Audit.
Speaker 3: 113272 providing additional easement area for the expansion of the monorail station platform, granting rights to install and maintain a kiosk and commercial and informational signage and ratifying and affirming certain prior acts.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Clerk. I will move to pass Council Bill 119815. Is there a second?
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 1: It's been we've been seconded to pass the bill. Councilmember Suarez, you are the sponsor of the bill, so you are recognized in order to address it.
Speaker 3: Thank you. This regards the monorail expansion, as you heard from the clerk from my comments this morning. This legislation allows the Seattle Center director, Robert Dellums, to take the next step in moving forward with the platform expansion by authorizing execution of an amendment to the existing monorail, operating and easement agreement with Westlake Center. Westlake Center owns the Westlake Monorail Station platform and the monorail use. The site utilizes it under the terms of a 1987 monorail operating and easement agreement. This legislation amends the easement with that Westlake Center. The monorail, which is owned by the city and operated by a concessionaire. Seattle Monorail Services asked to transport 6000 riders per hour each direction of travel. Traffic mitigation efforts are underway in anticipation of the arena's opening, which should be fall of 2021. To achieve that maximum capacity. The size and layout of the Westlake Center monorail station needs to be modified. The legislation expands access ways, provides new ticketing equipment and gateways, as well as information and commercial signage. Monorail services will pay 6.6 million for platform capital improvements and another 38,000 a year for use cleaning and maintenance of the added space. The amortized cost of the improvements will be reimbursed with monorail revenues over the remaining 14 years of the Seattle Monorail Services Concession Agreement. As you know, colleagues, we've been working on this for a couple of years. Hopefully it will go as planned and we will open the Staples Center in fall of 2021 as chair of the Public Asset and Native Communities Committee. I recommend full council to pass this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Suarez, are there any other comments on the bill? Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council President Thank you, Councilmember Waters, for your leadership on this agreement. We know that the monorail is going to be that last mile connection between our light rail system and the new climate pledge arena at the Seattle center. We are going to with these changes, will be able to see more people able to move, be moved faster, being able to use both trains rather than just one at a time. This is going to change the way that we're able to use the monorail and get to Seattle Center. So thank you all for your leadership. Director Nelmes in particular.
Speaker 1: Any other comments on the bill? KC Nunn. Thank you so much, Councilmember Suarez, for bringing this bill forward. I know it's been many years in the in the works, so appreciate the opportunity to support this bill as well. I would ask that the Kirk please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: RS.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Lewis.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Morales.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Macheda I Pietersen. I so want.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Strauss. I herbold i President Gonzalez. I am in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it and ask that the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation. Will the clerk please read item three into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Monorail, authorizing the Director of the Seattle Center Department to execute a second amendment to the easement agreement with Westlake Center, LLC previously authorized by Ordinance 113272; providing additional easement area for improvement and expansion of the Monorail station platform; granting rights to install and maintain ticket kiosks and commercial and informational signage; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07132020_Res 31955 | Speaker 3: Agenda Item three. Resolution 31955. Reaffirming the city's support to fencing money, transfer operators and immigrant communities. Baser.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Clerk. I move to adopt resolution 31955. Is there a second? It's been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Morales, you are the prime sponsor of the resolution, so you are recognized in order to address it.
Speaker 5: Thank you. President Gonzalez, I just want to give a little bit of background as the folks who called in this afternoon mentioned over the last several years that money transfer organizations have found it increasingly difficult to operate safely because of what's called de-risking. That's a process where banks go through terminating their relationship with certain account holders because who they've deemed to be high risk. And this is particularly affecting our Somali neighbors. It's a process that started after 911. And so there is certain amount of discrimination that is assumed to be happening as well. We know that the accounts of Somali American money transfer organizations have been closed. It's having devastating impacts on our Somali neighbors. And it's been going on for a long time. And it is still continuing to be an issue. Banks have applied derisking in a discriminatory manner, denying small and immigrant owned remittance companies bank accounts while continuing to serve larger operators. So this resolution calls on the Washington state legislature, specifically the Senate Financial Institutions, Economic Development and Trade Committee, and the House Consumer Protection and Business Committee to study the legislative options that could better support financial inclusion of these entities so that they can continue to operate and serve the community. I've discussed this with our Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, who are clear that this is one of the city's legislative priorities already and are working with committee chairs. And I urge your support of the resolution for financial inclusion for our Somali neighbors.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Councilmember Morales. Any other comments on the resolution? Councilmember Herbold and then Councilmember Sala.
Speaker 2: Again, just want to thank Councilman Morales for taking the lead on this issue and glad to hear confirmation from you, Councilmember Morales, that our has identified this as a priority for the next legislative session. When proponents contacted me back in May about this issue, I immediately contacted Air and requested that they include this issue in the state's legislative agenda and work with the proponents on this. So I'm glad to get confirmation that that is that is in the works. Appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Council members want.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I am happy to support this resolution to be in solidarity with the infrastructure to allow our community members in the Seattle area to support their families with money transfers. And of course, I was also extremely supportive of the resolution in 2015 that the city council at that time advised in support of this money transfer infrastructure , because we know how much of a backbone it is for your financial. Sustenance of the communities in many of the countries in the neocolonial world, the banking industry and the laws that regulate them are dominated by the big banks that are not only more interested in their profits than in meeting the financial needs of our communities, but are among the exploiters. The explicit exploiters of the same communities of should be being held. The big banks invest in fossil fuel industry and yet the state government will not allow Seattle to bank with a credit union instead. And that's why it's important that in alliance with the native indigenous, urban native community and the environmental activist community, that we have made strides towards that and we need to keep making progress in order to have public banking in the city of Seattle. Big banks sell adjustable rate mortgages and then ruthlessly foreclose on people's homes. Big banks and other rapacious financial institutions have carried out years of subprime and predatory lending. Approximately 90% of subprime mortgages issued in 2006 were adjustable rate mortgages, and nearly 10 million homeowners lost their homes. The foreclosure sales in the U.S. between 2006 and 2014. I mean, this is the larger context that looms over ordinary people, but especially communities of color. In fact, among those who were foreclosed in the wake of the Great Recession in 2728, it was predominantly black households and Latino households that were impacted by the sale of adjustable rate mortgages, predatory lending, and then coming upon that foreclosures. Big banks are not interested in helping the East African community in the Seattle area in any way send money to help support their families and the smaller services that are willing to do this work. Because it is needed, even if it may not be very profitable, are not given the authority and protections that are given to the big banks. My staff member Jonathan Rosenblum has met with Rob Lehmann, say to discuss this and I'm very happy to support this resolution, as I said, to work with the community moving forward, especially on the state level, to assist money transfer operators who serve immigrant communities. And I just also publicly wanted to thank Jonathan Rosenblum for suggesting or maybe being among those who suggested to the community that they work on the state level instead. And clearly, we are hoping that it will have a real impact and to help the community.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Swann, for those remarks as well. Any other comments on the resolution, colleagues? Keep seeing that. I will make sure that Councilman Morales gets the last word. I also wanted to just echo my thanks, Ginsberg. Morales, for your work and advocacy in this space. It is an issue that is very dear to my heart. It is part of the reason we have an organization called One America Today that is sort of the largest immigrant rights organization in the state. It is a multicultural, multigenerational, multiracial organization that is really championed so many amazing policy reforms throughout the state and here in Seattle and certainly in this area of unbanked issues as it relates to immigrant populations, you know, they they've continued to advocate for a systemic, sustainable change. And as somebody who comes from an immigrant family who still has family abroad, I personally understand the importance of being able to have an opportunity to issue remittances. And when you are limited to doing that via banks based on it, racist policies, frankly, that are and have been implemented and enforced by our financial institutions in America, it really makes it difficult for for immigrants living in this country who are already enduring so much in terms of family separation and in having the burden of of of continuing to provide for families in their home countries. It is so important for us to continue to take a really strong policy position about how important it is for us to solve for these really significant policy issues which have to be tackled by the state. So I appreciate your ongoing advocacy and sponsorship of this resolution. I'm looking forward to supporting it. That being said, I will hand it over to you to have the last word and then we'll call the role in the passage of the resolution.
Speaker 5: Terrific. Well, thank you. Thank you to Councilmember Somewhat and Gonzalez. I do just want to give a final thanks to the community who brought this to us. Council member Council President Gonzalez already mentioned one America. So I want to thank Rich Stultz there, the Somali Health Board, Somali family safety task force here, Washington, Seattle Rideshare Drivers Association living well Kent access to our community and the Abu Bakr Islamic Center of Washington. We're all really instrumental in helping bring this to council and are also working, as I said, in Olympia and meeting with state legislators and the appropriate committee chairs to make sure that we are doing what we can at the state level. And then we were also in communication with Congressman Heck, who's on the Financial Services Committee in D.C. because a lot of these banking regulations, the changes that we need, need to happen as a congressional level at the federal level as well. So I want to thank everyone for your support. And we are ready to vote.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Morales. With that being said, I would ask the clerk, please call the roll on the adoption of the resolution.
Speaker 3: Suarez i.
Speaker 2: Lewis.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Morales.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 2: Let's get. I.
Speaker 0: Peterson I.
Speaker 2: The one.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Strauss All.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 2: Herbold Hi. President Gonzalez. Hi. Nine in favor. Not opposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it and ask that the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation. Okay. Agenda item five Will the clerk please read agenda item five into the record?
Speaker 3: Council President Gonzalez I for an item for wimps.
Speaker 1: I apologize for that. I realized it after I said it. Will the clerk please read the agenda item or into the record?
Speaker 3: Not a problem. Agenda item four Resolution 31 950 relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation, authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to act as the authorized representative of the agent on behalf of the city. Seattle and legally five the City of Seattle with respect to certain projects for which the city seeks wrapped funding assistance managed | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION reaffirming The City of Seattle’s support of unbanked money transfer operators and the immigrant communities they serve. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07132020_Res 31950 | Speaker 3: Not a problem. Agenda item four Resolution 31 950 relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation, authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to act as the authorized representative of the agent on behalf of the city. Seattle and legally five the City of Seattle with respect to certain projects for which the city seeks wrapped funding assistance managed through the Recreation and Conservation Office.
Speaker 1: Madam Clerk, I apologize for reading, asking you to read the wrong item. I was distracted by one very cute baby over here, and so I apologize for that. I will move to adopt resolution 31950. Is there a second? It's been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Suarez, you are the prime sponsor of this resolution, so I will recognize you so that you can address the item.
Speaker 3: Thank you. This legislation authorizes the State Department of Parks and Recreation Superintendent to security to submit grant applications to the State of Washington Recreation and Conservation Office, to argue for state funding assistance. This resolution is routine. We've done it many times and required as part of the formal RCO grant application process. Parks and Rec applies for our RCO grant each year. And has a strong success rate in securing additional funding for planned capital projects. The 2020 Dale Parks and Rec will complete 11 RCO applications for a total of $6,120,860. The RCO grants require a local match and will fund only projects that are included in an adopted plan. You know, Parks and Rec required matching funds for the projects appropriated in the Parks and REC 2016 2021 Capital Improvement Program RCO will announce the grant awarded at recommendations in January 2021, but the actual grant awards will not be contracted until. July two, fall of 2021. The money will support currently unfunded project elements program capital projects. The share of the public? Asked the Native Communities Committee. I recommend council adopt Resolution 31950. Accountable. I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: Council Bill.
Speaker 3: 119. Put the wrong number here.
Speaker 0: I apologize. It's resolution.
Speaker 1: 31950.
Speaker 3: Yeah, resolution. Yeah, I was. It was wrong.
Speaker 0: I apologize. We.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I'm sorry. Resolution 31950. I was reading last the last pages. AUDIENCE Thank you.
Speaker 1: Got it. Okay. Colleagues, any additional comments on the resolution? Yeah, I don't see anybody raising their hands. So I would ask that the court please call the role on the adoption of the resolution.
Speaker 3: Whereas by.
Speaker 2: Lois. I hear, Alice. I must get to. Must to. Peterson. I so want.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Strauss.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Herbold. I. President Gonzalez. I ain't in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Asked the clerk, Please affix my signature to the legislation. Now we can go to agenda item five. Will the clerk please read that item into the record?
Speaker 3: Agenda Item five Appointment 1585 Appointment of Karen Grandison as Member Committee Technology Advisory Board for Term two December 31st, 2021. | 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 certain projects for which the City seeks grant funding assistance managed through the Recreation and Conservation Office. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07062020_CB 119816 | Speaker 2: To be part of the Select Committee on Budgets. Agenda Item two Capital 119116 related the city's response to the 2020 COVID 19 crisis amending Ordinance 126000, which adopted the 2020 budget, accepting funding for non city sources, changing appropriations for various departments and budget control levels all from various funds in the budget. Declaring an emergency and establishing an immediate effective date all by three four of the City Council. The Committee recommends that the bill passed as amended with an abstention with from Council member the one.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much for that. Reading into the record, Madam Clerk. So, customer mosquitoes, chair of the committee. You are recognized in order to address this item. But before I do that, Madam Clerk, do I need to move for the passage of this bill?
Speaker 2: The committee recommendation is the recommendation that the city council will take up, which is the recommendation of the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: Do I need to make a formal motion? No. Thank you so much. Desmond Mosqueda, as chair of the committee, you are recognized in order to address this item.
Speaker 2: Wonderful. Thank you, Tom, for president. I also want to thank Councilmember Herbold, who is a co-sponsor of this ordinance. This ordinance would accept an appropriate $13 million in emergency housing and homelessness funds or COVID funding from the state of Washington. This legislation accepts and appropriates that fund that came from the Department of Commerce on March 27. And as I express my disappointment that we have been sitting on these funds from the state for so long, we have been eagerly awaiting this ordinance, which proposes funding for the grants to accept funds and spend them to respond to the emergency that COVID is presenting to frontline providers and vulnerable housing and very frontline providers for vulnerable housing, insecure or homeless populations. The ordinance finally came through at the end of June and we moved as quickly as we possibly could to get these long awaited funds out the door. I want to highlight a few really important components of this legislation. It includes funding for permanent supportive housing operations, dollars that would now be available, that would have come through revenues from the short term rental tax, which is now being dramatically affected by the impacts of the economic downturn. It's critical that we get funding to from supportive housing operators. It includes funding for food delivery for those permanent supportive housing sites and the individuals living in those homes. It includes funding for substantial, unexpected additional COVID related costs insured incurred by our Shelter and Hygiene Center and from an affordable housing provider. And we need to get these dollars out the door as possible. And it includes funding for shelter, densification and hygiene services and funding for senior food and meal delivery programs. Video and central staff provided a presentation on this legislation at the Budget Committee on Wednesday, and I'm enthusiastic about this. Thanks again for your ongoing work with us on this legislation. I wish we would have been able to get it out the door in March and here we are getting it out as fast as we possibly can. Looking forward to hearing back from those providers as soon as they get those dollars in hand. And even then we know that it's not enough which piece of our ongoing conversation about revenues to come soon, but happy to see this dollars being allocated now.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilor Mesquita, for that introduction of the bill. Councilmember Herbold. Is there anything that you'd like to add as a co-sponsor?
Speaker 1: Just echo councilmember mosquitoes comments about the urgency of getting these funds out. We know that providers have been dipping into their own reserves to cover the significant expenses associated with serving populations of people during COVID 19 and providing services in a way that they could not have planned to. While making extraordinary efforts to provide frontline care, frontline care and services to people hit hardest by the public health emergency and economic downturn. So again, really appreciate budget chair mosquito's commitment to moving this quickly rather than having this be part of the budget discussions. That will probably take us through, I believe early August in finalizing.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Herbold, colleagues. Any other comments on the bill before we call it to a vote? KC Nunn. I just want to thank Councilmember Herbold and Mosqueda for their joint work on this particular bill. Really important effort here. And just want to thank you both for bringing it forward as soon as we possibly could. With that being said, we'll go ahead and close that debate. And I would ask that the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Herbold II Suarez.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Louis. Hi. Morales. Hi. Let's get a. Hi Petersen. I do what.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Strauss. President Gonzalez. Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. I That's what the caucuses affix my signature to the legislation. Next up is item three. Will the clerk please read the short title of item three into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE related to the City’s response to the 2020 COVID-19 crisis; amending Ordinance 126000, which adopted the 2020 Budget; accepting funding from non-City sources; changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various funds in the Budget; declaring an emergency; and establishing an immediate effective date; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07062020_CB 119810 | Speaker 2: Agenda Item three Capital 119110 relating to taxation, imposing a payroll tax on persons, engaging in business in Seattle. Adding a new Chapter 5.38 The Elements. The Code Committee recommends the City Council pass the bill as amended with the desire to report the council members together. Herbert Gonzalez. Luis Morales. So what sense drop in favor and Councilmember Suarez and Peterson opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Madam Clerk. For those of you watching and listening in on our conversation. I'm going to try to sort of put this into regular folk parlance, since there's a lot of just Robert's Rules of Order and Procedure in place. Item three and item four are both the, I believe, item for what we're going to hear. Yes. Item or are both items related to related to the Jumpstart Seattle proposal that would impose a payroll tax on certain businesses in the city of Seattle. So this is a really important conversation. We've been working really hard under the leadership of Councilmember Mesquita and others on looking at the Jumpstart Seattle proposal, really trying to be one of the co-sponsor sponsors of that bill and excited to be able to kick off the conversation. So again, for those of you watching, item three and four are related to jumpstart Seattle proposals, which are the payroll tax considerations. So without further ado, I'm going to go ahead and hand it over to Councilmember Mosqueda, who, as chair of the committee, is going to address this item. And I believe there are several amendments that we will work through this afternoon. One brought by Councilmember Mosqueda, another by Councilmember Lewis. It will require a suspension of the rules and then we will be able to close out debate on agenda item three and take a vote. So with that being said, I was hoping to be able to set out a little bit of a road map for or both you colleagues and those watching on the TV, just to orient us all in this zoom world that we find ourselves in as to what the order of business is going to be. So, first of all, hear from Councilor Mosqueda. She has an amendment to make will then hear from Councilmember Lewis, who also has an amendment that will require a suspension of the rules. Then we will open up the doors after taking votes on each of those amendments, will open up the discussion and debate the bill as amended, and then we will do a final roll call. So with that being said, Councilmember Mosqueda, the floor is yours.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. And if it pleases the President, I have a few opening comments and then I'll make the motion to bring forward the amendment.
Speaker 0: Absolutely.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I come to colleagues. We're in the midst of a public health pandemic and an economic crisis. And jumpstart is part of the remedy. This is the antidote or part of the antidote needed to respond to the public health crisis of COVID and the economic instability that COVID has exposed in our local economy. Jumpstart is part of the solution needed to deeply invest in affordable housing, equitable development, and a more resilient economy. Jumpstart injects resources into the social safety net, harmed by decades of underfunding in housing, health services, support for our most vulnerable community members. Jumpstart, reinvest in our families and invest in our neighbors. And invest in local shops and our local economy. And it will help Seattle survive the crisis of COVID and emerge stronger and more equitable every day. Each of our officers is responding to calls and emails. We see people in community every day concerned that they cannot pay for groceries for their young children. They cannot put food on the table because they don't have a job. We've heard concerns from business owners that they didn't get a penny from the federal government, especially among black owned business owners who were disproportionately excluded from getting federal assistance. We've heard concern from shops about their inability to pay vendors because there were no revenues in April and May, and they need to be able to have assurances that they can have money in hand so that they can pay staff and start hiring people again so that they can pay rent and open their shops again. We heard concerns repeatedly from members of this council who've been leaders on fighting for immigrants and refugees, that immigrants and refugees were intentionally left out of the federal support when these are essential workers and they help our economy run. We've heard concerns about the fiscal cliff that we will be presenting itself next year in our budget if we do not have revenue in hand to back. So emergency funds. We're talking about the cliff that can make it quite likely that libraries would close, the parks are closed, that there will be problems with accessing childcare, core government services, that without additional revenue we will not have enough funds to backfill emergency funds. And we've heard the ongoing concern about the lack of affordable housing, the lack of supportive housing that help get folks on on their feet and get them safely. House on the road to recovery and resiliency for our entire community. This is the promise of Jumpstart to invest in our community, invest in housing, childcare, invest in small businesses, support immigrants and refugees, support working families. This is not only the remedy for the emergency that has COVID, but it helps us correct an upside down tax code . Without jumpstart, we're facing a crisis of an unprecedented scale, and it's not going to end anytime soon. And we know in Washington state we are not alone. 1.2 million workers have already filed for unemployment insurance and the numbers continue to grow, especially with uncertainty as we see the numbers of COVID cases continue to grow. In the midst of this crisis. Large companies are continuing to do well. They're still paying three figure salaries in some cases and in some cases even as high as a half a million dollars a year. So we're asking them for this Jumpstart proposal to contribute, contribute a small percentage of those profits to saving our local economy, investing in neighbors and families so that they can, in turn, invest in our local economy and we can come out stronger. We know one thing for sure based on the last ten years and actually data across the country, we cannot drive our way out of this recession. Data from the Great Recession showed us that in the cities and in the states that tried an austerity budget, it did not work. It actually made economies weaker. So we know one thing. We can't stop our way out, but we can grow our way out of the recession. We know an all cuts budget is not a solution and cuts just siphon even more of the critical programs that consumers and families and small businesses depend on in order to weather this storm. Increasing investments is needed in services and infrastructure. That's what keeps people working. That's what creates jobs and injects more money back into our communities. That's what jumpstart our economy when we avoid an all cuts austerity budget. Our economy can rebound faster, which is good for businesses and workers, but also when we do it through the lens of Jumpstart has proposed. It doesn't mean going back to business as usual. It means investing in a more resilient and a more equitable economy. I'm excited about the bill in front of us today. Jumpstart Seattle will promote health, create jobs, and save our local economy. And it's not just the right thing to do. It's the economically sound thing to do in the midst of a pandemic. Housing insecurity isn't just a moral crisis. It's a public health crisis. Expanding nutrition services and vouchers will help struggling people put food on the table and make sure that they can access groceries. It's not just good for families. That's good for the local economy. That's also good for the health of our of our local population. This is about making sure that people can put money in their pockets, which will then in turn send in local businesses that will allow people to stay healthy. They housed and be stable. We are trying to write, sign up or up and down tax code and when we do it, everyone benefits from the public investment, not just some people. These twin health and economic crises have had and will continue to have an outsized impact on communities of color, especially among black, indigenous and the Latino community. Direct assistance to local businesses, especially for the nine out of ten black owned businesses that applied for less than $20,000 in city funds didn't get a penny because they were distributed through traditional lending institutions that have a long history, a long racist history of racist lending practices. And we can change that. We can change that by providing direct assistance to thousands, thousands of undocumented families, thousands of the small businesses, owners and workers right here in our city. And we can help make sure that people who were left out of these federal funds get access to what Seattle is doing right now. This is our way to jump start the economy. I want to thank folks who have been testifying not just in the last three months, but for years, people who have been calling for us to invest, invest in our whole community, working families, small businesses, our neighbors. We want to make sure that our ice cream shop and our local coffee shops can survive. Yes, but we also want to make sure that people stop getting pushed out of the city, especially black and brown communities. We want to make sure that we're investing in affordable housing. We want to make sure we're doing this to equitable development initiatives. And we want to make sure that when people get a job back, it's a good job, that they are able to have sustainability and they're able to go back to work and have access to childcare. That's what this bill contemplates. This bill provides certainty, predictability and stability for families, for children, for immigrants, for small businesses, because it's baked into the fabric of this legislation. This has been an ongoing conversation for many time for for much of the time that I've been on council, going back two years. It's also been the ongoing conversation for the last four or five months. Again, thank you, Councilmember Morales, for introducing your legislation at the beginning of the year. I want to thank Council for all of your feedback and input on the legislation, as I mentioned this morning during council briefing. Each one of you have your fingerprints on this legislation. Thank you to Reverend Amachree for the work that she did in the halls of Olympia. We built on those proposals, both the original proposal from Sawant and Morales and from the proposal from Representative Macri. And we did this by calling people together. We didn't just you know, we didn't start from scratch. We did this by pulling people together and helping to make sure that more people had the chance to weigh in on legislation that was being considered in Olympia and make it work for Seattle. So thank you, council colleagues. Thank you to the sponsors of Jumpstart. Thank you again, as I mentioned to Councilmember Morales and support for your ongoing work on this and for our dialog that we've had over the last three months, because that dialog I think has improved the legislation in front of us and without all of the community that has been calling on us to right side up or upside down tax system, I don't think that we would be here today. And I want to make sure that folks know that this is just the beginning. We have the most regressive tax system in the entire country. And as we try to find remedies to the COVID crisis, both the economic crisis and the public health crisis, this is one remedy in a much larger, larger scale conversation about right sizing our tax system. Council President. I would like to go ahead and move council to a119810 as presented to include version three of Amendment one that I distributed recently.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Councilmember Mesquita So is there a second on that motion?
Speaker 3: Second.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment One. Councilmember must get you're recognized in order to address the amendment.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much, Council President colleagues. This amendment is distributed with our colleague, council member Lewis as well. I want to thank Councilmember Lewis for his feedback on this legislation, along with a handful of other council members who've been asking about how do we address creating certain conditions that would be appropriate for nonprofit health care entities. As I mentioned this morning, Councilmember Peterson, thank you for your feedback as we thought about nonprofit entities in the health care sector. Appreciate your the ongoing conversations we've had there. You know, at the onset, I want to say I'm concerned about any exemptions. The amendment in front of us, however, is carefully crafted to respond to some of the issues that we've heard, for example, from DHS, the International Community Health Services. Today, the person who called in was expressing the unanticipated consequences or cost specific issues, specifically due to COVID that are affecting certain sectors of the nonprofit health care sector. And we wanted to carefully respond to those concerns that were brought up. The legislation in front of us was carefully crafted based on some feedback. I want to thank folks that SEIU Health Care 1199 Northwest folks from Kaiser, from Fred Hutch and from Seattle Children's for their feedback as we tried to think about a carefully crafted amendment . And also again note that while nonprofit hospitals generally are considered charities by the Internal Revenue Service, many nonprofit hospital systems have in all revenues in the billions, with chief operators earning seven or eight figure salaries. And in many ways their peers are large corporations. So the proposal in front of you attempts to find an equitable solution to rebuilding our economy in a way that does not further subsidize profit driven health care providers and prioritize community needs. Instead, with the amendment in front of you suggest that Seattle's economic recovery plan is built around jump start. We should address nonprofit health care providers accordingly and make sure that certain organizations continue to provide resources and make sure that there are contributions coming in. This amendment in front of us contemplates payments, building needs on salaries over 400,000. And I'm hoping that this carefully crafted scope amendment helps meet some of the needs of the community. Again, I'm thinking it's a little for your co-sponsorship.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Mosqueda. Are there any other comments on Amendment One? I see a couple of hands. I lost track of which one went up first. So I'm going to call on Councilmember Lewis first and then on Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. My remarks will be fairly brief. I do just want to express my gratitude at being able to co-sponsor this amendment with Councilmember Mosquito. Again, I want to thank Councilmember Skater for her leadership and guiding through this important legislation and also making sure that we could develop a very specific and timely exemption for a lot of our nonprofit health care partners who are really on the front lines of helping the region and even the nation. In the case of some of our research focused nonprofit providers in responding to the ongoing COVID public health emergency. I think that this exemption does a good job of recognizing that work, recognizing the added burden and the added costs that those organizations are assuming to really combat the the expansion of COVID. And as we've seen recently, too, it does look like, as we discussed this morning, we are in for a very long fight still on COVID 19. It does not seem to be abating as quickly as we thought it would. And we know that we're going to need to make sure that those nonprofit partners stay strong, that they can stay in the fight, and that we continue to be good partners with them in helping them confront this. I think this amendment was a long way towards doing that. I look forward to voting in favor of it. And similarly, want to thank our partners at SEIU 1199 and our partners at the nonprofits themselves, at Kaiser Permanente, at Children's, at Fred Hutchison four for their work in helping make sure we can shape something that is responsive to the moment. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Lewis, Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I have a comment first and then a question about the amendment. So as I understand this amendment, it would exempt salary, expense, taxation at nonprofit health care providers and research orgs, but not at nonprofit service providers, including nonprofit service providers who are not health care providers who have been on the frontlines of responding to coronavirus over the past months, such as a nonprofit, affordable housing operator, shelters, food delivery, childcare providers and more. Last week, there was such an amendment proposed to more broadly impact nonprofit providers. And despite the heroic efforts of the folks who work at these nonprofit providers, large and small, we have not I have not heard from this group of providers acting, asking to be exempted despite the extraordinary expense that they have been incurring and despite the expectation that they will continue to meet a heightened need for the rest of this year and into next. So I'm just really concerned that we are basically saying one kind of work, one kind of nonprofit work, it should be exempt . And the broader nonprofit provider community has not made the argument that they should be exempt. And and I think there's an equity impact of this amendment. We know that larger nonprofits, health care, nonprofits in particular, including hospitals and research institutions, are more likely to be led by white people and men, while small smaller organizations, including many service providers, are more likely to be led by women and people of color. I'm concerned that the effect of this amendment would just unfortunately impact the organizations that are led by women and people of color. While organizations more likely to be white and male, that would their their organizations would receive an exemption. And my my question about the amendment itself relates specifically to clause C in the definition of a nonprofit health care entity. And central staff has declined to to answer questions about this particular section and has encouraged us to direct questions back to to the sponsor. And specifically, the question is, is what is a predominantly. Capitated provider. Provider group. Capitated. Capitated provider. Group. I'm just trying to get a sense of what type of organization is meant to be targeted or by this language because as I understand, C would broaden the exemption to a type of provider that I'm not quite understanding the. The description of that type of a provider.
Speaker 0: Okay. Which one of the sponsors would like to take that one up?
Speaker 2: I would defer to Councilmember Lewis. Councilmember, would you like to take this?
Speaker 3: Yeah. So Councilmember Herbold, that's a good question. And in particular, to section C of the exemption, that is a rather odd phrase. And I'm saying that as a lawyer who would not encountered that particular phrase. And so kind of working with stakeholders on this. My understanding is the only provider in King County that that particular phrase would apply to is Kaiser Permanente based on their kind of group health, their cooperative HMO status. That is like more unique and more it's a more unique and surgical term for the unique area that Kaiser Permanente falls into as a cooperative provider. And that language was worked on in consultation with SEIU 1199 and other stakeholders who verified that that indeed is is the provider that would be included based on that language.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Elsa morales plays. You are on mute. There you go.
Speaker 4: I see. So council member will thank you for the.
Speaker 1: Points that you're raising.
Speaker 3: I had a.
Speaker 1: Question about that phrasing.
Speaker 4: As well, but I think for me the bigger issue is that. Part of the appeal of this entire package for.
Speaker 1: Me is.
Speaker 4: That because it.
Speaker 1: Sets the taxation rates specifically for higher income earners.
Speaker 4: For higher earners, in my mind, it sort of eliminates the need for.
Speaker 1: A series of.
Speaker 3: Exemptions.
Speaker 4: Particularly non-profits, since, you know, I think when most of us think about a nonprofit.
Speaker 3: It is folks who are, as Councilmember Humble said.
Speaker 4: Lower wage workers, you know, folks who don't have a lot.
Speaker 3: Of access to.
Speaker 4: Benefits and and sort of the the things that come with with the standard corporation. But we also know that health care, in particular, most health care providers, even if there are nonprofit, still, you know, can generate significant revenue. Nonprofit is a.
Speaker 1: Is a tax status.
Speaker 3: It's not a business plan.
Speaker 4: You know, the CEO of.
Speaker 3: Providence, I think, makes something.
Speaker 2: Like $10.
Speaker 1: Million or so.
Speaker 4: So I would be voting no on this amendment. And I think that.
Speaker 1: The the language that is already.
Speaker 4: In the bill.
Speaker 1: Is structured in such.
Speaker 4: A way that it protects.
Speaker 1: Organizations who do have lower wage workers in their.
Speaker 4: Midst, including health care providers, so that those folks aren't put in jeopardy.
Speaker 2: When bargaining.
Speaker 4: Comes time for.
Speaker 1: Bargaining, for example. But the folks.
Speaker 4: Who are making higher wages can be.
Speaker 1: Included in and.
Speaker 4: So that we don't lose revenue for three.
Speaker 3: Years with this amendment. So.
Speaker 4: Thank you for bringing it.
Speaker 3: Just want to signal.
Speaker 4: That I will not be supporting this amendment.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Morales. Any other questions or comments on Amendment One? Okay. I will close out debate before we call the vote on this. I will also not be supporting this particular amendment. I find it unfortunately inconsistent with my positions on things like Medicare for All, for example, which really which really center us on butting up with the realities that the health care industry is a for profit industry. That's part of the problem with how health care is delivered across the country. And and so for me, I feel like it's really important for us to acknowledge that the tiers have been set in and jump start Seattle in such a way to inherently distribute equity among organizations that may not be paying out in these golden parachutes to their CEOs and and others. You know, massive amounts of money. And so, you know, it morale was brought up the point that the CEO of Providence is making just millions and millions of dollars in salary. I think that's true for a lot of other health care organizations in the city of Seattle that have IRS tax exempt status, but are nonetheless, you know, making quite a bit of money on top of that. We know that the federal government has done a significant bailout and continues to express interest in continuing to do more significant bailout of the health care industry, where many of these organizations that are currently within the city of Seattle, like Providence and others who technically have nonprofit status, stand to likely get millions and millions of more dollars that we don't have control over how they will allocate those dollars between health care delivery service models and executive pay roles . And so I feel really uncomfortable voting in favor of this amendment at this point, not knowing more about those particular details. And in light of, you know, my, my, my deep and profound belief that that as a system, our health care system is designed to be to be for profit and not for the full and maximum benefit of the people who desperately need health care services in our city. So I will be unfortunately not able to support this particular amendment. Any anything else before we close out the debate from the sponsors? Oh. Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 3: Yes. I think the council president just wanted to provide some additional context for this amendment. As I understand it, there was a discussion about exempting nonprofits last week, and then there was a discussion about health care providers during COVID. So just for I believe this amendment, correct me if I'm wrong, Councilor Mosquito, but I believe this amendment is just for the initial three years and the sunset clause has been removed from the from the, the overall ordinance. So this will be really focused on those providing health care during COVID. I think it includes Seattle Children's, it includes the Hutch, includes Cancer Care Alliance. I think would be exempt from this or this exemption would would help those organizations. So I'm just. I think that this compromise was put together carefully by Council of Escada and I'll be supporting it.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you so much. Okay. Looks like we can go ahead and close out debate on Amendment one. So I am going to ask that the clerk please call the roll on the passage excuse me, on the adoption of Amendment one.
Speaker 1: Herbold Nay. Whereas.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. No. Mesquita.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Peterson.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: So what.
Speaker 4: They.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez, then five in favor, four opposed.
Speaker 0: I thank you so much. The motion carries in a 5 to 4 vote and Amendment One is adopted. I understand that Councilmember Lewis has another amendment, Amendment two. So we're going to go ahead and move to that potential amendment. So, Councilmember Lewis, you will first need to request suspension of the rules for Amendment two. So I'm going to hand it over to you to walk us to make that motion.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. And I do so move to suspend the council rules to consider Amendment two that was not distributed by 12 noon. And when asked if there's a second. Second.
Speaker 0: Okay, folks. Okay. Thank you so much. So this is a suspension of council rules to consider Amendment two that was not distributed by a noon. There has been a second. Will the clerk please call the roll on the suspension of the council rule?
Speaker 1: Purple. I. Juarez. I wish I were, Alice.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 0: Let's get a.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Peterson.
Speaker 1: I want.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 1: Strauss, I. President Gonzalez I eight in favor one opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. It's been that suspension of the roles has been granted, so the role is suspended. Councilmember Lewis, you may now proceed with moving first, making the motion for us to debate and consider your proposed amendment to say yes.
Speaker 3: I moved to amend Council Bill 11 nine 810 as presented on Amendment two, recently distributed.
Speaker 0: There are second.
Speaker 2: At.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded to adopt amendment to Councilmember Lewis. You are the prime sponsor of this amendment, so you are recognized in order to address Amendment two?
Speaker 3: Yes. Thank you, Madam President. So I do think that it is still important to at least have a discussion today about the reinstitution of some kind of sunset clause to reaffirm the commitment of this Council to eventually transitioning to regional revenue options as an alternative to maintaining our own payroll tax in perpetuity. I did not particularly care for a ten year sunset clause. I thought that was too soon. I thought that it also could put in jeopardy some of the investments that we are proposing to make under this legislation that will probably entail and require accumulation over a longer period of time and possibly entering into certain bonding or capital commitments. So this proposal would create a 20 year sunset clause. The hope would be that in that time we would be able to transition as a state in a region to some regional alternative tax. I have full faith and confidence in the future. Seattle City Council 20 years from now to re extend, renew or expand on this tax in the event that such regional sources of revenue do not exist at that time. I think that that timeline acknowledges and you know, I mean, we had we had Tim Heineman call in and comment earlier to comment on this legislation, you know , making it clear that there are a lot of folks in the state that are still opposed to a conversation around progressive revenue. So I understand that is a heavy lift to get that out of Olympia. But my hope is that on a 20 year timeline, that's more realistic than a ten year one. It won't put in jeopardy the investments that we are making now, nor undercut the urgency of this proposal. And so I would move that we institute this compromise sunset as enumerated out in the amendment.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Lewis. Any questions or comments on a proposed amendment to. Councilmember Sawant, you are recognized.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I oppose this amendment because this amendment attempts to bring back a sunset clause, even though the city council's budget committee on Wednesday voted for my amendment to eliminate the sunset clause. 20 years may sound like a long time to politicians who are not doing the hard work of building grassroots movements, giving their blood, sweat and tears to build for social justice. 20 years may sound like a long time for people who are not struggling to get by, but for any of us who have been on the grassroots fighting and I don't just mean our generations, I'm talking about people in Seattle who have fought for decades for bringing about an end to regressive taxation. I think they will know that these are hollow words that, you know, that of our Councilmember Lewis to say that 20 years from now, I hope something will be done regionally. Why? Because something was done in the last 20 years and in the 20 years before that. Is that what your hope is based on the fact that nothing was done by regional and state political officials at the same time, that they gave handout after handout to big corporations and executives like Boeing executives? This is extremely problematic and furthermore, completely tone deaf. To bring this amendment at the last second when the public can't speak out against this particular amendment. But, you know but the public has spoken the movement has spoken very clearly against any kind of sunset clause. And it's particularly egregious that this amendment will if this amendment goes through, it would make sure that the tax is automatically repealed, not that there would be any conditions placed on it, even, which would somewhat mitigate. I would I would never support a sunset tax period on progressive revenues, but there is no mitigating aspect about this amendment at all. And as far as what needs to be sunsetted, why not those sales taxes that are so burdensome to working class people, and particularly heat hit black and brown communities and immigrant communities of color? Why not the property taxes that make it difficult for working class and middle class homeowners to keep their homes? Why not a sunset clause on taxes, on struggling small businesses? I just am really stunned that despite all the rhetoric that we have heard, that the sunset clause is back again and that the sunset clause is only being proposed to one of the only taxes that working people do not have to pay, that small businesses do not have to pay. The fact that politicians will go to such lengths to undemocratically sneak through a sunset clause shows which side they are really on. Clearly, the council is going to vote yes on the Amazon tax today because our movement has gathered 30,000 signatures to put this on the ballot. And that represents a real a real threat, not an imaginary or abstract, but a real threat to big business. And that is why this is going through. And the establishment knows that they have no other choice but the fact that this amendment is being brought forward for a sunset clause. It shows what that shows the lengths to which the establishment politicians will go through. I absolutely pledge that if this amendment passes, then we will, in our movement, do everything in our power to make sure that we fight against the establishment. But I will also say that putting this this kind of sunset clause in such a progressive law as the rare progressive laws that we are able to win, that basically is saying that, you know, you hardworking people, you thousands who who spend all your weekends and all your waking hours aside from your work and your family to build this movement, you're going to have to do it in another 20 years. Another generation will have to come and fight the same battles over and over again. And I think this also illustrates why this system ultimately cannot be reformed. And we need substantive, fundamental change to our society.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Swann. Any other comments? I see Councilmember Herbold and colleagues. If anyone else has any comments, please feel free to indicate Councilmember Strauss have you in the queue. Councilmember Herbold, please.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So I just want to say that although I recognized in past meetings that there was an importance for a sunset clause and its potential to bring useful pressure to bear on other jurisdictions as a as a as a way to encourage legislators and state and business stakeholders to work towards progressive revenue, specifically a regional progressive revenue source. I really feel like last week in committee we we settled this issue because we amended the tax legislation with language that is much clearer about council's intent to repeal this tax that the new progressive regional or state taxes enacted that would provide a similar level of funding to Seattle as we do under this bill. So again, I felt like we sort of resolved this this issue in our in our committee meeting. The amendment we passed in committee, I think, better addresses and settles the circumstances under which the council would support ending this specific tax. And I don't believe that a 20 year sunset clause provides any additional pressure that is not already better addressed through the amendment passed last week in committee. Thank you.
Speaker 3: John.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold, for those comments. Councilmember Strauss, the floor is yours.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President. Thank you. Council Member Lewis for bringing this amendment forward. Last week I did vote for a sunset clause due to my hesitance regarding the level playing field language. I did think that ten years was too much too short, because in particular, there are aspects of this bill that are tied to 20 year funding segments, especially regarding permanent supportive housing. I do believe that a future council will benefit from evaluating this tax in 20 years to understand if it needs to be raised, lowered or otherwise adjusted to fit the times. I'm supporting a 20 year sunset rather than the ten year sunset because the 20 year sunset is associated with the spending plan that we will be that we've already discussed and will be voting on. While jump start Seattle is different than property tax and sales tax levies which are put to the ballot, they also have renewals which are sunset clauses under a different name. So there are sunset clauses in these sales tax and property tax levies that are put forward to voters. And while these taxes, the Jumpstart proposal is different than the levy, we have mirrored the process for Jumpstart Seattle in creating rates and services rendered to our city and our community. So and that has been a 20 year segment. So I think if nothing else, in 20 years we will need to reassess the rates and create a new spending plan to be associated with the proposal. And sunset could just be as easily worded as a renewal. This amendment fits into the narrowly tailored nature of this bill, and I appreciate the work being put forward on this. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Strauss. Any other comments or questions on the bill? Excuse me, on the agenda item president.
Speaker 2: If I may.
Speaker 0: Yes, Councilmember Suarez, please.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Just briefly, I will be supporting this. And, you know, I don't really want to get into a tit for tat about whose side I'm on trying to approach this with common sense. And I agree with Councilmember Lewis. And my understanding is if we have a 20 year sunset further out of funds, that is the less volatile it is, which gives us a 20 year window, if you will, to plan. And hopefully within 20 years when I'm 80, this state will have progressive taxes in place, not only on income, but certainly hopefully on the tax that the city will probably pass today. So with that, I'll be supporting it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Suarez perhaps the only tit for tat that i'll get into is to say that I will only be 63 years old in 20 years.
Speaker 2: Oh, thanks.
Speaker 0: You're welcome. Any time. Councilmember Mosquito, please.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, I had a lot of concerns with the initial ten year proposals that I did included in our draft bill because of some of the feedback that we received from people who were working on legislation as well. I think the points that have been made with concerns are very well taken. I have been clear that in my main concern with the ten year sunset as it was proposed, was that it could potentially unintentionally limit our ability to do permanent supportive housing, which requires, in many cases a 20 year funding commitment because this is at least 20 years, and it will, I hope, be considered a renewal, but more importantly, that there will be more the level action that is taken and get us to a more equitable tax proposal. I'll support a 20 year, but that is, I think, the minimum, given that this is needed funding for from the point of housing. I appreciate that it is that length of time. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, councilmember mosqueda. Any other questions or comments on this proposed amendment? Councilmember Swartz's.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I just wanted to clarify something. Clarify on something that Strauss just said and just paraphrasing what he said. He said that he supports this sunset clause because he wants a future council to reconsider this tax to see if it should be raised, lowered or kept the same. That sounds very reasonable, but let's be clear. The amendment does not say raised or lowered or kept the same. It just says, quote, No business shall or a payroll expense tax for payroll expenses after December 31st, 2040. Unquote. So this is a straight up removing of the tax in 20 years, and all the faith is going to be put on that future council as if there's so much evidence that councils will do the right things. I just want to make make clear that what was said was not something that's in the amendment, actually. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. So what I see, Councilmember Strauss's hand has gone up. So, Councilmember Strauss, you are recognized. Are there any colleagues again? Anyone else who wants to speak? Please let me know.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Council President and thank you, Councilmember Swan. I appreciate your comments there. I would say that that is the same language that is used in the Seattle Transportation Benefit District Tax, which is levied here at the city of Seattle. And while it does not necessarily state that it needs to be reviewed, it also we are bringing it up this week to be renewed. So I appreciate your thoughts and I appreciate your work on this on this bill. Thank you, Councilmember.
Speaker 0: Thanks so much. Any other comments on Amendment two? And of course, Councilmember Lewis will have the last word on this bill excuse me, on this amendment. Okay. Thank you so much to everyone for the conversation. I just want to sort of signal that unfortunately, I will not be able to support this amendment either, in large part because of the reasons that Councilmember Robles articulated in her statement as well. And so I just wanted to, again, appreciate the sentiment with which this is brought forward and then really just provide a little bit of clarification to the general public. Any council member at any time in any council at any time can you can introduce legislation to either repeal, amend or modify any any ordinances that we've passed in in the past. And so while I appreciate the significance of this sunset, I still think that, you know, whether this amendment passes or not, future councils will not have their hands tied one way or the other as it relates to future policy considerations on this revenue proposal or any other revenue proposal, frankly. So with that being said, I'm going to hand it back over to Councilmember Lewis, who can close out debate if he wishes, and then I will call the roll, have the clerk call the roll on this amendment.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I'll be brief and in closing it out. Definitely appreciate the critical feedback from folks in regards to the overall concept of having a sunset clause. I do still think it's important that we have another opportunity to weigh in on it at this hearing and look forward to voting on it. The only thing that I would say is that I actually am, and maybe it's because I'm only going to be 50 years old in 20 years that that I actually am optimistic that we are going to be in a position to get progressive revenue from Olympia on a regional basis. I think that we saw sort of a initial glimpse of that with Senator Wynne successful attempt at getting us a progressive real estate excise tax. You know, I've been engaged in a lot of conversations with stakeholders about getting.
Speaker 1: State and.
Speaker 3: Local capital gains tax, which remains a passion of mine and something I will be introducing legislation here at the council to consider. But I do think that it's important that we continue to think of ourselves as a regional partner. And I think that this amendment signals and centers that idea that we are committed to working together with the county and the state to come up with comprehensive revenue proposals that do make sure that we are also scaling our benefit across borders, make sure that we are being responsive and spreading the burden, quite frankly, to across the rest of the county and the rest of the state. Do I think it's going to happen fast now? Which is why I wouldn't wouldn't support a ten year sunset. And I'm now I'm proposing a 20 year sunset. So I think that that, unfortunately, probably more closely matches the timeline of what we're dealing with here. And I look forward to giving us an opportunity to do we on this one more time. And I would just ask that we call the question.
Speaker 0: So much, Councilmember Lewis. With that being said, I would ask the clerk, please call the roll on adoption of Amendment two.
Speaker 1: Herbold. Ned Suarez?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales? No. Let's get a.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: PETERSON Right.
Speaker 1: So what? Nay Strauss.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Now.
Speaker 1: Five in favor, four opposed.
Speaker 0: Okay. That motion carries an amendment to is adopted.
Speaker 1: Are there any if for there.
Speaker 0: Her comments on the bill as amended. And again, this is this is that the next vote will be on the passage of the bill as amended. So are there any additional comments on the bill as amended? I see. Councilmember Lewis and I know that Councilmember Suarez also wanted to make a comment and she will let me know at what point she would like to do that. So, Councilmember Lewis, you.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much, Madam President. I really appreciate the opportunity to have co-sponsored this legislation, along with council members Muscat, Gonzalez, Herbold and Strauss. I really do think that we can't wait any longer, echoing my comments from earlier. To have true progressive revenue to confront head on the situation that we are facing here today on so many different fronts. You know, I think it's it's first, I just want to take a moment to acknowledge the process that Council Member Muscat undertook this spring under really difficult circumstances, in the middle of a pandemic, in the middle of a lot of budget uncertainty, and was able to cobble together a coalition of of labor, of small business owners, of nonprofits, of service providers, really to unite all of us in our common cause that the massive, inequitable struggles that we are facing will not yield until we have some kind of significant progressive revenue package in front of us that will rise to the ambitions and the scope of our problems. And this package really does get there. You know, I'm committed to a regional approach, as I talked earlier during our discussion of the sunset clause. But we can't wait for Olympia to act to provide this relief. We can't wait for Olympia to act to provide this relief. When we saw last week and, you know, this this would have been bigger news, I think, in other times. But we saw last week that there was an increase in King County of people entering homelessness, and that increase was exceeding the rate of exit. We saw thousands of our neighbors who are unemployed due to the COVID crisis are in a situation where. While they were rent burdened before they are now increasingly rent insecure beyond where they were prior to the to this new and completely unprecedented emergency in my life experience and the experience of many of my friends. And we really are in a position where the cavalry is not going to come over the hill. I mean, it doesn't look like there's going to be a special session of the legislature this year. It doesn't look like there's going to be bold action from the legislature to fill this void. We have a complete abdication of any kind of duty or responsibility from our federal executive. While we have lots of allies in Congress who have been fighting very valiantly to get us the resources that we need, federal leadership from the president has been completely absent.
Speaker 1: We need to step in and.
Speaker 3: We need to raise this revenue. I, I appreciate that this follows on the model of House Bill 2907, the council member or our House member, then State Representative Nicole Macri, submitted in the last legislative session of only targeting positions, only taxing positions at large, very large and successful corporations that make over a certain amount of money. I really appreciate that we made a couple of surgical exemptions to make sure that this tax does not fall on folks that are on the front line of the current public health issue that we're facing with COVID 19. And I'm also just very appreciative that there is going to be a massive multiplier effect of this. I mean, we are passing this revenue package to bill. We are passing this revenue package to build housing, to support people, to stay in their housing, to make these investments at a truly unprecedented scale and rise to the level of challenge that we're facing. As the chair of the Select Committee on Homelessness Strategies and Investments, I can say unequivocally that this is going to help us move towards our goal of meeting our on righting the wrong of our long time shortfall in permanent supportive housing and making sure we are in a position to meet that obligation. So with that, I want to turn it over, proud to to vote for this today. And I'm going to again want to thank all the co-sponsors, and particularly Councilmember Skinner, for her leadership in guiding us through this.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Lewis. Next up in the queue is Councilmember Suarez and for those of you on video zoom, please do raise your hand and let me know if you'd like to make some remarks. Councilmember Words.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President Um, I want to again thank Council or Budget Chair Councilman Ms.. Data for our long conversations and discussions and even today's discussions that you and I had offline and all the experience and enthusiasm you have brought to City Council. I appreciate the effort that went into this the phone calls, the emails, the meetings to create a proposal for us to move forward. I know how much work was dedicated to this effort now and back in the fall of 2017, along with Councilmember Gonzalez, Councilmember Stewart and Councilmember Herbert, as I stated at the Budget Committee last week . I do support a progressive revenue tax. I do support a tax on corporations. I have supported a countywide regional approach and also a statewide approach to a progressive tax solution. However, Judy, I can't support this proposal. I support the merits, though, not the procedural process. As was stated earlier, that we all know our city is facing the pandemic and economic recession that this country has never seen the likes of in civil unrest due to racism. Again, as I shared last week, this is a trifecta that is unprecedented because we're in the midst of this pandemic fueled economic recession with no end in sight. I have concerns about not putting this proposal.
Speaker 3: In.
Speaker 2: Front of the voters. Councilmember Lewis, a short note to you. To some of us, the Calvary is not a welcome sight. I just want to point out that no economist, no politician, no public policy, academic or expert can forecast when these challenges will end. We don't know the depth, the length of the duration of this pandemic fueled recession. There's currently no jobs bill or stimulus package for growth while we face historic unemployment levels. And that concerns me. We don't know what the economic landscape looks like as we impose this tax again from city council. I like what Portland did in May of 2020. Portland voters approved an income and a business tax for homelessness services to pass with nearly 60% of the vote. But the sunset clause for 2030 Oregon's unemployment rate is about 14% and Seattle's is 16%. As I have participated in, observed and shared, Seattle has a well-established Democratic tradition of giving voters the final say. Again, as I shared in the last 15 years, the voters have approved over 11 city city levies from library to housing to education to transportation to park. Daily voters have also supported over six county wide levies for vets, human services, homelessness, seniors, children in parks and Seattle voters have supported two multi-billion dollar regional levies for transportation. As you all know, in 2006, the voters approved a small local payroll tax on businesses as part of bridging the gap transportation ballot measure. And again, that tax was repealed by council in 2009 due to the 2008 recession. I share this not as a compare and contrast lecture between levies and taxes, but to the testament that Seattle voters are smart, caring and generous. I trust their civic judgment and voice. Again, nobody is against taxing corporations or a progressive tax. It's how we get there. At the end of the day, I trust the voters of Seattle to tax corporations so we can truly re-imagine the new economy and not be faced with another difficult choice to repeal this tax, as we did in 2008. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Juarez, are there any other comments from my colleagues? Councilmember Morales, please.
Speaker 4: Oh. Okay. Thank you, colleagues. I'm, I will admit, very frustrated about the two amendments that just got added to this bill.
Speaker 1: But I don't want that to.
Speaker 3: Take away from the historic nature of what we are about.
Speaker 1: To pass here.
Speaker 4: We know that today the city takes a crucial.
Speaker 1: Step to embrace.
Speaker 4: Equity and reject.
Speaker 3: Corporate.
Speaker 1: Influence over our tax.
Speaker 3: Policies.
Speaker 4: Today, the Seattle City Council is boldly leading to create a more equitable way to finance public services. And we challenge elected.
Speaker 2: Officials at the state level.
Speaker 4: To join us in choosing investment over austerity. By passing this proposal, we will shift some of the burden from individual households to.
Speaker 2: The wealthiest corporations in the city.
Speaker 4: Next week, we'll finalize the plan for how we invest. We'll provide significant.
Speaker 1: Relief for renters.
Speaker 3: Small businesses.
Speaker 4: For immigrants and others impacted by the COVID crisis. And this this structural change will also allow us to rethink our social spending so we can improve our population health, improve community conditions, and begin.
Speaker 1: To reverse.
Speaker 3: Intergenerational.
Speaker 4: Poverty in the city. Exactly six months ago today, I was sworn in to begin serving the people of District two. I will say my first six months have been a little extra.
Speaker 1: To say the least. And I want to thank my staff for their.
Speaker 4: Unwavering commitment to keep.
Speaker 3: Our office accountable to our black and brown neighbors.
Speaker 4: If this council is going to act on anti-racist principles, we.
Speaker 1: Can't just talk to black led organizations when.
Speaker 4: We're talking about police. We have to partner with Bipoc communities in everything we do taxation, zoning, utilities, parks, education, green economies and community development. That's how we demonstrate.
Speaker 1: That Black Lives Matter.
Speaker 4: For Alexis Charla Leticia Farmer Darcel Touch. Devin Silver Nail my staff. Exactly six months into our.
Speaker 1: First term in office.
Speaker 4: We're voting on major legislation that will improve the lives of our neighbors. And your work has helped to get us here.
Speaker 3: So I want to.
Speaker 4: Thank you for that. I'm excited to vote yes today on behalf of the people of District two. And I want to thank our colleagues for.
Speaker 3: Supporting this legislation.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Morales. Councilmember Salant.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Today's vote to pass an Amazon tax in Seattle is a historic victory for working people. This victory was hard fought and it was hard won by a movement that wouldn't give up and that faced down a seemingly endless series of obstacles from the shameful attempts of corporate Democrats in the state legislature to pass a ban on municipal big business taxes to unfounded delays in the city council to a pandemic and lockdown which prevented signature gathering during relentless attacks in the corporate media in Seattle and nationally. We are winning because of the determination of workers and socialists to smash all obstacles and to find a path to victory. Congratulations to the Grassroots Jacks Amazon campaign led by the coalition that included my organization, Socialist Alternative and many progressive organizations and unions. Today's vote comes eight months after working people roundly defeated Amazon in the elections and two years after Amazon and the Chamber of Commerce bullied City Council with the majority of the Council shamefully repealing the 2018 Amazon tax. Now, Jeff Bezos and his billionaire friends are wishing they could call a do over and have the modest 2018 tax back because this new tax on Seattle's wealthiest businesses is four times larger and every penny is needed and far more, in fact, to stop the racist gentrification, sky high rents and homelessness in the city with a massive expansion of publicly owned affordable housing and jobs. This Amazon tax is a housing and jobs bill. It's no accident. This comes in the midst of the historic Black Lives Matter rebellion. The legitimacy of the status quo has been utterly smashed by the protest movement, the pandemic and the deepening crisis of capitalism. In Seattle, Amazon was widely taken up at the Justice for George Floyd protests, where we gathered 20,000 signatures in 20 days. Now that total is over 30,000 signatures. The Amazon tax is perhaps the biggest progressive win in Seattle since socialists and labor unions led the way on the $15 minimum wage, which passed first here and then was won in cities and states around the country. We hope that once again, we can inspire working people and yield nationally and globally in this crucial fight against the billionaire class, which is attempting to force working people to pay for the current crisis of capitalism with massive budget cuts. Our rallying cry nationally must be no austerity. That's big business, not working people. The Amazon tax shows working people do not need to play defense. We can and should go on the offensive and win big. We must reject all the pathetic attempts of corporate media who, after years of attacking the idea of taxing big business and those fighting for it now desperately want to spin a narrative to discourage working class struggle and empowerment. Let's be real. The Amazon tax had nothing to do with the quote unquote, savvy of establishment politicians. It had everything to do with the self-organization of working people. Specifically, it has been the thread of the movement's ballot initiative that has pressured the city establishment to act. Amazon filed the ballot measure after a series of actual grassroots Democratic action conferences where hundreds of people, indeed by now thousands discussed and voted. We did not win everything we wanted, and I strongly oppose the insertion of a sunset clause. But while I disagree with other council members on watering down the legislation, I want to acknowledge their support and votes for the passage of this Amazon tax. I want to thank Councilmember Mosquito for her work. I want to thank Councilman Morales for her support of the strong Amazon tax proposal we put forward together in solidarity with the movement. We must build on our momentum. The movement to tax Amazon and big business to fund housing and essential services is needed everywhere, and we must actively spread it. Here in Seattle, we will need to immediately take this energy toward winning the release of all arrested protesters without charges. To defund Seattle police by at least 50%. To stop the sweeps of our homeless neighbors and to fund tiny house villages. And to when at least a thousand quality, affordable homes in the Central District for black working families. The struggle for black liberation will also mean campaigning for elected community oversight boats with full powers over the police, including hiring and firing policies and procedures. Our movement was clear eyed about naming the real force, pulling the strings. Amazon Many argue that we should not, quote unquote, antagonize big business and instead try to broker a deal. But we know that our power comes from working people getting organized, not from any negotiations with the elite. For those watching from outside Seattle, don't let anyone tell you in your fight to tax big business in your city that you are being divisive because class struggle is what gets the goods. The private for profit housing market has utterly failed working people, not just here and now, but everywhere and always because capitalism is completely incapable of meeting the most basic needs of working people. Internationally, the working class needs to take the top 500 corporations into democratic public ownership run by workers in the interests of human need and the environment, not billionaires. Greed. I have a message for Jeff Bezos and his class. If you attempt again to overturn the Amazon tax, working people will go all out in the thousands to defeat you. And we will not stop there because, you see, we are fighting for far more than the stacks. We are preparing the ground for a different kind of society. And if you, Jeff Bezos, want to drive that process forward by lashing out against us in our modest demands, then so be it, because we are coming for you and your rotten system. We are coming to dismantle this deeply oppressive, racist, sexist, violent, morally bankrupt system of capitalism, this police state. We cannot and will not stop until we overthrow it and replace it with a world based instead on solidarity, genuine democracy and equality. A socialist world. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. So on any other comments I see. Councilmember Herbold, please.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. I want to I can just lots of thanks to go around. And I want to thank Councilmember Swann for leading the grassroots effort. And I want to also thank Councilmember Mosqueda for proposing a structure that was different from the 2018 Employee Hours Tax or the 2020 Amazon tax, which would have been a flat tax to employers for each employee, regardless of their pay. Because this new proposal was narrow and taxed taxes only the largest businesses paying the highest salaries, which I believe is drive most driving our city's affordability crisis. It's made it possible for me to vote to enact this version of the measure rather than voting to put it on the ballot. As I had said I was considering voting to do when we were looking at a model that looked more like the employee hours tax or.
Speaker 3: Councilmember.
Speaker 1: Salons, Amazon tax. So I really I only say this to say that I think there's lots of of banks to go around and lots of credit to to be to be shared. And again, this this model represents the same tax structure that the business community was poised to support when it was proposed at the state legislature. And I hope that their their position on our tax is is consistent with the position that they had taken on state legislation that would have allowed for a regional tax. We've talked a lot about our cities and states upside down tax code, where Seattle residents are struggling on the smallest incomes and they pay six times more in taxes as a percent of their income than our wealthiest residents. This helps us raise more funds for crucial investments without further burdening Seattle residents struggling on the smallest incomes. With this revenue, we can invest in COVID relief, rental assistance, affordable housing. We can help Seattle workers who have lost jobs or hours due to the public health emergency. And we can help immigrant and refugee households that may be ineligible for federal relief programs, people who are living unsheltered in the black and brown communities that have been most impacted by COVID 19. We can and must make investments in Seattle's residents that are in line with their values, and that will help speed our community's recovery. And again, we'll finally take a step towards addressing our upside down tax code. Thank you.
Speaker 3: So that.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Herbold. Are there any other comments from my colleagues? Councilmember Strauss, please. And then Councilmember Peterson, Councilmember.
Speaker 3: The council president just wants to thank everyone for all of their work on this bill. It is a well-tailored proposal even Danny West wrote this week, and even critics are straining to come up with political arguments against it. The important aspects of this bill are that it addresses gaps that other levels of government have not provided. I've heard from residents and small businesses alike that the need for child care. Food access. Funding for immigrants and refugees who have not received. Support from other levels of government. And importantly, the small business stimulus are really critical aspects of this bill. The proper sideboards that allow this solution to scale to a county wide, region wide, and if the state is able to do so, a statewide solution. This bill and many definitions were derived from the state legislature, and I know there will be important rule making during the implementation phase of Jumpstart. I really want to thank everyone who has led in this effort and especially to Councilmember Mosqueda, for spending hours upon hours on the phone with me and my team. I can't thank you enough for all of your work, and that's to all the sponsors and everyone who has worked on many different iterations of a similar proposal over the years. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Straus. Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President So today it appears that a majority of our city council will vote to approve this new tax on large Seattle Employers Council Bill 119810. This new tax will be in addition to the business and occupation taxes, property taxes and business license fees paid by Seattle employers. I want to thank and commend our budget chair, Councilmember Mesquita. As a masterful legislator, she put together a more targeted proposal and worked in an open and collaborative way with many of us here on the city council and those in the community to incorporate various ideas to improve her already thoughtful tax and spend package. And I appreciate why many of my colleagues are going to vote yes today. I'd like to thank the thousands of District four constituents who took the time to provide input on this. And after much consideration and consultation with my constituents, my strong concerns remain. I represent a city council district that has a variety of views on issues that makes many votes difficult. I hear passionate pleas from all sides of complex issues. So later today, I'll post a longer statement on my blog explaining my vote. For now, just present a quick summary because I'm not planning to change my vote from our Budget Committee just a few days ago. Please note that later this month they will likely vote in favor of the short term COVID relief bill from Councilmember Mosqueda. That's the upcoming Council bill 119812, which will tap our City Government's Emergency Fund and revenue stabilization fund at amounts higher than proposed by our Mayor. I've consistently voted in favor of relief packages and regulatory changes to help those impacted most by the COVID crisis. The tax and spend packages before us today, however, are long term policies that require additional considerations. As I've mentioned before, I'm concerned that this is it penalizes only Seattle employers. It's not a regional solution. I'm concerned that companies providing tens of thousands of jobs to our residents may leave the city, and the small businesses that support the large employers could also be negatively impacted. I'm concerned that it does not exempt all nonprofits. No, I appreciate the amendment today for the health care providers. I'm concerned the spending plan. We're in a position now to enact the new tax without knowing the full details of how we would spend the money. Because the version of the spending plan in front of us today, Council Bill 119811 has removed many of the key details that the previous more detailed version of the spending plan was better and more targeted and more specific. I'm concerned this is a situation where taxing first, asking questions later. As Councilmember Suarez noted, this does not give voters a choice. The tax before us today is four times larger than the head tax. The previous city council reversed just two years ago sending a large tax and spending proposal to the November ballot for voters to decide would have been consistent with other large tax measures and would provide more time to see whether the economy is recovering. Whether our state government can pass a better statewide or regional measure for revenue. Unfortunately, that idea was rejected at our Budget Committee last week. I feel that we could also do a better job looking for savings in our existing budget. I see common ground and points of unity emerging and how we look at our police budget. The large salaries there are also in other city departments, as noted in the recent investigation by Forbes magazine published on June 23rd. The lessons learned as we dove into the police budget. Salaries could be applied to other city departments so that we expand social services, not government salaries. To me, that's not austerity, it's sustainability. I will look forward to joining my colleagues and pushing our governor and state legislature to pass progressive tax tools that our region can use. I support progressive taxes. We need progressive taxes. I supported HB 2907. We need our state government to act for the sake of our city. I hope my concerns are just concerns and will not actually occur. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the mayor to create a sustainable tax and spend path as part of our fall budget discussions for our 2021 budget. I hope the public today sees not division or dispute among the council members, but rather debate and discussion. I believe this whole process has really made our city council stronger. Again, I think Councilor Mesquita, for our hard work on this and congratulate her on what appears to be a success successful effort today. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Peterson So I think that concludes comments from everyone. And so as usual, we will end comment with hearing from the prime sponsor who is Councilmember Skate. I just wanted to chime in really quickly and say how much I appreciated the opportunity to reengage on this conversation. Of course, for those of us who are on the city council and to those 18, we still understand and and believe how difficult it was to not just pass that the former iteration of a tax on big business, but then to unfortunately have to repeal that law. I really do appreciate, Councilman Ross, get getting your process here and your and your staff's willingness to want to give a big shots per week in your office, who I know has been spending countless number of hours on the phone and in Zoom calls, I'm sure, with many shareholders throughout the city and and really want to appreciate the the hard work that you and your staff have put in on on this important proposal. I think this is a smart approach. I think that it is an important approach. And I think that there is probably no other time like the present, where we have a triple crisis on our hands. For us to not only consider this, but to take swift action, we are, at the end of the day, a nine member body that was elected by, in some cases, districts, and for Councilmember Mosqueda and I citywide. And we were elected to make tough decisions, to dig into the policy work, to identify significant policy issues and to identify potential solutions to those issues. That's part of the reason why I think now at this point, given this triple crisis, I do think that the political winds have significantly changed across the city. I think that our constituents across the city want us to take action now as opposed to punting to a ballot issue. And so I feel more than comfortable showing up today in in this council meeting to vote yes on jump start for Seattle and to to be proud of the fact that I am one of the co-sponsors of this of this proposal. And I just want to commend everybody for the hard work that they've been doing, all of the folks on the outside who've been emailing us and antagonists on social media about why they think this is important. And and all the calls that we have received in support of this bill is really important. And again, part of the record that shows to me that that that our constituents expect us to take action as their elected representatives on the city council. And I'm going to be very proud to be able to cast a yes vote in favor of of this of Jumpstart Seattle and the next piece of legislation we will be considering. So with that being said, I'm going to go ahead and close out debate by asking Councilmember Mesquita to give closing remarks before we call the roll.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council president, council colleagues, city in Seattle. This is a huge win. Thank you so very much for your ongoing feedback. As we have together crafted a proposal to respond to the crisis that is COVID, to invest in our local community, to invest in historic amounts of funding for our community, who been affected by displacement, and to make sure that those who are the most vulnerable in this public health crisis have the care that they need. This is about caring for Seattle now and into the future. We together are making history. I want to thank all of you for your comments, your feedback and again, your amendments. Over the last few weeks, especially last week, as we crafted the base of this proposal, we put together a piece of legislation that I am incredibly proud of and incredibly proud that the city of Seattle is leading yet again here today. We've balanced labor protections with affordable housing priorities. We're figuring out how to meet urgent needs due to COVID 19. Invest in housing and homelessness. And we haven't shied away from some really from some really tough decisions. With your vote today, we will be dealing with the problem presented and exposed by COVID. We are rolling up our sleeves. We are doing the work. And we are leading by passing Jump Start Seattle. None of us, none of the council members, none of the voters in Seattle, no one expected to come into 2020 with the issues that we are dealing with right now. COVID presenting a massive public health, deadly pandemic across the country. The type of depression that we will soon be facing is no longer going to be considered a recession in the near future. And we we must shift our priorities, shift to make sure that we're investing in those who are the most vulnerable and those who've been historically left out so that we do not have an austerity budget in front of us. Jumpstart Seattle provides that alternative to make sure that we have the funding needed to respond immediately to the COVID crisis and to make sure that there is not an austerity budget that lands in our lap this fall. More importantly, it invests in the long term funding that we need for affordable housing to invest in home, to shelter those who are living unsheltered and homeless in Seattle, and to make sure that we have a resilient community. Again, thank you to Councilmember Morales for her work on the Equitable Development Initiative work. We will be having conversations in the long run about EPA and the spend plan, but that is a core component that you see reflected there. Thanks again to Councilmember Sawant for all the work that she has been bringing to council over the last years on pushing for progressive revenue. And we will continue the conversations in the next week about Green New Deal investments and making sure that we have affordable housing that's geographically located across Seattle to specifically address historic disinvestment and displacement from communities of color and the needs of housing. Today. With your support, though, we are passing progressive revenue in the city of Seattle. We are coming together and supporting our city and supporting our most vulnerable. We have taken the lead from communities of color, from neighborhood and small businesses, from those who are fighting for food access, those who are rallying together to support small businesses, those who are supporting health care workers and immigrants and refugees together. Today we are leading like we have in the past. We are taking direction from community, just like you have in past. Council passed $15 minimum wage and secure scheduling and. And thankfully those issues ripple throughout our country and I am hoping the same will happen today. We are leading like we did on the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights and the hotel worker protections. Which city after city has continued to call us to say. How did you do it? How was it done? I want to echo the comments that were made before to other cities that are looking to pass progressive revenue and recognize that the city of Seattle and Washington State has ground to make up for given. We are in the most regressive city and state in the country in terms of our tax code. But we're hoping today that we continue to show that leadership across the country and legislating solutions for our communities, providing immediate relief and support to those who've been left out, responding to this moment of crisis and investing in areas that have had historic disinvestment and division. We are acting at the local level as a good partner, a good partner with the state and the county as we find and push for additional progressive revenue solutions and implementing this effort today to right size our upside down tax system. This is a small component of that larger solution Jumpstart Seattle, reinvest in our families, our neighborhoods and our local community. And this is how we emerge stronger and more equitable after this crisis. I have a few thank you, but I want to provide. And then I will stop, I promise. I want to thank Council Central South Band Leader Tom Michael, all the community throughout Rateliff, early morning late night weekend who have been sending messages and emails and making sure that all of the council members ideas were vetted and drafted. The piece of legislation in front of us reflects those amendments from Council colleagues to make sure that our values and our priorities are included. And we would not be able to have a piece of legislation that reflected these priorities without all of your work in the legislative branch. So thank you for all of your work, and I do hope that you hear our appreciation and also are able to get some rest soon. I want to thank Paddy Wagon. I want to thank Patty and Pearson for their patience as we work together to provide the agendas for our meetings that were ongoing and for all of the thought that you provided to us from the Legislative Department. Thanks to the city clerk's office, Monica, Amelia and Jody, without you, we would be out of order all the time. So thank you for helping us with the various amendments and the legislative process. And thanks to Danna, Stephanie and Joseph and the communication team for putting in the extra work to make sure that the Jumpstart plan, including the detailed spend plan that we will be voting on next, was easily digestible and was clearly understood by the public so that we didn't hear the same type of criticism we heard in the past. There is a detailed spend plan that not only has the ordinance that we're voting on today, but will be followed up with a resolution much like we have in previous efforts related to levees, to be even more specific about where to go. So thank you for that. Thanks to our I.T. department and Eric and Sun for all you are doing to help keeping these for all you are doing to help us keep working remotely and for making sure that all the public can continue to call and testify. And thank you to everybody who's continued to testify, which I'll get to in a second. Thank you, counsel, colleagues, especially all of those who've spoken today, talking about the historic moment that we're in. I just want to underscore how incredibly important it is for us to take away the historic win that is today by voting on Jump Start Seattle. And thanks again to I think I mentioned this earlier. But Councilmember Morales, for the earlier iterations of the bill that you introduced and council to represent a for her bill as well. I think we have carefully pulled from each of these pieces to make sure that we are advancing strong legislation today. And as the council president said, a huge thank you to my team. I know that your work, as has been recognized by every council member and the staff, but thank you thank you to several chief of staff for your leadership on this effort. And thank you to my incredible team, Aaron House, Buddy Cuevas, Aretha Butterfield, each who reached out to specific constituencies and got feedback from folks and worked on various amendments. I count the president, I know I am going long, but I would be remiss if I didn't say thank you to the council. The committee, sorry, a handful of organizations, if you might be so kind, to allow me a few more minutes to the faith organization. Thank you. Folks like this Action Network, the ultimate Mennonite Church, Interfaith Task Force on Homelessness Justice Council, and the Church Council of Greater Seattle to Food Access Organizations, Food and Water Action North North Helpline and to Operations that lunch to local businesses and Transit to Mobility Organizations. Cafe, Road and Station and Cafe Bicycle Club. Thank you to the community resilience organizations such as Bird Bar, Place, Child Care Resources and MSP Neighborhood House Lifelong Aides and Queen and Help Line. Along with Somali youth organization, progressive organizations like Civic Ventures and Policy Center, Fuel, Puget Sound Stage Poverty Action Park for Recovery, and who does not act to shut down action for retirement? Retirement? Pizarro Labor organizations SEIU 6775 1190 9925. AIDS and Protect 17 MLK Labor The Laborers, Painters, Iron Workers, U S.W. 21 and the Washington Nightlife Music Association also want to thank immigrant refugee organizations like Catholic Unite. And our motto is One America and Housing and Homelessness Organization Campus Housing, Low Income Housing Institute, the UCLA Brown Reid Housing Alliance, Youth Care, Nightwatch Housing Development Consortium, Lake City Partners. Plymouth Housing. The Coalition on Homelessness and Real Change, just to name a few. And thank you finally to Seattleites who are struggling, whether unemployed or underemployed, whether you've experienced the increase in workload or balancing childcare and working and pitching, whether your business is closed or just reopening, whether you're missing hugs or have lost loved ones . I know you're wrapping your head around this policy right now, and it's a loss. It is a huge win. And I know you must need to focus on making sure that your family is making ends meet. We are here in the meantime, working on this policy, Jumpstart Seattle, to make sure that communities across Seattle can continue to have access to core services, core protections like housing and food, and that we're investing in the long term so that we are creating a more united, a more resilient and more equitable Seattle as we recover from this COVID crisis. Thank you, council colleagues. Looking forward to voting on jump start Seattle with all of you. And well, thank you once again for making this all possible.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you so much. That closes out our debate. So I am now going to ask that the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill as amended Herbold.
Speaker 1: Guy Juarez?
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 1: Lewis, I. Morales. I must get.
Speaker 2: A. I.
Speaker 3: PETERSON No.
Speaker 1: So what.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez, I. Seven in favor.
Speaker 0: Two opposed the bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. And I'd ask that the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Okay. Item four I think this is our last agenda item on today's agenda. So I'd ask that the clerk please read item four into the record. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to taxation; imposing a payroll expense tax on persons engaging in business in Seattle; adding a new Chapter 5.38 to the Seattle Municipal Code; and amending Sections 5.30.010, 5.30.060, 5.55.010, 5.55.040, 5.55.060, 5.55.150, 5.55.165, 5.55.220, 5.55.230, and 6.208.020 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06222020_CB 119807 | Speaker 2: Agenda Item two Capital 119807 related to the city's criminal code, removing the crime of drug traffic, loitering and associated references some elements of the code amending section 10.0 9.0 a kind of settlement for code repealing section 12 a point 20.0 50 of the Kalamazoo Code.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, ben. I will move to pass. Council Bill 119807. Is there a second?
Speaker 3: Back in.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. It has been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Council Member Lewis You are the prime sponsor of the bill, so you are recognized in order to address this item.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I'm going to speak. My remarks will be broad enough to cover both ordinances. So that's including 119808.
Speaker 0: I can't remember. Council Member Lewis Would you like for both bills to be read into the record and then we can vote on them separately so that folks can comment on both bills as a package?
Speaker 3: Well, I'm going to leave the bulk of the comments on 119808 to Councilmember Peterson, who is a co-sponsor on that measure and has some remarks that he wants to give. So I actually I'm not I guess I would rather just go ahead procedurally and do them separately on the pre-arranged. But my comments will be broad enough to speak to both of them. And I'll let Councilmember Peterson speak more in depth on 119808. So, you know, in repealing these ordinances, this is something that's been on my to do list since taking office in January. As a former prosecutor in the city attorney's office, I believe in our social contract of being a community that is guided by a system of law. But I've always felt that these particular statutes criminalize conduct that is so innocuous and speculative that it makes a mockery of that entire system of justice. And keeping them on the books just continues to perpetuate that mockery. I know I can cite as a basis for moving these laws that the city attorney, Pete Harms as a standing policy to not charge these or these particular crimes. Or I could cite our own reentry report, which radically a couple of years ago in 2018 were recommended the repeal of these manifestly unjust ordinances. But in truth, you know, I think the real reason for repeal goes back even further and it goes back deeper. And it speaks to the fact that many people in our community, particularly communities of color, have been urging repeal of these ordinances for years. And indeed, it is not accurate for us to call these ordinances outdated. As I mentioned in briefing this morning, I firmly believe that I think to do so implies that these ordinances had their purpose and had their day and new realities had made them irrelevant. And, you know, fax machines are outdated. Like these laws were never appropriate. They were wrong when they were enacted. And they are wrong now. And I want to thank the many community organizations, many of whom who spoke up today, who have been organizing on both these ordinances and have long been educating the public on the need for these repeals. You know, we heard from Decriminalize Seattle, a coalition sex worker outreach project, Green Light project, and many more. And this is an important step. These repeals and I'm proud of prime sponsor both of these repeals. And I look forward to helping to to right these historic wrongs and and be an ally of the work the community has done on these. And I want to thank Kamala Brown in my office, who helped with these together and assured central staff for their hard work on getting this legislation, this timely legislation together and cuing it up now. And I urge passage of both of these bills. And now when we get to 11 9808, I know Councilman Peterson has remarks speaking to 1198 that I went through, which for him to speak for me on.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Councilmember Lewis, are there any other comments on the bill? Councilmember Herbal, please.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I just want to quote from a section in the October 2018 reentry report that is I found particularly moving in, producing and delivering the report. Many individuals and organizations provided support and expertize. And the report authors provide an acknowledgment that, again, I'd like to share. The acknowledgment is we also recognize those who have been supporting folks returning from incarceration and organizing for institutional change for a very long time. We know that much of that work has been done without compensation or acknowledgment that done with love and an unyielding commitment to family and community strength. We thank you for that work and hope these recommendations support you. We also acknowledge that the individuals most impacted by the recommendations in this report are unable to join us at the cities tables as they are still incarcerated. We did this work in Your Honor. And before I close my comments, I also want to just highlight that another one of the reentry report's recommendations was the expansion of the current pre file diversion program. And in the last few weeks we received a set of recommendations from from the city attorney's office as it relates specifically to the Council's prior interest. We, during the budget process, passed a statement of legislative intent asking for these recommendations from the city attorney. And they're looking at a model of of a of a program that will serve 25 and older and would base the program model on the successes of the young adult program through that is we all know is she's one she's 180. They identify the need for funding for racial equity tool kit in designing the expansion model and. Let us know that the the cost to complete the racial equity toolkit would be about $25,000 of one time money. So I just want to I want to mention this take this opportunity. So my colleagues on the Council know of my interest in implementing the recommendations of the city attorney to to begin the, the RET process, the racial equity toolkit process to develop an adult program and look forward to hopefully talking about the resources that the city attorney needs to do this right in our June rebalancing package. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay, colleagues, thank you so much. Any other comments on on this first bill? Customer service data, please. Council president. I want to.
Speaker 1: Thank the.
Speaker 0: Co-Sponsors of this legislation, and I know that Councilmember Lewis and customer Peterson are speaking. I want to thank Councilmember Morales as well. I believe that you're a co-sponsor of the legislation in front of us, too. And thank you all for bringing this forward and really lifting.
Speaker 1: Up.
Speaker 0: The voices that we've heard from today's public comment and so many of the folks that we had worked with this last last year's budget to provide additional dollars to sex workers as folks are trying to both have self-determination and respond to upcoming issues that they see on a daily basis and knowing that they're in the driver's seat to make those decisions. So we're really excited about the work that you've done and to give a huge thank you to the reentry work group who produced these policy recommendations. This is a really great step forward in undoing the racist policies that go all the way back to the war on drugs. And I'm excited that we as a council are taking these steps, especially during this this movement that is demanding action. The Black Lives Matter movement demanding accountability and action. And I look forward to voting enthusiastically.
Speaker 1: Yes. On this.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Councilman Mosqueda, any other comments on this first bill? Looks like there are no additional comments on this particular bill. So I will go ahead and ask the clerk to please call the roll on the passage of the bill. The want.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Strauss i.
Speaker 1: Purple. Herbold, I. Juarez.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Lewis. Hi, Morales. All right, let's get a. I. Petersen I President Gonzalez I nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. I had ask that the clerk please to fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Okay, folks, moving along. I would ask that the clerk please read agenda item three into the record.
Speaker 2: Agenda Item three. Taxable 119808 release of the city's Criminal Code, removing the crime of prostitution, loitering. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City’s criminal code; removing the crime of drug traffic loitering and associated references in the Seattle Municipal Code; amending Section 10.09.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code and repealing Section 12A.20.050 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06152020_CB 119799 | Speaker 3: Agenda Item one Capital 119 789 related to gig workers in Seattle, establishing labor standards requirements for premium pay for gig workers working in Seattle and then U.S. 3.02. 125 and 6.208.020 of the settlements proposed declaring an emergency and establishing an immediate effective date all forced out of the city council.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. I will move to pass Council Bill 119799. Is there a second? Thank you so much. It's been moved in second hand to pass the bill. Councilmember Lewis, as co-sponsor of this bill, you are recognized to address this item and I believe you have as a substitute version of the bill to move for our consideration before we take and comment on the underlying bill. So let's go through the procedural motion first and before we get to the substantive bill, which will be the substitute. So so I'll hand it over to you to put the substitute before us.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much, Madam President, for cueing that up. So I would ask then if item one from Council Bill 119799 can be read into the record.
Speaker 0: So item one has been read into the record and it starts earlier.
Speaker 2: I was like, I think we didn't just do that. Oh, yeah. Okay. Sorry. I moved past Council Bill 11 nine and you already did that. Sorry.
Speaker 0: You need to let me.
Speaker 2: Let me start a little further along for me. I'm sorry for.
Speaker 0: That's okay. You need to move to amend council 1119799 by substituting version for for version two.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Sorry. I'm down there now. I'm so. Yes. I moved to amend council bill 11 9799 by substituting Virgin for for version 2.8.
Speaker 0: In their second. Okay. It's been moved and seconded to substitute the bill. Councilmember Lewis, again, you are recognized in order to address the substitute version of the or the procedural fact of the substitute bill.
Speaker 2: Yes. So thank you so much for the opportunity here to address this. I know we've talked about this bill a couple of times over the last few weeks. The substitute version lowers the initial price that Councilmember Herbold and I had considered in terms of the premium pay number, which originally was $5 per delivery. Having consulted with our labor partners as well as the platforms in the space. We determined that a $2.50 per delivery still accomplished the goals of the premium pay in terms of compensating for time spent cleaning vehicles and acquiring PPE and sanitizer, as well as also making sure there was some consideration for the unique hazards that folks are facing during COVID. So for that reason, we made some of these changes. So there are substantive changes in the bill. There are also some technical changes that do not otherwise make considerable changes. A There's going to be other amendments addressing the fact that the substitute does not have a provision like some other versions of the bill have had, where the cost could potentially be partially passed through to consumers. So this substitute bill would allow folks to partially pass through some or all of the additional cost to consumers. And that's a discussion that we can have. I believe Casper Morales will be bringing forward an amendment to queue up that conversation, but otherwise those are the substantive changes. I don't know if Councilmember Herbold also has anything to add to that before we move forward on a vote to adopt the substitute.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold, anything to add on the motion to consider the substitutes?
Speaker 1: No. I think Councilmember Lewis handled it well. I have nothing further that.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you so much. Colleagues, any questions on the substitute version being proposed for consideration? Councilmember Salaam.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Needless to say that I support the legislation itself to require additional hazard pay to gig workers who sacrifice self-sacrifice. And labor is really one of the only things that has allowed many people to continue to have access to food and mobility during this COVID crisis. And these workers are doing so at great personal risk of infection, and often with very little common compensation from the multinational corporations that hire them, which have even been extremely stingy in giving them very basic protective equipment as well. However, what we are discussing now in this motion to place an amended version of the original bill is whether to substitute a new draft of the bill for the original and a strong. And I want you to say that I strongly prefer the original bill to this substitution, because the original bill is significantly stronger in many respects . First, the original bill protects both food delivery gig workers and TNT drivers, like those who drive for Uber and Lyft. The substitute, however, only protects food delivery workers. And I will, of course, be opposing any amendment that excludes any workers from these protections. I understand that some council members are arguing that this change is reasonable because they believe that the mayor will draft legislation in the future to cover dirty drivers. But that reason is totally insufficient. This is emergency legislation that already only requires hazard pay during the legally declared emergency. That ends when the emergency ends. If the so again, you know, we're talking about the bare minimum. If the mayor does generate this legislation in time to go into effect on October 1st, which the Teamsters have told my office is the current schedule, it's very possible that these hazard pay restrictions would have expired by then anyway. So that would leave TNT drivers with having had no hazard pay protection. So the entire public health emergency, the official emergency, even if the official go with emergency, has not legally expired. This amendment would still leave TNT drivers without hazard pay for at least three and a half months. Additionally, I mean, that's based on the timeline we've heard. There's no guarantee that that even that timeline will be adhered to. Additionally, the substitute bill majorly reduces the hazard pay benefit available to gig workers. The original bill provided gig workers with $5 hazard pay per delivery plus $5 for each additional stop. This subsidy cuts that more than more than in half to $2.50 per delivery and only a dollar and $0.25 for additional stops. We should also remember that this legislation is in response to nationwide. The base legislation is in response to nationwide organizing of gig workers, including a courageous strike called by Instacart workers demanding $5 per delivery premium pay. Who opposes that? Who is demanding it to be reduced? I can only guess that the big delivery businesses have been putting pressure in the backrooms because we have not seen that in public comment. Gig workers are many of the essential workers that have made it possible for Seattleites to have food and be mobile during this public health crisis. And they have done so at great personal risk with extremely low wages while they are multinational bosses have raked in profits, indeed profiteer through the pandemic. I support the strongest possible hazard pay and do not support this amendment that would exclude taxi drivers and lower the pay. So I will be voting no on making the substitution, but I will of course be voting yes on the overall bill when we do that later.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you so much, Councilmember Swan. I see Councilmember Herbold has raise your hand, so I'm going to go ahead and recognize Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I just want to note that as it relates to removing taxi drivers from from the bill in the in the substitute that Councilmember Lewis just spoke to, that was actually a request that we do that from the Teamsters. They they requested that we remove the the authorization of the hazard pay for their drivers. And then as it relates specifically to the different price point that was negotiated with working Washington, they recognize that there is a balance that is is necessary to strike and they do not want to see a reduction in use of the food delivery services in response to a price point that is too high. And so that is really the foundational thinking around, again, trying to trying to hit that hit that sweet spot between what the what the price point should be to compensate drivers for the time it takes to maintain the vehicles in a way that's consistent with public health standards, the and the the products necessary to do so. And, and also recognizing that this is working during this period of time is is indeed a hazard. So, again, I really appreciate having the opportunity to work with working Washington throughout this this process and leading up to the substitution.
Speaker 0: Thank you for that additional information. Councilmember Herbold, any other comments or questions on the substitute bill? Hearing and seeing none. I think we are ready to consider the substitute version unless. Councilmember Lewis, you have anything else to add?
Speaker 2: I do not, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Okay, great. Let's go ahead and I will have the clerk call the roll on the adoption of the substitute.
Speaker 2: Peterson I.
Speaker 1: Don't.
Speaker 4: Know.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Her bold eye, Juarez.
Speaker 3: I. Lewis.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Morales.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 1: Macheda my never Gonzalez. I did it in favor. One opposed.
Speaker 0: I thank you so much. The substitute is adopted in version four of the bill is now before the council. So I will go ahead and now open up the floor for additional debate and comments on the bill as amended. And our colleagues, are there any other amendments? I know that Councilmember Morales you have a particular amendment. So perhaps what we should do is consider your amendment first and then we can have a conversation on the bill as amended. How does that sound? Sure. Okay, great. So I will hand it over to you, because my role is to make your motion to put Amendment One before the council.
Speaker 5: So I move that we amend Council Bill 119799 as presented on Amendment one on the agenda.
Speaker 0: It's great. Is there a second?
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 0: It's been moved to amend the bill and I will hand it over to Councilmember Morales to describe Amendment One.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Council President Gonzalez. So this amendment would prohibit the hiring entity from passing on charges, increasing grocery charges to consumers. We all know that the economic impacts of COVID are having really drastic effects on our families. And food security in particular was a problem in the city already. And we know that food insecurity is increasing, especially during this crisis. So this is really an attempt to. Decrease the risk of having customers who are relying on grocery delivery from from having that charge passed on to them. We want to make sure that we are protecting our vulnerable neighbors, our seniors, especially families with children, and anybody who is really at risk of food insecurity, so that they are so that this assessment or this charge does not get passed on to them. And that's what we're doing here.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you so much for that description, Councilmember Morales. Any questions or comments on Amendment One? Okay. Hearing none. We will go ahead and take a vote on Amendment One. So will the chief call the roll on the adoption of Amendment One?
Speaker 2: Peterson I.
Speaker 1: Do want. So I want. I thank you. Strauss. I traveled. I. Suarez.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Lewis. I. Morales. I must get. I. President Gonzalez I nine in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The motion carries, the amendment is adopted and the bill, as amended, is now before the council. Are there any further comments on the bill as amended? Councilmember mosquito, followed by Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Madam President. And thanks to the sponsors of this legislation comes from Herbold and Councilmember Lewis. Really exciting day for gig workers and actually just for our entire economy. As we know, gig workers have been left out of the basic protections that we have been.
Speaker 0: So.
Speaker 1: Proud of here in Washington State and in the city of Seattle to offer to W-2 employees, but make it basic labor standards for those who are classified as independent contractors are hard to legislate, especially for gig workers as the sponsors and this entire council knows. So I'm really excited about the piece of legislation in front of us. I think that there's much more work to be done for sure. Conversations of issues of misclassification and long term solutions for gig workers continue. But I know that we have to act with urgency. Right now.
Speaker 0: This crisis of.
Speaker 1: COVID has been telling us that we need to step up in an immediate way to provide these protections for gig workers and looking forward to working with all of you on those next steps. I know also that we are well aware that gig workers need additional protections, especially because of COVID. We get our groceries delivered, we get food delivered. We are, I think, in a crisis where many of us are depending on this portion of the economy even more heavily now. So I really think it's important that we're stepping up in an essential way for these essential workers to make sure that they're treated with the basic protections like premium pay and making sure that they have safety equipment. Being told that the unemployment rate is as high.
Speaker 0: Oh, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: Workers are being told that that given how high the unemployment rate is, that, you know, some people are being told if you don't like it, then you don't have a job and you know, you don't have any other recourse. That's absolutely unacceptable. We want to make sure that all workers have these basic and basic protections that we provided to other sectors of our communities. So as workers are putting their their selves, their life at risk, their family's lives at risk by coming to work, they serve our communities. We need to lift them up and to make sure that these workers with.
Speaker 0: The basic protections they need.
Speaker 1: Thank you again to all of the.
Speaker 0: Folks.
Speaker 1: Who worked on this legislation. And thanks to the gig workers who every day take a risk to go to work. Appreciate the time. And I'm grateful that through this legislation, we're again making labor history and passing this.
Speaker 0: Legislation into law. Great. Thank you so much, Councilmember Mosqueda, for those remarks. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. And I'll be I'll be really brief. And I think Councilmember Swan actually cued this up rather nicely. So I think I'm following on a theme that's already been introduced, but this truly does have to be a first step. And as Councilmember Maceda also alluded to as well, it is a temporary measure. You know, COVID someday will pass and this measure will pass. But we are still going to have massive inequities in this app based economy that has been mischaracterized as a gig economy, but really increasingly is the economy. This is increasingly a way that commerce and businesses transacted in our society. It's increasingly a space where workers are misclassified as independent contractors to justify justify paying them less and giving them fewer benefits. And it's going to be an area where we are going to definitely need to do more work. And I look forward to doing that under Councilmember Mosquito's leadership in the committee that covers workforce standards. And I know that a lot of our stakeholders in the community who I really had the pleasure of working with through this racial ladder at work in Washington and everyone over at work in Washington, Sage and the whole team there were great. I want to thank Camille Brown on my staff, who did an excellent job working with Councilmember Herbert's office to really shepherd this through over the course of a month with lots of back to back meetings and making sure we were reaching out to all the stakeholders. So just wanted to extend those. Thanks and we'll look forward to voting to get it over the finish line today. And thank you all for everything you did to make this a success.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Lewis. Council members want.
Speaker 4: Thank you. As I mentioned before, I'm happy to vote yes on this bill requiring big business, big businesses to pay hazard pay to gig workers during the COVID crisis. And I agree with Councilmember Lewis that this is increasingly become the norm. It's not like we're talking about one small section of the economy. So many workers, and especially younger workers, are getting pushed into what's called the gig economy, those kinds of jobs where they are not recognized as employees. Gig workers deliver groceries, drive for Uber and Lyft, and do many other essential jobs to our society. These are jobs like any other, except they are marked with the legal fiction that they are a one person small business rather than a worker and a corporation. The result of this legal fiction is that workers are suddenly no longer protected by workers as gig workers, as workers, and by being classified as gig workers, in fact. Big business even avoid Seattle's minimum wage by classifying its workers at big workers, which is particularly important for the hazard pay bill we're voting on now. It is totally unjust, and it is a clear example of how, under capitalism, the working class must continually organize and struggle to avoid falling even further behind. As I mentioned two weeks ago, when council was voting on extending the paid sick and safe leave to gig workers 100 years ago, when workers could legally form no workers could legally form unions in this country, but courageously they did it anyway, often having to defend their picket lines against physical attack, in fact, by the police and by private forces. In the 1920s, the U.S. military was even deployed to bomb the picket lines of striking miners. It was through these courageous struggles that workers won the decent contracts that formed the so-called middle class for at least a section of American society. For two generations, they won labor law protections and they won the right to organize a union. Since then, however, for decades, big business has been attempting to claw back every gain workers had fought for and won. Wealth inequality has ballooned. An estimated one out of five workers in the U.S. is now classified as an independent contractor, e.g. gig worker. Ultimately gig workers will need to unionize with or without the legal permission to do so. Just like workers in the past, because we only have the power in the workplace when we get organized to fight for it, we will need to rebuild the fighting labor movement that overcame legal, physical and political obstacles in the last century to establish the union workers, the unions and workers can rely on today. Today's premium pay legislation is extremely temporary, but in approving it, the city council is making an important statement, and I'm happy to support the legislation to extend basic and save time to gig workers also. And finally, I want to raise the caution around enforcement that I had spoken to when this legislation was first discussed in a briefing council briefing, I think, a week ago. Seattle's Office of Labor Standards is empowered to enforce these workers rights. But because so many big businesses engage in wage theft, the Office of Labor Standards has a serious backlog. If your boss steals from you, it takes many months to even get the money you're owed. And we've seen how ruthless giant corporations like Uber can be in disregarding workers rights. The Office of Labor Standards is currently. Understand the mayor is instituted a hiring freeze, claiming that there is not the budget to adequately staff the department because of COVID related budget shortfalls. This is an example of austerity, but like any other austerity, these budget shortfalls are not automatic. If Mayor Durkan And if the political establishment were willing to tax big business, the city could raise the revenue to stop this austerity and create a public jobs program, not only to build social housing and on Green New Deal programs, but also to enhance the stuff that we would need to actually fully enforce labor law. Gig workers deserve to be protected with their rights, and that means this legislation is an important part of it. And we also need to end the austerity and the inadequate staffing at the Office of Labor Standards. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Swan, are there any other council members who wish to make comments on the bill? Councilmember Herbold, please.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I just want to flag that we have a process and a product keyed up for the taxi drivers for minimum compensation. I think it's really important that the conversation that we've had around hazard pay also lead to a conversation around minimum compensation for the the drivers who deliver groceries and meals from restaurants. I think there was a lot of a lot of interest in seeing whether or not the the worker advocates and workers could get to a place with the the apps where they had some agreement on what not only what those conversations might look like, but what the what the product might be. But unfortunately, we didn't get there. But I am confident that those conversations will continue and we'll do everything I can in my role as a as a council member to support those conversations, because it is critically important that that folks who are doing this work that we can see right now in this in the state of emergency , how how critical it is. It's critically important that these folks receive some form of minimum compensation as well.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold, are there any other questions or comments on the bill? Okay. Hearing, then I will ask that the curtain call on the passage of the bill as amended.
Speaker 2: Peterson I.
Speaker 1: Want. I Strauss i verbal. I. Juarez. I do is i.
Speaker 5: Morales i.
Speaker 1: I. President Gonzalez i. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. And I'd ask that the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Okay, colleagues, let's move into agenda item two. Will the clerk please read agenda item to into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to gig workers in Seattle; establishing labor standards requirements for premium pay for gig workers working in Seattle; amending Sections 3.02.125 and 6.208.020 of the Seattle Municipal Code; declaring an emergency; and establishing an immediate effective date; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06152020_CB 119804 | Speaker 3: Agenda Item two Capital 119804 relating to the Seattle Police Department prohibiting the use of chokeholds by officers amending Section 12 8.04.200 of.
Speaker 0: And adding.
Speaker 3: A new Section 3.28. 145 to get on a code.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I will move to pass Council Bill 119804. Is there a second?
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilmember Swan As sponsor of the bill, you are recognized in order to address this item first.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Sorry, I was a little torn off because I thought there was a technical amendment that needed to be done before. Or maybe that's going to come after I speak.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So there's a that's a good, good flag. Why don't I just sort of give folks a preview here really quickly. So this is on the ordinance related to prohibiting use of chokeholds in the city. The chemical weapons bill is coming next. So this is just on the chokeholds. And there will be an amendment that will be moved by Councilmember Herbold that was published on the agenda is Amendment One. And then there will be a Second Amendment by Councilmember Herbold, which was published on the agenda as Amendment two. And then we will have a amended bill for consideration. That's just on agenda item two related to chokeholds. So I think the technical amendment that you're referring to, councilmembers a lot might be in the context of agenda item three.
Speaker 4: No. I was talking about the two amendments you mentioned, but yeah, I for a moment I forgot that it's going to come after.
Speaker 0: So why don't you go ahead? Absolutely. There's a lot going on this morning, so why don't you go ahead and address the underlying motion? First, I'm sorry. The underlying bill first. And then we will. And, you know, you'll probably, I imagine, want to have some substantive comments here. But but if if you want to just sort of introduce the bill initially just to give Council Member Herbold amendment some context, then we'll do the amendments. And of course, as customary, you as the primary sponsor will.
Speaker 2: Have the last word.
Speaker 0: On the bill as amended.
Speaker 4: Thank you. This bill bans chokehold in Seattle from Eric Garner to Emanuel alludes to George Floyd. We have all seen the devastating consequences of Joe Cole's use of chokehold by the police. As I mentioned last week and also this morning, similar restrictions have been put in place by other cities, most recently in Minneapolis, where George Floyd was murdered by the police using a chokehold. This legislation is absolutely the least that the Seattle City Council can do, and I hope that we can. That's it. And move on to the ban on crowd control weapons, also without loopholes and many of the other measures that we need to be put in to put in place in order to really even begin to have accountability on the police. I do want to reiterate a sobering word of caution. Passing this legislation is absolutely important, but it will not be enough by itself. Joe cause we are banned in New York City when Eric Garner was killed and that obviously was insufficient to save him. Legislation like this is critical because especially because it shows the power of a grassroots movement overcoming an entrenched establishment for so many decades. But it needs to be paired with more structural changes in society. And that is why. I will be my office will be pushing for the most of the other demands that we have from our movement. One most immediately is to release all protest arrestees and drop all charges against them to defund the police by 50% so that we can begin to fund restorative justice and really community organizing as opposed to policing funded , organized by workers who are unionized and paid a living wage, especially to respond to non-criminal emergency calls, as has been called for by the Police Accountability Organization for the Bay Area Bay Area. But we also need urgently need an independently elected community oversight board. So I hope you will support this and I will say a few words more towards the end. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. So what I'm going to go ahead and hand it over to Councilmember Herbold, who has a couple of amendments. But let's start with your amendment number one, please.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I moved to amend Council Bill 11 9804 as presented on Amendment one on the agenda.
Speaker 0: Is there a second?
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 1: Fuck it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill with Amendment one Councilmember Herbold as sponsor of the amendment. I will hand it over to you to address it.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So this amendment is responsive to concerns raised and shared with council members from the apartment. It addresses two separate issues in the Single Amendment. The first is to clarify that the private right of action applies to violations of the prohibition that occur after the ordinance takes effect. And the second requests that the notice of the the chokehold prohibition be given to the Department of Justice, the court and the Monitor in accordance with the consent decree. United States of America versus City of Seattle. This use of force is at the heart of the consent decree, and changes to city policies need to be submitted to the court. The city sent a draft version of the 2017 accountability legislation to the court in advance. And similarly, this amendment indicates that Council recognizes the role of the court.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold, for that description. Are there any comments on Amendment One? Okay. I'm not hearing any comments on Amendment One. And again, Councilmember Herbold, I appreciate you bringing forward this amendment. I would say that it sort of models the approach that we took with the 2017 Police Accountability Ordinance in which we legislated some of the policy issues. First, recognizing that those policy changes would be subject to review under the consent decree. And I think that your amendment in this base is consistent with what the Council has done in the past, sort of knowing that we're changing policies that fall under the purview of the consent decree and not abdicating the need to submit for review under the consent decree. So I appreciate your work on this amendment. So if there are no.
Speaker 1: Other questions or comments, we'll go ahead.
Speaker 0: And move along. P.S. Any hearing, ma'am, will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of Amendment One?
Speaker 2: Peterson All right.
Speaker 3: So what.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Strauss I.
Speaker 1: Grippal. I. Juarez.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 1: Lois. Hi. Morales. I must get to. I. President Gonzalez. Nine in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 0: Excellent. Thank you so much. The motion carries, the amendment is adopted and the bill, as amended, is now before the Council. I understand that we have another amendment, Amendment two, so I would hand it back over to Councilmember Herbal to walk us through amendment to.
Speaker 1: Amendment two, simply expresses the Council's intent to engage with labor relations in the implementation of the chokehold prohibition.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Any little city council? Did you actually make your motion?
Speaker 1: Ooh. Good call. I'm sorry. I moved to amend Council Bill 11 9804 as presented on Amendment two on the agenda.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Is there a second?
Speaker 2: Second?
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as described an amendment to amend Councilmember Herbold to give us a very specific description of what that was. Did you want to repeat that?
Speaker 1: Absolutely. So we have the context of the amendment itself before us, before I describe it. The amendment expresses the Council's intent to engage with our Labor Relations Department in the implementation of the choke, the chokehold ban or prohibition.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. So we are now going to hear comments on Amendment two. Are there any comments on Councilmember Herbold amendment to. Hearing and seeing none. I will ask that the clerk please call the role on the adoption of Amendment two. Peterson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: So what I.
Speaker 2: Strauss I.
Speaker 1: Herbold. I. Whereas.
Speaker 3: Only Lewis.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Morales.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 1: Macheda. I. President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The motion carries. The amendment is adopted, and we now have a further amended bill before the Council. Are there any further comments on the bill as amended? Okay. I'm not seeing anybody raise your hand, but I will. As promised, council members want the last word on this bill as the primary sponsor customers on.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I think it's really important that this bill is being passed. It's also important that the bill that's coming up on the chemical weapons be passed without loopholes. But as members of the public have said, and I completely agree with them, this is the absolute bare minimum that the legislative board, the highest legislative body of this city, should be doing, especially after we have seen such unbelievable violence being targeted at peaceful protesters, but also in the wake of the fact that eight black and brown community members have been murdered by the police, Seattle police, under Mayor Durkin's reign and not a single police officer has been prosecuted. So the larger context is extremely important for us to remember that while these bills are critical and they will indeed be historic, actually, because it is in some ways quite absurd that we are having to do this, that we have a city that does not have already a law that bans chokeholds and chemical weapons. But it is important that we are doing this today. But we have to go much, much farther. The police officers who have committed such horrific crimes need to be brought to justice, and they will not happen as long as the establishment is overseeing it. Because we saw what happened under Mayor Durkan and what we what has happened in the past years. And so the city and the people of this city needs an independently elected civilian oversight board with full powers of the police, including hiring, firing and subpoena powers and the ability to bring the police officers justice and high prosecution. But we also need to urgently defund the police by at least 50% and make sure that the the establishment doesn't just take on the vocabulary of the movement, but actually responds to it with real action. And most immediately, we need to make sure that all the protest arrestees are released without charges.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council members want for those final remarks. I'm going to go ahead and close out debate on this bill as amended. So I would ask that the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill as amended.
Speaker 2: Peterson I.
Speaker 1: Know what.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 3: Draw.
Speaker 1: I verbal. Whereas.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Lewis, i. Morales, I. Macheda i. President Gonzales. I. Nine in favor. None opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. I'd ask that the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation. Okay. Agenda item three. I would ask that the clerk please read item three into the record. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Police Department; prohibiting the use of chokeholds by officers; amending Section 12A.04.200 of, and adding a new Section 3.28.145 to, the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06082020_CB 119779 | Speaker 2: Actual Agenda Item two Council Bill 119779 Establishing a new university district parking business improvement area loving special assessment of owners of commercial multi-family, residential property and mixed use property within the value.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. I moved past council bill 119779. Is there a second? It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilman, what else? You're the primary sponsor of the bill, so I am going to recognize you in order to address this item.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I will be missed by way of background, colleagues, as I mentioned several weeks ago, we have the new district area before us. The Community Economic Development Committee met on May 20th for an initial briefing and discussion of the bill, which would establish a new bank. Proponents of the of the Nubia, as well as central staff in the Office of Economic Development, presented to the Committee to describe the background and intent of the proposal. The legislation as transmitted does include a couple of changes to the way the bill is structured. It would have two additional business tenants who have triple net leases. As Councilmember Peterson mentioned earlier.
Speaker 1: So tenants who pay.
Speaker 4: Taxes, insurance and maintenance. It would also add one residential representative and I know we got an email recently asking about that. So there is one residential representative on the new in the new structure. On May 27, the committee held the required public hearing to discuss proposed amendments. And then we had planned to vote on those amendments in committee this week, obviously, because we have shifted things for the budget discussions to begin. We are now considering the amendments today. So we've talked about this a little bit in briefing this morning. I will just give a quick summary of the of the amendments and then hand it back to the House president. Amendment one, as we know, is technical corrections and clarifications with the addition of holding that UTEP at its current number of five seats on the advisory board. It also shifts contracting responsibility, which is an administrative change from FASB to OED. They have agreed to this and that was adopted in the VA policies in 2016. Amendment two is the shortens the term of the bill itself from 12 years to ten and the interim program manager position from five years to one year. As I said earlier this morning, the rationale for shortening that program manager contract is that other groups need the opportunity to bid. But as I said before and to my mind, there's already a competitive bid process that anybody who is interested could engage in. And if this passes or we would have to bid out starting in a year. And in my mind, there isn't a clear rationale for shortening the term by two years. So I will leave it there and. Turning back to Europe Council president.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you so much. So we are I know there are the amendments as described. And so I want to make sure that we move through the process of those amendments. So this is what we're going to do. I appreciate because we're glad to see you addressing the underlying bill. I know, again, that Councilmember Pearson discussed this morning that he has a couple of amendments and so we're going to go through the process of that mandatory work. So I believe there are a total of. Let's see here, two amendments, both by Councilmember Peterson. So I'm going to go ahead and handed over to Councilmember Peterson to walk us through those amendments. And my request would be that we take them one at a time. So let's do Amendment one, and then we will have consideration and debate on Amendment One. And then we will consider amendment to Councilmember Peterson. The floor is yours.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President Gonzalez. And thanks again to Chair Morales, who accurately and fairly describes the underlying legislation. I really appreciate the collaboration with her throughout this process, and I appreciate the patient patience of my colleagues as we take a pause from the crises going around us here to to renew or reauthorize this business improvement area. There are ten throughout the city. This is one of them in the university district just to move the process along here, since we did discuss it at length this morning. I'd like to move to amend Council Bill 119779 by substituting version to be a version one F as presented on Amendment one on today's agenda.
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded, so the motion is properly before us. So Peterson Floor is yours to address Amendment one.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So this is full of technical corrections, for example, changing the the administrator from director of FEMA to the director of the Office of Economic Development. It does have the noncontroversial amendment in there about solidifying the existing membership of the University of Washington at five members. And so Yolanda Ho went through this yesterday or excuse me this morning and happy to answer any questions about that. This substitute will get the Second Amendment is where it gets more complex, but this is just the substitute with the technical corrections.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. I was chuckling at your reference to thinking that this morning was yesterday, which seems appropriate for this day and age in terms of how quickly time seems to fly beyond us. So, colleagues, any questions or comments on the proposed substitute? Councilmember Lewis, the floor is yours.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Madam President. I just want to really thank Councilmember Gonzales, City Councilmember Ralston, Casper Peterson for the work that they've done on this bill as a member of this committee. I'm really glad that we were able to work on this critical reauthorization without any hesitation. And I'll say that on the matter of adopting. To be or not to be a side on voting yes for substitute to be so thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you so much. Any other comments or questions on the substitute bill? Okay. Hearing none, I would ask that the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the substitute together. Macheda I. Peterson.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 0: So what?
Speaker 2: I. Strauss.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 0: Juarez.
Speaker 2: I verbal.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Lewis high Morales. I President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Nine in favor and opposed.
Speaker 0: The motion carries the substitute is adopted and version two B of the bill is before the City Council. I understand that there is another amendment. This is Amendment two, which is, I think, described as a little trickier. Councilmember Peterson And so we will now hear from Councilmember Peterson as he formally moves consideration of amendment to.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President I move to amend council bill 119779 as presented on amendment two on the agenda.
Speaker 0: Their second. Check it. Okay. It's been moved and seconded to consider Amendment two and consumer protection. I'll go ahead and hand it back over to you to address the proposed amendment.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And again, I want to echo the comments of Councilmember Morales in terms of what the status quo has been over the last five years with the business improvement area in the University District. The legislation that was developed did have stakeholder engagement. And so there are there are already very important improvements in what we're voting on today. So the bill and the substitute adds a prevention of economic displacement as part of the mission of the DIA. That is new and important considering the rapid changes that have been going on in the University District to prevent displacement as part of the CIA's mission. It also re institutes term limits. On the members of the Ratepayer Advisory Board and has a few other improvements as well to what the existing situation is. Now one of the changes though is that it moves from a five year vigor to a 12 year vigor, and the bayous across the city have different lengths . The 12 year bill did raise some by more than doubling, and it raised some concerns from some small business owners who wanted to not see it more than doubled. So there is no magic to go and my proposal to go from 12 to 10 years. It's just that we're doubling it. It's consistent with ten year term and some other bids in the city. And it's some of the small businesses that wanted to reauthorize that, only five years, seven years. So the ten year was I was doing that as a compromise. The other issue is how the program manager is selected to operate the clean and safety programs and economic development programs and prevention of displacement programs of the DIA. Currently, the Ratepayer Advisory Board looks at that every year and decides who that is. This would open up the process for a competitive process. It's a $1 million contract. The I think there is agreement in general that that competition can can bring a healthy outcome and gets more stakeholders and community driven organizations to get involved in potentially managing the the the request for proposal is a very thorough process that can become time consuming. So just in the last week, I changed this concept so that to start this in the first year, this competitive process is what this amendment is, is to speed it up to start sooner with only one year from now to change it from an RFP to an RFQ, a request for qualification. So that is. So I've amended my amendment. It's already in there before you as a request for qualifications in that first year so that the Office of Economic Development can do it in a more streamlined fashion. There were concerns raised during public comment that even that is not what's wanted by a lot of folks out there. So. But I believe that having this competitive process have it the giving the ability to community based organizations to compete for that program manager position is important. This amendment combines those two things going from a 12 year to ten year and also having an RFQ process in year one. Happy to answer questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Colleagues, are there any comments or questions on Amendment two? Okay. I'm not seeing or hearing anyone with any questions. So I'm council member, so please. Looks like you're still on mute, Councilmember. Silent.
Speaker 4: Okay. I want to say that I'm planning on voting yes on this amendment.
Speaker 2: Appreciate it.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold, we can hear your conversation in the background. Thank you. Go ahead, Councilperson.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I'm planning on voting yes on this amendment. You know, the thing is, the business improvement area is a very strange structure in Seattle. They are funded by property taxes, only paid by commercial property. And then the so-called democracy of the bay gives the commercial property owners a vote roughly proportional to the amount of property that they own. So the more you own, the more votes you get. So it is reasonable that small businesses who have no meaningful say in the operations of the Beehive would ask for changes and things like time limits. I'm not convinced. My office is not convinced that this amendment will make a substantive difference, but I will support the request by the smaller businesses in the Bay and vote yes on.
Speaker 0: Any other questions or comments because we're a mosquito. Thank you. House Member Peterson, I want to thank you for.
Speaker 2: Walking through with our staff.
Speaker 0: With my staff, the.
Speaker 2: Response to the questions that I sent.
Speaker 0: And Councilmember Morales. So I'm wondering if you had any additional thoughts about this amendment as well. At this point, I know that we've heard concerns from community members with initiating a review process one year after via authorization instead of five years, which is included in the base legislation. I fully support the supplemental efforts that have been put forward, but these concerns centered around the critical need to provide folks on the ground to support small businesses in trying to weather the impacts of COVID, especially women and minority owned businesses in the neighborhood. So in addition, there's a desire to immediately initiate a hiring process for the executive director, which would have to be put on hold for one year should this amendment pass via board. And ratepayers have agreed to a five year RFP included in the base legislation. But there are concerns about, in our view, just one year later, they are worried that this amendment will introduce uncertainty about who the operator will be at a time when continuity is important for relationships built.
Speaker 2: With small businesses.
Speaker 0: As they grapple with how to sustain from the impacts of COVID. And UDP has been operating with the interim for the last two years and waiting for reauthorization to search for a new executive director. One year authorization would not allow the UDP to attract a candidate and would introduce even more uncertainty. So in addition to shrinking the term for the VA from 12 years to ten years, which runs counter to the outcomes of the community engagement, where there's a majority of stakeholders have.
Speaker 2: Supported a 12 year.
Speaker 0: Process, I'm concerned about those issues and right now I'm leaning towards voting.
Speaker 2: No on.
Speaker 0: This amendment. I just wanted to hear if there was any.
Speaker 2: Feedback from that, those questions or concerns, and wanted to flag for you my concerns on that.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Peterson or Morales. Any response to that?
Speaker 1: Councilmember Morales is on mute.
Speaker 4: Yeah. So what I will say is that there are a couple of so these have been restructured a little bit. I don't necessarily ten years or 12 years to me is not significant.
Speaker 1: Enough.
Speaker 4: Difference, candidly. I think for me, the part that I struggle with an amendment to is really about shortening the term for the program manager, in part because if we are talking about increasing the responsibility at OED within a year when it is a, you know, fairly small department with a small budget and will be taxed even more during this budget crisis, the idea of of setting that precedent of them moving so quickly. When we have other videos that might also want to move in this direction. I am really worried about the capacity of the departments to carry this out and just the question about, you know, the existing program manager. I understand that, you know, other organizations might be interested in getting to take that role, take on that role and those responsibilities. But there is nothing preventing them from doing that now. And so creating this trust, this just doesn't it's just not I just don't see a clear rationale for creating this extra process right now.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Counselor Morales. Any other questions or comments on Amendment two? Councilmember Herbold, please. Thank you. So for many, many years, we've heard from businesses in the district about their concerns about the structure of the BIA. The perception that the University of Washington has an outsized role as compared to other businesses. So I really appreciate the fact that the bill addresses this. And given that there have been, you know, many years of concerns that I've heard from from businesses that don't feel well represented by the BIA. Normally, I would have been inclined to support amendment too. The problem is, and I acknowledge I may have missed some correspondence, but I've looked in my my. My emails. There are about 5000 in the inbox, but I have only found one email in support of this amendment. And so I'm. When I'm look. Working on legislation that is intended to sort of buck the status quo and address concerns that folks who don't feel represented have identified. I, I really need to hear from folks to just sort of confirm for myself that this is a problem that many people feel needs addressing. And so given the fact that there has only been one person that I can find that has written in support of Amendment two, I'm not inclined to vote in support of it. Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, any other comments or questions? Okay. Hearing on I would just say that I am of the same mind as Councilmember Herbold on this one. I have had an opportunity to dig through my inbox as well and have seen that an overwhelming number of people are expressing support for the virus as a whole and with really specific requests to not support Amendment two . And and in particular, we have a letter from and quite a number of nonprofit organizations in the district who have expressed concerns about this and renewing called in today specifically for purposes of supporting the VA, but expressing their collective concerns on this particular amendment. So at this point, I don't feel that I can support Amendment two. And I also take to heart the comments made by Councilmember Morales in terms of the additional burden this will place on OED in the context of a potentially restricted budget, that, you know, those resources are going to be a little bit more limited than usual for OED in terms of executing on the intent and purpose of the VA. I do appreciate the the sponsors interest in and trying to sort of right size this issue for smaller businesses. And but unfortunately for the reasons that I've just stated, I don't I don't think that I can support this amendment at this juncture. So with that being said, I'm happy to give you the last word, Councilmember Peterson, if you have anything else that you'd like to add before I call the roll.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President I just want to thank my colleagues for their comments and their valid points and certainly the situation with the interim executive director, the need to make that permanent. And COVID has created complications regarding this. But I, I, I really hope that the public can see that, you know, even if this amendment doesn't pass, there are improvements. We have better representation. We have better governance built in prevention of displacement. And I hope the public can see here is a city council that is collaborating, that is focused on the basics when we when we can do that during these crises. And I just want to thank my colleagues for their grace during this.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Peterson. Appreciate those words and reminders to the general public. Okay. So we're going to go out and close out debate on this particular amendment. So I'm going to ask that the clerk please call the role on the adoption of Amendment two. Must get to. Must get out. I sorry. No. Pietersen.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 0: So what.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 3: Strauss now.
Speaker 2: Suarez. No. Her Herbold.
Speaker 0: Mayor Lewis. Yes. Morale is so. President Gonzalez now. Three in favor, six opposed, the motion fails and the amendment is not adopted. Colleagues, are there any other further comments on the bill as amended? I'm sorry. This is a substitute bill. So it's not amended. Is there any further comments on the bill? Okay. Hearing none, I would ask that the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Let's get up. I. Petersen. I do want.
Speaker 2: Strauss.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Juarez. I verbal.
Speaker 0: I. Louis.
Speaker 2: Yes. Morales. Yes.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez I nine in favor. Opposed the bill passes and the chair will sign it and I'd ask that the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation. Okay, folks. Adoption of other resolutions. We're in the homestretch here. So I am going to ask that the clerk please read item three into the record. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE establishing a new University District Parking and Business Improvement Area (BIA); levying special assessments upon owners of commercial, multifamily residential property, and mixed-use property within the BIA; 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 BIA Advisory Board; providing for an implementation agreement with a Program Manager; providing for the continuity of services and the transfer of any remaining funds from the current U. District BIA account that was established in 2015 by Ordinance 124761; and ratifying and confirming certain acts related thereto. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06082020_Res 31947 | Speaker 2: Agenda Item three Resolution 31947 relating to committee structure, membership, meeting times and duties of the Standing Committees of the City Council for 2020 221. Allowing for suspension of Standing Committee meetings for consideration of a revised 2022 budget due to the COVID 19 emergency declared March three, 2020 and superseding Resolution 31922.
Speaker 0: Okay, colleagues, this is my resolution. So I will move to adopt resolution 31947. Is there a second? Second, it's been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution again. Colleagues, as I mentioned this morning during council briefing, this resolution is designed to support the summer budget session that will be undergoing over the next at least six weeks under the leadership of Chair Mesquita. The resolution is a standard resolution. It's similar to the one that we would normally adopt during the fall budget season, except we are adopting it in this context for the summer, since we know that there will be a longer and deeper dove into the rebalancing package that is going to be transmitted to us by the mayor's office later this week. And I continue to believe that it's important for us to make sure that we are focusing all of our resources, including attention from council central staff and from our respective offices and from each other, towards the efforts that will be before us. In terms of the work that Councilmember Mosquito outlined in council briefing this morning as it relates to this budget opportunity. So this resolution will suspend regular committee meetings. As I mentioned this morning, there will be an opportunity to have some exceptions to those rules, to the standard rule of no committee meetings. I would ask that you in those instances, if you have time sensitive legislation, I would ask that you reach out directly to my office to coordinate that work so that we can, again, make sure that we're fulfilling the intent of making sure that council central staff is able to focus on the many budget issues and questions that will be coming before us. So happy to answer any questions and take any comments. Councilmember Herbold Thank you. It would be helpful to get some guidance if not now later on on what bills you are okay with. Still moving directly to full council so that we can help. It'll help us make that decision whether or not we're going to ask for a special dispensation on on having a committee meeting or whether or not we should just continue the practice of moving the bill on to full council. Appreciate that. I think my staff is been working with council central staff on trying to pull together some of that language. So we'll make sure to circle back with you all so that you will have clear guidance on that or as clear as I can get it, to make sure that folks know what can be sensible counsel and when special dispensation is going to be needed for potential committee work. But I'm happy. I'm happy while we're on it. We're going to we're going to I hear the request and I'll make sure to circulate that hopefully before the end of the week. Thank you. You're welcome. Any other questions or comments? Councilmember Mosqueda and then. Thank you. Thank you. Council President. I just I wanted to take a minute to thank you again for your strong support for both the process that we outlined this morning, looking at the substitute budget and also looking into the Seattle Police Department's budget line items . And for the process that we'll go through, I really appreciate all of the words that you shared this morning and for all of your staff's engagement, as we.
Speaker 2: Think about.
Speaker 0: Lining up this process to to be, I think, a new and new structural change in how we address the budget going forward. So I just wanted to thank you for your words this morning and express my appreciation for your leadership. Thank you, customer Mosqueda. Appreciate the opportunity to work with you and your staff as well on making sure that we're putting forward a process that is going to be workable for for all of us. Really appreciate that customers want.
Speaker 4: Thank you. President Gonzalez, I just wanted to reiterate some of my points from this morning for members of the public who are watching. I announced midweek last week that I intend to bring forward legislation in support of the demand of the Justice for George Floyd movement to cut the police department budget by 50%, to defund police, and to instead fund grassroots programs for restorative justice. As I was mentioning earlier, this can be done, among other means, by ending the purchase of the so called crowd control weapons. But we will we will find other things to cut as well. And ending police violence against demonstrations. Additionally, the idea of an austerity budget, which corporate Mayor Durkan is bringing forward, that is cutting the funds of the city departments that support our communities is totally unacceptable. The COVID 19 crisis has created an economic crisis that is leaving over 100,000 Seattleites and tens of millions nationwide unemployed or with reduced hours. We cannot have elected officials saying that Black Lives Matter and then turn around and represent big business and the wealthy in passing an austerity budget or in opposing a legislation like the Amazon Tax, which my office has brought forward along with global memorials and with our movement. Austerity is not acceptable. The Amazon tax is a modest tax on big business to expand publicly owned rent, controlled social housing, to begin to strike a blow against racist gentrification that working class communities of color have faced for decades. It will also create decent jobs with priority hire and free apprenticeship programs. This is one way, a concrete way in which the City Council can put dollars to our words on the fact that Black Lives Matter. Throughout history, the greater the inequality in our society, the more militarized its policing needs to be for the ruling class to perpetuate and defend those inequities. Sociologically speaking, we can predict that in the coming years, Seattle or any other city will either make massive new public investments in jobs program, social housing and other policies that regular people need. Or we will see more and more violent policing. I also wanted to remind members of the public that my Socialist Council office, alongside our People's Budget campaign, has for years proposed defunding the police to fund housing, dining, house villages and restorative justice, and proposed to end the inhumane and ineffective sweeps of homeless neighbors for years. And Council after council, including current council members, voted against defunding the police and against stopping the homeless sweeps on a majority people of Color Council. I was unfortunately the only no vote on a Seattle Police Officers Guild contract and rolled back hard won accountability measures. What we are seeing now is how when there are movements and actually an uprising on the streets, the same politicians will simply feel the pressure to do the right thing. But our movements cannot relent. We will not win defund police to cut the police budget by half. If we do not build an even more powerful movement, that is why I urge community members to join me at Cal Anderson Park at 6 p.m. But our movement will discuss our strategy to win defund police, to win the Amazon tags, and to actually have police accountability and end racist gentrification. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Swann, for those remarks. Any other comments or questions on the resolution? Okay. Seen none. I would ask that the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the resolution. Let's get a.
Speaker 2: I Peterson.
Speaker 0: I so what i strauss. I Juarez.
Speaker 2: I replied.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: LEWIS Hi.
Speaker 4: Morales I'm.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez. I nine in favor and unopposed. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. And I sit. The clerk please affix my signature to the legislation. Okay, folks, we have a new item for. So I would ask that the clerk please read. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION relating to committee structure, membership, meeting times, and duties of the standing committees of the Seattle City Council for 2020 and 2021; allowing for suspension of standing committee meetings for consideration of a Revised 2020 Budget due to the COVID-19 Emergency declared March 3, 2020; and superseding Resolution 31922. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06012020_CB 119793 | Speaker 0: Will the clerk please read agenda item to interview the record?
Speaker 1: Agenda Item two Constable 119 783 relate to gig workers in Seattle establishing labor standards requirements with paid sick and paid space time for gig workers working in Seattle and amending Section 3.02. 120 56.208.020. I was going to propose.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Madam Clerk. I will move to pass Council Bill 119793. Is there a second? Okay. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilman Ross gave a you are the sponsor of the bill, so you are recognized in order to address this item. Thank you, Madam President. I would like to move to amend Council Bill 119793 by substituting version five A preferred version three B. It's been moved. Is there a second pocket? It's been moved and seconded to substitute the bill. Councilor Mosqueda, I will hand it back over to you so that you can address the to. Thank you so much, Madam President, and thanks to my council colleagues for all of your engagement on this issue. As you know, paid sick and safe leave is something that the city of Seattle has been proud to have implemented in 2012 and paid sick and safely, as we know and as you talked about during the initial passage, is not just about the workers it protects, though that's critical. It's also about protecting the community at large. When workers go to work sick, they interact with other people. They take longer to recover. They have the potential to infect their coworkers and members of the public. And when workers don't have the ability to take time off for safely due to domestic violence, they are unable to get the support and resources they need to be safe. It's in light of the importance of paid, sick and safely for both the workers and the community at large that we want to make sure this vital labor standards protection was extended to gig workers, especially in light of the critical work they're doing right now to serve our community. These are our friends, is our neighbors, these are our family members. And they deserve the same protections that every other worker needs under paid, sick and safely in recognition of the broad and long lasting health and safety and economic stability benefits that paid sick and safe leave. Have we wanted to make sure that we built on the good work that you all passed in 2012 for the council members who were here then, and also to make sure that we extended the protections that we all passed as a state when we voted to implement Initiative 1433 that I had the pleasure of, part partially leading in 2016, we're proud of these protections. We're proud that they have been a leading example for other states and cities across the country. But we also recognize that these protections largely only apply to traditional W-2 employees. And that's why it's problematic to leave gig workers out, especially at a time when we've seen gig work for medically increase in the past decade, where roughly around one sixth of workers across the country are doing gig work. As our council has said a number of times, this is not just about the gig economy, quote unquote. This is just about the economy at this point. Workers are being left out who are essential components of our economy, and they don't have paid sick and safely. Especially now during the coronavirus, given the amount of work that is happening right now from workers who are delivering food, who are delivering groceries, who are driving people to essential appointments across our city, we need to make sure that their needs are met. And keeping them safe. Allowing them to be protected from getting sick. And also making sure that if they get sick or they need a safe day, they have the protection they need for their day to day protection so they can get paid. This is about interacting with members of our public. Many of these workers have countless contacts with individuals throughout our community. As you heard from the folks who testified today that go right up to the doors of our neighbors, right up to the doors of our house to deliver groceries, to deliver food, and to provide folks with the essential services that they need. It is critical that they have protections if they are sick or need to take a day off to take care of their family members. Many platforms that we have worked with over the last two months, two plus months. At this point, we're on to ten weeks of engagement with stakeholders. Many platforms have stated that they are providing sick leave for their workers. But we've heard from many workers that they don't have access to adequately or it's hard to access the policies that have been offered. We've been working to make sure that this legislation is in the right form to protect the workers and make sure that it's implementable and make sure that the actions are receivable from the workers so that when we pass the law, the workers can actually get to take advantage of sick and safely when they need it. We've been in coordination with a number of partners to get this right, and many of those partners include you on City Council for all of your feedback over the last two weeks. Thanks so much to a few folks and then I'll stop and save a few. Thank you for the end council president. But I want to say thank you to the labor unions and worker advocates, including working Washington Teamsters 117, MLK Labor U.S. 21 for helping us develop this legislation. Thank you to the platforms we have briefed and sometimes heard feedback and incorporated that feedback from entities like Postmates, DoorDash, Uber, Eats, Uber , Lyft, Uber, Lyft, Instacart and the Seattle Rideshare Association and drive forward. Thank you to our friends at the National Employment Law Project, the Center for Popular Democracy and the Center for Law and Social Policy at the national level for helping us learn from policies across the country and here locally. You saw an email from Jasmine Mera Kareem I'm sorry, Jasmine Riot at the Office of Labor Standards, who provided us with some feedback earlier today. And over the last few weeks they have been very engaged with us. Also, folks like Kareem Libertas and Jenny Jen from the Office of Labor Standards, Kylie Roth and Anthony Mariama from the Mayor's office. They have been tremendous to work with and we're happy that this legislation is passing. Hopefully with your support today. Madam Chair, I'll save my thank you's for hiring a bull from Central South and Central Creek after comments because I think they deserve a few more minutes. But with that, I just want to say thanks again to all of you for your feedback. This legislation is stronger because of your input and I think we have a lot to be proud of here. Even though we recognize this is the first of many policies that these workers need to be protected. Thank you, Councilmember Mosqueda, for those remarks. Colleagues, this morning at council briefing, of course, we discussed the we had Karina bull join us for a substantive conversation and briefing an update on what was included in the substitute bill. So I think we're all familiar with that. So at this point, we are voting first on the the substitution and then we're going to vote. We're going to have a second motion where we will vote on the on the bill as substituted. So. So I would if you have substantive comments now on the the substituted bill on sort of the underlying policy, I'd ask for you to save those until the second motion so that we can go ahead and get the substitution in front of us to allow for that conversation to move forward. So are there any comments for the sponsor or questions for the sponsor on what's included in the substitute bill before we vote on putting the substitute before us? Okay. Hearing and seeing none are there. I will ask the clerk to please call the role on the adoption of the substitute.
Speaker 1: Morales.
Speaker 2: Council President Gonzalez?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: I think I froze up. Are we are we voting? My apologies.
Speaker 0: We are. It's okay. Totally fine. This is the nature of technology in these remote settings. So what we are voting on now is not the substantive bill we are voting on putting forward in front of us the substitute version of the bill. We will then entertain a motion to adopt this substitute version and then hear comments again. Does that answer your question, Councilman Morales? You may have lost Councilmember Morales. Okay. Madam Clerk, I'm going to ask you to call the roll on the on the bill, and we might have to circle back to Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 1: Council member Macheda.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Council members want. Council members of the one. I. Council member Strauss.
Speaker 3: II.
Speaker 1: Council member Suarez. I. Councilmember Herbold, I. Councilmember Lewis, I. Councilmember Morales. I. I. I council President Gonzalez. I. Nine in favor, nine opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. So the motion carries and the substitute is adopted and version five eight of the bill is now before the City Council. Are there any further comments on the bill as amended? Colleagues. I'm scanning. Okay. So council members, the want has raised her hand. Anyone else have any comments? So I can put you in the queue because we're losing. Okay, great. So we will hear from her. So what then? Councilmember Lewis. Then Councilmember Peterson. Councilmember Swan, please.
Speaker 2: To Brisbane. I will of course be voting yes on this legislation to extend Seattle's paid seven sick day protections to gig workers. Gig workers deliver groceries. Drive for Uber and Lyft. And do many, many other jobs essential to our society. These are jobs like any other, except they are marked with the legal fiction that they are one person, small businesses instead of employees of a corporation. The result of this legal fiction is that workers are suddenly no longer protected by labor laws, and the bosses do not have to pay the employer's share of Social Security taxes. And the workers are denied their rights to organize into a union to collectively bargain for a fair contract with their boss. This is totally unjust, and it's a clear example of how, under capitalism, the working class must continually organize and struggle to avoid falling farther and farther behind. We should remember that 100 years ago, over a hundred years ago, no workers could legally form unions in this country, but courageously they did anyway, often having to defend their picket lines against physical attack and threat to their very lives. In the 1920s, the US military was even deployed to bomb the picket lines of striking miners. Today's courageous and historic struggles. Workers won the decent contract that formed the so-called middle class that lasted for about two generations, which of course, is not accessible for most millennials now. But those labor, those protections were won through those labor struggles. The right to organize was won through a struggle. Since then, over decades, big business has been attempting to claw back every gain that workers fought for and won. Wealth inequality. Inequality has ballooned, as we know, and an estimated one out of every five workers in the US is now classified as an independent contractor, also known as gig workers. So in other words, this is a problem that is that is something that all working people should be fighting against. Ultimately, gig workers will need to unionize with or without the legal permission to do so, because we only have the power in the workplace when we get organized to fight for it. In the meantime, however, I am happy to support this legislation to extend basic, safe and secure home rights to gig workers in Seattle. This is extremely important. Only I would raise the caution around enforcement that I had spoken to when we had had this discussion in council meeting, leaving when we first discussed it. Seattle Office of Labor Standards is empowered to enforce these workers rights, but because so many big businesses engage in wage theft, the Office of Labor Standards has a serious backlog. They do excellent work, but they don't have enough resources. If your boss steals from you, it takes many months even to get the money you are owed. And we have seen how ruthless giant corporations like Uber can be. This can be disregarding workers rights, workers rights. The Office of Labor Standards is currently understaffed. The Mayor has instituted a hiring freeze, claiming that there is not the budget to adequately staff the department because of the COVID related budget shortfalls. These shortfalls are not automatic. They are not an act of God. If Mayor Durkan and the City Council were willing to tax big business and raise progressive revenues, we could have the resources to stop austerity to fund departments like the Office of Labor Standards to the extent that they needed to be fund in order to fully function in protecting workers rights. And in addition, creating more public sector jobs, building social housing and the Green New Deal as a background on movement is demanding as many and as many people in public comment indicated today. Gig workers deserve to be protected with space, safe and sick. Time rights, that means. It's important to support this legislation today, but we also need to push back and refuse to accept austerity that is coming down the pike. And we should adequately staff departments like the Office of Labor Standards and expand progressive revenues. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sawant. Next up is Councilmember Lewis, and then we will hear from Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. It goes without saying, and I'll say it at the top that I will be voting for this legislation. I just wanted to briefly do a shout out to Dan Beacon for his reporting.
Speaker 0: On the report. I can't remember her saying.
Speaker 3: Why can't it be it?
Speaker 0: I mean it. I love that I should never underestimate their ability.
Speaker 1: To go on.
Speaker 0: As a member. Councilmember Herbert Okay. Got it. We got we got we now have here all conversation. Councilman Lewis.
Speaker 1: You're down here.
Speaker 3: Let me let me let me regain my composure a little bit here. So as I was saying, I want to do a shout shout out to Dan Beekman for his reporting this weekend, which I made some points that I just wanted to highlight and that I think are really prescient. He interviewed a driver named Daisy Taurus who, before driving for one of these gig based platforms, had worked in a hotel and had been an employee and as such, was entitled to paid sick and safely. He interviewed a gentleman named Zach Albacete, who was driving for an app who, prior to COVID, worked at a car dealership and in that position would have been entitled to paid sick and safely. I bring that up because I think it is is a horrible harbinger of things to come in our economy, post-COVID, that the openings and opportunities that are thriving for people who have fallen off in the economy that existed pre-COVID, who were already in positions where earnings and benefits were not keeping pace with the rising cost of living, are now sustaining themselves economically by working for these apps and do not have these benefits. That all of us have taken for granted in the normal economy over the last decade, as folks have fought for and successfully won, including many of the folks on this council , higher wage borders, a sick and safely, in some cases, nationally mandated vacation time. And it's just critical that legislation like this I'm so grateful for your leadership on this council that is being put forward, because this is a massive gap in this economy. And every time we have one of these downturns, as we did in the oh nine, 2010, 2011 downturn, there has got to be very conscious work on the part of leaders at all levels of government to work really hard, to try to make sure that inequities that I'm enduring, a desperate time in the economy taking a hit don't get entrenched, solidified and become a new normal that shapes what the economy on the other side of the recovery looks like. And, you know, I I've heard stories. I cannot speak to them personally. And if there used to be paid internships, for example, in the workforce or I've heard about, you know, mandatory overtime or a defined benefit pensions that existed during the period of middle class growth that council members alluded to. We need to really make sure that paid sick and safely through this legislation, but also more broadly is a fundamental part of our economy. When we come out on the other side of COVID and that it is during COVID as well. So thank you. Councilman Mosca and I will be voting for this. And I really appreciate your leadership.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Lewis. Next up, we'll hear from council member Peterson. And if any of my other colleagues wish to make comments, please, please do let let me know. Councilmember Peterson, the floor is yours.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I wanted to thank Councilmember Mosqueda for her generously giving us more time to review this legislation. That was very helpful. I know that your city council staff and our central staff have worked really hard on this. I also appreciate your working with the executive on just the how to practically implement the legislation and also for reaching out to those in the private sector who would be impacted by the legislation. Also, I wanted to shout out to work in Washington for their advocacy for this legislation. So I will be voting for the legislation. And just wanted to thank Councilor Muscat. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thanks so much, Councilman Peterson. Colleagues, any other comments on the bill? Okay. I'm not. Oh, you will get the last word. Any other. Any other of my colleagues want to give any comments on the bill before we hand it over to councilman to close this out?
Speaker 3: Councilmember Strauss saying thanks to everyone for working on very important legislation. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. I also want to thank Casmir mosqueda for her work on this. I know she's been working on it for quite some time, obviously, and such such common sense legislation that during a period of time when there is a high level of, you know, high level of risk to exposure to a highly infectious disease that we will provide this coverage to the sector of workers is just is just common sense, not just for the health and safety of the workers, but also for the people that they interact with as sort of a Connector of Services. I really want to appreciate Councilor Moschino's efforts on this. I absolutely agree that there's a lot more work that we need to do in this space and look forward to an opportunity to finally be able to engage in that in that body of work in the coming in the coming months. So with that being said, we're going to go ahead and move forward here. And there appear to be no more comments or debate on this. So I'm going to go ahead and ask Councilor Mosquito to close us out and then we'll be able to call the roll on the bill. Thank you so much, council president and thanks to all of our Council colleagues for your comments on the paid sick and safe leave ordinance for gig workers. As the council president said, it is common sense. And even though it makes sense to give workers sick days during a global pandemic, you can imagine there was a lot of complex policy conversations that went into making sure that this policy was going to be actionable and that people would receive these benefits. And the two people that I want to thank again are Carina Bole from central staff and a chief of staff in my office. Those are the folks that I'm going to be passing along this thank you to. And I know they're probably watching with great anticipation as this labor of love over the last ten weeks looks to be about to make it over the finish line. A huge thank you to Carnival for the hundreds of hours that she has put into this piece of legislation, her energy and her knowledge and her willingness to think of creative solutions and for doing it all with incredible patience and grace. As you saw this morning, as she presented to our council colleagues and Senator Cory for her endless hours, hundreds of calls with various stakeholders, multiple meetings throughout both days and nights and weekends to make sure that voices were heard, ideas were incorporated, and that the important nuances were worked out. This is a really critical policy, and I think it will have lasting impacts for both the workers and the protection of all of our health in the upcoming months and years until we can get both a vaccine for COVID, but also more importantly for the broader protections that every gig worker needs to have as they are truly essential workers with or without a pandemic, and wanting to look to continue to strengthen the protections for those workers as well. I do want to thank, as you've heard over the last three or four weeks, folks have been writing in, calling the folks who you heard testify today, people in the Beckman article and others. These are the workers who themselves have had to not only figure out how to sustain themselves in this crisis, but really have put in a ton of work to crafting this policy with us. So thank you to the workers impacted by this legislation who've been at the table to help craft this basic set of protections to provide a floor so that every worker can have access to sick leave. This is an incredible win for those workers and for the city as a whole. The permit, the public comment from today's workers and over the last few weeks have really spoken for themselves. You all have heard these stories that I want to lift up. Just a few comments that we heard from today. And then last week, what you heard from Jason today was a sentence that really resonated that I think we should just spend another second or two to reflect on. He said, Don't call me essential and then not pay me like I'm essential. Don't call me a hero. Treat me like I'm human. He was followed by Mr. Thomas, who talked about how critical it is for us to make sure that folks actually have the safe leave, that they need, the sick leave, that they need to make sure that they haven't been left behind. And as he goes to the door, he sees people put their wallets away because of inherent bias, racism that continues to perpetuate in our community. It should go stated explicitly that the vast majority of workers that we're talking about protecting today are black and brown workers. And the vast number of people that have been left out of state and federal policy in terms of labor protections are black and brown workers. And that was true when we passed the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights last year. Thanks again to the council members who supported that legislation. And that, you know, we've made tremendous strides across the nation and passing that it's because they were explicitly left out of the federal protections at the at the national level, and we took the action to protect them. And today, yet again, we're standing up, especially for those who've been intentionally left out of labor protections in the past to. Make sure that our vulnerable workers, workers who are now calling essential, have these explicit protections as a critical component of our economy and making sure that they have the safety that they need during the time of the pandemic. And in recognizing that these are mostly black and brown workers. And then lastly, I want to leave you with the comments that I shared from Carmen, who is a GrubHub driver. She says now that people are hungry and hiding in their homes from the virus, I am suddenly essential and risking exposure to highly contagious, possibly deadly viruses to fetch people's dinner. That's why we need sick leave. I was sick with extreme flu like symptoms throughout March, although extremely weak, constantly coughing and having trouble talking in a full or taking a full breath. I kept working as a delivery driver because it was my only source of income. At times I was too weak to work or finished my shift. I lost my opportunity to earn income. Gig work was my only income, so I am now behind on all my monthly bills. I work as much as possible, but there are days where I only make enough for the next day to put gas in the car and grab a few groceries. I do not live paycheck to paycheck. I live day to day. I live order to order. I do not know how I will financially recover. I'm still experiencing waves of COVID 19 symptoms. At times I am not able to work with sickly. I will now make sure that I will never be in that situation. With sick leave. I would have not had to work when I was very sick and possibly spread the virus with sick leave. I would have stayed home with sick leave. I may have recovered faster. So thank you, council colleagues, for all of your work to support this legislation. And it's a great day. Thanks for all the workers and their time and for all of the stakeholders who provided input on this piece of legislation. Thank you so much, Councilmember Mosqueda. So that closes out our debate on this particular council bill. So I'm going to ask that the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill as amended.
Speaker 1: Morales, I. Mascara.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Peterson.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: So what.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Juarez, I. Purple. Lewis.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez hi nine in favor and then oppose.
Speaker 0: The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it and I'd ask that the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation. And congratulations, Counselor Muscat, on the passage of that bill, and especially congratulations to all of the all of the workers who will be covered by this new protection. It's really, really is a good day for them. Okay, folks, we have other business. I understand that Councilmember Morales does have an item in other business, so I will go ahead and hand it over to her for her remarks and have her walk us through her request. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to gig workers in Seattle; establishing labor standards requirements for paid sick and paid safe time for gig workers working in Seattle; and amending Sections 3.02.125 and 6.208.020 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05262020_CB 119795 | Speaker 1: Agenda Item three Capital 119795 Relations for the employment authorized execution of a memorandum of Understanding for Flexibility to start a civil emergency declared on March three, 2020, providing certain benefits that conditions for employees using relief pursuant to the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. I will move to pass Council Bill 119795. Is there a second?
Speaker 3: Second.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill again as sponsor of the bill. I'll address it first and then open it up for any comments. Council Bill 119795 authorizes the execution of a memorandum of understanding between the City and the Coalition regarding flexibility and other supports for the city workforce during the COVID 19 public health crisis . The Memorandum of Understanding would be effective from March 3rd, 2020 through September 1st, 2020, or until the Mayor's Proclamation of civil emergency ends, whichever date is earlier. This memorandum applies only to employees represented by the Coalition. However, the city will use the same approach as presented in the AMA in the Memorandum of Understanding for non represented employees . Key provisions of this Memorandum of Understanding includes the following terms telecommuting and alternative work schedules. New paid leave provisions dictated by the Federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act, revisions to employees, vacation accrual caps and the maintenance of medical benefits of employees on unpaid leave. There are additional details related to the key components of the Memorandum of Understanding in the in the memo that was distributed distributed by Carina Ball last weekend. For those who would like to learn more granular detail about this memorandum of understanding, those details are available to you. Executive estimates that any additional costs incurred due to this legislation would be de minimis and would be paid for by existing appropriations. So no additional appropriations are anticipated as a result of this particular legislation. So again, colleagues, this was a memorandum of understanding that was found to be mutually agreeable among representatives of our city coalition of city unions, as well as the management side, which is the city of Seattle, including the Legislative Department. And we certainly appreciate the ongoing cooperation of our labor partners represented by the coalition of city unions in this period of time. That really requires so many of our essential workers to be responsive and available and flexible to respond to this COVID 19 public health crisis. So I think that this memorandum of understanding is one that we should all support, and it's certainly reflective of the tremendous amount of commitment that our represented staff and all of our staff have towards continuing to serve the public in this moment of crisis and really want to take an opportunity similar to what Councilmember Verbal did this morning, to really thank all of our City of Seattle employees who are essential to ongoing delivery of services to the people of Seattle, and for their agreement to this memorandum of understanding, which will allow us as a city to continue to deliver these critical services, while also making sure that we're taking care of the health and safety of our own employees. So and I would I would encourage all of you colleagues to join me in supporting the passage of this council bill. Are there any comments or questions for my colleagues? All right. Hearing and seeing none. Will the clerk please call the role in the passage of.
Speaker 1: Lewis, I. Morales, I. Let's get to AI Peterson.
Speaker 3: I. Strauss I.
Speaker 1: Suppose.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: President in.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Seven in favor, none oppose.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And I ask the clerk, please fix my signature to the legislation. Okay, folks, we are at other business. Portion of our agenda. Is there any other further business to come before the council? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment; authorizing the execution of a Memorandum of Understanding for flexibility to respond to the civil emergency declared on March 3, 2020; providing certain benefits and conditions for employees using leave pursuant to the Families First Coronavirus Response Act; temporarily suspending vacation accrual maximums of Seattle Municipal Code 4.34.020; providing for maintenance of medical benefits for unpaid leave; temporarily suspending scheduling change notices to employees required by Seattle Municipal Code 4.20.365; declaring an emergency; and establishing an immediate effective date; all by a 3/4 vote of the Seattle City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05182020_Res 31946 | Speaker 1: Agenda item for Resolution 319 46 relating to the response to the COVID 19 public health emergency, requesting that Governor Inslee create a Washington worker relief fund to provide economic assistance to undocumented Washingtonians during the.
Speaker 0: COVID 19 pandemic. Am I moved to adopt resolution 31946? Second, it's been moved and seconded to adopt Resolution 31946 and colleagues as the lead sponsor of this legislation. I'll just make some quick Internet, hopefully some quick remarks about this particular bill. So COVID 19 relief granted by the federal government has not been accessible for many in the immigrant community. As we have often heard, unemployment insurance as currently run by our state also requires a Social Security number, which means many are left without the benefits they have paid into. We are hearing many households from many households who have been left without income or any resources for months now. Immigrant workers were among the first wave to be laid off when this pandemic hit. Immigrant leaders and communities from across the state have been organizing and are calling for quick action by state leadership. There are two calls to action. First, on this list, calls on Governor Inslee to create a Washington worker relief fund. Leaders are calling for $100 million to be allocated to community based organizations to deliver emergency assistance to undocumented Washingtonians. Second, our immigrant community is asking for Governor Inslee to work with the four corners of our state legislature to address the systemic failure of unemployment, to provide wage replacement for undocumented workers who again pay taxes and pay into a system they cannot benefit from when they need it most. These are important state interventions that will help many households not fall into abject poverty or have to make decisions that exponentially increase their exposure to infection of the coronavirus. We are seeing massive racial disparities of how this virus is impacting different communities. It is heartbreaking to read in the Seattle Times disproportionality of population to coronavirus infection and COVID 19 mortality rates. Earlier this month, the Seattle Times reported that Washington State's Black Latinxs and Pacific Islander Native Hawaiian communities have been hit at significantly higher rates in King County. Lennox Communities are seeing infection hospitalization rates at four times the rate of white people for COVID 19, even though they are only 10% of King County's population. The trend is bearing out as well in Illinois, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, the Bay Area, as well as New York City, where it is black and Latinx communities who have been hit the hardest. Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander communities have also been severely impacted. They are also seeing infection rates at four times that of white populations in King County. These infection rates are impacting the same communities and zip codes that have many barriers to economic opportunity and stability. This resolution today is one way to stand with immigrant communities. This call to action by community for a statewide Washington worker relief fund must be part of our state's COVID 19 response and recovery. Earlier this month, I transmitted a letter to Governor Inslee asking for consideration of this fund. In addition to a number of other strategies to meet the needs of our immigrant friends, family and neighbors, including those that are undocumented. There is perhaps no more important time colleagues than now to really step up on behalf of immigrants and refugees, but in particular of those who are undocumented. These folks have been deemed pretty much by every single declaration and proclamation as being essential workers, yet they don't seem to be essential enough to access basic benefits when needed. And and now is the time for us to make sure that we are giving voice to these needs. Voice to many individuals who cannot use their own voice for fear of retaliation as a result of their undocumented status. So I hope that you all will support me today. I know that you will and that you have in the past. And I want to give a special thank you to One America, the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Washington Immigrant Solidarity Network, the Latino Community Fund, and Ramos and so many others who are leading this work and have always led on this work by centering the voices of those who are undocumented in the struggle for ongoing relief for this community. So with that being said, I am happy to advance this resolution and look forward to your support on it as well and will end my comments there and see if anyone else has any comments on the resolution before we collect Councilman Mosquito. Thank you, Council President. Thank you for your leadership on this. We're pleased to partner with you to advance this. Really want to underscore the importance of how the crisis is disproportionately impacting communities of color, especially the refugee and immigrant community. We know the consequences of the immigrant refugee community and people of color being left out historically from a national policy and state policy. And often that's where the city of Seattle has stepped in to provide immediate relief. Given the crisis and the magnitude of the COVID public health crisis and the economic consequences it's created for immigrants and refugees. I think that this is a critically important fund that's been. Requested, and we join with you and the community in demanding that there be solutions for the population. And that's yet again been left out from these federal assistance dollars. You heard the public comment today largely focused on both the relief fund and the need for sick and safely, especially for populations that may be working in sort of the gray economy or the gig economy, which is no longer a segment of the economy. It's just the economy as we think about relief that needs to be provided. I think the same is true for the emergency fund. These are workers that are in every sector of our economy who've been historically left out and have yet again been left out of these essential funds as we not just respond, but try to survive the initial impact of the crisis. So I think I think the community for the work that they have done and really appreciate the work that you've done to bring forward this resolution to council to show that we are a welcoming state, we are a welcoming city. We advocate to fill the gaps that have been created from the state and the federal level and and really appreciate the community's courageous efforts to call attention to the need for this fund and all of their public testimony today. Thank you so much. Any other comments from my colleagues? Okay. Seeing and hearing. And then we will go ahead and vote on the resolution. So actually, I have an amendment first. So I will move to amend resolution 31946 as presented on Amendment one that was recently distributed.
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 0: Hey, it's been moved in, seconded to amend the resolution. Colleagues, Amendment one is very simple. It just adds the words state legislature to make sure that we acknowledge that, that this should be a collaborative effort among our state legislature and the governor in establishing a worker relief fund. So very simple resolution and excuse me, very simple amendment that I see is highly technical in a lot of in a lot of ways. So I'm happy to answer any questions on that particular moment, but it's pretty straightforward. So are there any comments on Amendment One? He's seen in here. And then I'd ask that the clerk call the roll on Amendment one.
Speaker 1: Herbold.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: I. Suarez. All right. Lewis, I. Morale is high. Macheda.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Peterson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: So what I. Strauss.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez, I. Nine in favoring unopposed.
Speaker 0: The motion carries and the amendment is adopted. Are there any further comments on the resolution as amended? Hearing on it. That's what the police call the role on the adoption of the resolution as amended.
Speaker 1: Herbal Juarez. I.
Speaker 2: Louis.
Speaker 1: I. Morales, I.
Speaker 0: Macheda I.
Speaker 1: Peterson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: So what I. Strauss.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: President Gonzales I nine in favor none opposed.
Speaker 0: The resolution is adopted as amended, and the chair will sign it and it ends with the clerk. Please affix my signature to the legislation. Thank you, everyone, for your support of that resolution. It will mean a lot to the immigrant refugee population who are so desperately seeking assistance in this space. I just want to thank you all for your unanimous support in that regard. Their business there is, I believe, two letters for consideration for signature this afternoon. The first one is from Councilmember Juarez, who described her letter regarding the South Dakota restrictions on tribal lands. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION related to the response to the Covid-19 public health emergency; requesting that Governor Inslee create a "Washington Worker Relief Fund" to provide economic assistance to undocumented Washingtonians during the Covid-19 pandemic. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05112020_CB 119787 | Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it and I'll ask that the quick fix my signature to the legislation committee reports will the first please read under item one the short title into the record. Agenda Item one Council Vote 119 787 relating to the use of eviction records, regulating the use of eviction history in residential housing , prohibiting landlords from considering evictions related to COVID 19 during and after the civil emergency. Thank you, Madam Corporate Council members. If you are not speaking and you're on the call, please double check to make sure that you are muted so that we don't hear ambient noise in the background. So I'm going to go ahead and move to pass Council Bill 119787. Is there a second second bucket? It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilmember Morales, you're the sponsor of this bill, and I'm going to go ahead and hand it over to you for for remarks.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Good afternoon, colleagues. We've all been talking for weeks and weeks now about the crisis that is COVID 19. And we know that hundreds of thousands of Washingtonians have filed for unemployment. A growing number can't afford the basics like food or rent. And many tens of thousands of them are right here in Seattle. And we know that the specter of this crisis, one that none of us could have predicted, shouldn't haunt people for the rest of their lives. And so this legislation would do two things to make sure that that doesn't happen. The first is that it bars landlords from denying housing to tenants who faced an eviction during the mayor's emergency and for six months following that. I do want to be clear that this excludes evictions that would result from the threat to the health or safety of neighbors, the landlord or tenant or landlords, household members. So we've had several people call in expressing concern about that and want to make sure that that is those kinds of evictions are excluded. The second thing is that it provides cause for order of limited dissemination, which would hide an eviction from a tenants. Screening from tenant screening companies. And that's something that we know is important to keep people from losing housing options, especially due to the economic shock of the mass unemployment that we have. We know that when the moratoriums and people will still be out of work, this isn't going to get better overnight. And so what we're really trying to do here is just make sure that we are protecting people long term until people are able to get back on their feet. And we know that, you know, these evictions and unlawful detainers can follow people around. It might be cleared from your from your credit report for seven years, but all a screening company has to do is look that up in the Superior Court website and can still be found. So this is really an attempt to make sure that we are protecting folks who are in financial crisis during this episode and make sure that they have that protection long term. I'm happy to answer questions.
Speaker 0: So Councilmember MOralists, I know that you have an amendment that you'd like for us to consider, so I'd like to go ahead and ask that you put your amendment on the table and then consider the amendment and and then we can open it up for dialog on the bill as amended.
Speaker 3: Okay. So I move to amend council bill 119787 as presented on Amendment one on the agenda.
Speaker 0: Is it her second?
Speaker 1: Second?
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to amend. The bill is presented on Amendment one. Councilmember Morales. Please feel free to address the amendment.
Speaker 3: Sure. So this is really just cleans up the title of this bill. So it makes the original language of the section title more accurate and conforms the new texts regarding well, I'm sorry, that's amendment two. So the First Amendment is really just a technical amendment to clean up the language.
Speaker 0: Great. Are there any questions or comments on Amendment One, which has just been described by Councilmember Morales as a technical clean up amendment? Be seen and hearing none will please call the role on the adoption of Amendment One. Strauss.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Herbal I. Whereas.
Speaker 2: Do.
Speaker 1: Whereas I'm like, Lewis I. Moralities I. Vinciquerra.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Peterson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: The launch. President Gonzales.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor none oppose.
Speaker 0: The motion carries an amendment is adopted. Customer What else? I know you have a Second Amendment, so I'm going to go ahead and put it over to you to make that motion.
Speaker 3: Okay, I move that we are sorry that we amend council bill 11987119787 as presented on Amendment two on the agenda.
Speaker 0: Is there a second? Okay. It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on an amendment to Councilmember Morales as sponsor of the amendment. Please feel free to address it.
Speaker 3: So this amendment adds a rebuttal presumption in favor of a tenant. If a landlord does see the eviction information and takes an adverse action against the tenant as a result of that information.
Speaker 0: Colleagues. Any questions or comments on Amendment two? It looks like there are no questions or comments. So I will ask that the clerk please call the roll on adoption of Amendment two.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Purple.
Speaker 2: I was.
Speaker 1: Juarez. I. Luis Morales.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Keller.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: PETERSON No.
Speaker 1: So what I. President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Eight in favor. One opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. The motion carries and the amendment is adopted. I believe that is the end of the amendments that I'm aware of. So now would be a good time, colleagues, if there were any comments on the bill as amended. Now is the time to make those comments a state council member. So what floor is yours?
Speaker 3: Thank you, President Gonzalez. I'm happy to support this legislation from Councilman Morales and happy to have co-sponsored it. Background checks are set up to be extremely unfair to renters, as we heard from some renters in the public comments. For example, if you're taken to eviction, good and fairly and the judge rules that there is no reason to evict you. Maybe it was blatant discrimination. Maybe there was no just cause. Regardless, it still gets included in your rental history as having been taken to eviction court, and it can become extremely difficult to get housing as a result. And it follows you throughout your life. Renters can appeal. You have these false evictions removed from their rental history, but must do so with each and every background check company. Ideally, King County Court would refuse to give out eviction records to background check companies unless those evictions were approved by the judge. But the city does not control King County Court, so this legislation instructs landlords that they must not use eviction records during this emergency against renters. They shouldn't anyway, because evictions are being prohibited during this emergency. But as I said, the background records exist whether the code makes the rent or not. Obviously there will be difficulties with enforcement, and ultimately what Seattle needs is a portable background check methodology so renters can correct all those eviction records and their background check, and then future landlords are required to use that background check. But in the meantime, I'm happy to vote yes on this emergency legislation.
Speaker 0: I think he comes why wasn't I see Councilmember Strauss and again if for anybody else who wants to speak of you cannot raise your hand, I'll put you in the queue. Councilmember Strauss Resource.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. I'll just take this opportunity once again to reiterate my strong support for increasing the amount of rental assistance that we can provide people in our community. Because when we're able to invest in rental assistance, we're able to keep people in place and keep everyone in the economic chain made for. And so, again, just reiterating, I will be voting for this legislation and that we also need to follow up with additional rental assistance. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Strauss, for that important reminder. We've, of course, added already added some millions of dollars for rental assistance and certainly not implying that that is going to meet the scale of the need. But we will continue to make sure that we're advocating for those dollars. Excellent point. Okay. Councilman Peterson is next in the queue and I haven't seen anybody else raise your hand. So if you want to, now's the time.
Speaker 2: PETERSON Thank you. I'd like to thank the sponsor of this bill, Councilmember Morales, and for the hard work of our staff and council central staff. I believe it's important to point out to the general public this bill has very good intentions. It was just that it was introduced only seven days ago. I believe that's not enough time to consider all the ramifications of this legislation. It would also be in effect for what's really an unknown period of time, because we don't know when the mayor will end her emergency declaration. So I'm proud to join my co-counsel colleagues on several a couple of eviction prevention measures, the winter eviction moratorium. And then recently last week just last week the to restrict to allow the extra defense for six months after the mayors eviction moratorium ends. And that's an important point. So the legislation we passed last week was for six months after the mayors eviction moratorium ends. This legislation before us, however, would be six months after the emergency declaration. We do not know when the emergency declaration will end. It's possible that it could go on for more than a year. The reason is that it's likely that the mayor will keep that in place longer than her eviction moratorium, because the emergency declaration will enable us to get reimbursed by the federal government for a longer period of time. So I'm uncomfortable also in invoking the City Charter's legislative emergency clause, where it says it's necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety. I think there's this is something that we could do in the next couple of weeks or more if we thought it through even further and had more data about what the situation is going to be for tenants, for the relief packages and when the emergency declaration will actually end. But again, I want to thank I want to thank my colleague for introducing this and for her staff being available to answer our questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: I think because we're Rich Peterson. Next up is Councilmember Herbold and then Councilmember Lewis. Thank you. I want to also join my colleagues on the council in thanking Councilmember Morales for bringing forward this piece of legislation. I think it's really important to realize that the use of eviction history as an indicator of good tenancy is is controversial . But under normal circumstances, it is premised on the belief of how tenants behave under normal or non-pandemic conditions. But as we all have recognized here in the context of the current emergency, tenants are facing unprecedented circumstances, and how they balance their financial obligations in these unprecedented times are not a good indicator of whether or not they are going to be a good tenant. There are some some comment on behalf of public testimony earlier, questioning whether or not this legislation had received the OPM. A lot of permanent review. I'm happy to report that it has. And I find that the analysis, without divulging the analysis, is is reassuring on our ability to to move this forward , this legislation forward. I also want to recognize that there were some amendments that were being considered earlier on that would have been sort of cleanup amendments unrelated to the to the crisis and that the the amendment sponsors agreed to withdraw those. You know, really housekeeping cleanup amendments, because those amendments themselves were not related to the COVID 19 crisis. And then finally, I think it's really important to understand in practice how these orders of limited to some dissemination actually work. And that's why this bill itself has two parts. It on one hand notifies the courts what we hope they will they will do when there are requests for limited dissemination orders. That is, the ability of of eviction records to show up on people's tenant screening reports. And this has as a sort of a fallback the prohibition on the part of landlords in using this information. And the reason why that so necessary is because the the practice of courts in making decisions around limited dissemination orders has really been inconsistent. And there hasn't been an appellate case on this. So courts aren't consistent on it. And specifically, it's important to recognize that the entire right to ask for a limit dissemination order and the obligation of the courts to consider it is is a discretionary decision on the part of the judges. And so that's why I think this piece of legislation hangs well together with its two parts as well as in in. In coordination with the legislation that we are going to be hearing next, as well as the tenants rights legislation we passed last week. Thank you. Thank you so much, Councilmember Herbold. Next is Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. So I'm just going to start my comments by saying I will be voting for this legislation today. And I want to thank Councilmember Morales for bringing this forward. You know, I think it is important that renters who are going to be coming out of this COVID 19 crisis not be in a position where having an otherwise good record as a tenant is blemished by something that may or may not happen with their ability to pay rent during this period and a possible eviction proceeding being brought. So I think it is important legislation and I do look forward to voting for it. I wanted to just take a moment to more use my comments to just do a like a broader call to action to landlords and tenant rights advocates alike who tuned into this today. And I appreciate their public comments. I just want to say that, you know, our council remains committed, as Councilmember Strauss indicated a little earlier in our session, to providing robust, comprehensive and expansive rent support that will ultimately let tenants stay in place, that will make landlords whole and let them pay their bills and pay their mortgages. We are committed to realizing that, and as Council President Gonzales indicated earlier, we have invested millions of dollars above and beyond what we had budgeted for initially in rental assistance and support Congress. According to my conversations with our congressional delegation, is considering potentially another round of federal stimulus and federal investment. I would just like to shout out to all the landlords and tenants who have called in to do advocacy on this. Make sure that you are reaching out to your member of Congress, to your senators, to push to make sure that wide scale rent relief or some kind of direct payment plan to people is part of that next level of federal relief. All of us recognize that that is ultimately what we need to do to get through this. But in the meantime, there need to be certain protections to make sure that renters are not unduly burdened by things that happen during this event of Great Depression level proportions. And these are not regulations or hindrances that we as a council are enacting. Ideally, we're doing it in response to an unprecedented since the time of the 1930s levels of unemployment and insecurity. So join me in making sure that we are going to Congress and saying, you know, we need a large scale relief in this next package that should be coming out later this spring to make sure that renters and landlords alike get the support that they need to get through this.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Lewis colleagues. Any other comments or questions on the bill? Okay. Seen none comes more or less as as we usually practice here on council. The prime sponsor of the bill usually gets the last word. So the floor is yours.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thanks, everyone. I want to thank you, Councilmember Lewis. I think your last remarks are really important for all of us to remember. This is an unprecedented crisis. We are we are seeing a levels of unemployment as a scale of crisis that we haven't seen in a couple of generations now. So we know that more rental assistance is important. As Councilmember Lewis said, there is a lot of federal action that's needed. Our own representative Joe Paul, is also advocating for payment protection, paycheck protection for all workers so that they can cover their bills. So we do need to keep advocating at every jurisdictional level to make sure that every city, state and federal government is doing all that they can to keep our community safe. I do want to also say that as Councilmember Herbold mentioned, we had a discussion about a few different kinds of amendments. You know, the idea of excluding small landlords is something that we talked about. But, you know, what we're really doing here is trying to protect people from being evicted and having that stain on their record. And when when you've lost your job, when you really just can't afford rent, it doesn't matter if your landlord is, you know , your roommate in a single family home and you're just renting a room from them. Or if your landlord is a big, you know, property management company, the fact is that you don't have money to pay rent. And so you deserve that same protection regardless of the size of ownership of your of your landlord. So so I want to thank our colleagues for the conversations we've been having over the last few weeks. I appreciate your feedback and your willingness to to talk through these your concerns with us and appreciate your support. Now, as we do, as we take one more step to make sure that renters in the city are protected. Thank you.
Speaker 0: I thank you so much, Councilmember Morales, for those remarks. I think that concludes debate on this particular item. So I'm going to go ahead and ask that the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill as amended.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Juarez. I. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Council member Macheda I. Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 1: Council members are the ones I. Council President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 1: Eight in favor one opposed.
Speaker 0: I think you out of work. The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. And I'd ask that the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay, folks, we're going to go ahead and move along. Items of business today. So will the clerk please read the item to into the record? Clerk. Madam Clerk, you might be on mute.
Speaker 1: Agenda item to council bill 119788 an ordinance relating to residential rental agreements allowing residential tenants to pay rent in installments when the tenant is unable to timely pay rent. Declaring an emergency and establishing an immediate effective date all by a vote of the City Council. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the use of eviction records; regulating the use of eviction history in residential housing; prohibiting landlords from considering evictions related to COVID-19 during and after the civil emergency; amending the title of Chapter 14.09 and Sections 14.09.005, 14.09.010, 14.09.020, and 14.09.030 of, and adding a new Section 14.09.026 to, the Seattle Municipal Code; declaring an emergency; and establishing an immediate effective date; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05112020_CB 119785 | Speaker 0: Will the clerk please read the short title of the bill? Even to the right? Agenda Item three Council Bill 119 785 relating to funding for housing and community development programs. Adopting the City of Seattle 2020 Annual Action Plan to the 2018 through 2020 consolidated a Plan for Housing and Community Development and upgrades in its submission to the United States Department of Housing and Urban. I thank you so much. I will move to pass on 19785. Is there a second second? It's been moved and seconded to pass Council Bill 119785. Councilmember Mosqueda I'm going to go ahead and hand it over to you to address the bill first. Thank you very much. Madam President, this bill adopts the annual action plan, which details how the city will spend its annual entitlements of four federal grants. The Community Development BLOCK grant, the housing opportunities for people with AIDS or Hoplite. The Emergency Solutions Grant DSG and the Home Investment Partnership Program. Madam President, I do have an amendment. Would you like me to move the amendment so we can discuss the amendment before I talk about the rest of the legislation? Sure if you'd like to address the bill as amended, I have no problem doing that. So why don't you go ahead and make your motion and we'll do it that way. Thank you very much. Madam President, I move to amend Council Bill 119785 attachment one by substituting version two for version one a second.
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to amend Attachment one by substituting it for version two. Customer Mosqueda Please feel free to address the substitute version. Thank you very much, Madam President. Council colleagues. Digital Recall. Last Monday, we held a public hearing on the bill. A draft of this plan, based on our best estimates for how much funding we would receive in the 2020 adopted budget was heard in the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee in December of 2019. The amended version in front of you now reflects that we received notice of the actual grant amounts, so council has put forward the adopted version for your consideration. This includes the final plan for submittal to the Federal Housing and Urban Development, or HUD Department. One small technical piece that is included in this amended version is that the plan that was originally transmitted has been updated by the executive. We have the proposed substitute in front of us for consideration, which reflects the latest information on the grants and the projects they support. This plan includes $25 million worth of funds to support people in Seattle, including 3.4 million to provide emergency shelter operations and case management to move people into permanent housing. 7.8 million to provide housing for persons living with AIDS and their families. 1 million to improve fire safety and the housing authority. And 6.4 million for affordable housing preservation and deployment. 2.8 million for small business stabilization. While most of these funds were included in the 2020 budget, this plan reflects that we've received more grant funding than expected . These funds were added to the Affordable Housing Program and the Small Business Stabilization Program Stabilization Fund. I appreciate the Council's participation in the public hearing last week, and the amended version in front of you reflects these changes that I just described. Okay. Thank you so much. Councilmember Mesquite. It looks like we have a question or comment from considerable, please. Thank you. A comment. I just really want to extend my thanks to the bill's sponsor, Catherine Mosqueda, as well as the Office of Housing for including additional funds, $1.8 million in funds for capital financing related to the rehabilitation of 34 units of affordable rental housing for low income households in the neighborhood. This is housing that is owned and operated by DDA, and that's a neighborhood development association. And this is really critical funding for their ability to continue to manage the affordable housing in their portfolio. So thank you. Great. Any other comments or questions on the proposed substitute? CNN. Let's go ahead and vote on the the adoption of the substitute. So will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the substitute to attachment one?
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Herbold.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Suarez, I. Lewis, I. Morales.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Macheda.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Peterson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: So once.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: President Gonzales.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor and opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. The motion carries and the substitute to attachment one is adopted. Are there any further comments on the bill as amended? Let me check with let me check with other folks because you're the prime sponsor, so you get the last word. Is there anyone other than Katherine was Dana, who has a comment on the bill before I hand it over to her? Anything in here in hearing, please? Thank you, Madam President. I just want to say thank you to all the central staff and department staff and especially the Office of Housing and our own central staff. And a huge effort, a note of appreciation for Aaron House, who is in my office as well, who's been tracking this issue and working closely with the departments to make sure that we move forward. This is a critical piece of legislation for us to advance, and being able to do so remotely has meant that we needed to work closely with council colleagues to make sure that you all knew what was in the bill and the urgency of passing it and during this time so that we can respond to the crisis and also do general good governance. So thank you for allowing us to include it for today's vote. And again, thanks to Aaron House for her work on this great new consumer mosquito. Really appreciate it. And your work and your staff's work and couple of central staffs work on this issue. Okay. Well, the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill as amended.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: Hi. Herbal.
Speaker 1: Her goal.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Whereas I. Lewis, I. Morales. I macheda.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Peterson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: The one.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Now I am in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it in an effort to produce a fix my signature to the legislation.
Speaker 1: Madam President.
Speaker 0: Yes, I was nervous and not thinking Sage Perich, who did a huge amount of work on this and was lead on the bill for us. So thank you to our chief of staff for her work on this. Apologies. And thanks again for letting me just chime in and add that piece.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Will the clerk please read item four into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to funding for housing and community development programs; adopting The City of Seattle 2020 Annual Action Plan to the 2018-2022 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development and authorizing its submission to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; authorizing acceptance of grant funds from that department for programs and activities included in the Annual Action Plan; amending Ordinance 126000 which adopted the 2020 Budget, by modifying appropriations to various departments and budget control levels in the 2020 Adopted Budget; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05042020_CB 119785 | Speaker 1: Agenda Item one Capital 119 769 Relief Funding for Housing and Community Development Program. Adopting the City of Seattle 2020 Annual Action Plan through the 2018 through 2022 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development and operating its submission to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. So before our council colleagues, this is the bill that requires a public hearing. Before I open the public hearing on this item, I am going to turn it over to Councilmember Mosqueda, who is the sponsor of the bill, to provide us with introductory remarks to Councilmember Mosquito Resource. Thank you, Madam President. As I mentioned during council briefing this morning, this bill adopts the annual action plan and details how the city will spend its annual entitlements for federal grants. This includes, first, the Community Development BLOCK grants for CDBG. Second, the housing opportunities for people with AIDS or Hoppa. There are the Emergency Solutions Grants or ESG, and for the Home Investment Partnerships Program, otherwise known as the Home Grants. A draft of this plan based on our best estimates of how much funding we would receive, and that was included in the 2020 adopted budget, were both heard in the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee in December of 2019. We have now received notice of the actual grant amounts. So this Council needs to adopt a final plan for submittal to federal HUD. One small technical piece. The plan was originally transmitted and has been updated by the executive. There is now a proposed substitute which reflects the very latest information on the federal grant funds and the projects they support. You can find the link to the proposed substitute on the council's agenda. Just very briefly, this plan includes over 25 million of funds for supporting people in Seattle, including 3.4 million to provide emergency shelter options, operations and case management to move people to permanent housing. 7.8 million to provide housing for persons living with AIDS and their families. 1 million to improve fire safety at Seattle Housing Authority. 6.4 million for affordable housing preservation and development. 2.8 million for small business stabilization. While most of these funds were included in the 2020 budget. This plan reflects that we received more grant money than expected, and these funds were added to the Affordable Housing Program and the Small Business Stabilization Fund. That's the quick overview, Madam President. Thank you so much for those introductory remarks. I am juggling between screens colleagues, so I appreciate your patience. I am acquiring the public hearing list and making sure that it is accurate for our staff. That is listening as I open up, make the comments to open up the public hearing. If you can look through the spreadsheet of folks who have signed up for public comment to make sure that they are have indicated that they're speaking on Council Bill 119785 as opposed to any other matter. I appreciate you cleaning up the list accordingly as I make the introductory remarks for the public hearing. As Presiding Officer, I am now opening the public hearing on Council Bill 119785 relating to the adoption of the 2020 Annual Action Plan. The online registration is to sign up to speak at this hearing opened at 12 noon today, and I will call on speakers in the order of registration. The online registration will remain open until the conclusion of this public hearing. The rules will apply to the public comment period also applied to this public hearing. Each speaker will be provided 2 minutes and a 10/2 warning to wrap up comments. Speakers microphones will be muted at the end of the allotted public comment time. Public comment relating to Council Bill 119785 is only been accepted at this public hearing, so speakers will be asked to begin their comments by stating their name. And again. I know we had a couple of different public comment pre-registration sheets going around this public hearing. Then I'm about to open up is only to accept comments on Council Bill 119785 relating to the adoption of the 2020 Annual Action Plan as described by Councilmember Mosqueda. And so my hope is that staff have worked on the signup sheet to make sure that we've got folks who are on the list only as it relates to Council Bill 119785. Okay. I will go ahead and begin the public comment period. I t if we can get the timer up on the screen, that would be great. Thank you so much. Okay. Let's go ahead and call the first speaker up who appears to be. Looks like everybody who's signed up for council. All 119785 is not present. We have one person who's president. I'm going to call on him and see if he's got testimony related to this matter. John Wisdom.
Speaker 2: I'm going to pass. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you so much. Okay. And the only other person just testified about the eviction reform bill, and it doesn't appear that he's interested in testifying about this issue. Okay. So we don't have anyone else that has signed up for public comment on Council Bill 119785. Based on the registration sheet that I am looking at, so I'm going to go ahead and close out the public hearing. And the public hearing comes, Bill 11975 is now closed. Written public comment is still being accepted on this item. And for those who are interested, you can email us at council at Seattle Dot Goldie. Until the council passes this bill, which is scheduled to occur on Monday, May 11th, 2020, at our 2:00 PM, regularly scheduled meeting. Okay. So and just to confirm double confirm, I want to make sure that staff confirms that there's not a member of the public in the queue before closing the public hearing. I'm not. Not here.
Speaker 2: Yes, I don't see anybody. Council member.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you so much. Okay. So being that there is not a member of the club formally present for the public hearing on council's own items, but we will now officially close the public hearing period and we'll move into agenda item two. Will the clerk please read item two into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to funding for housing and community development programs; adopting The City of Seattle 2020 Annual Action Plan to the 2018-2022 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development and authorizing its submission to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; authorizing acceptance of grant funds from that department for programs and activities included in the Annual Action Plan; amending Ordinance 126000 which adopted the 2020 Budget, by modifying appropriations to various departments and budget control levels in the 2020 Adopted Budget; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05042020_CB 119783 | Speaker 1: Agenda Item two Capital 119 783 relating to the city's response to the 2020 COVID 19 crisis and many audience 126000, which adopted the 2020 budget, accepting funding from non city sources, changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels and various funds in the budget, declaring an emergency and establishing an immediate effective date all by three fourths vote of the City Council.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, though. I will move to PESCA. So, Bill, 119783. Is there a second? Again. It's been moved and seconded to pass Council Bill 119783 Councilmember Mosquito. You are listed as the sponsor of the bill, so I'm going to yield the floor to you to make some introductory remarks. Thank you, Madam President. As I mentioned this morning, I've had the chance to work on a substitute bill that includes a handful of amendments in an effort to have a conversation about that bill. May I please move to amend the Council bill so that we can have that discussion on the substitute? Okay so you want to move to amend council bill 119783 by substituting version seven for version two? Yes, if that's appropriate. At this time, I'd like to move amendment and move to amend council bill 119783 by substituting version seven for version two. Is there a second? It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill by substituting it for version seven. Council members get it. I will hand it back over to you to speak to the substitute. Thank you very much, Madam President. Council colleagues, as we talked about this morning, this is an ordinance in its amended version that would accept appropriate appropriated federal and state funds related to COVID 19 pandemic crisis and response, including Partial Cares Act funding. This is the city's first opportunity to apply federal appropriations and allocations to our city to respond to the COVID crisis. We appreciate the work that the City Budget Office, Office of Housing and the Mayor's Office has provided to us. They presented last week a full PowerPoint presentation about the plans to distribute these funds. Following the presentation, I submitted a handful of follow up questions regarding the executive's plan for shelter, the intensification and emergency homeless COVID response. We have subsequently, at the end of last week, heard a number of providers who are providing direct services to those who are the most vulnerable in our community, who are in need of housing, food services, cleaning, PPE, staff paid for the folks who are working in homeless shelters. One of the great pieces that we know is that this is not going to be the last opportunity for federal funds. Other forthcoming dollars include FEMA dollars, where there's going to be reimbursements, 130 million in federal coronavirus relief funds, 13 million from the Department of Commerce, Emergency Homeless and Housing Needs and Future Cares Act allocations. We are looking forward to having a robust conversation in the near term about how all of these sources will be used for a comprehensive, holistic strategy that meets the needs of homeless services providers, rental assistance, small businesses and more as we respond to the COVID crisis. We know, though, that we need to act quickly with these dollars that are in hand. So I really appreciate our ongoing conversation with the City Budget Office to make sure that we can get these dollars out the door here, as you see. And substitute version seven. What substitute version seven includes is ongoing funding to make sure that we are getting money out the door for small business stabilization, funding out the door for the Building Stability Fund, which is rental assistance. We've actually increased some of the money that's going to that fund to about 1.4 million. We've also split 1.4 million among homelessness prevention and rental assistance efforts. And at this point, we've added clarification in the amended bill in front of you. We have clarified that we'd like there to also be food support for unsheltered persons as they approach as an appropriate use of emergency services grant dollars. We've also added our desire to see if we can include meal delivery to permanent supportive housing as an appropriate use under the Americans Act funds to expand food programs. And we understand that there's ongoing conversations about how these funds may be used for home delivery. And we believe that ensuring meal delivery to those in permanent supportive housing is also an appropriate and qualified. Look forward to making sure folks can get access to meals in their homes. Again, looking forward to having a future conversation about the $1.4 million that we're holding back in CDBG allocations in this round of CARES Act funding to to allow for time for a conversation with the executive's office and homeless service providers, pending that future conversation about what can be funded with existing funds from HST or Office of Housing . We will have more information for this Council to consider. I mentioned a handful of the issues that are needed among our homeless services providers, including the densification issues, planning and staff support PPE and more. So that is a conversation that we greatly appreciate has already begun initiated this morning. We do want to act quickly, though. So, colleagues, my commitment to you is that we come back to you with an update on how those conversations are going and look forward to releasing the 1.4 million, hopefully for additional appropriations to rental assistance, as we heard about today, and look forward to getting feedback from those housing and services providers. I'm feeling really confident about the ongoing conversations that we've had about supporting residential and business tenants. I really appreciate the conversation that you all have participated in as we advanced and protected tenants, both as small business tenants and as residential tenants. And we're hoping that the conversation over the next week will truly add to a robust and comprehensive approach to protecting those who have been experiencing the consequences of COVID. I'll also note that this is an effort to try to make sure that we're responding not just to the economic needs as we talk about building stability fund, small business stabilization funds, rental assistance and homelessness prevention. We've tried to walk that fine tightrope to. Make sure that we're on. We're continuing our ongoing effort to respond to the health crisis that is COVID. So that is that is sort of the impetus of the strategy that you see in front of that bill that we have as amended . My office so spoken as well with the folks that United Way Rental Assistance Program about the approach that we are proposing and substitute version seven. And appreciate their support. They have let us know that they are holding a portion of the c b. They have let us know that holding a portion of the CDBG Rental Assistance Fund temporarily will not cause negative impacts on folks being able to access rental assistance. And they are concerned about the upcoming June 4th date when the state eviction moratorium expires. And we've committed to working with them, along with the entire council, to make sure that funds are released will prior to that date. I will leave it at that council colleagues and I'll turn it back over to you. Council President Gonzales, appreciate it. Thank you so much, Governor Mosquito. So we are currently considering the proposed substitute and I think as we're risking to address the substitute and the substantive bill. So are there any questions on the on the proposed substitute as as introduced by Councilmember Mosqueda? Okay. So let's go ahead and take a vote on the adoption of the substitutes or the clerk. Please call the roll on the adoption of the substitute bill.
Speaker 1: So what.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Gosh.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Herbold.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Whereas. I. Lewis.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Morales, I let's get out.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Peterson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: 89 in favor of unopposed.
Speaker 0: The motion carries the substitute is adopted in version seven of the bill is now before the City Council councilmembers get. Are there any other further comments on the bill as amended? I will just say that again, this is the first opportunity for us to accept federal funds. I hope that the set the tone for the type of assistance that we'd like to see applied across our city, both in terms of rental assistance for us families and individuals, workers for small businesses, and as you will hopefully see within the next few days here, spurring additional conversations and investments in those who are the most vulnerable and currently living in congregate shelters. I think this morning we've had a conversation about our desire to see the executive and the departments move in their strategies to identifying the shelters that we have and really diving into the recommendations that have come over in the last few days from the housing service providers and homeless shelter providers to make sure that we are responding to the ongoing public health need in those settings. We know that it's critical to not only participate in social distancing, but we cannot keep distances when folks are living in congregate shelters. So very interested in following up with all of you. And I know Councilmember Herbold expressed interest this morning working with our council colleagues to make sure that we see movement on this effort in the next few days here. And we'll be coming back to this council very soon about the release of the 1.4 million. Thank you. Councilman Mosqueda, are there any other are there any further comments on the bill as amended? Because I remember her. Thank you. I first just want to thank Councilmember Musgrave for the language clarifying in in the substitute clarifying that seniors living in permanent supportive housing will be eligible to receive meal delivery funded by the federal Older Americans Act. Our friends at the Housing Development.
Speaker 1: Consortium had.
Speaker 0: Made a request last week to find ways to support meal provision for people living in permanent supportive housing. So I really appreciate that the substitute includes that language. As mentioned this morning, I do have some reservations around reducing the amount of funds available for rental assistance current under. Normal budget times, we we fund rent assistance programs to the tune of almost $4 million. We added additional million dollars a couple weeks ago. We were poised with this legislation to add another 1.5 million. We are reducing that to $750,000. But really appreciate understanding from Councilmember Mesquita that this is a temporary pause. I want to just provide a little bit more detail about the conversations that my office have had with the home based program. With the United Way. More than 7000 households applied for April rent. Over a 48 hour period of time. The estimates are that they will be able, with the current funding, be able to assist about 2000 of those 7000 households. So the need for rental assistance is great and we understand that they they will be doing another another opportunity for people to apply for rental assistance on May 18. And so I think a short delay on providing that full funding for rental assistance is is acceptable. And as Councilmember Muscat mentioned earlier, the United Way and the home based program there is is is supportive of us doing so. So I'm comfortable with holding back some of the federal funds from this appropriation for a limited period of time. And I also want to say that I really, really support the goal of holding these funds back for a short period of time. If that goal is indeed to facilitate a conversation with the executive about how to ensure that people who are living in clean air and unsafe, unhealthy conditions that are able to move into places where they can stay safe. And we know that rates of COVID 19 among people living in congregate shelters in the past several weeks is is increasing greatly. Cases among people experiencing homelessness are accelerating, while new cases in the county as a whole have stabilized. 2 to 3 weeks ago, people experiencing homelessness only comprised 1% of total cases, whereas today they are 4% of total cases. So again, I appreciate the opportunity to hit pause on the full allocation of these funds so that we can we can really deal comprehensively with.
Speaker 1: The challenges before us.
Speaker 0: I think remember her both for those remarks because remember. Strauss, I'm hearing a little bit of ambient noise from your phone if you don't mind meeting. That would be helpful. Thank you.
Speaker 2: My sincerest apologies.
Speaker 0: Oh, no, that's okay. We're all learning this together, so no worries. Okay. So are there any other comments on the bill as amended? Council members want.
Speaker 3: Thank you, President Gonzalez. I will be, of course, supporting this bill, and I support the attempt to figure out if funds can be allocated for the densification of shelters in light of the contagious virus. But I think all this discussion also clearly illustrates. The no win situation created by local, state and federal finances when big businesses don't pay their fair share. I think this unless governments at all levels have the political courage to create public revenues through progressive sources, we will end up as this recession gets deeper and gets worse and gets more widespread. We will end up being forced to use not only robbing Peter to pay Paul approach, but really ultimately an austerity budgeting approach. We, of course, desperately need funding for the home based rental assistance program, and we also need funding to allow for social distancing within the homeless shelter system, and both need to be passed. And the only solution is really to expand the public revenue base, especially in a city like Seattle, which is the nation's most regressive tax system. And hence, we are going to see budget revenues be deeply impacted as joblessness of working people keeps going up because working people are shouldering the burden. So it's not only a question of injustice. It's a question of mathematics as well. Oh, I think it was very important that Edmund Widow from the Housing Justice Project showed a reveal to us. And during public comment that they had received, they have received 7000 applications for the home based fund over a 48 hour period. And the program can only help thousands of the applicants. And you know, my conclusion from those slightly different from what some other council members have drawn, I think what this shows is that with joblessness dramatically going up and the number of applicants, people who will need these funds will rapidly rise. That in combination with sky high rents and the amount of money that will be needed, just, you know, just in terms of dollars, the sheer number of dollars that will be needed to cover the rents that people won't be able to pay rental assistance by itself is not a viable solution. It is not certainly not a viable proposal by itself. In the absence of access on big business and the wealthy at local, state and federal levels to generate the revenues to be used for the scale of rental assistance needed. But I think equally importantly and actually more importantly, rental assistance at this moment of the recession, you know, because in gestation somebody is going to pay the price. The only question is who will pay the price. So rental assistance at this moment on on on a large scale, on the basis of public funds, would effectively mean a bail out for corporate landlords and property management corporations, which are one of the most rapacious actions of the capitalist class, given how renters are, tenants are exploited. And so in addition, for all the rental assistance, which of course I completely support, we need to we need to have a fight for full suspension without consequences of rent payments and mortgage payments for renters and homeowners and for small landlords and the bank, big banks, corporate landlords and Wall Street should pay for this crisis, not ordinary people. And I'll just share once again that over 9000 Washingtonians have signed our community petition for such a suspension without consequence, a rent, mortgage and utility payments. And we are seeing similar. Editions and campaigns, hundreds of them all over the nation from different organizations.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Swann. Are there any other comments on the bill as amended? Okay. I don't see any one else raising their hands or sending me messages for those who are on the phone. So I will go ahead and close out debate and ask the clerk to please call the role on the passage of the bill as amended.
Speaker 1: So why don't I?
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Herbal.
Speaker 0: Bull's I.
Speaker 1: Suarez Lewis.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Morale is.
Speaker 4: High.
Speaker 0: Mosquito I.
Speaker 1: Peterson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: President Gonzales, I am not in favor and then opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. And I'd ask that the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Will the clerk please read item three into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE related to the City’s response to the 2020 COVID-19 crisis; amending Ordinance 126000, which adopted the 2020 Budget; accepting funding from non-City sources; changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various funds in the Budget; declaring an emergency; and establishing an immediate effective date, all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05042020_CB 119784 | Speaker 1: Agenda Item three Constable 119 784 relating to termination of residential rental tenancies, providing access to evictions expiring within six months after the termination of the marriage residential eviction moratorium as amended by Ordinance Resolution Resolutions one 938 amending Section 22.206160 code declaring an emergency and establishing an immediate effective date all by three fourths of the City Council.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. I am going to move to pass council bill 119784. Is there a second second? It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill and so we have several amendments to go through. And so my suggestion is that we go through the amendments first and then we can have a discussion about the bill as amended before we take a final vote on on the bill. So I will go ahead and kick off that conversation to make a motion to amend the Council Bill 119784 as presented on Amendment one on the agenda.
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill. Colleagues, as a sponsor of this amendment, I'll address the amendment first and then we can engage in conversation. Amendment one is a very non-controversial amendment. It is a variation of technical changes. So these amendments would make a grammatical correction revised references to the date of the mayor's eviction moratorium to include a reference to council's amendments in Resolution 31938. And it also adds additional findings showing compliance with Governor's Order 2828. I'm happy to entertain any questions or comments about Amendment One. Hey hereand seen none. I would ask that the clerk please call the role on the adoption of Amendment One.
Speaker 1: Don't. So the line.
Speaker 3: By.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: I heard all.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Whereas. Suarez. I. LEWIS.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Morales.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Mosquito.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Peterson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The pushing carries and the amendment is adopted. I'm going to go ahead and call on Councilmember Peterson now, who has amendment to.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President So the viewing public right now might not know that. We did talk a bit about this this morning during council briefings. So bear with me as I repeat some of my comments here. But just to set the table for the three amendments that I have today, I really appreciate the council president working really hard on this legislation. Council Bill 119784. I agree. We need to do what we can as a city government to prevent addiction. I'm proud to join with my council colleagues and the mayor to support multiple relief packages and changing regulations to provide relief. This includes funneling millions of additional dollars to an eviction prevention and rental assistance. I also want our compassionate policies to be sustainable. Some constituents, just like the people who called in today, some were in favor of the legislation. Some were opposed to it. And to reconcile these opposing views, I put forward these amendments which which I believe will be helpful for the sustainability in the legislation. I started by considering the approach we took to amend the legislation for our moratorium on evictions during the coldest winter months and then to consider differences with the current COVID crisis. So the First Amendment before us is to exempt small landlords defined as those with four or fewer units. Do I need to move the amendment?
Speaker 0: Yes, you do. Before we discuss it, if you can say the magic words to put Amendment two in front of us, that'd be great.
Speaker 2: Yes. I moved to amend Council Bill 119784 as presented on Amendment two on this agenda. Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. So it's been moved and seconded to amend the bill. Councilmember Peterson, you can now address Amendment two.
Speaker 2: So this is similar to this situation when we were considering the winter months ban on evictions or moratorium on evictions. At that time, we heard from lots of landlords who own a couple of units, three units for units who are struggling to pay their mortgages, their property taxes, their property insurance. And they're there. They're opposed to this bill, the ones who are a lot of the ones who have written to us here. And so this exemption would be in the same spirit of what we passed during the winter moratorium. Happy to answer questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Peterson. I would just say in response to this, that, as I mentioned during council briefing this morning, I am not supporting Amendment two. And I'd like to talk a little bit more about why. So we know that over 50% of Seattle residents are tenants. These people live in small, medium and large multifamily buildings throughout the city, and many of them are feeling the negative impacts of this public health crisis that has also caused an economic crisis of mass proportions. That economic burden is being felt deeply by low wage workers who now find themselves many for the first time in their lives on the rolls of unemployment. Many of these folks are renters who would benefit from this law in particular. So this amendment, however, as proposed by Councilmember Peterson, would strip many of those renters of the ability to assert this defense if and when they needed it in the six months after the eviction moratorium declared by the mayor is lifted. The intent of this bill is to provide access to an additional eviction defense to as many tenants as possible, regardless of whether the tenant made a choice during better economic times to rent from a corporate landlord or a small landlord. So unfortunately, I believe that this amendment creates too much of a carve out that may result in leaving thousands of renters without access to a meaningful opportunity to prevent their eviction in a court proceeding in the six months after the termination of the mayor's residential eviction moratorium. And for those reasons, I will be voting no on amendment to and would ask my colleagues to join me in voting no on this amendment as well. I just wanted to share those comments with folks before I invited comments from my colleagues. Anyone else want to make a comment? So seek as members talent. Lewis and Herbold. So Converse Floor is yours.
Speaker 3: Thank you. And I will also be opposing this amendment, which would potentially strip down to the thousands of renters of their protections against eviction, especially in the context of a pandemic and a global recession that is going to be as deep or deeper than the Great Recession. My council office has been contacted by hundreds of renters over the years, and we've seen that the big corporate landlords are far more likely to be responsible or violating renters rights. However, we've also seen that the worst landlords usually divide their properties up into multiple alliances and even have those alliances owned by other LLC and so on to obscure who owns what. This provision makes it very difficult for renters to know if they are protected by the law. Even in the rare cases where the eviction might actually be pursued by a smaller landlord, council members and elected officials need to decide who most need our support. Families who are on the verge of being evicted, losing everything, especially in the context of tens of thousands being in that situation. Many likely becoming homeless as a result, having damaged credit and having debt on their hands, possibly dying. You know, are we going to stand up for them or somebody who owns four or ten or 100 rental homes? I think that's another important point. Who is exactly as my landlord is, is a very subjective issue from their own admission, at one of the two rental organizing townhalls that my office organized in April, we had a small landlord tell us who attended the town hall happily and told us that they had worked with your tenant who has been laid off, and moreover that they proactively approached the tenant to negotiate an agreement that works for both tenant and small landlord. And I would really urge all landlords to negotiate such agreements with tenants and be on the side of tenants and not on the side of big property management, corporations and landlords. Obviously Council member Pearson is choosing to represent landlords and it is unfortunate that the amendment was presented even at the winter evictions moratorium legislation that my office put forward. And it was unfortunate that council members, some council members voted yes on that amendment. That amendment was bad then for renters and this amendment is bad now for renters. Peterson talks about reconciling between the interest of landlords and renters, but this is not a neutral issue. As Jessica Westergren, who's been a member of the City of Seattle Renters Commission, said in public comment today. Now there's somebody who owns multiple buildings of apartments is not the same as a working class renter who is barely getting by and who is now statistically probably likely to have lost their job or their income, even if they haven't lost their job. I do not think we should be making it easier to evict working class tenants. In fact, we should learn from what happened in the wake of the 2007 2008 Great Recession, where nearly 8 million middle class homeowners were stripped of the only equity they ever had. But homeownership has not come back. There's not going to come back any time soon. And so because we can see that crises such as the Great Recession and the recession we're heading into now will, unless we have a movement fighting back, be used not only to, you know, to deny renters and working class people of their rights during this pandemic, but also to extract more from them and extract austerity in different ways. And that is why it's important that we stand against this.
Speaker 0: I thank you, Councilmember. So for those comments, I'm going to call now on Councilmember Lewis and then I think I had Cousin Herbert also in the queue. So because remember Lewis.
Speaker 2: Right. You know, I want to say, Councilor Peterson, for bringing this forward for our consideration and appreciate the spirit in which it was introduced. You know, I supported a similar amendment during our discussion of the winter eviction legislation. I think it made sense in the context of that policy and that we were wading into new territory. It was a proactive policy about clear policy preference, and it was we were shaping the first in the nation ordinance to accomplish that policy goal. I think the circumstances are different for a lot of the reasons that Councilmember Gonzales articulated earlier, namely that we have widespread and massive uncertainty over 1.4 million Washingtonians who are on unemployment and have lost their jobs or are facing significant insecurity above and beyond the precarious situation that a lot of folks were in before this. I think given that and given that our policy goals here are different, this is emergency legislation not to be in effect in perpetuity, but to be in effect for a brief period of time. It is designed to make sure that we have folks inside able to remain in place, to not be in a position where they're experiencing homelessness, to make sure they're in a position where they can be isolated for public health reasons, to observe the social distancing and other guidances that the government has applied, and that that certainty in their ability to do that won't be impacted by the uncertainty that an eviction proceeding could introduce into that. And we know that that risk of displacement will persist after the orders are over. We aren't going to come out on the other side of this and then all of a sudden be in a position where the economy will spring back. It's going to be a long and difficult recovery. So a buffer period between the end of the orders and coming back, I think would be appropriate. And I think that exempting such a large number of units would undermine some of the public policy rationales of this emergency legislation. So I'll be voting against this amendment. But I do appreciate the underlying rationale for bringing it forward. I just think that given the scope of what we're focusing on, it's probably not the best approach.
Speaker 0: And you've got to remember, Lewis council member Herbold is still with us. I am, indeed. Thank you so much. So as a councilmember who in the winter evictions legislation did vote for an exemption for small landlords, I want to speak to the reason why I'm not supporting that now. As Councilmember Lewis just spoke, I think the the what we are the policy and the reason for the policy that we are contemplating right now is very different in light of a health emergency and the impacts on the general public's health. When people are homeless. And then secondly, I want to just sort of have a mea culpa as it relates to my support of this amendment for the winter election or winter evictions legislation. At that time, I was I had conflated Stsci, the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections, rental housing registration program requirements as it relates to small landlords and large landlords. They CCI holds information about the sizes of the number of units in buildings. Nobody holds the information about whether or not somebody is a large or small landlord. So I don't believe there would be a way for a tenant to be able to assert that their landlord was a large or small landlord in exercising this defense. Because not it is not information that the city collects. The information that the city collects relates to the numbers of units in individual buildings for purposes of assessing an inspection fee. And so that, I think, is another another reason to not support this at this time. Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, are there any is there anyone else you'd like to speak? Councilmember Strauss, I see your hand is up, please.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President, Council Member Lewis and Council Member for summarized my thoughts as well. Councilor Peterson, I appreciate you bringing this amendment forward. I did also vote for the amendment on the winter evictions and because that is a permanent policy that is put in place and this policy is temporary in nature. I will not be supporting the amendment and thank my colleagues. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Strauss. Any colleagues, any other comments on this amendment? Councilmember Peterson, it is your amendment. So I like to give the sponsor of the amendment the last word. So if you'd like to give us some last word on your amendment before I call it the vote, please feel free to do so.
Speaker 2: Sure. I just appreciate the process. I'm glad that I brought it forward. I'm glad that people are able to air their their views on how it is different. And I see that rationale respected as well. I'm ready to call for a vote on the amendment.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Peterson I want to sort of echo that the sentiments of some of my colleagues who appreciate what was potentially motivating your desire to want to bring Amendment two forward. Obviously, we have a difference of opinion as to as to this particular amendment. But but I appreciate that we can engage in a in a respectful debate about those differences and ultimately move the policy forward still. So thank you so much for for reaching out to me personally and having a conversation with me about the fact that you were bringing forward this amendment in the others and giving me an opportunity to have an offline conversation with you about that. I appreciate that. So at this point, I'm going to ask that the clerk please call the role on the adoption of Amendment two.
Speaker 1: So want.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: They?
Speaker 1: For Bolt? No. Juarez may. Lewis.
Speaker 2: Nay.
Speaker 1: MORALES No. Macheda, though. Peterson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez now. One in favor, eight opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Kirk. The motion fails and the amendment is not adopted. Consumer. Peterson, I know you have another amendment for us to consider, so I'm going to hand it over to you to make the formal amendment or discussion on Amendment three. Excuse me. Yes, Amendment three be.
Speaker 2: Yes. So I would like. So this amendment is about the either doing good faith efforts to show that the tenant has applied for rent assistance program more with more more flexibility. From the perspective of more flexibility, they simply self-certify. I'd like to move amendment. Three be. And I know that there's a proposed revision from Councilmember Herb that we can discuss in the mix of this. But I'd like to move Amendment three B so we can discuss it.
Speaker 1: Second.
Speaker 0: Okay. So it's been moved and seconded to amend the bill with version three excuse me, Amendment three B as described by Councilmember Peterson. And so I'm going to. Because Mr. Peterson, did you want Councilmember Herbold to make remarks before you make yours?
Speaker 2: I'll I'd like to set the table first, and then I would welcome her revision discussion group.
Speaker 0: Yes, that's right, Peterson. The floor is yours. On Amendment three B.
Speaker 2: Thank you. So this this Amendment three B would basically say that the tenant the tenant would have to show or say that they have made a good faith effort to obtain rental assistance from a public, private or nonprofit rental assistance program where they can submit a declaration or certification stating that they have suffered the financial hardship and is therefore unable to pay rent. Let me explain how it got to this. How it got to this point. So, again, was looking at what we did during the winter eviction moratorium weekend, which I which I ended up voting for. There were several amendments to that. There was at that time a what we call a means test. So we basically were saying those who were had no income, low income or moderate income were eligible for that. The winter eviction ban, however, a means test today may not make a lot of sense if somebody was earning 80% of area median income back in 2019 for their tax return there. It may not be now because of the COVID emergency. So the means test was not practical right now. Then the idea was to link it to COVID, a hardship that's occurred. However, the direct link to COVID in terms of the 10% stake in the hardship due to COVID was removed with the substitute version. So that's how I without that, I was looking for a way for the tenant to simply, you know, the whole idea is prevent the eviction. So the idea is to have them seek the financial assistance and rental assistance. All these programs that we've been talking about that that are available. And you simply state that there was a good faith effort to seek that rental assistance in conversations with some folks, including the council president, who wisely pointed out that not everybody is eligible for these programs, there are barriers to these programs for certain certain folks. Then it came to this saying that or simply self certifying that there is financial hardship. So that's how this amendment has evolved. And I think that there's a further evolution here that's about to take place. But Councilmember Herbold proposed provision.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Peterson. I did want to reiterate that this morning I had indicated that I might be willing to support a Self-certification Declaration pass. Initially, I thought that you were intending to revise your amendment in such a fashion that you would bifurcate the requirement just to, in good faith, access, rental assistance from sort of this new option to provide a declaration asserting financial hardship as the reason for the inability to pay a rent. And so when I saw the revised amendment that kept those two things coupled in a sense, in other words, put them in the same amendment, it led me to the conclusion that I couldn't support it because it was it still included the language around the need to access rental assistance as one of the ways to prove financial hardship. And so I know that that that there has been conversations this afternoon about a potential amendment concerning vision for your proposal that might create a is an amendment that would be more palatable to me would have to be one that would allow for a declaration and self-certification, but not require as sort of exhaustion of an administrative remedy to go through the process of showing that you were trying to access rental assistance. So so I appreciate, again, the the intent that you have here to create some sort of requirement on behalf of the tenant to to give assurances that they are, in fact, experiencing financial burden. And I'm going to sort of leave it leave it at that and open it up for additional comments and see if perhaps Councilmember Herbold wants to speak up at this point. You're on mute. Are you inviting my amendment? Council President? Well, I think yes. Sounds like we are. Fantastic. Thank you. I moved to amend version two of Amendment three B. This is the version noted as version three. Perhaps you want to before I read what the the content of the amendment is. Should we check to see if there are any objections to waiving the rules for this amendment as well? Yeah. So so I'm going to I know that, Councilmember Herbold, you have this proposed amendment to the amendment. So in order for us to consider this amendment, the council rules will need to be suspended. If there is no objection, the council rules relating to circulation of amendments 2 hours before the meeting will be suspended. So hearing no objection, the rules are suspended. And now, Councilmember Herbold, you are free to move your amendment that would amend Councilmember Peterson's Amendment three. Be fantastic. Thank you. So I move to amend version two of Amendment three, be it is this is the version referenced as version three. It amends the last subsection two and it deletes the words has applied for or made a good faith effort to obtain rental assistance from a public, private or nonprofit rental assistance program or the tenant. If adopted, this.
Speaker 4: Subsection two would.
Speaker 0: Still include a declaration or a self-certification, asserting that the a tenant has suffered financial hardship and is therefore unable to pay rent.
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to amend Amendment three. B Councilmember Herbold, would you like to speak more to your amendment? Thank you. I really appreciate Councilmember Peterson's bringing both versions of these amendments forward. My my intent in the amendment to that most recent version three B is really just to streamline what it is that we expect a judge to to take a look at and confirm the that the certification being signed is something that a judge can can review. And the disruption in such a certification is is considered perjury, whereas the determination of whether or not somebody has made a good faith effort to obtain rental assistance in projects, a certain amount of of complexity to a judge's decision in this area. And again, this is intended to really streamline and and. Lift the burdens on. On the court for. For making these determinations. Thank you. Got some verbal. Because Mr. Peterson, please.
Speaker 2: Yes. Thank you. I, I welcome this as a friendly amendment and appreciate how this has evolved by with the conversations. I just wanted to clarify. My intent was it would be. Good faith effort to obtain rental assistance or to submit for her, provide the declaration so they can detect and do either one of those. So there were a couple different paths for them, but I understand the trepidation of some appearance of adding a barrier here, which I do not want to do. So just wanted to clarify that.
Speaker 0: Thank you for that. Clarify clarification. I really appreciate councilman for her bold your your partnership in advancing this amendment to amendment 3bi think it's a a a good fix that does streamline things. And while I appreciate that Councilmember Peterson's original amendment included the word, or it still made me nervous as to how that would be applied in practice by a judge or how it would be utilized by landlords in eviction proceedings. And so so I think this is a much cleaner approach. And certainly one of the things that they could put into their self-certification or declaration is a representation that they try to access rental assistance and weren't able to secure it. There's a whole host of other things that they can put in that declaration. So I think this is an elegant solution to the the the I think underlying issue that you're trying to resolve. Councilmember Peterson, through your original Amendment three B, for the benefit of my colleagues, we did have a conversation with with the King County Bar Association's Housing Justice Project lawyer and who we heard in public testimony earlier, he indicated in terms of sort of on the ground perspective, having experienced representing tenants in these court proceedings, that that that they believe that this is a good solution and would not present any additional barriers to access the eviction defense and is have confidence that a judge would see a declaration signed under the penalty of perjury as acceptable evidence to be able to support making a case if this defense is asserted in eviction proceedings. So I feel comfortable with that representation and and feel comfortable moving forward with this with this amendment as proposed by Councilmember Herbold. Because. Any questions or comments? Council members want.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I think that comes from the herbals version. Doesn't mitigate the problematic nature of Councilmember Peterson's original amendment. But I will still be voting no on this amendment because fundamentally, I find it disturbing that. Council members are evoking this idea that, you know, this sort of boogeyman of a bad tenant who is going to skip out on rent. And I'm sure that I mean, I wouldn't say that that never happens because I don't know, maybe it does. But the point is policymaking has to be based on statistical evidence and statistical evidence overwhelmingly, not just mostly, but overwhelmingly shows that evictions, even before this pandemic absolutely target the most vulnerable in our society. The Losing Home report showed that black community members, especially black women and single mom households, were the ones that were most targeted. And I would say just based on that statistical evidence and based on the fact that now vast majorities of working people are going to have job losses and income losses, obviously people who are going to be taken to eviction are those who are suffering and have suffered financial hardship. And the only impact of this amendment is to force people who are already losing everything to go through one more dignity and humiliation. As I said, the amended version does mitigate this, but the effect of it is still a pointless indignity being inflicted on a tenant who is already in dire financial straits. It really literally accomplishes nothing other than being odious towards working people who are already facing the recession. I don't understand why this so-called good faith effort burden is not being put on landlords. So I just for all those reasons, I will be voting no on this amendment.
Speaker 0: I think you guys remember. So what? Any of my other colleagues. I want to make any comments. Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes. Just clarifying. We are about to vote on Councilmember Herbold amendment to Councilmember Peterson's amendment. Is that correct?
Speaker 0: That is correct. You are tracking.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Any other questions or comments from my colleagues? Okay.
Speaker 3: So just so you can see the process point, how we voted on the amendment to the amendment, I believe we just voted on the motion to put it on the table. Maybe I'm on.
Speaker 0: No we we we've moved and seconded to consider Councilmember Herbold amendment to Amendment three B. So we're now going to vote on Councilmember Herbold amendment to Council Member Peterson's amendment, but we haven't yet voted on. Councilmember Peterson's version will be next as amended. Parliamentary procedure is the best.
Speaker 4: The best.
Speaker 0: All right, folks. Are there any. Okay. So are there any other comments on the amendment as proposed by Councilmember Herbold? Okay. So let's see. Here I am. Will the clerk please call the roll on the amendment to version two of Amendment three be?
Speaker 1: Want what.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Herbold.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Juarez. I. Lewis, I. Morales.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 0: Macheda I.
Speaker 1: Peterson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez, I. Nine in favor, nine opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The motion carries the amendment as adopted, and version two of Amendment three B, as amended, is before the Council. So now, colleagues, we are considering Council Member Peterson's Amendment three B as a met as we just amended it. And so are there any further comments on the amendment as amended? Okay. So I'm going to go ahead and ask that the clerk please call the roll on adoption of Amendment three, be as amended.
Speaker 1: So on?
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: Herbold, I. Juarez. I. Lewis. I. Morales now. Macheda. I. Peterson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez, I. Seven in favor.
Speaker 0: Two opposed the motion carries and the amendment is adopted. Okay. So we are going to move now to amendment number four. So I will move to amend Council Bill 119784 as presented on Amendment four on the agenda. Is there a second? It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill. And so Amendment four colleagues is a amendment that would remove that court ordered plans. So we are simply removing the requirement that a judge order a payment plan as the only remedy available if the eviction defense is successfully asserted. We heard again concerns from folks over at the Housing Justice Project about the sheer volume of applications for assistance to the home base funds. And and as a result of sort of the sheer shock of numbers of receiving 7000 applications and really kickback housing projects estimation that they might be able to help 2000. It really created a lot of concern for folks who are providing direct services and that that a payment plan would be realistic in every single case. And so instead of requiring that a payment plan be instituted and potentially creating some kind of inadvertently creating a legal financial obligation, that instead we should allow a judge to continue to have discretion in terms of identifying which remedy would be most appropriate based on the facts of the case if if a defendant is is successful in asserting an eviction defense. And so I think it is more appropriate for us to allow a judge the latitude that they need based on whatever the record is in front of him or her to craft appropriate remedies. A rental payment plan could be one of those, but it could also be something, something entirely different. So. So as a result, I am advancing this amendment to remove that requirement from the substitute bill. I'm happy to take any comments or questions on that particular amendment. Second. Any additional questions or comments on that? All right. Hearing none, I would ask the clerk to please call the role on the adoption of Amendment four.
Speaker 1: The launch.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Though I Juarez.
Speaker 2: I mean.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Morale is.
Speaker 4: High.
Speaker 1: Mesquita.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Petersen Petersen.
Speaker 2: By.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor and opposed.
Speaker 0: So much the motion carries and the amendment is adopted. I understand that there is one last amendment is Amendment five and it is sponsored by Councilmember Peterson. So I am going to hand it over to him.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President Yes. Amendment five is a reporting requirement that we would be adding to the bill. So within two months of the effective date of the ordinance, the Seattle Department of Construction Inspection and the Office of Housing will provide a report to City Council on the implementation of this ordinance. And it's you know, the data is hard for them to to gather. However, they're going to come back to us with what they can gather on the eviction statistics, who's using the air defenses. And we'll be able to digest that information and find out the how the ordinance is working while we're in the middle of the six month period. And so I would like to officially move this amendment and to know that Councilmember Herbold will have a similar revision to my amendment, which I welcome. But let me go ahead and move the version to understand.
Speaker 0: Your options are five.
Speaker 2: Or we're moving version. Yeah. Moving version to Amendment five a. Right because the previous amendment passed from me. So this will be moving find a. He. Just a sec. Although. Yeah. Pardon me. I'm being told by several staff I should be moving amendment at five feet.
Speaker 0: Excuse me? I was. I was strategically pausing to give you an opportunity to shuffle through your paper. I do believe it is Amendment five be.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. Is there a second?
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 0: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment five B again, Councilmember Herbold, I understand that you have a proposed amendment to this amendment to align the amendment to the Revised Amendment three. I've never said the word amendment more often in my life to consider this amendment. The Council rules will need to be suspended if there is no objection. The council rules relating to circulation of amendments 2 hours before the meeting will be suspended. Hearing no objection. The roles are suspended and councilmember verbal that you may now move your amendment. Right. Well, I think there's a little bit of a misunderstanding. I was not intending to remove an amendment.
Speaker 1: And.
Speaker 0: An alternative to Amendment five, given I have some concerns about Amendment five, but. Just based on the fact that I, I understand that I want hold information about what happens in eviction court. They only are they only get involved in these matters if there is a violation of the law. And so people don't call the eye for assistance in court. When there's when there is an eviction. And so I was not planning on supporting this amendment, nor was I planning on offering a an amendment to this amendment, although I recognize that.
Speaker 4: The script that we've been provided says so. So I think.
Speaker 2: What?
Speaker 0: So. So.
Speaker 2: I think I understand, if I may.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Just a minute. Just a minute. Because we're entering into parliamentary nightmare land. So I just want to before. Before and I. And I just thought Asha's email as well. I Casmir Peterson So I just want to clarify, Councilmember Ruble did not intend to make an amendment to either version of Councilmember Peterson's amendment. Is that correct? I did not intend to, but I feel obligated because everybody thought I was going.
Speaker 4: No. So I.
Speaker 0: Have a script that I could I could, in.
Speaker 4: Good sportsmanship.
Speaker 0: Offer the amendment. I do have reservations about the amendment, though. I don't think anybody on the on the in the meeting today is clamoring for for four more amendments. So if you do not wish to advance your amendment, you and that is your call. The difficulty, though, is if a majority of councilmembers do support Councilmember Peterson's amendment, it can't pass without there being a change to it because of our previous amendments. So why don't we have a conversation about Amendment five and then we can sort of assess whether or not there needs to be shifting in terms of your position around introducing an amendment here. So we have also received notice from our very capable council central staffer that we moved the wrong version of the amendment. So I'm going to ask the clerk what our options are if if Councilmember Peterson has already moved version five be what we are required to do under Robert's Rules of order to put that to rest and be able to consider the appropriate version.
Speaker 1: This is Amelia. The council can decide as a body to withdraw the motion, which is the motion to amend the Council bill to their version five B if they want to withdraw it, as long as it has no objection.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: And then from there, if there's no objections, you can move forward with the correct version of the amendment.
Speaker 0: Kate, is there an objection to withdrawing a proposed amendment? Five. Five. Be hearing no objection. The motion to consider proposed amendment five. B is withdrawn. Councilmember Patron, I'm going to hand it back over to you to make the appropriate.
Speaker 2: Yes, thank you. Just for the viewing audience to explain. Basically the there were versions A and B, because they were contingent upon what would happen the previous amendment. So it sort of changes the ordering of the ordinance and the lettering and numbering of it. So what I'd like to do is correctly move. Five, a version two and some five. A It's a because we passed the previous amendment I had. So it's we're going to go with a and it's version two because we passed Councilor Herbold revision to my amendment, which removed the reference to seeking a good faith effort to seek rental assistance. So that's why we're moving a version that our central staff circulated, basically just to align us to where we are right now in the process where we're no longer considering the good faith effort to seek rental assistance. That's out. That's why we have version two of five A, which I'm now moving.
Speaker 0: He's their second.
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 0: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to consider a proposed Amendment five, a version to Councilmember Peterson. Do you have anything else to add?
Speaker 2: Yes. So again, this is simply a reporting requirement to have the departments stsci and office housing come back to us with information on how it's being implemented. And they will use the data that's available to them is limited. But I still think that if we are going to pass an ordinance that is making these changes, that it's it's helpful for us to hear how it's going from the departments. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. And now I'm going to open it up for debate and discussion. So, colleagues, anyone like to comment? Councilman Morales?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I. I'm nervous about this amendment. I think, you know, this is a this is an emergency time right now. We're talking about protecting people who we all know are experiencing deep financial problems right now with an inability to pay April's rent, probably not able to pay this month's rent or next month. And so there's no question that the protection that this bill is intending to provide is going to be necessary and useful. I think this kind of an amendment really just kind of opens the door to removing the defense of, you know, if it's not used enough, then why are we doing this? I think we will know if this is a useful bill or not. If it gets used and if it doesn't, then we don't need it. But if we do, if people do need it, it's really important that it's there. And I don't know that having a reporting requirement to tell us how much it was used is is a useful. A step to put in place right now. That's all.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. I don't have any objection to the city receiving the information. I think all information is healthy. And I would not presuppose that we are asking for the information because of some. Future intent to argue that we do, we need to use a lot of too much or too little. I think analyzing the impacts of of our our ordinances is a is a good practice. My my concern, though, again, is Sky simply does not have this information. They the superior court in county superior court is the body that would have the information, the filings that tenants make as it relates to the the defenses and the use of this particular address cause. And whether or not a certification was filed, CCI simply does not have that information. And I'd be happy to, you know, to work with the amendment sponsor to try to figure out how we could get this information from from King County Superior Court in the future. But I just don't think that this is a mechanism that's appropriate to put on CCI. I'm just concerned it burdensome to them. Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. I would just add that I think I've heard some of the similar concerns that Councilmember Herbold has heard that again, in in in many instances, we do ask for report back specifically for new policies where where we want to be able to assess the effectiveness of the policy. When you look at our labor standard laws, for example, almost all of them include some level of evaluation of how the law is working or isn't working. And and I've had the benefit of being the sponsor of some of those report back requirements, not because I had an intent to unravel the law in the future or make some argument that the law was being used too often. But frankly, because I think it's helpful information and data to continue to fine tune the policy, to make sure that that those laws are actually meeting the needs of the people that it's intended to to benefit. And so I think in this instance, again, I'm not sure it makes sense to require Stsci to go through the extraordinary effort of monitoring the King County Superior Court eviction proceedings and filings for a period of six months. It's a it's a short lived eviction defense. And and I think that I think that what we're trying to accomplish here is creating maximum access to that. And while I appreciate the desire to want to be able to have some sort of a metric associated to it, I'm just not sure that CCI has that. They, as a fully funded agency, has the capacity to to do this body of work. And I'm not sure that I want them to be investing their limited resources in this body of work when this law is intended to be in place only for a six month period of time after the conclusion of the eviction moratorium, as declared by Mayor Durkan. So that's my position on this particular amendment, and I see that Councilmember Mosqueda has also raised her hand before assures. EU Council President. Thanks to the sponsor for the clarification on what the minutes intended to do. I'm a little torn as well, and I believe that getting the data is important. I heard that there might be follow up conversations to be had about how we can ensure that folks are getting access to these services. One thing that I will note that I thought was missing from the report back, if we were to go down this route, perhaps not through CCI, but through another body. Reporting back to us is how race and ethnicity will be reported. Given the latest numbers that we saw on Friday. We know, for example, that Hispanics are four times more likely to be admitted to the hospital due to COVID and two and a half times more likely to die due to COVID related death. So I think as we think about the protections that we're putting into place under this emergency that is covered as we think about getting feedback about these programs and any future reporting back, I would like to see race and ethnicity reported back. I agree with the council president in that as is probably not necessarily the right body to do this, but I appreciate the spirit in which the amendment was put forward. And if there are to be future conversations, I think, as Councilmember Herbold had indicated, that there are the race and ethnicity element be something that we include as a requirement for reporting back on these various protections due to the disparity that we see and how COVID is affecting various communities. Thank you very much. Thank you. Government was great. And I think I think that the bigger issue that councilmember her boldness flagging is that the city of Seattle does not track any of this information, period , because we don't do we're not in the business of arbitrating being the arbitrators and the findings of fact of eviction defenses. And that is something that is within a different jurisdiction being King County. And we do not currently have any sort of data sharing agreement with them or data sharing plan with them related to that information. And so I suppose that the worry really is, is are we setting up for inherent failure or are we setting them up to require them to expend resources that they may not have accessible to them, to set up a data collection process for a for a defense that's only going to be in existence for six months by definition in the ordinance. Council stressed.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Thank you. Council president in my I have regular meetings with CCI and while I truly do appreciate the desire for data so that we can create good public policy, I'm not sure that data that is hard to hard to identify for a temporary bill is the best use of time. And I will reiterate to Stsci my request for additional work on the tree ordinance that I made last week. And I will I will be voting no on this bill so as to ensure that they have staff time to create the tree ordinance that I am requesting. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All righty. Any other comments or questions from my colleagues? All right. So I'm going to go ahead and call for a vote on this particular amendment. So will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of amendment motion time if we version two.
Speaker 1: And I want to know. Strauss.
Speaker 2: May.
Speaker 1: HERBOLD No. That's a tie.
Speaker 0: HERBOLD They.
Speaker 1: Thinking Juarez may. Lewis. Thank. MORALES No. Must get to know. Peterson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 1: One in favor eight opposed.
Speaker 0: He the motion fails and the amendment is not adopted. Okay, colleagues, I think that completes the list of amendments that we have on this particular bill. I want to thank you all for slugging it out with me. I know it's 4:30 p.m., so let's go ahead and move along here. Are there any comments on the bill as amended? Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President I just wanted to make a couple of comments before the vote. I fully intend to vote for this legislation, and I appreciate you for bringing it forward. You know, as one of the two writers on the council, I think it's critical that we extend protection to renters in this time to make sure that we can keep people inside, especially in this time of uncertainty in addition to public health threats. I just want to clarify, too, for the people that commented earlier when we did have public comment that addressed this bill, there there is no city law that's authorizing, condoning or calling for people to not pay their rent. Just because there's a moratorium on evictions does not mean that the city is seeking to condone folks not paying rent, nor is a rent strike, an official city policy. And I think that that's important for members of the public to know this council, for the record, additionally to everyone earlier who was talking about as an alternative to this moratorium, putting money into rent support, as was alluded earlier by Councilmember Herbold and others on this council, has put millions of dollars into rent relief before and during this crisis. With more on the way, rent relief is a criteria or is a priority of this council and continues to be and will continue to be. But we face the problem that we have 1.4 million Washingtonians that are unemployed and that state and federal unemployment and relief has been slow coming. Hard to access. Glitchy websites have been crashing and we are in a period of immense and extreme uncertainty regarding how people are going to immediately make their rent. And it puts a lot of Washingtonians in a position where while they could ordinarily, dependably be able to pay their rent on time, it might take some folks a little bit more time to do it. And while I'm sure that many of the landlords who commented earlier and who have been contacting my office, I'm sure that I completely believe all of their representations that they are exceptional landlords, that they're working with folks to cut them some slack. But we cannot make policy as a city council that is just going to trust that folks that are facing completely unique hardships are not going to be put in a position where they are going to be on the street and in a precarious position during this public health crisis and then later during the slow and circuitous recovery. I did also want to flag to a lot of the landlords who commented earlier. There are a lot of actions that the city and the state has done to help to alleviate the pressures that landlords are facing . And there are delayed payments of property taxes that King County is doing. We have delayed we are delaying payments of the taxes. Given the hardship of the current crisis, the city is delaying utility payments for folks who have who have to pay utilities. All of these things are designed to try to defer some of the costs of landlords. While we know full well that because of the nature of what's happening in the marketplace, some rent may be deferred because people are going to have trouble paying rent or have to wait for relief to come through before they can do it . And I just want to state as the tenant who is currently in a state that has an eviction moratorium, I did pay my rent. I paid my rent because I'm in a position to pay it. I will continue to do it because that's an obligation that I assumed when I signed a lease. I am not refusing to pay merely because there's a moratorium in place, and most of my fellow renters, if they can pay, are in a position to pay, will pay. Renters are professionals. Two of us are.
Speaker 4: On the Seattle City.
Speaker 2: Council. Some of us as renters are gig workers who are suffering and are on the margins. Some of us as renters worked in restaurants and have been unemployed for weeks now because that industry has fallen off a cliff. We are not a homogenous group and if we're in a position to pay, we are going to pay. We are not going to hold out purely because we are in a position where there's a rent moratorium and there's a perception that we could we're not going to do that. It's just not something that is going to happen. But we do know that there are going to be lots of people who aren't in a position to pay because they're suffering from these hardships they just enumerated. And we as a council will continue to support, rent support for people to make sure that they have the resources to meet those obligations. We're going to continue to work with our federal and state partners to expand unemployment, to expand relief, to make sure that people. Have the resources to pay their landlords. But I did just want to take this moment to clear up some of those misconceptions, to explain why I'm going to vote for this legislation today and to say that I want to continue to work with everyone who testified publicly before my colleagues on the Council to make sure that we can continue to fight for relief and continue to fight for protections for renters, as well as get through this crisis to make sure that those deferred rent payments not forgiven, but deferred rent payments will be made ultimately when we get on the other side of this. So thank you, Madam President, for bringing this forward, and I will be voting in favor of this legislation.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Lewis. Well-stated. Colleagues, any other comments on the bill as amended? That's what I want. And then Councilmember Strauss and Casper Mosqueda, Councilperson lawyers.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Brazil Mosquito. I am very happy to vote yes on this legislation as a step towards preventing the deluge of evictions. At the moment, the emergency eviction ban ends. Tens of millions of renters across the country are unable to pay rent because unable. It's not like they are willfully refusing to. They are unable to pay rent because they have lost work hours or even jobs through the COVID emergency and recession. In the first week of April, 31% of renters were unable to pay their rent in full. I have not seen many statistics come out yet, but I'm sure that the crisis faced by renters is continuing, especially in the light of the new data that we've seen that the federal stimulus checks have not reached a majority of working class households who are actually eligible for it. And we know that that problem is translating into the impact on lives of tens of thousands of people, working people in and many of whom are renters in total, the vast majority of whom are renters. And this would mean that tens of thousands of renters in Seattle are unable to pay their rent right now. It would be completely unacceptable for them to be evicted with everything that it entails. As I mentioned earlier, in 2017, according to the Losing Home report, nearly nine out of ten renters who were evicted ended up homeless. Many of them were children. They were disproportionately working class people of color. Four of the evicted tenants in 2017 committed suicide. That is why I arranged strike movement nationwide. As I said, there's hundreds of organizations that are involved in demanding that rent, mortgage and utility payments be suspended or, in other words, canceled during this emergency and also demanding that rents be frozen for the rest of the year, meaning no rent increases for the rest of the year. And as I have mentioned in the past, that online petition that was started by activists in Washington state and now has been signed by over 3 million signatories nationwide. And our statewide petition has been signed by more than 9000 Washingtonians. And it's really interesting to see how something that is politically impossible in one moment becomes commonplace in the next. Only a few months ago, our movement fought for and won the ban on winter evictions. It was a fight in the country, and now cities and states across the country in the context of the pandemic have banned evictions, at least temporarily, and are now extending those rights with legislation like this one that we're going to be voting on. You know, Councilmember Peterson has proudly pointed out the amendment he made in the winter evictions ordinance to exclude renters who supposedly have smaller landlords. But as Councilmember Herbold, thank her for noting this. And as I had noted at that time, unfortunately, the majority of council did not agree with that at that time, which was actually the truth , which is that renters cannot. It is it is virtually impossible for renters to prove that their landlord is a, quote, unquote, small landlord. And. At that time that amendment passed. Unfortunately, the majority of the council voted for it. But now it is important to the majority of the council stood against that. And it's becoming increasingly clear to millions of people that the private market has completely failed to make housing a human right. And socialists have already always pointed out that the private market will not meet human need. But that reality has now magnified by so many orders of magnitude in the impact it has on human misery in the context of the pandemic. And as far as rent strike and the demand of demands of renters are concerned, here is the reality. And this is the better reality. Once the eviction moratoria are lifted, there will. If renters don't fight back, if renters don't get organized, they will face a massive wave of evictions throughout the nation. We saw that, as I said, in the Great Recession with home ownership of middle class households being completely destroyed by the big banks and the big mortgage holders. Already right now, we are seeing big landlords and property managers not complying with existing law. I just got an email from a renter today who said that they had already faced a rent increase from Cornell and Associates, which which is a big property manager in this area, and that is violating the governor's order . So renters are already being forced to fight to end existing law enforcement alone. What will happen when those emergency orders are lifted? And so that is why renters need to get organized. And that is the purpose behind the nationwide strike movement, which, as you know, including hundreds of community organizations and demonstrates organization. And lastly, I will say that in addition to fighting for renters rights, we will need a massive expansion of social housing which cannot be accomplished without progressive revenues. And that is why we really urge the Council to support the Amazon tax proposal by Councilmember Morales and myself. And again, I'm happy to vote yes on this legislation.
Speaker 0: Thank you, councilmember someone. I think I will need a reminder as to who was next in line. Was it Councilmember Strauss? Yes, Kazmir Strauss. And then Kazmir Mosqueda commerce supporters are.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council president. Just wanting to say, you know, this is a crisis, an international pandemic that we are responding to, where we do not we are not conducting life as normally as we did, you know, months ago. And I want to just thank everyone who is participating and looking out for their neighbor, looking out for themselves. When I read Danny West Needs a tale of two landlords. Granted it was regarding commercial landlords. There's a clear difference between people who are living in Seattle and part of our community and folks who are not. And I want to just take a moment to think. Any person, whether you're a landlord or any other business who has looked out for your neighbor and allowed payment plans or not gone through evictions or provided affordable below market rate housing. I just wanted to take a moment to thank everyone for pitching in.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Strauss. Customer Mosquito. HQ Council President. Just want to offer a note of appreciation for all the work that you've done on this legislation. I know it's been many weeks of stakeholder engagement and we're planning drafts on the legislation. We heard initial feedback from the tenants, advocates and Washington Community Action Network about the legislation related to removing barriers for tenants experiencing economic hardship due to their documentation status, or working in the gig economy where it would be really difficult to prove or provide documentation of financial hardship due to COVID impacting their ability to pay rent. So I really want to appreciate all the work that you've done as the bill's sponsor for incorporating this feedback. This legislation would provide a protection for tenants who are most impacted by the economic effects of COVID during the months when they are most vulnerable for six months and for six months after the civil emergency has lifted. We know that this is just one piece of the puzzle. We also need rent and mortgage forgiveness at the federal level to protect both tenants and small landlords. Rental assistance on a massive scale with federal, state and local support and more investments and dedicated revenue for building affordable housing to make sure everyone is able to stay home and stay healthy. I want to just underscore the point that I think a lot of folks made on that national call last Friday, and I've tried to really hammer home not all landlords are the same. And that is why we know it's important for us to get federal assistance for small landlords, for housing authority entities like the Seattle Housing Authority and King County Housing Authority, and for our nonprofit housing providers. So having that type of assistance from the federal level with support for Representative Ilhan Omar, as Bill is going to be critical and that not all tenants are treated the same. Right now we have statistics from pre-COVID that show that the type of folks that are already experiencing housing discrimination and who are more likely to face eviction are women, are people of color, are immigrants, are the LGBTQ population. And so with COVID, we are wanting to double down on our commitments to protect these already vulnerable populations. I really appreciate the effort that you have put forward into this legislation to work with those stakeholders to move forward, this commitment to lift up our protections for all folks, especially those who are experiencing this type of discrimination even prior to COVID. Thank you so much. Having to vote yes on this bill. Thank you. I appreciate your support. Any other colleagues have comments on the bill ackman. Okay. I will close out debate before we call this and bill to a vote. So, colleagues, the bill we have before us today is and is in direct response to the COVID 19 crisis. When this crisis started to unfold, we saw thousands of workers. And indeed, now we know it's well over a million workers who have abruptly lost their jobs. Workers who are hourly wage earners with the hospitality and tourism industries hit particularly hard in some instances in that hospitality industry in the first week alone. Their unemployment filings went up by over 600% during the month of March. We saw unemployment filings more than double in one week, only for that number to increase by 842% the following week. Last week, the Seattle Times reported that more than one in five, more than one in five Washingtonians have applied for unemployment benefits. And we know this number would be greater if everyone actually could apply. I'm proud of our city interstate for its quick science driven response to contain the spread of the coronavirus and flatten the curve. The declaration of states of emergency and the actions by the mayor and the governor to put moratoriums in place against residential evictions in mid-March will keep many people safe and housed and appreciative to them for those actions that they took. And I'm also appreciative to the Attorney General General's office for doing enforcement. However, we know that the moratoriums will expire at their earliest in sometime in June, and it is unlikely that the civil emergency will be lifted at that same time. Recovery is going to take time and we know our economy will be back in phases, not all at once. And with social distancing protocols, they will it will continue to present issues for whether or not we will come out of this economic crisis quickly or slowly with the likelihood of the moratorium on evictions being lifted before the conclusion of a civil emergency. There is that window of time where many people remain vulnerable if they are particularly impacted by this pandemic. This legislation before us today can help people stay housed, and that is the bottom line. This bill expands on the city's just cause eviction ordinance, similar to the defenses created by that by that ordinance. This legislation creates an additional tool a defense a tenant may utilize in eviction court proceedings. But it is a time limited tool.
Speaker 1: This bill.
Speaker 0: Which would cover that period of time between the end of the moratorium during the civil emergency and once the married. If there is the civil emergency over, it will make this tool available to those who need it for a period of six months after that date. This bill is not an extension of moratoriums by the mayor or the governor. In fact, it does not prohibit landlords from taking actions associated with evictions like filing of unlawful detainers, issuing determination notices, or initiating a writ of resolution. I want to make that really clear, because a lot of the testimony that we've been receiving in the public makes it seem as though we are getting rid of all of our landlord tenant laws. And that's just simply not the case. What we are doing is we are enhancing existing landlord tenant laws to benefit tenants who are going to need additional time to get their feet grounded and to be able to continue to dig out of this economic crisis. So I want to make sure that we are rooting our policy in in those real renters stories and who is being impacted by the reality of this economic crisis and and that intersection between that economic crisis and and housing stability. So my office undertook the effort of collecting stories of people who've been impacted by this crisis. Of the people who responded to that story collection exercise, we learned that nearly 64% of the respondents lost their jobs due to this crisis, with many waiting several weeks before unemployment benefits would come in, an additional 18% of the respondents have their hours or income severely reduced as a result of the business closure because of the pandemic. And some tenants share that. While some of their landlords had graciously reduced their rent, most people just didn't understand how they would ever be able to pay the rent on May 1st. And in fact, we've heard some stories of people skipping meals each day to save money for rent, utilities and other expenses. After that, seeing their hours were severely cut. People share with us that they were at risk at losing their health insurance because they'll drop below full time status. People shared with. Best quote. I just don't know. I'm terrified. We just moved into this apartment after escaping from a horrible landlord. Now we're finally somewhere safe, and now we're afraid we're going to lose it already. If we do, we don't know where we'll go. I can't move home. Due to abusive, dangerous family, we feel completely helpless. Another renter shared with us that they live with four people. All of them are out of work due to COVID. Many do not meet the standards for unemployment, and at this time they don't know how they'll make how they pay rent in the month of May. These are real stories from our constituents throughout the city who would see relief potentially out of this law if we were to pass it today. So these these are the these are the stories that we need to root this policy in. And the weekly stories we hear about our state's unemployment system working overtime to keep up means we know tens of thousands in our city are still waiting to get those promised benefits. This legislation ultimately is a way to have more time for people impacted by this crisis to figure things out. These individuals and families will have a longer road to recover from this crisis. And many of us, as counselors articulated by Councilmember Lewis, have been advocating for more rental assistance and additional mortgage relief and a deferral of property taxes to help renters and small landlords alike. And we will continue to work with our state and federal partners on making sure that those needs are met through COVID 19 relief packages. I know I'm committed to doing that. I know that folks on this council are committed to continuing to do that. And with that, I'm really excited about calling of this particular council bill and to a vote. So with that being said, I will ask the clerk, please call the role of passage of the bill as amended.
Speaker 1: The launch.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 1: Her bones.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Suarez, I. Lewis. I. Morales. I. Mesquita.
Speaker 0: I've.
Speaker 1: Peterson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor then opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Clerk The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. And I'd ask that the clerk please the fix my signature to the legislation on behalf. Thank you, colleagues, for that wonderful conversation. I think we're we're we're we're doing something really important for thousands of renters across the city. So thank you so much. Will the clerk please read the short titles of items four through six into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to termination of residential rental tenancies; providing a defense to evictions occurring within six months after the termination of the Mayor’s residential eviction moratorium as amended by Resolution 31938; amending Section 22.206.160 of the Seattle Municipal Code; declaring an emergency; and establishing an immediate effective date; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05042020_CB 119780 | Speaker 1: Agenda Items 436 Capital 119 780 relating to the Department of Finance Administrative Services authorizing the Director of Finance Administrative Services to negotiate and execute a real property lease with Epic Life Church for a site located at ten 503 Interlake Avenue North Council Bill 119 782 relating to the financing of fire facilities, creating a fund for depositing proceeds of limited tax general obligation bonds and 2021 Council Bill 119 781 relating to the Seattle Department of Finance Administrative Services authorizing acquisition acquisition of real property being identified in King County Records.
Speaker 0: It's good to see you. Thank you so much. Madam Clerk. Council members. The clerk read items four through six into the record and will discuss these items as a package. But we will take a separate vote on each bill. Councilmember Herbold, as the lead sponsor, would you like to address these bills first? Absolutely. Thank you. I will address all three of them together. Council Bill 11 9780 is a bill that establishes an interim lease for fire station 31. The site lease itself addresses issues such as lease terms, monthly rent, parking and funding. The lease term period goes from January 1st, 2021 through December 31st, 2026. Council Bill 11 9781 primarily authorizes fees to purchase property in the vicinity of 113th Ave and Meridian Avenue North as the permanent site for Fire Station 31. And the bill limits the maximum purchase price for the property to $4.5 million. Council Bill 11 9782 does a number of things. It creates a new fund called the 2021 Multipurpose Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Fund. The purpose of the fund is to receive funds and distribute LTG bond proceeds. We will not be issuing the bonds right now. We are going to be punishing that fund with funds from an inner fund loan. That's $8.2 million of an interphone loan from the Construction and Inspections Fund to this newly created fund. We will then pay back the $8.2 million to the Construction and Inspections Fund once we issue the LTE LTE go bond fund. And then finally, the bill itself creates a new capital project within the capital improvement program. The new capital project is called Fire Station 31.
Speaker 1: Replacement Project.
Speaker 0: And really appreciate the leadership of Chief Scoggins, FRC Director Kevin Calvin Goins, Local 27, and Councilmember Juarez, who is also a sponsor of this legislation, really tipped tip of the hat to Councilmember Juarez for her efforts during the budget process last year and identify $100,000 of funds as a way to jump start the need for this replacement station. Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, are there any other comments on the bills before us?
Speaker 1: Um. Council, president, council or more is here. Did you want me to address briefly the three, or did you want to do this?
Speaker 0: Yeah, we are. We are discussing all four bills right now. We'll take separate votes. So if you have any comments on any any of the the three bills, now's the time to make those comments.
Speaker 1: Great. Okay, great. Yes. Items four, five and six. First of all, thank you, Councilmember Herbold, for covering the basics and some of the detail on the financial plan. Obviously, I'm glad to see this legislation before us today to relocate fire station 31 in the Northgate neighborhood in District five. A special thanks, of course, to Chief Scoggins, Calvin Goins, Bass and Kenny Stewart, the president of Firefighters Union IAFF Local 27. The fire station is located south of Northwest Hospital, north of Northfield College and west of I Am and Northgate Mall. As many of you recall, the growing Northgate neighborhood lost our station 31 last summer when firefighters were all relocated to other stations. Relocation was necessary due to environmental testing, which revealed unhealthy conditions. And as you remember, this has been an ongoing issue for a few years. And since then I've been pleased to be in regular contact with both Chief Scoggins and director Calvin Goings about next steps. They review the current station capacity, the current system demand on the station, and the forecast for future demand, according to Chief Scoggins, Fire Station 31 is one of the busiest stations in our city. In addition, the relocation of firefighters last June resulted in higher response times that exceed the fire department standard. So high response times that makes us very happy. In the end, the city concluded that the current station 31 is too small to meet the needs of anticipated population growth in the North End, particularly with light rail coming at Northgate and hopefully our other station up the road and on 130th. But in any way, immediate needs of growth and increased service demand. So rather than trying to salvage an environmentally unhealthy and uninhabitable station that will soon be too small, the recommendation was that the station should be replaced. And so with that, I urge my colleagues to pass. Item Council Bill 119780 Council. Bill 119782 Council. Bill 119781. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Councilmember Warrens. Any other questions or comments on any of these three bills? Customers want lawyers.
Speaker 3: Thank you. And the bill is, of course, support improving the infrastructure of this yellow fire department, including the development of the new fire station 31, which is essentially being authorized by these three bills for council members who agree with the power station 31 charge. I just wanted to point out, for the benefit of the public that the building agenda item five is. Totally routine legislation authorizing the internment loan. The city uses an indefinite loan to make your funding immediately available when it can most efficiently be used and stage the plan for how the loan will be repaid. And I hope members of the public notice the difference between how the political establishment has talked about this and de-fund loan products proposed by Mayor Durkan. That is not at all talked about it. And the interest on loan proposed by Councilmember Morales and NE in our Amazon tax bill to make COVID relief stimulus checks immediately available to the neediest of Seattle's working class families, ultimately to be paid for, of course, by the tax on big business. Rather than discuss the substance of the Amazon tax and the COVID relief and the jobs program that it will fund, the political establishment instead has mostly focused on the administrative, intertwined loan legislation in an attempt to sow confusion and distract from the substantive issues the mayor has toward new station, saying, quote, The entire fund loans, the funds that they want to rob, I am not sure that they have the authority to do that because those were all voter approved initiatives. As importantly, to the extent that there is the ability to having to fund loans, which is a budget technique, we may need that just to balance the budget this year. So there is no scenario under which people will receive checks this year. And I think that's really not responsible to tell people during these really hard times and good oatmeal. Durkan will clarify if she also thinks that irresponsible to tell the fire department that they will be purchasing the land for Fire Station 31 this year, funded with this indoor fund loan, obviously an indoor fund loan of $200 million for COVID 19 relief for up to 100,000 working families. Is that a totally different scale than the $8 million on loan at worst, ongoing question today. And it would be appropriate if elected officials were openly to discuss whether the city had actually had funds to cover a loan of that size, which is precisely why we made sure that City Council's Angel staff's research was presented that strongly demonstrates that the city does have sufficient funds. Instead, the mayor has dishonestly claimed that it was somehow technically impossible or even illegal to carry out an internal fund loan, which is a common tactic used by the political establishment to confuse ordinary people in their fight for social justice. You know, for example, in Congress for decades, they have justified opposing single payer health care by claiming that it is just impractical and too complicated. And working people should not believe that those lies for one moment. So I will, of course, be voting on yes on all three legislation, including the totally routine legislation authorizing the interest on loan to provide the bridge funding for the fire station 31 project. And I urge members of the public to see this example of how an interest loan authorization legislation was approached as a completely uncontroversial issue compared to the way the mayor has reacted to the Amazon tax legislation related interest.
Speaker 0: If you council members want any other comments or questions from my colleagues herbal. Captain Kathryn Swann partially made this. But I just want to underscore, this is a very, I think, different in scale. This Interphone loan is for $8.2 million and the source of the Interphone loan is a is a very different source so that the source is the construction inspections fund for a small number of dollars. It is not $50 million from four different voter approved levies. I'm not commenting on the legality of of the latter funds. I'm just saying that this is a different source of of funds for the the Interphone loan, and then it's a much smaller number of funds. I think he can't remember any other comments. Okay. Great. Thank you so much to both councilmembers Herbold and Suarez for walking us through these bills. Looks like there are no other additional comments, so we're going to move forward with each bill and councilmembers will have a final opportunity to provide comments if they wish before we vote on each item. So we'll begin with item four. I will move to pass Council Bill 119780. Is there a second?
Speaker 2: Second, second, second.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilmember Herbold has already spoken to this bill. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing and seeing the clerk. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Want.
Speaker 3: I think.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Purple.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 1: Suarez. I. Lewis.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Morales.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Mascara.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Peterson.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor, nine opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And I'd ask that the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation. Item number five I will move to pass Council Bill 119782. Is there a second? Okay. It's been moved in second bid to pass the bill. Are there any further comments on the bill? Hearing and seeing none. Will the court please call the role on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 3: So I.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Purple.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Whereas. I. Lewis.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Morales.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Macheda.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Peterson. I'm President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Not in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it and I laugh at the company's affixed my signature to the legislation. Moving on to agenda item six, I will move to pass Council Bill 119781. Is there a second? Second.
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Are there any further comments on the bill? Kasim Nunn. Well, the Clark piece called Roll on the Passage of the Bill.
Speaker 1: The one.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Drought. I verbal.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Whereas. I. Lewis. I. Morales.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Let's get to.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Petersen.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor. None opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And I'd ask the clerk, please affects my signature to the legislation. Okay, colleagues, we are now in other business. I understand there's one item of other business, so I will hand it over to Councilmember Strauss to quickly walk us through that item. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Finance and Administrative Services; authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services to negotiate and execute a real property lease with Epic Life Church, for a site located at 10503 Interlake Avenue N; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04272020_CB 119769 | Speaker 1: Agenda Item.
Speaker 0: One Constable 119.
Speaker 1: 769 relating to land use review decision and procedures, temporally modifying and suspending procedures in Title.
Speaker 0: 23 and 25 and on the.
Speaker 1: Code.
Speaker 0: Just think I will need somebody on the prevailing side to act on this motion for reconsideration to call up the motion. Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 4: I am sorry I lost track of where we are here. I call the motion to reconsider passage of House Bill 119769.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. This motion does not require a second. So reconsideration of Council Bill 119769 is now before the Council for consideration. Council members at the April 20th City Council meeting, we considered and amended Council Bill 119769. The bill, as amended, did not secure the needed seven votes to pass it and Councilmember Verbal moved to reconsider the bill on April 20th. So pursuant to the City Charter, that motion was moved and seconded and held until this city council meeting. We now have before us the motion to reconsider the ballot, the bill. Councilmember Morales as the maker. I'm sorry. Councilmember Herbold As the maker of the original motion. Do you have any comments? Oh, my comments. Thank you. Thank you so much. Are there any further comments on the motion to reconsider the bill? Again, we're not voting on the actual substance of the bill at this point. We're still voting on the procedural vote to reconsider passage of Council Bill 119769. You hear and see no comments. The city council will now vote to reconsider passage of Council Bill 119769. Will the clerk please call the roll?
Speaker 1: PETERSON No. So what.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Strauss takes her vote.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 1: Whereas I. Lewis. Hi. Or.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Let's get to.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez, I. Seven in favor, two opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. That vote only required a majority. In other words, five council members present to be in favor of moving forward. And so that motion carries in Council Bill 119769 is now before the council. Council Member Strauss As sponsor of this bill, do you have any opening remarks that you would like to make?
Speaker 2: Yes, thank you. Council President I'll try and make this short. As we've discussed this many times before, this emergency legislation addresses design review, historic preservation and permitting process, including the COVID 19. Emergency is temporary in nature, and the intention of this legislation is to allow critically needed housing projects to continue moving forward through the permitting process in a way that preserves public input and engagement and protects public health. Specifically as such, the legislation would allow projects to opt into administrative design review for six months, or until the design review boards are able to meet virtually or in person. It would allow for Pre-Application community outreach to be done virtually and explicitly highlights how that can be done. It would allow for minor decisions related to his remarks or historic and special review districts to be made administratively while suspending meetings and major decisions of the landmarks and special review boards. Because the legislation is being enacted on an emergency basis. All provisions would lapse after 180 days and would be. And we are required to hold a public hearing within 60 days more than the time. Sensitivity around this is more than 20 proposed residential projects representing over 3500 housing units. And ending this living facility are currently on hold because design review meetings have been indefinitely canceled. Another 20 projects are expected to be delayed each month, creating a significant backlog for their design review boards that could outlast our current emergency and typically takes the project about a year to move through the design review process. So allowing these projects to keep moving is important. Another 30 projects, including four affordable housing projects, are unable to proceed because they cannot complete their early community outreach until this legislation is passed. There's also a minor landmark recommendation that the key arena project needs and has been delayed for several weeks. This will become a pinch point in May. While departments have been taking steps to hold design review boards, meetings virtually, there are several barriers that still need to be addressed. And I share with you that this is different than our city council meetings. It's different than the design commission meetings because there is feedback and conversation that is needed on detailed documents, and that can be confusing. Even last week, I personally experienced not speaking for any other council members experience. I was kicked off our virtual meetings here at City Council twice. We have only been able to start our public input last week and this is just. This doesn't even begin to cover the complex level of design review. The size of the design review program, which involves 20 to 30 meetings each month. Councilmember Lewis I did confirm it's over 100 staff members who would need additional training and 70 volunteer board members with varying abilities and technological access. There are also challenges with facilitating comment and signing for these complex and technical documents that are graphic rich in their presentation. We are all able to be together on this call today for because it's our jobs and the design review process relies on volunteers dealing with all the challenges of this pandemic, which changes their availability for frequent and virtual meetings and doesn't guarantee that full participation is able to to occur. The Design Commission has, as I said, been able to hold a virtual meeting, which is promising. Again, this is different than design review boards. One of my amendments that we passed last week would require reporting in 60 days on the executive's progress towards these virtual meetings, and the legislation is written to virtually mirror the public engagement opportunities the community members would have used if we were using the typical process. I will, just as a final note, go over the. Amendments that we made last week that would allow projects to receive a recommendation through administrative administrative design review process to remain in that process, allow self nominated projects seeking landmark designation to negotiate their controls and incentive agreements. Not the final designation allows the Housing Authority to utilize the design review exemption for affordable housing, clarifying community outreach requirements, improving tree protections by removing an exemption that would allow for hazardous tree removal to be done. So administratively is allow another amendment to allow for administrative approval of door and window replacements in historic and special review districts and allow for administrative approval of penthouses when those guidelines already exist. Nevermore. I will leave it at that, because we are we have had extensive conversation on this bill. And also, I would like to compliment Councilmember Lewis for his community outreach on his amendment. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Strauss, for those introductory remarks. I know that we have two amendments to manage. As we discussed during council briefing this morning, so I'm going to go through the amendments at this point in the order that they appeared on the published agenda. So that means that Councilmember Morales will be up first, followed by Councilmember Lewis on his amendment. So I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Morales so that she can make her motion to have us consider Amendment one. Councilmember Alice, the floor is yours.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I move to amend Council Bill 119769 presented on the Morales Amendment one.
Speaker 2: That can.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill. Councilmember Morales I will go ahead and hand it over to you to address the amendment.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. So this amendment would allow the director of neighborhoods to approve certificates of approval for some changes within the International Special Review District. It would also remove a provision that would have allowed for virtual meetings of the ISRG Board in lieu of in-person meetings. If in-person meetings could not be held safely, Isrg board meetings would not be held for 60 days. And the amendment also corrects some drafting errors that were in the version that we had last week. The purpose of this really is, as I said this morning in briefing, to allow meetings to continue. Once we have once we are able to meet in-person again safely, but not meet virtually. And the real point here is to protect the community that doesn't have a lot of access to technology and where we can't always have assurance that there will be sufficient language interpretation services available for some of these technical conversations. And so the community is willing to just wait and and gather again in that when it's safe to do so. After the 60 day period.
Speaker 0: I thank you, Councilmember Morales, for addressing the amendment. Are there any other comments on this amendment? Councilmember Herbold, the floor is yours. Thank you. Councilman Morales, could you, for my benefit, explain to me how this amendment is different from the one that you brought forward last week? The reason why I am asking is the guidance I received from the clerk's office is for if an amendment fails in order for us to bring it back, it has to be a different question. And so I would just really appreciate the clarity of of understanding how this amendment differs from the one that you brought last week
Speaker 4: . So what happened last week was that there were some drafting errors. As I said, the intention was to eliminate the option for electronic meetings. But what was actually incorporated into the language from last week would have would have allowed for the certificate of approval process, administrative process to continue for the Pioneer Square Review District, but not for the International District's special review district. So so part of the challenge was that there was just that drafting error that needed to be removed from what we were trying to accomplish.
Speaker 0: So I'm trying to provide an opportunity for you to say that this the effect of this amendment is different than the amendment that you brought forward. Is that would that be an accurate statement?
Speaker 4: Yes, because the effect of the previous amendment was much broader, had a much broader scope of that. It would have changed the ability of the isrg to meet. So this is sort of narrowing the scope of what had been proposed or what had been included in last week's version. And that was a mistake.
Speaker 0: Perfect. Thank you. I thank you so much, Councilmember Herbold, for that kind of questioning. Are there any other comments on the on the Morales Amendment one? Okay. Hearing none. I'm going to go ahead. However, I'm a skater. Did I see your hand go up? Thank you. President, I just wanted to say how much I appreciate Councilmember Morales's work with the folks who brought up the need for additional clarity and happy to support this amendment. Appreciate all your work. Thank you. Thank you so much. I'm going to go ahead and close out discussion on this particular amendment. Will the Kirk call the roll on the adoption of the Morales Amendment one?
Speaker 1: Peterson, I. The ones.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Purple. I. Suarez. I. Lewis. Hi. Or else I.
Speaker 0: Macheda I.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: I. Nine in favor.
Speaker 1: None oppose.
Speaker 0: The motion carries and the amendment is adopted. Are there any further comments on the bill as amended? And I think this is an opportunity for Councilmember Lewis to walk us through Amendment two. So I'm going to hand it over to you, Councilmember Lewis, to put Amendment two on the on the table.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I move to amend Council Bill 119769 as presented on version two of the Lewis amendment to on the agenda. Second.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill. Councilmember Lewis, I'm going to hand it back over to you so that you can address your amendment.
Speaker 3: Well, I'll just be brief. I think we had a good discussion of this amendment during briefing this morning. Just to reiterate some of the arguments that I brought up at that time. I think that for two reasons this amendment is appropriate. First, that the buildings that are going forward under this pilot program are of a particular size involved. The design review is more important than for similarly situated projects that are not part of the just of the Living Building Pilot program. I think too, that given the status of the three projects that this amendment would address, all of which are mid-stream through the established in-person design review process, that it would be warranted for these projects to continue along in that path and go back to the design review boards, be they in-person or virtual, to get the final go ahead to proceed to the master use permit. For those reasons, I think that this amendment at this time is appropriate. It's narrowly tailored. It speaks to specific, articulable reasons why exemptions like this would be warranted given the scope of the current ordinance. And I would ask that the council approved this amendment.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Lewis, are there any comments on Councilmember Lewis's amendment? Councilmember Mosqueda, the floor is yours. I will defer to the prime sponsor. I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: Again, just want to compliment Councilmember Lewis on his joint outreach. This is the very type of outreach and amendment that I appreciate when engaging in land use decisions. He did an excellent job of convincing me that this should come forward, despite my request of no new topics on the bill because we're trying to get it across the finish line. So I just want all of Councilmember Lewis's constituents to know that he is doing work in their stead. I appreciate it. Despite my desire to really not engage in new topics on this bill since it's been such a heavy lift so far.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Strauss, councilmember mosqueda you're recognized for resource. Thank you very much, Madam President. And I do appreciate the hard work that has gone into this legislation, both from the prime sponsor and from the folks who've been crafting amendments. I know we're trying to do our best to make sure that basic city government functions in the time of COVID and making sure that our community constituent engagement processes and don't miss a beat. And you all have been exemplary in that action. I do need to speak up, as I noted this morning, with my concerns about this amendment and offer a first piece of clarification and second, sort of my rationale for not voting for this amendment. First, I think it's really important that we make sure that folks know that there's been a misperception about community engagement not continuing. In fact, Administrative Design Review mirrors the public engagement process that takes place during full design review. It simply replaces the in-person comment period with a written comment period. All the same, public engagement opportunities exist. They just take a different form. People can call, send written comments to CCI rather than providing comments in person. All steps in the administrative review process are publicly posted through a website, and if you sign up to be part of the administrative design review process, you receive notifications on all materials, submitted planners, comments and recommendations similar to full design review. I would also posture, as I said in last week's conversation, it's arguably more inclusive to be able to accept phone calls and written comments than just having meetings in person. Think about all the folks who are working two and three jobs, the people who would like to be there, but for their error or possibilities at home or at work and or mobility issues, and want to make sure that we're thinking about inclusivity and equity as we think about engaging in soliciting public comment, especially now during COVID. I think that this bill strikes that nice balance. Secondly, the reason that I'm speaking in opposition to this amendment is that I think that living buildings projects is exactly the type of outstanding projects that we'd like to see, be able to get the design review process moving forward and get the green light to move forward so that we don't lose any interest in the ability to build these exact types of buildings. These are socially just sustainable, human health oriented green buildings, as I talked about this morning. This is not just about setbacks or green roofs. It's about incorporating nature in every aspect of the building design in the materials and the energy systems to create spaces that integrate the physical and psychological well-being of people and the health of the surrounding environment. And I think it's really important that we think about how we encourage more, more developers to go this route. So this pilot is extremely important as we think about reducing the amount of energy use, creating green spaces and and really facilitating that integration between community preference and what we'd like to see in these buildings, if we I think the unintended consequence here is that if we pull out living buildings, there's a chance that folks who are interested in building greener buildings will opt for the administrative design review. And we've missed the opportunity to see more of these living buildings come into fruition. And in fact, I'm worry about the message that we send to folks that might be considering future living buildings, that they don't want to go down this route either. I am appreciative of the conversation. It sounds like you've had in districts. I think that is important for us though, to push back to say that living building projects just like this are exactly what we'd like to see to make sure that we can incorporate the public feedback that has already been received. Work with CCI to ensure that that public comment is integrated as we move forward and make sure for the environment's sake that we are encouraging, facilitating and creating more opportunities for living, building and projects to move forward. Especially in this time where we worry that with COVID developers could potentially pull out of projects like this as uncertain economic forecasts cause people to question future investments, let's move forward. Let's include living buildings in our efforts. And let's remember that this will absolutely allow for community engagement to continue as outlined by our department partners in previous presentations. Thank you for letting me explain my position on this and for your ongoing work colleagues to make sure that the public comment is included and that we hopefully include living buildings as well. I think you can sometimes get out. Are there any other comments? I see. Councilmember Herbold, the floor is yours if you have a question for the amendment sponsor, Councilmember Lewis. It's been said that there's a concern that for buildings that have been have submitted their their permit applications as living buildings, that if we passed an amendment today that had those buildings that had already submitted their permits as a living building and were already in the design review process, that they would then that that might somehow be a damper, might have a chilling effect on on on either those particular buildings or future buildings. I want to just clarify that this is only for buildings that have already filed their permits and are already have already already have a design review track. This is not for future living buildings. This is only for the ones that are that are currently on track. And I think. I am speculating that the costs associated with redesigning one of those buildings to not be subject to the same design review track as they are before passage of this legislation would be pretty, pretty extensive. So I'm just giving you another another chance to defend your your amendment or correct me if I'm wrong. And I also want to reference the point of the bill sponsor. Councilmember Strauss, for the purposes just I know we all know what the rules are among us on the Council, but for purposes of the viewing public, I just want to clarify that we don't require the consent of of bill sponsors in order to bring forward amendments during full council, even in this very in this very stressful time of trying to hear hear legislation not in committee, but all only in full council. So we have we're working on a compressed time, time period. And I believe Councilmember Straus was only referring to his preference to not address new issues that we as individual council members do, as long as we follow our rules, do have the ability to bring forward amendments, even in this in this time of compressed meetings. Thank you. So I think there was a question in there for Councilmember Lewis that I'll let him field in terms of the procedure and council rules. I'll I'll address that since since I am the presiding officer, if you will, on these meetings. You are you are correct, Councilmember Herbold, that so long as council rules are followed, amendments can be brought forward by any of us as individually elected council members. I took Councilmember Strauss's comments as being a preference that that not occur, given that he is the prime sponsor of this council bill. And that is pretty ordinary. Many of us on many occasions who have a message that or signaled that in the course of advancing our legislation, that that we're not supporting a particular amendment because of a feeling that it's untimely or opens up potential new issues that could compromise the need to pass a bill on a particular timeline. So I think you're absolutely correct in your observation that it's not a rule that new issues not be brought up. But I do I do sort of want to agree with that that perspective and with sort of my understanding of Councilmember Strauss's plea, which was let's let's minimize the issues we're considering here, given given that this is our second go around on this. And I certainly respect his encouragement for us to expedite this. That's where. Lewis. Can you. Would you like to address the question that was posed by Councilmember Herbold? And then I see Councilmember Strauss has raised his hand.
Speaker 3: Yeah, very briefly. I mean, you know, I think it is it's an open question as to the concerns that Councilmember Mosquito raised. And I think they are, well, well-taken. And I'm glad that she did raise it as to whether kind of any kind of legislating around this pilot program could have a freezing effect or deterrent effect, I think that's certainly something that is credible to bring up and credible to raise. I would say that the way that the amendment is drafted, it would actually only ever, for the entire history of this amendment, affect three projects, because any subsequent projects that did come in, as Councilmember Skirboll mentioned in her comments, would immediately be put into the administrative review track. So it would only be these projects that are already engaged in design review, have had a meeting and are sort of locked. This amendment would basically lock those three projects in. So the 15 current living building projects, only three would be affected. No subsequent living building project would be affected by the amendment. They would be able to take advantage of the other letting the administrative track that the ordinance provides. But I do think the broader point made by Councilmember Skate is certainly fair and and appreciate it. I would also add that there'd be a procedural not or not. I do appreciate Councilmember Strauss's indulgence in letting this issue be aired. So I want to thank him for that. And that that can even be my closing comments to on the amendment. Council President. If after Councilmember Strauss's comments you were to come back to me, I think I'll just rest on that and and leave it there.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Lewis. I appreciate that. And Councilmember Strauss, I'm going to go ahead and hand it over to you. I think the fact that we've had this long of debate on this amendment is probably approving Councilmember Strauss's point around not wanting to introduce a last minute issues into an already kind of complex bill. But Councilmember Strauss, I'll go ahead and hand it over to you.
Speaker 2: Yes, I'm just responding to Councilmember Herbold. You are correct in everything that you've said, I and really, I just want to say thank you to Councilmember Lewis for bringing this process forward. And with that, Councilmember Lewis, great work.
Speaker 0: All right. Okay. Council rooms. Get a one. One last time. I need you to really be succinct and in. And let's let's try to move forward on this minute. Thank you, council president. You know, I am really hopeful that this legislation does pass today, and I'm hopeful that we get a chance to revisit the living building conversation that Councilmember Lewis has started. Thank you so much. I know that you understand where I'm coming from. Councilmember Lewis, so appreciate the ongoing work that you are doing to try to elevate the issue of how folks continue to stay engaged in these conversations. I shouldn't have asked the question this morning when we had the opportunity here from central staff. I think that it does bear sort of me underscoring. I think that we have a difference of opinion, though, and perhaps I'm reading it wrong. But my my read is that projects in the future would not be able to opt in to participating in living buildings later in the permitting process if this amendment is in place. And so I'm not sure that I am reading it the same way. I am hopeful that the amendment doesn't hang and we can continue to look into this question and and have a conversation about the importance of living buildings in the future. But I worry that if projects decide to opt into living buildings after they go through an early design guidance, they would be stuck in a full design review path. And so that's where my concern is coming from. I don't want to sort of belabor the point any more because I know you're about to call the question, but I think that just precisely because this question is out there and I have a different read of it, I wanted to underscore my concern about the language as is. I won't repeat myself. Councilmember Lewis, I appreciate everything you did to put this forward, but I just wanted to be clear about where my my concerns were coming from. Thank you, Councilmember Mosqueda. Councilmember Lewis, you are the primary sponsor of this amendment. I know that you had indicated that you didn't have anything else to add, but just wanted to make sure that you had an opportunity to have the last word if you need to have it done.
Speaker 3: I'll stand by my previous commitment to rest it where I did.
Speaker 0: That's what I like to hear. Okay, so we're going to go ahead and move forward. I'm going to close out discussion on the Lewis amendment, too, and and ask that the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of version two of the Lewis amendment.
Speaker 1: Peterson, I. So I don't. No.
Speaker 2: Strauss Yeah.
Speaker 0: Herbold, I.
Speaker 1: SUAREZ No. Lewis. I.
Speaker 4: MORALES No.
Speaker 1: Macheda?
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Now.
Speaker 1: Three in favor, six opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The motion fails and the amendment is not adopted. Are there any further comments on the bill as amended and colleagues. This is going to be a vote on. The next thing that we're going to do is we're going to make we're going to we're going to vote on that on the passage of the bill as amended today and last Monday. So are there any comments on the bill as amended? I saw Councilmember Lewis first, then Councilmember Peterson and then Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 3: So I'm going to be really brief. I mean, I do intend to vote for this ordinance again today, as I did last week. I did want to flag just a couple of things first. You know, I continue to to implore Stsci to develop a way to conduct these meetings online sooner rather than later. You know, I actually if there's any council members here that's privy to more information on the current status of that, since SETI has now had an additional week to plan and prepare for that. If anyone can provide that information, that would be great. Because, you know, I do think that that it is critical. It's really the underlying issue here. There wouldn't even be any debate in this, wouldn't be a contentious issue if we could see a plan of action or see some more public effort on the part of Stsci to stand up this meeting. So I would just flag that one more time that, you know, I would urge the department to do that sooner rather than later. The second thing I would say is I have talked to Stsci and I know a number of folks in my district commenting today have been sending me emails, I've been reaching out some talking about particular and specific projects. Folks at Stsci have told me that they're happy to work with my office to make sure people concerned about particular projects can get in touch, that their input can be taken in, as Councilmember Mesquita indicated earlier, into the administrative process, and that they can be included in that administrative process. So I just wanted to flag if there's folks there still listening, if there's specific projects you're concerned about, contact my office and I'll make sure that you're put in touch with Stsci so that you can engage in the administrative process. And those are the only comments I wanted to make before voting on this.
Speaker 0: I think you council member Lewis for those remarks. I am now going to move over to Councilmember Peterson, who's next in the queue for Peterson. The floor is yours.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Again, I want to thank Council President Gonzales and Councilmember Strauss for providing us with an extra week between April 13 and April 20 to review this complex council bill. 119769. I'd also like to thank the many constituents who have written with their views on the legislation, whether they are for or against this council bill. They clearly care about land use policies, real estate projects, their neighborhoods and our city. I also appreciate the various amendments from my council colleagues to try to make this legislation better, to be consistent with my vote last week.
Speaker 1: And based on.
Speaker 3: My many years of experience in the field of commercial real estate finance, I will be voting no again because I don't think it meets the requirements of an emergency, and I'm concerned that reduces input and discussion from the general public. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Peterson, we're not going to hear from Councilmember Morales or yours.
Speaker 4: Thank you, everyone, for this long discussion. I want to thank Councilmember Strauss and his staff for working with my office over the last week, the last few weeks. We've heard lots of concerns from neighbors, particularly in the Chinatown International District. So I appreciate your willingness to collaborate with us. I will say I do intend to support this bill, and I stand conflicted in this, as I said last week. I do think that this bill conflates some issues around affordable housing with lots of other issues. It moves construction forward, and we might think that that is generally a good thing. But the only way to address the affordable housing issue is to prioritize and build affordable housing. And this bill seems to be, especially as it relates to the Chinatown International District. The overwhelming majority of projects, there are hotels and market rate condos. So, you know, I was elected to ensure that we have a racial equity lens as we're making these decisions and quickening the pace of administrative backlog in the name of progress very often has disparate impacts on communities of color. I was elected to stop displacement and knowing that making the development process easier is rarely a benefit for the communities that I represent. And the trade off is that what's seen as efficient for government or for developers often means inequity for my community. So I do plan to vote yes today, and this will be my first and last concession in the name of easing process or relieving administrative burdens, especially if it means that it will accelerate disaster gentrification. It's my responsibility to vote in a way that benefits my community. Sometimes that means slowing down the process to ensure that their voices are heard. But don't mistake that for naivete or for confusion. That's about ensuring that those voices have access to power. I know that we all want to see affordable housing built, and it's going to we're going to have regular discussions about how to make that happen . And I know that if our plans for a post-COVID life mean going back to business as usual, we will have done this wrong. So I look forward to continuing conversations with all of you about how to ensure that the recovery is just and equitable and that we work together to make sure that that happens. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Councilmember Morales, I know that we have other council members who might want to make comment on the bill before we. But I'm going to give Councilmember Strauss as the primary sponsor the final word. But I see Councilmember Herbals is raise your hand. Please. The floor is yours. Thank you. As I hope I have expressed over the last couple of weeks, I'm generally supportive of this legislation, excepting the concern, as I've expressed last, with the section of the bill that exempts affordable housing from all design review. I believe this section of the law is in conflict with the Governor's Proclamation 2028 relating to adherence to the Open Public Meetings Act and the State Attorney General's guidance on that proclamation. This guidance states that the matter before the Council must be a matter that is either necessary and routine or necessary to respond to the COVID 19 outbreak and current public health emergency. My amendment failed last week by one vote. Had it passed, I would have supported this bill. Council rules dictate that I cannot make a motion for reconsideration of this amendment. Because they wanted to find a way to support the bill. I considered altering the amendment substantially enough so that I could bring forth another version of my amendment. But I was unable to find a substantial enough edit that would fulfill our council rules that are reconsidered. Motion be substantially a substantially new question while also accomplishing my goal of removing the section that I believe conflicts with the Governor's Proclamation 2028 relating to adherence to the Open Public Meetings Act. Finally in. And in order to find another way to support this bill, I also reached out to Seattle Department of Construction Director Tom Wilson again to see if the findings could be written. The findings are the the the the words in the bill that explain the why it is in this case we feel that this is consistent with the governor's PMA Act order. So I reached out to see if the findings could be written differently to clarify that this section of the bill actually addressed a need related to the COVID 19 crisis. For instance, I suggested perhaps there might be barriers to the existing CCI policy that affordable housing be prioritized as a result of the current public health emergency, or the passage of this bill putting more other kinds of construction projects through administrative design review. My hope was to include legal findings like these in the legislation that might create a legal path forward. Unfortunately, Director Tom Wilson responded that I mean, it's good news that this is the case, but it did not meet my my, my hoped to draft the different legal finding. But the response was ultimately good news that if a significant number of projects were to move from full design review to administrative design review due to the passage of this legislation and affordable housing projects were still required to go through administrative design review. We would continue to prioritize affordable housing projects in relation to market rate housing projects and commercial projects going through design review. So consequently, I could not conceive of another finding to clarify that this section of the bill actually addressed a need resulting from the COVID 19 crisis. Despite all of my efforts, I don't see a path forward for me to support this bill with. That includes brand new policy to address a need unrelated to COVID 19. That is, I believe, out of the scope of the Governor's proclamation. I have been a stalwart supporter of affordable housing for three decades, and I heard many people testify last week and today that the need to change administrative design review predated the COVID 19 crisis. I would have been interested in design review reform at the right time, but my commitment to the Open Public Meetings Act and the obligations to follow it when deliberating on new policy unrelated to COVID 19 is unwavering in principle. Nevertheless, I really appreciate the support of amendments by council members last week that I have sponsored regarding a number of amendments, a number of issues, including regarding historic landmarks that were supported by historic Seattle. Thank you. I thank you, Councilmember, for those remarks. Are there any other council members who'd like to make some remarks at this point? Hey. And Counselor Suarez. I'm not ignoring you. You do have some remarks you'd like to make. I'm happy to. Hear from you.
Speaker 1: Actually, for the love of God, let's take the vote.
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Suarez. Thank you. Thank you so much. We will we will make sure that the record reflects that. Those are your comments. Bill, you know, I just wanted to before I hand it over to Councilmember Strauss, who's going to make the closing remarks. I do want to address Councilmember Rebel's comments that she believes that that the inclusion of certain portions of this bill run afoul of the governor's proclamation that prohibits us from considering anything that is either not COVID 19 related or that is neither routine nor necessary. I do want to say that I and my staff spent quite a bit of time talking with the law department in consultation with the clerk's office, to evaluate very closely this bill, just like we evaluate all of the legislation that comes before us to make a determination as to whether or not it is appropriately before the City Council in the construct of the Governor's proclamation. And again, while I think that, you know, there could be different perspectives and points of view and in fact, I think that the example is right here, it's a living example. I think Councilmember Herbold has a a much more conservative read of the proclamation. I, however, came to the conclusion, along with a lot of partment, that there's enough of a nexus here for us to appropriately consider this bill as as COVID and emergency related. So there is an argument that can be made. There is an argument that has been made. There is, you know, many conversations I've had with the Office of Housing, for example, related to. The realities of how this economic crisis is going to impact not just access to affordable housing, but the development of affordable housing. And our design review processes and permits and other administrative processes has a direct impact on what that pipeline will look like in the future. So they're very is, in my view, a reasonable, rational connection between trying to address some of the operational issues that we control as government in the context of this emergency that I think merit action and consideration by the city council. Now, through this Council Bill, in order to address those real operational impacts that are before us in in only because we are in, in an emergency response period of time in where the way that business is usually conducted by these commissions and by the Office of Housing are directly impacted. So I just feel really I feel compelled to sort of explain my rationale and my reasoning for allowing this legislation to be on the introduction referral calendar in the first place. And again, I respect that there is a difference of opinion as it relates to the applicability of the Governor's proclamation on this particular bill. And colleagues, I will and will endeavor to work with each of you transparently and collaboratively on future Council bills to make sure that we have consistent application of the Governor's Proclamation, so long as it is in effect, on future pieces of legislation that come before the Council. So that with that being said, I'm going to go ahead and hand it over to Councilmember Strauss to close out debate so that we can, as Councilmember wise, his so aptly put it, for the love of God, put this to a vote.
Speaker 2: Thank you, council president and thank you, Councilmember Juarez, for that extra little oomph of getting it. Let's wrap this up. So I want to start by restating my goal, which is to get this bill passed. If Kevin Scofield last week wrote about this is what council looks like in the area in the era of OPM, where open public meetings, act requirements require us to not count votes. And so sometimes this becomes messy in the public's eye. And so this is my request that if anyone we have heard from Councilmember Herbold about what is needed for her to support this bill. There's anyone who's not anticipating to support the bill who had done so previously. Please make that be known before we take this vote. You know, really what I want to say is this experience has demonstrated to me the complexity of working remotely on complex information, very deep amounts of detailed analysis has to be done. And working remotely can sometimes be challenging. So I want to thank my colleagues. Councilmember Lewis, Councilmember Peterson, I know. Thank you for all of your thoughts. Council President Gonzales And a pleasure. Councilmember Swan. Thank you. Councilmember Herbold. Thank you, Councilmember Mosqueda. Councilmember Morales, thank you very much for your work over this last week. Councilmember Waters Thank you for your get it done mentality. And finally, I want to thank the staff, Noah and my office, Ketel, Allie Lish, the Lexus Devan Christina Gunn passed away. Anthony Arriola for your assistance in this bill. That's all I have. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Strauss So I'm going to go ahead and close out debate and discussion on this particular bill. And I'm going to ask the clerk to please call the role of the passage of the bill as amended.
Speaker 1: PETERSON No. So what.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Strauss, I. Purple Day. Excuse me.
Speaker 0: Nay? No. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Juarez. Yes. I'm sorry. Where is. Yes. Thank you, Louis. I. Morales.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Let's get up.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Seven in favor, two opposed.
Speaker 0: Okay. The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. I would ask that the clerk please fix my signature to the legislation. Thank you, colleagues, for that conversation. We're going to go ahead and move quickly through our agenda. The good news is that we spent a lot of time on that particular agenda, which is agenda item one, but it's going to be smooth sailing from here on out. So item two is our next agenda item. Will the clerk please read agenda item two into the record? | Council Bill (CB) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use review decision and meeting procedures; temporarily modifying and suspending procedures in Titles 23 and 25 of the Seattle Municipal Code and amending Chapters 23.41, 23.49, 23.66, 23.79, 25.12, 25.16, 25.20, 25.21, 25.22, 25.24, and 25.30 of the Seattle Municipal Code, consistent with the Governor’s proclamations and the Mayor’s proclamation of civil emergency on March 3, 2020; declaring an emergency; and establishing an immediate effective date; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04272020_Res 31945 | Speaker 0: Hi. My favorite in the post. Thank you so much. The motion carries, the resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. And I ask that the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation. All right, folks, this is the last item of business on our agenda, and that is new item 14. So I would move to adopt resolution 31945. Is there a second second? It's been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution. So is the sponsor of this resolution. I'll quickly address it first and then ask for comments. Colleagues, I already went through a very long description of what this resolution is this morning. So I don't want to belabor the point. This resolution ratifies the mayor's executive order on placing a 50% tax on third party delivery services. So this would apply to charges that are placed or passed on to a restaurant commission fee per online delivery or pick up order for the use of its services. That totals more than 50% of the purchase price of such online orders and would be prohibited until restaurants are allowed to offer unrestricted dine in service and the governor's stay home state healthy proclamation is rescinded or the mayoral proclamation of Civil Emergency, dated March 3rd, 2020 is rescinded, whichever proclamation is rescinded later. This executive order also makes it unlawful for third party app based food delivery platform to reduce the compensation rates paid to the delivery service driver to grant or to garnish gratuities as a result of this order going into effect during the duration of this order. Importantly, in terms of enforcement, the city attorney's office will be the primary enforcer of this executive order, as they are for all executive orders. Any person found to have knowingly violated this civil emergency order will be guilty of a failure to obey the measures emergency order and can be punished with a fine of up to $500 or or is otherwise provided by the municipal code. So that the context of the executive order is, is rather simple. We were trying to a collaboration with Councilmember Herbold and the mayor to keep the executive order narrowly focused to address the relationship between third party based app providers and and restaurant owners. This morning, I acknowledge that there will be a need for us to address the realities of the disparate relationship that exists between drivers and these third party delivery apps. Many of us on council have worked with Labor partners to lift up the stories of many of these drivers and other gig economy workers who are really working in and in a completely unregulated industry and have no protections whatsoever in this space. And so I think it's important for us to highlight that we recognize that that is an issue. Those labor standards is an absolute issue and need in the community. But this executive order is designed to be much more narrowly focused on, again, that relationship between these these apps and and the restaurants and the contractual relationship between those two types of entities. Nonetheless, we have included some language in this executive order to make sure that there isn't a negative impact to drivers as a result of that of of the implementation of this executive order. And looking forward to staying in contact with our labor partners to make sure that as they are interacting with workers, that they are organizing, that we hear directly from them, even if it's in an anecdotal fashion, whether or not this is having an unintended consequence on on that sector of the labor in our city. So I know there's much more to come on this. And I know that many of you on council have been working with many of the labor partners on addressing issues related to this particular worker population. So with that being said, I'm going to conclude my comments there because I've made a lot of other comments during a council briefing this morning and I am going to hand it over to Councilman Morales won't understand has an amendment to the resolution that was not circulated before today's new deadline. So in order for us to consider an amendment to the resolution, a suspension of the rules is needed. And so I'm going to if there's no objection, the council rules will be suspended to allow consideration of Amendment the. Was not circulated by noon today. So hearing no objection, the council rules are suspended and we can proceed with consideration of the amendments. I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Morales so that she can make her motion.
Speaker 4: Yes, I move that. We amend resolution 31945 by substituting version two for version b1b as presented on the substitute recently distributed.
Speaker 1: Second.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to substitute the resolution confirmed for Dallas as sponsor of the substitute. I'm going to go ahead and hand it over to you to address the amendment.
Speaker 4: Thanks very much. This just incorporates both the the recital that Councilmember Herbold had had asked for earlier and then a couple of amendments that we added. So I want to thank Council President Gonzalez for adding language that my office requested to protect drivers from wage theft by a tip garnishing. As many of you know, last year DoorDash was found to be doing this to their drivers. And this will be an important protection to ensure that drivers are protected during this time. We've also added language to ensure that app based delivery companies don't discriminate against low income neighborhoods as a way to retaliate against the city. You may have seen that in San Francisco. This is what Uber Eats did completely cutting off the low income community of Treasure Island, which is just 15 minutes from the downtown San Francisco headquarters, even going as far as trying to organize the low income community against the city. So these are all incorporated in this new substitute. And I thank all of you for helping us to make sure that nobody gets retaliated against when we are trying to protect workers and protect low income folks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Morales, for those remarks. I consider all of these amendments to be friendly amendments and have absolutely no issue with incorporating them. I think they're they're good amendments and strengthen the executive order and the intent of the executive order. So thank you for that. Are there any additional comments on the substitute? A hearing nun. Will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the substitute?
Speaker 1: Peterson. I want. I. Strauss.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Purple.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 1: Suarez. Hi, Luis.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 1: Morales, I. Michaela, I was thinking first.
Speaker 0: I. Nine in favor, none opposed. The motion carries and a substitute is adopted in version two of the resolution is before their council. The Council. Are there any additional comments on the resolution as amended? Councilmember Peterson, the floor is yours.
Speaker 3: I just wanted to thank the council president for doing so much outreach to the various stakeholders. Thank you.
Speaker 0: I think it's not. Councilmember Lewis, I see your hand. You are next. And then Councilmember Mosquito.
Speaker 3: So thank you, everybody, for bringing this forward. And I look forward to voting for the substitute again today now that it is the the official resolution. I just wanted to flag that going forward based on our conversation this morning, I am interested in working with folks potentially on some kind of hazard pay ordinance. I've been talking to some of our partners at the Teamsters and work in Washington about the possibility of pursuing some additional legislation. As we discussed this morning, I just want to flag my interest in that. I want to flag my interest in that to the community as well. Who is watching this afternoon and concerned about some of the things that aren't addressed by the order. And just wanted to let everyone know, you know, I, for one, am interested I'm sure some of my council colleagues are interested and I look forward to having that discussion this week.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Lewis customer. Thank you, Council President. You know, I think that this effort is really important to make sure that workers are protected. And I also want to make sure that we're underscoring the intent to reduce the fees that these large companies are imposing on small businesses. I think council president has spoken well about that concern. Right now we want to make sure that our smallest businesses are not having additional fees imposed on them. And we've heard stories both anecdotally and we've seen some data that indicates that it is a hardship for many of these small businesses, these restaurants, to have that be imposed on them. So I think that this will be helpful. But the second part that we're talking about here is the food that our small businesses are creating have to be delivered to the homes of residents across the city and would not be done without the work of those who are on these app based platforms. I'm concerned that the original drafting of this executive order by the mayor's office didn't include a more robust conversation with the Teamsters, with folks that work in Washington, and additionally with some of the folks who've been reaching out to our office in an effort to engage in a robust conversation. For example, the folks at Postmates, who I think we're looking for some solutions as well. I am appreciative of some of the language that you were able to get included in here to make sure that the ordinance or the order is clear, that we don't want to see reductions in wages. We don't want to see reductions in gratuity. And as we also commit today to wanting to work with stakeholders, specifically Teamsters 117 and we're in Washington and there's a few pieces that I'd like to call our attention to. We've heard repeatedly that there's been ongoing training that's been offered to the fleet, if you will, of individuals to do the delivery. But this has not been accompanied by adequate PPE. So that's an ongoing issue that we know to see is personal protective equipment for all of these individuals who are delivering food to our community members. It's already been mentioned the desire to see hazard pay for these workers, and I fully support that. Access to restrooms is something that we've talked about being a concern for, not just those who don't have a place to use the restroom in their own home because they are houseless. But also for workers just like this, folks across the city who need access to clean, accessible restrooms and looking forward to making sure that the folks who are providing this service, delivering food, can also access restaurants in a safe way that also works for our small businesses. I appreciate the language that Councilmember Morales has put forward in conjunction with Council President Gonzalez to make sure that there is not a reduction in delivery services, especially in communities of color, in those lowest wage communities, and that we ensure equity across the city by your location amendment. And then finally, I think the council president has spoken well about this, but our concern, I think, remains around enforcement. And I think we'll be looking for also to provide additional information, because we know that people will reach out to all of us as sort of the default agency where they seek information. So looking forward to making sure that's very clear to folks how to report if there are either unintended consequences or issues that might have cropped up that have not been fully addressed. So again, I want to thank the folks who've been working to highlight some concerns that are ongoing. And I think the full commitment from this council, as you've heard, is to make sure that we address issues like PPE, training, hazard pay, and that we're intentional about coming back and working with all of you. Teamsters, both states working in Washington, others who've reached out to our office. And I appreciate that this is one one piece of the pie or one step as as has been described today to make sure that our smallest businesses, those restaurants really don't have this being imposed on them. That's critical. And I'll support the the ordinance with all the work that you've done, council President and with the amendments that you've included. Thank you so much. That's very silent. I thought I saw you raise your hand. There we go. Okay. Just confirming you are up next.
Speaker 4: Thank you, President Gonzalez. I will be supporting this today. And I want to also reiterate the points that have been made by some other council members about the need to explicitly look out for the interests of some of our most vulnerable workers, workers who are not even recognized as employees who are misclassified as independent contractors. I certainly support having an executive order to protect small business restaurants from being gouged by big app based delivery companies. Just as I've supported and helped organize for small business rent control. However, I am in solidarity with the concerns that are being expressed by working Washington by the Teamsters and by other community organizations that represent worker interests . That we cannot stop with this executive order because we need to fully address the needs of workers, either in the restaurants or the interests of delivery drivers who are risking their lives to help people statewide or for very little compensation. And in the absence of any kind of protective equipment and hardly any protective equipment, and as working Washington have said, you know, they are an organization that has helping organizing the delivery workers who will be directly impacted by orders such as these and as well as restaurant workers and workers with other industries. And, you know, to quote working Washington from their letter when they expressed concerns about this executive order, they say the delivery drivers are among the lowest paid workers in the city, with rates as low as a dollar 45 per hour. After expenses on DoorDash and restaurant workers are at least protected by Seattle's minimum wage $18 an hour minimum wage that our movement fought for. But because delivery workers are often misclassified as independent contractors, they like even those many of those protections, many of the worker protections. And I really strongly agree with working Washington's letter that, you know, and in fact, there may be some of these demands earlier on and also by the grassroots strike of Instacart workers and the working Washington letter actually reiterate some of the demands made by the grocery strike up interests Instacart workers and called from the Instacart strike worker strike statement all of and work in Washington. They are urging that those council really push for requiring a hazard pay surcharge of $5 per delivery. And if they say if that is for some reason not possible to enacting the emergency rules and you can, as an alternative, explore imposing a parallel 15% cap on the share of delivery fees and service charges and an opportunity to take the workers to help the workers providing the service. I also would say that I strongly support the work that is being done by the Office of Labor Standards, but we have to make sure that as a council we do we stand against any kind of budget cuts. And this discussion has come in the context of the Amazon legislation that we have to oppose any kind of budget cuts, because the budget cuts will impact departments of city departments like the Office of Labor Standards, who, if they have their staffing or their staffing, is not able to be augmented, then the investigations that the workers rely on will not be able to be carried out in a timely manner.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Sawant. Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 2: Thank you, council president. I'll make this brief. I appreciate our work to protect small businesses, and we need to also identify how we can protect our workers who are delivering these foods. We need to take into consideration how we can protect good actors such as Postmates and follow up with Teamsters and work in Washington to identify ways that the people who are keeping us all living their lives as normal as possible. When I was in a miracle, I was red carded as a wildland firefighter, and firefighters, when they're just at the station, receive one rate of pay. And when you have fire under your feet and smoke in your lungs, you will see because you're putting your life on the line, a hazard on behalf of the rest of the community. And I think that we need to have pay for our workers here, here in the city making making it so that we can live as close to life to normal as possible. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Strauss. Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. I just want to underscore one of the points that's been made. It will be with passage of this emergency order. Unlawful for a third party app based food delivery platform to reduce compensation rates paid to delivery service drivers or garnish gratuities as a result of this order going into effect . I want to take some responsibility for the fact that I was an early advocate for us to use the the the the vehicle of an emergency order to address this issue quickly and was assured that we would deal separately with some of the issues around minimum compensation for for delivery drivers who are not otherwise considered employees. I think it's really important to recognize that. With this act that we are about to take. We are not only helping small businesses, but we are helping the the people who are considered employees under the law of those small businesses. We know that in Seattle, the majority of employees actually work for small businesses. And so it's really important to recognize that this is an act that is designed to make it possible for small businesses to continue to employ people. Many of the businesses in my district who came to me about this this emergency order, as was passed in San Francisco, told me that they were considering that the Paycheck Protection Program, what we referred to as TPP, which was a paycheck protection program, was going to be the thing that was going to come to their rescue and allow them to continue to pay their employees. And it's because of the the failure of the Paycheck Protection Program to meet the needs of small businesses that they are then reaching out to the Council on on this issue related to capping service charges so that they can continue to pay their employees as well as stay open. So many thanks to Madam President Gonzalez, as well as the mayor's office and working quickly to pull this together and look forward to continued work to address the needs of the drivers and and moving quickly on that. But I am also again reassured that the the order before us makes very clear what's what is not lawful and what the process is for our city to have the city attorney enforce emergency orders that are violated. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, well said. I don't have anything to add to that. I appreciate you highlighting those those points. Colleagues, any other comments before I go ahead and close this out? Okay. No other comments. So I'm going to go ahead and ask that the clerk call the roll on the adoption of the resolution as amended.
Speaker 1: Peterson.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: So what I.
Speaker 2: Strauss I.
Speaker 1: Herbal. I. Juarez. I. Lewis. I. Morales.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Let's get to.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: I think in Polish.
Speaker 0: I. My favorite on a post. I thank you. The motion carries the resolution is adopted as amended and the chair will sign it. I'd ask that the clerk be the fix my signature to the legislation. Colleagues, we have one last item of business on the agenda, and that is a letter that Councilmember Lewis circulated during the council | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION modifying the April 24, 2020, emergency order relating to capping restaurant delivery and pick-up commission fees. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04202020_CB 119769 | Speaker 1: I. Nine in favor. None opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation? All right. Item one. Agenda item number one. Will the clerk please read the short title into the records?
Speaker 0: Agenda Item one Capital 1197629 relating to land use review decision and meeting procedures. Temporary Modifying and suspending procedures in Title 23 and 25 of the SKELMERSDALE Code.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Clerk. I will move to pass Council Bill 119769. Is there a second floor? I guess it's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilmember Strauss, you are the primary sponsor of this bill, so I am going to yield the floor to you to address council bill 119769. The floor is yours.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President. This emergency legislation addresses design review, historic preservation and permitting processes during the COVID 19 emergency. The intention of this is to allow critically needed housing projects, especially in affordable housing, to continue moving through the permitting process in a way that preserves public input and engagement and protects public health. Specifically, this legislation would allow projects to opt into administrative design review for six months, or until design review boards are able to meet virtually or in person. It would allow for the Pre-Application community outreach to be done virtually and explicitly provides ways to accomplish this. It would allow for minor design or way decisions related to historic landmarks or historic and special review districts to be made administratively while suspending meetings and the major, major decisions of the landmarks and special review boards. Because legislation is being enacted on an emergency basis, all provisions would lapse after 180 days, and we would be required to hold a public hearing within 60 days. We discussed many amendments this morning, and I've had many conversations with most not all of you. And there have been a few changes made since then which we can discuss as we move into amendments. Thank you all for the consideration of this legislation. And while I know that there are small changes needed to be made for some folks here and there, I really do stress the importance of passing this bill today. Again, I'll finally end with while I have staffed this. Body of work, permitting and design review and any land use work for over two years. At this point, the level of complexity and nuance is great. So much so that I have had to be re briefed on many sections of this bill. And so please, if you do have questions on nuance, do not hesitate to ask. And I do urge passage of this bill today. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Councilmember Strauss. So we have lots of amendments and lots of things that changed sort of at the last minute before we were reconvened. So I'm going to go ahead and call for any comments on the underlying bill. I know that Councilmember Strauss, I wanted to recognize that between the end of our council meeting and now you were able to do successfully work with some of the amendment sponsors to incorporate previously circulated amendments. Many of the amendments that we discussed during council briefing this morning into an updated substitute bill that is now being identified as the Strauss substitute version, to my understanding is that this version includes the following amendments Mosqueda Amendment one, Herbold and Strauss, Amendment six and Herbold Amendment three. There is additional language that was added to version two of this substitute, the stress substitute version two that has not been previously circulated. And I will need to request that you describe the language once you address the substitute. So because of this new language, we will need to move to suspend the council rules to allow the Council to consider version two of the substitute again, because it was circulated after the noon deadline. So if there is no objection, the council rules will be suspended to allow consideration of the Strauss substitute version two. It was not previous that has not that was not previously circulated.
Speaker 3: Correct. So I moved to amend Council Bill.
Speaker 1: You can't move it. You can't move anything until I go through the process of seeing if there's any objection to even consider it. So I called for any objection to considering stress of supervision, to I'm not hearing or seeing any objection. So hearing no objection, the council rules are suspended and we can proceed with consideration of version two of the Strauss substitute. So now, Councilmember Strauss, I will hand it over to you to move your substitute.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I move to amend council bill 119769 by substituting version two for version one A as presented on version two. Strauss Substitute recent recently distributed.
Speaker 1: There are second. Thank you. All right. It's been moved and seconded to substitute the bill. Councilmember Strauss, I will hand it over to you to address the substitute.
Speaker 3: Yes, thank you. Council President. This amendment makes several technical and clarifying changes to the legislation that were suggested by different councilmembers. I'd like to thank Councilmember Mosqueda Herbold and Morales, especially for their collaboration. In addition to the items discussed this morning, we were sent a new version of this substitute amendment to councilmembers, which adds in several of the non-controversial amendments discussed this morning. It now includes Councilmember Skaters Amendment One to the Joint Amendment six from Council Member Herbold and myself and Councilmember Herbold, Amendment three. Additionally, this substitute amendment adds new language from Councilmember Morales, a substitute which would remove the Administrative Decision Authority for the International Special Review District and adds language access requirements for any virtual meetings of any other body and adds language prioritizing projects that are important to the community. So it is my understanding, oh, in addition to these new additions that would allow Seattle Housing Authority to utilize design review, exemption for affordable housing, clarifying community outreach requirements, improving tree protections, allow for administrative approval, door and window replacements in historic and special review districts. Allow for administrative approval of Penthouse installations in Pioneer Square. Allow for administrative approval of certain certificates of approval and landmarks. Boards have granted preliminary approval and request S.T.A.R. Labs to investigate a rule protect to protect construction, workplace safety during the COVID 19 pandemic. It finally requests reporting in 60 days on the progress towards implementing virtual meetings. I would like to thank all of my colleagues again who contributed to the development of this amendment. Hand it off to anyone else. And I would like to clarify with Councilmember Morales that this. Language does, in fact, include the ability for the special international special review district to elect to allow for any projects that they deem that they want to put forward to administrative review that they would be able to. I know there were a lot of last minute discussions, and I just want to double check that this meets your the criteria in which you've requested.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Strauss, for that description of the substitute. So again, that the substitute as described by Councilmember Strauss includes at the Met the following amendments that we discussed at the council briefing. One, if it includes mosquito amendment one listed on the attachment to the agenda, it also includes the Herbold and Strauss Amendment six and the Herbold Amendment. Three. There is again some additional language in there as described by Councilmember Strauss. So that is the version of the bill that is before us for consideration. I'm going to go ahead and call now for any additional comments or questions on the substitute version of the bill. I raise a hands. Okay. So I. Councilmember Peterson first and then Councilmember Morales. Peterson, the floor is yours.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council president, just to clarify on the process, what we're about to vote on is simply just swapping out the bill. With the new substitute, not actually voting on the substitute itself. Correct.
Speaker 1: That is correct. So at this point, we are actually. Mean. Let me go back to that. So we are or we are considering the substitute version. And so what we are considering now is, is to just the procedural act of of substituting the bill. So we will get to a point where we can talk about the substance of the bill. But right now, we're just talking about the substitution before us.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Because we're moralist.
Speaker 4: That was my question is. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay. Any other questions about the substitution? A hearing nun. Will the clerk please call the roll on the. Yes. Well, the clerk please call the roll on the on the adoption of version two of the Strauss substitute. Macheda I.
Speaker 0: Peterson, I. So what I. Proust, I. Purple. I. Whereas I. There is. I. Morales.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 1: I. Nine in favor. None oppose the motion carries and the substitute is adopted and version two of the bill is now before the City Council. So again, I'm going to open it back up to comments on version two of the bill that is before us. And before I do that, I just want to make sure customers just don't have anything else to add to this version. Correct. I'm seeing you nod your head.
Speaker 3: That is correct at this time.
Speaker 1: All right. So we'll go ahead. And I know that this is where we want to consider several amendments. And I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Herbold, who is going to move her amendment first.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I move to amend council Bill 11 9769 as presented on the Herbold Amendment one on the agenda.
Speaker 1: Is there a second? So thank you. It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill. Councilmember Herbold, please feel free to address the amendment.
Speaker 5: Thank you. So Amendment one would delete the proposed provision that would exempt affordable housing projects from meeting certain requirements from design review, specifically in this case, the requirements associated with this administrative design review. Affordable housing projects are currently subject to administrative design review, which do not require in-person meetings. Everything else in this bill before us today serves to restore public process to certain projects via virtual meetings as necessary during this COVID 19 crisis when we cannot meet in person. If this amendment fails by merit of exempting affordable housing projects from administrative review, affordable housing projects will not benefit from these future virtual meetings that we're working to stand up. Yesterday, Director Tory Wilson confirmed for me that affordable housing projects, as a matter of business practice at GCI, are currently prioritized in the administrative design review process and throughout the entire permitting process. Director Tom Wilson also confirmed that the need for affordable housing projects referenced in his Memo to the City Council, one located in Lake City, one in Bitter Lake, one in Columbia City and one in Rainier Beach. These projects not only have priority in the administrative design review process, but all of them will be able to complete the early community engagement and outreach process. I am hearing from folks that even though the administrative design review process for affordable housing was legislated by the council very recently, it only went into effect in July of 28. I am hearing that people really feel that we need to reform that process for affordable housing, and I would support working on that effort. But it's really concerning to me that the Council would take up a provision in this bill during this public health crisis. And that is really a policy conversation that the Council should be having with broader community participation. The state attorney general has issued guidance on the Open Public Meetings Act, and that guidance states that legislation that we consider must be either necessary and routine or necessary to respond to the COVID 19 outbreak and current public health emergency. Just a little bit more background on that. This guidance from the state attorney general came after the March 24th governor's proclamation proclamation 2028. That proclamation says, subject to the conditions for conducting any meeting as required above, agencies are further prohibited from taking action as defined in RTW 42.3 0.02. Unless those matters are necessary and routine matters or matters necessary to respond to the COVID 19 outbreak and the current public health emergency until such time as regular public participation over under the Open Public Meetings Act is possible. The March 26 Attorney General guidance went on to say that put another way, in this unusual and urgent time when members of the public may not be attending agency meetings as they normally would. We need to ask whether or not agencies could hold on some matters until life returns to normal. They go on to say, Since March six, state and local agencies have placed more restrictions on the public's movements and activities as the means to help stem the spread of the virus. Consistent with the general approach in the March six. Guidance, asking agencies to focus where possible, and holding meetings only on those matters that must be considered. Under the proclamation, agencies must now specifically ask two questions on those matters where they want to take actions. They are whether or not the matter is necessary and routine or necessary to respond to the COVID 19 outbreak and current public health emergency. If the matter does not meet those criteria, then the matter must wait. The the guidance from the state attorney general even go so far as to define action as hearing briefings or reports in committee, not just taking legislative action. And so, again, that's really for me. Makes our decision today as it relates to this particular section of the bill, really something to be taken very seriously at a time when we are pleading with the members of of the public to take the the the proclamations from from the governor seriously. I feel that we have to really model that behavior as well. The language in our own ordinance as it relates to the findings for the need to to act on the section of of the ordinance basically says that the ordinance provides an exemption from design review for certain affordable housing projects. If they can file a permit application in the next six months, potentially long beyond the restriction of meeting in public. The Office of Housing is funding a number of affordable housing projects and will serve populations particularly impacted by the COVID 19 pandemic, including seniors and people at risk or of existing homelessness, and that are far into the permitting process. These projects are currently subject to administrative design review, which allows certain departures to be granted. Exempting these projects from design review and allowing departures to be granted outside of the design review process will shorten the time required for these projects to complete the permitting process, advancing the date by which they could be constructed. All good things. But nevertheless, the focus of this part of the bill is related to recovery, not addressing the public health challenge posed by in-person meeting requirements. On the role of boards and commissions in development decisions and the affordable housing built that might be exempt from design. Administrative Design Review wouldn't come online to house people impacted by COVID 19 for a year at best. So exempting affordable housing from administrative design review will not house people who need housing now. One testifiers correctly said that the COVID 19 emergency did not create the affordable housing crisis. This particular exemption in the legislation will could help those people later after the COVID 19 crisis has has passed. But the affordable housing crisis will still be with us. And I am committed to working with housing providers on administrative design review reform when we can do that in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act. That's all. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. Is there anyone else who would like to give comment? A council member must give. The floor is yours. Thank you very much, council member Gonzalez. And I appreciate your stewardship of this conversation remotely and the public testimony that you made possible today. I also want to thank the sponsor of the legislation for all of your hard work to include a number of amendments, including the two that we talked about this morning, and the amendments from Councilmember Herbold and Councilmember Morales. Five very much support. So I appreciate your tough work on that. Colleagues, I do want to speak to the amendment that comes from a just spoke about which would remove the provision exempting affordable housing project from design review. Unfortunately, as Councilmember Purple knows, I mean no on this amendment. I'll be voting no because I disagree with the premise that affordable housing is not part of our emergency response to COVID. I want to draw your attention to two articles that we received as submitted as public comment today, if I might, Madam President. Yes. Yes, you may. Thank you very much. One is from an email that we received from the air from Michael Davis this morning at 1150. He says we're in a critical time regarding affordable housing in the city of Seattle, a crisis only exacerbated by COVID. This bill, by including affordable housing in will help stave off critical time in the process and aid in facilitating the production of more units and more quickly. The housing crisis here in Seattle, in the metro region across the nation is bound to become considerably worse. Must be to emerge from the pandemic with countless numbers of renters, homeowners already in a precarious financial situation. At the federal level, we've seen a lack of leadership. Even historic legislation passed by the federal government fails to adequately address most those that adequately address those directly affected, including those who are housing insecure, elderly people, people with immune compromised systems, people of color, and those who have been disproportionately affected by the disease and its economic impacts. It is precisely because of this, he writes. That is why we are so critically. It is so critically important that we see action at the local level to address these challenges and that those measures be sufficient in duration to actually have an impact. These measures need to be six months and include affordable housing. Christopher Peterson from CEO of Capital Housing wrote this morning, As I know you are all aware, our projects were determined by the governor to be exempt from restrictions under his stay home, stay healthy proclamation because our projects are deemed essential for many affordable housing projects. The league is, and their timing could render them infeasible or at best delay them for months, thereby eliminating or delaying our vital affordable housing efforts for the people impacted by COVID and particularly the homeless. Our project, in partnership with Youth Care will house very low income people, including formerly homeless youth. Without this fix, the project could be delayed for a year. We know that another affordable housing developers are facing serious delays without this legislation, so the impact goes well beyond this project. It is not an attempt to conclude this is not an attempt to sidestep design, review or landmarking, and is only an attempt to move housing forward in a crisis. And although it may not seem like it meets the definition of an emergency, I can assure you for those who are homeless and those seeking affordable housing, it is an emergency. So, colleagues, I would propose, as I talked about this morning, that it is precisely because of the length of time that it takes to build affordable housing, that this is exactly why we need to include affordable housing in this ordinance being considered today under the umbrella of COVID being a crisis that is directly affecting whether or not people can have access to healthy, secure housing. We cannot change how long it takes to actually build and create these affordable housing projects. But we can change the city's role and the timeline it takes to allow for affordable housing to move forward. Just because a project takes a year to actually build doesn't mean we should not act now. In fact, I think COVID 19 underscores why it's so important for us to figure out a way to expedite some of these provisions. I appreciate that Director Torkelson was reached out to, and I know that the Office of Housing was briefed as well. But the comment that affordable housing is always expedited doesn't recognize that the office has created an Office of Policy and Innovation that was going to set up a process where affordable housing projects are actually stewarded through the process. We know right now it takes far too long for affordable housing to get through, and we wouldn't have been setting up this office to steward affordable housing projects if they weren't being prioritized. More affordable housing is critical for creating the ability for people to socially distance. You cannot social distance in overcrowded shelters or in supportive housing that is at capacity. We cannot move people out of shelters and into housing without building the affordable housing. The order from the governor is to stay home in order to stay healthy. We need people to have homes. It is necessary to respond to the COVID outbreak and the current public health crisis. By definition, housing. And it's a necessity for responding to this public health crisis. So I will conclude by just saying I understand the importance for us to make sure that the public has every possibility to engage in the process, even as we're expediting and leaning heavily on staff to in this moment of emergency, move as many projects forward as possible. But we knew we were an affordable housing crisis before this. The fact that we have COVID linking over our community means that it is essential that we construct and move forward with affordable housing wherever possible in keeping our our workers healthy, but in recognition that affordable housing is a way for us to address the crisis of COVID and the public health concerns. I don't think it's accurate for us to say that in a year from now when. In a year from now when the housing would be moving through the process, that we're going to somehow be out of this crisis, we just don't know that the the best case scenarios for a vaccine is 12 to 18 months. We don't know that in a year or in 12 months, we won't even be able to see our way out of here. So I do think that building housing, expediting the process, ensuring the community has, as has a venue, as this audience has articulated, to engage in the process and make sure that we are providing the necessary oversight and input, but that we are building housing now is exactly what we need to be doing in order to make sure people can stay home, can stay healthy, have a home to go to, can move out of overcrowded shelters. And in an effort to be proactive about what is on the horizon. I would encourage our colleagues to keep the affordable housing provision in. Unfortunately, I'm a no on this amendment. Thank you. I have three people in the queue now. Council member so followed by Councilmember Strauss and then Councilmember Lewis. Councilmember thought the floor is yours.
Speaker 4: Thank you. President Gonzalez. The COVID 19 crisis goes far beyond the tragic medical impacts of the coronavirus itself. As Councilmember Mosquito is saying, it's also causing a recession that is rapidly developing into a depression. The need for a public jobs program and affordable housing after the medical crisis is abated and there is a lot of uncertainty on when the medical crisis can be abated. So therefore, jobs and affordable housing have to be an important consideration in addressing this emergency. And I do not believe that they can be separated. And we have to do absolutely everything in our power to build social housing and create jobs through that. I've heard members of the community expressing the concern that affordable housing will become low quality housing if it's exempted from the design review. However, I'm not convinced by that argument because the things that determine the quality of affordable housing, such as the apartment size, appliances, bedrooms, you know, factors like that are generally not are generally driven by funding, not by design review. So while I understand the sentiment behind this and sympathize with it, I will be voting no on this amendment.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember. Silent. Councilmember Strauss and then Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 3: Well, thank you, council president and to Councilmember Herbold points, we had a long, robust discussion about this this morning. And I will summarize, which is just to say, since affordable housing projects are already able to move through administrative design review, this legislation simply allows them a bypass for six months. Much like the work that we allowed for volunteer design review boards to be moved to administrative design. There is limited staff time in this tranche, which means that we need to alleviate that pressure. So I believe that allowing for affordable housing within this bill is regarding the operationalization of this bill and not outside of our abilities and our parameters under the Governor's orders. I will say that I will I agree with everything that Councilmember Mosqueda said. And with that, I will be supporting Councilmember Gold's bill amendment simply for the fact that I would prefer to see this entire bill passed today than to see it fail. So, again, to reiterate, thank you. I'm going to support this this motion. And I still believe that this, including affordable housing, remains within the spirit of the legislation and under the governor's orders. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Strauss. Councilmember Lewis, the floor is yours.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. So I'm going to be voting in favor of this amendment today, I would say, in response to councilmember mosquitoes points, which as a matter of policy, I very strongly agree with. I don't know that this particular legislation. Reflects some of the concerns I think it would if affordable housing was on the same footing as other similarly situated development that is subject to review board process like all the other development that we are going to put into the administrative review. I don't think that since the affordable housing is already subject to administrative review, that we're effectively putting it on the shelf or prioritizing it as a city or prioritizing it as a department. If we were in a position where the development of affordable housing was not able to proceed because it required in-person meetings, I think a lot of the concerns that Councilmember Muscat articulated would be a reality. But since it is subject to administrative review and it is the highest priority of ECI, I am not in a place where I think it's warranted to move forward with this particular portion of the bill, which is why I support councilmember proposed amendment. I think that it would be something that we should consider as a council subject to a process. And Councilmember Strauss's Land Use Committee, I think it makes sense as an incentive to figure out if we can exempt affordable housing projects entirely from the design review process from where they currently are in administrative review to the. To the representations of the gist of the department as to how this could be connected to the emergency response. And that's essentially the the process that Councilor Strauss just articulated, where because of the switch that we're going to make of going from the board process over to the administrative review process for other projects, which is going to result in a potential bottleneck there and require us to make further exceptions for affordable housing, which is already an administrative review. My hope is that that point is going to be largely merged in the case that we do transition over to the virtual board meetings, which all of us should be hoping that we are doing in short order rather than a long order. I don't want us to go forward with the assumption that what we are passing right now is an ordinance where we are expecting the entire six months to be taken up by this process where the review boards are going to be completely sidestepped. So. In that case, if the review boards can resume their work, that takes care of the bottleneck that will be created by the expansion of the administrative review. At that level, that's an incentive for SDI to develop an ability to conduct the virtual meetings faster, which I think is something that this substitute, the council member Straus puts forward, makes us a priority. All of us want to see the virtual board stood up as quickly as possible so that we can retain that due process while at the same time not limiting essential projects that we know if we do not take some kind of action, are going to languish and are not going to be able to be completed. So I think it is fully appropriate that in the interim of setting up the virtual process, there needs to be some kind of administrative stopgap, which is what this bill does. And on the whole, I'm very supportive of that process. This particular process where the affordable housing has moved completely out of any kind of design review, feels to me to not be connected to the exigent issue trying to solve as a council. I think that it is a valuable and good piece of policy that we should be exploring, but I don't know that this is the proper forum for it. So with that, I'm going to vote for Councilmember Herbert's amendment, and I would urge my colleagues to do the same.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Lewis, for those comments. Are there any other questions or comments on Councilmember Herbold Amendment one. Okay. I'm not seeing or hearing any additional comments on the Herbold Amendment one, so we can go ahead and move through the process of voting on this particular amendment. I would say that in in in voting on this issue, I think it's important that the public hear that that that this council is committed to expediting the construction of affordable housing projects. I appreciate and understand the concern that has been expressed by the proponent of Amendment one, Councilmember Herbold, who has has very carefully gone through the process of explaining her rationale as it relates to that particular amendment. I do think that when we are talking about housing infrastructure, it's important for us to acknowledge in the context of this emergency response that really what we are called upon to do is to, in this emergency response, deal with the realities of how COVID 19 and the governor's proclamation order impacts the way we do business and the way we can do business. And so for me, I see this bill as a whole, as a shift in how we operate as the work we're doing is isolated by the realities of the public health emergency. And when we're talking about this in the space of land use, we know that land use is one of those areas where public comment and public testimony and public engagement is a corner store stone of the way we do the work as it relates to land use and as a result of that. This bill I see as as a response to the realities to our new reality of not being able to engage in that work the way that we would ordinarily. So I absolutely suppose support the policy and at this juncture can't support this particular amendment. But I'm looking forward to seeing to see how we can continue the conversation if this amendment does pass. I do hope that we can come together and have a robust policy conversation that frankly, potentially goes and goes even further than this to make sure that we are truly expediting the process of construction and development of affordable housing in the recovery phase of COVID 19. So with that being said, Councilmember Herbal, do you want to have any last words on your amendment?
Speaker 5: Thank you for giving me the opportunity. I just want excuse me. I do want to clarify that I do believe that affordable housing is part of a COVID 19 response, but for purposes of adherence to the act that would be restricted to the affordable housing units that we can open up now while we're in this crisis, not units that we open up later that are very, very needed in our affordable housing crisis. That is part of recovery not as required by the state attorney general's guidance and the governor's proclamation as it relates. So I just there was a statement that attributed to me that I did not believe that affordable housing was was part of a COVID 19 emergency response. I do believe that. But that would be for units of housing that we are opening up now.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. Appreciate you. And again, stating your clear position in terms of wanting to be consistent with the governor's order and proclamation. I think, frankly, I have gone back and forth in my own mind on this particular issue. I think that it reasonable minds can disagree and differ in terms of the conclusion in this particular space. So I do appreciate the opportunity to have a really respectful conversation into into sort of put out on the table in a very public, transparent way that the different ways that folks can think about the same issue and come out with a slightly different outcome. But again, regardless of how the vote comes down on this particular amendment that is related to how we review affordable housing projects, I want to make sure that the public hears clearly that this city council is united in the ultimate effort and desire to quickly construct affordable housing that will last in our communities for years to come, and that will be easily accessible to those who need it the most, whether it's now or in in the in the coming in the few coming years which will be difficult for us in this economic recovery as a result of this of this crisis. So with that being said, I'm going to go ahead and move this along so we can go ahead and take a vote on this one. So will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Herbold Amendment one get macheda. No.
Speaker 0: Peterson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: So what? No. Strauss.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 0: Her bold. Lawrence. No. Lewis, I. Morales. No. President Gonzalez.
Speaker 1: No. Four in favor, five opposed. Okay. The motion fails and the amendment is not adopted. Are there any other comments on the bill as amended?
Speaker 0: Council president. Matthew, few words quickly.
Speaker 1: Yes, you may remember, whereas you were recognized.
Speaker 0: Thank you. First of all, thank you, everybody, for all the hard work you've done and how we went through this vote. And in particular, thank you to Councilmember Mosqueda and Councilmember Solent. I do appreciate what my other colleagues said, but I just want to share that your words really spoke to that.
Speaker 1: We are in.
Speaker 0: Unique times and we have to do extraordinary things. And if there's ever a time for us to move things forward, this would be the time. I know it was an easy vote on a54, but I want to appreciate everybody's hard work. And so I just wanted to end it on that note because again, as County Council president shared, we may have some differences on some of these inclusive issues, but the overall general picture under the governor's proclamation and what we're trying to do through Zoom and all these other technical it has caused us to try to do our jobs in different ways, but still moving our city forward and addressing affordable housing. So with that, thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Councilmember Juarez, for for those words. Okay. We're going to. Are there any other comments on the list? Yes. Councilmember Peterson, the floor is yours.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council president. So just so I'm clear, there are no more amendments at this point.
Speaker 0: Is that correct?
Speaker 1: I believe there are no additional amendments to come before the council unless Councilmember Herbold, did I forget one of yours?
Speaker 5: I did have an amendment, too, but I am I'm withdrawing it at this time because of other items that were included in the substitute. And also just don't don't need to at this point, based on the vote that just occurred for my purposes to to bring forward amendment to.
Speaker 1: Great. And your amendment, Councilmember Amendment three, is already incorporated in the substitute. And my understanding is that Councilmember Morales will not be advancing her substitute. Is that correct? Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 0: That's right.
Speaker 1: Okay. So all amendments have been considered and and any and all of the remaining issues that were pending as of our council briefing this morning, were rolled into one single substitute bill, which we are now considering. So we have a substitute bill and it is ready for discussion and and vote. So you are now officially having a conversation about that. That bill. So, Councilmember Peterson, why don't you go ahead and provide us with your comments and then I see cause we're a mosquito has her hand up and we'll we'll hear from her after we hear from you and then Councilmember Alice as well.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I'm really grateful to Council President Gonzales and the land use chair Dan Strauss for providing more time for the public to consider this complex land use legislation from the Durkan Administration. I also want to thank my other council colleagues for digging into this and offering amendments to try to make the legislation better. And thanks to our central staff analysts for rapidly organizing those amendments over the past couple of weeks, our office heard from both supporters and opponents of this legislation. The supporters of the legislation seem to be mainly from the real estate real estate development industry. And I want to state for the record my concerns with the legislation. So. The bill is presented as an emergency and based on my experience, managing analysts in the field of commercial real estate and in that working with investors, I do find it hard to believe that that project's that we cannot solve the technological challenge that we have here for design review in our highly advanced tech city. I feel that I'm concerned that. When there isn't an opportunity for the public to weigh in, that the quality of the housing can go down, there can be even we heard concerns from some constituents about economic displacement.
Speaker 0: And so I think that's that's very serious.
Speaker 2: And I want to put that concern out on the table. It was mentioned before low income tenants deserve the benefits of design review, including administrative design review. And so I think that.
Speaker 0: Again, quality of the.
Speaker 2: Housing sometimes suffers when there's not that public input and the public input has been watered down over the past few years, I think that's important context to have here. And ultimately, you know, there have been amendments to substitutes, but no matter how many times you try to amend this bill, we're stuck with the official title of the legislation, which literally declares an emergency. I think Councilmember Herbold really laid it out well in terms of our concern about the governor's proclamation and the Washington state attorney general's interpretation that there is some additional nuance here. We're also invoking the emergency under the city charter. City Charter title for Section one, which states when an emergency exists in which it is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety that an ordinance shall become effective without delay. So this ordinance is invoking that.
Speaker 0: And I'm.
Speaker 2: Concerned about that, asserting that there's an emergency, an emergency need to essentially water down the process of public input for real estate development. I have discussed our city is a world leader in technology. I, i again, i think others may find it hard to believe that we don't have the technological means to fix this. I'm concerned that will not survive legal scrutiny or challenge in the courts. And ironically, a legal challenge could result in the opposite on this bill because any legal challenge would create even longer delays. So I just want to put these concerns out on the table and we'll.
Speaker 0: Be voting no on.
Speaker 2: This legislation. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Peterson, for those comments. Councilmember Mosqueda. And then we will hear from Councilmember Lewis. Thank you, Madam President. And I want to thank Councilmember Herbold. I think that the legislation that has now been amended with your amendment number three in the underlying bill, if I have the numbers correct, was a strong addition to the legislation . And I want to thank the sponsor, Councilmember Strauss, for all of your work with Councilmember Herbold. Councilmember Morales and myself and I know a number of others have been trying to work to the extent possible role of various amendments into the provision there. So I want to really underscore my appreciation for all of our colleagues and specifically to the good member from District one. I definitely did not mean to impugn any motives. I know that you know that housing is a health care issue. I think, as Council President Gonzales said eloquently, perhaps different reasonable minds can differ on what the definition of now might be given the length of the COVID crisis. So I appreciate your clarification on that. I definitely want to underscore how strong of a housing advocate you have been, especially around housing for those who are low income and unsheltered. You have been a true leader and appreciate your heroic effort over the years to make sure that housing is created and temporary housing is built as well. So I thank you for that clarification. And lastly, I just think that the legislation in front of us with the leadership of Councilmember Strauss has put forward some provisions to make sure that we not only are able to ensure that projects move forward, but they are able to, to the extent possible, build in that engagement strategy in a robust way and as soon as possible, make sure that we are getting that that public feedback online. As Councilmember Peterson noted, we have technology in our backyard. I know that it will be a quick process with our departments to make sure that we are creating a full engagement process as we go forward. Last thing you would be to the Building Construction Trades Council. In our last two weeks of Tuesday updates, we sent around both the Washington State Building Trades and the King County and Seattle building trades. COVID 19 Safety Guidelines for construction on the Work Place. Well, we have deemed a number of workers, essential workers. It is essential that we keep their health protected. And we want to make sure that any building that goes forward in this era not only maintain these guidance guidelines, in fact, as permitting is approved, but that we are quick to shut down any construction site that does not meet those guidelines. And it is imperative that we continue to push out the message and the contract numbers for anybody who feels that their worksite is not in compliance with public health requirements. And with that, I just want to say how much I appreciate all of your feedback on that. And I come from a humble I just wanna make sure I clarified my point as well. Thank you. All right. Next up is, I think, Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much, Madam President. So, you know, I will be voting for this legislation today. I think it's important to note a couple of things about it in advance of voting for it. And I just wanted to flag those things now for my colleagues and for the public. And the first really critical component of this is once the virtual meeting system is stood up, which, as has insisted that they're working on, to be able to do the design review process remotely under the terms of the substitute bill, that's going to revert everything back to a fairly familiar design review system, albeit one that's going to be done remotely and through a remote meeting. And I'm just imploring Stsci here in my final remarks to please work to stand up that process with urgency, even though under this bill there is a there's six months to do it, even though under this bill where there's going to be certain urgently needed exemptions to make sure that a pipeline that would pipeline jam up a project that would do irreparable damage to our economy and our recovery to make sure that that build up does not occur. It's essential that we have this streamlining of the process temporarily, that it has to be temporary. And there's frankly, I'm not convinced of the excuses that are given from Stsci on why it's going to take an exuberant amount of time to stand up this remote meeting process. I understand that it could take up to 30 to 45 days to do it. That is complicated that we as a council took two months to develop the process to get public comment in our meetings. It wasn't until today that we were able to accept them, but we did it and we did it within 60 days. There is no reason why, as a council member who's had a town hall where there was interactivity with members of the public as a council that's been meeting on the Zoom platform for several weeks, that it's going to need to take an exuberant amount of time to set up the design review process. I'm frankly not convinced that, for example, the training needs of the department that were flagged are insurmountable or not surmountable in the short term. So I'm just I just want to say, for the members of the public, the underlying protections of the design review process are going to back once we have the ability to conduct these design review meetings remotely. I know that Council Member Strauss and all of us on the Council are going to be pushing to make sure the department does promulgate those meetings. And frankly, you know, I feel like based on the predictions that have been made not only by some of the people that commented publicly today, but people from the department on the irreparable harm that could happen to our economy, that this is essential legislation that needs to be passed. You know, I wish the attempts to amend it had gone better, but I feel like where we are now, it has to go forward and the department should take the cue that sooner rather than later is better to set up the original process.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Lewis, for those remarks. Are there any other comments from my colleagues? Councilmember Morales. I think you're on mute still.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Got it. Thank you, everyone. I know that this has been a lot of work for everybody, including central staff who once again spent the weekend trying to answer all of our questions and help us get to a place where we could move forward. I want to make sure that as the representative from District two, it's really clear to my colleagues that I believe we should not be pushing projects through without the community process, especially in the Sydney and the South End, where the possibility for disaster gentrification is especially high. I do admire that city bill and asked central staff to draft an amendment that would remove the Isrg, the international district, a special review district and preserve the status quo during the crisis. It would allow the community to retain the ability to expedite certain projects that they prioritize for administrative review. And I did ask Councilmember Strauss to incorporate that into his language. I do want my colleagues to be aware of what this bill will and won't do for affordable housing and major projects in historic districts. You know, the memos that we've seen in none of the memos that we've seen related to this bill is a real explanation about the fact that to get approval in product and design processes are what the bill addressed this. We need to be clear that the decisions related to certificates of approval outside the limited authority given to do in the proceeding. This includes some certificates of approval for affordable housing and for major projects. Two thirds of the bill addresses a perceived administrative backlog, but we're still not achieving our goal of moving forward affordable housing projects that haven't received that designation, the certificate of Approval and Submission. I also want to say we all just received an email from the Department of Neighborhoods that highlights why this is so concerning to me and why I really see this bill as a vehicle for promoting downtown development. There are eight new construction projects in the city. One of those projects is for affordable housing. The rest are for market rate housing, condos and hotel projects. Council colleagues, I want you to understand that neighbors in the city are worried about a very real existential threat to the historic nature of the community and for what it means for the preservation of their culture and their community . Neighbors there don't want a dignified version of the city where hotels and chains move and look easily. They want to preserve the ability of the low income Asian families who have neck, who have only ever known life in the city to stay in their neighborhood. I realize that some consider my previous proposal as drastic amendments, and I disagree. What is drastic is a proposal to exclude community from processes that affect their neighborhoods. The department argued that shifting decision making to them is necessary to handle a backlog of projects and that these are only minor benign decisions. But that is in the eye of the beholder. You know, the addition or removal of park benches, for example, might seem benign to some. It might seem like an insignificant decision. But these projects that allow elders to age in place and to do that well requires input from community elders. They're the ones who should be making decisions about whether a park bench is inappropriate, is in the right place or not. The people of District two, especially in the city, believe that these boards and committees were intended to give community input to the decision how their neighborhoods function, and this proposal excludes them from giving that input. To presume that everyone has easy access to technology or to the language skills needed to follow these processes in English is to demonstrate a poor understanding of our racial equity ethos. So I am glad that the amendment is included in this language. I still believe firmly that this should have been two separate bills that it conflicts the issue of participation with the issue of affordable housing. While I'm very supportive of affordable housing and know that that is not going to be problematic in this process, I do believe that we need to be very clear that protecting the ability of our community members to participate in this process is as important.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Morales, for those remarks. And is there anyone else who hasn't yet spoken who wanted to provide comment? And I'm going to give Councilmember Strauss the last word on the bills on the on the substitute version of the bill. But I did want to check in with Councilmember Wise who's on the phone and whose face I can't actually see. So I don't know if she's raising her hand or not. But Councilmember Suarez, do you have any comments on that, on the bill?
Speaker 0: No, I don't. And thank you and thank you for checking in on me because you know how I feel about Zoom.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I do. I do regret about you. I can't. I handle your facial expressions while we're meeting.
Speaker 0: Thank you, President. I'm good.
Speaker 1: Okay, good. Thank you so much. Just wanted to make sure I didn't. I didn't skip you. So it looks like we don't have any other folks who are wanting to speak on the underlying bill and Kilmer. Stross Before I hand it over to you for the last word, I just wanted to to also express my gratitude to you and to our council central staff for doing a lot of tremendous work on these bills over the last several weeks. I think for some council members who just started to engage in the last couple of weeks, it's important to recognize that council central staff has been working on these bills for for a little bit longer than that, trying to work through many of the issues. I do appreciate the difficulty of having to tackle a complex land use issue remotely. When we're not all co-located, it makes it a little bit more difficult. And and when we are left with the only viable venue to have a robust discussion on this being council briefing, it makes it a little a little difficult. But I appreciate your patience and you're willing to engage in the ongoing conversation here. I do intend to support the underlying bill as amended and represented in the substitute bill. I want to thank all the amendment sponsors, including Councilmember Rebel, who again, I have a deep amount of respect and affection for you, Councilmember Herbold, not only as my colleague, but as my district representative and and really do appreciate your your stalwart commitment to making sure that we are maintaining consistency as it relates to your reading of the proclamation and how this bill fits in or doesn't quite fit into that that rubric. I think that that was a very reasonable conversation for us to have, and I really appreciated you bringing it forward so that we can have that conversation. And, you know, when Councilmember Morales speaks about the needs of District two, it's a it's a very powerful reminder that communities of color, communities who have limited English proficiency have been historically and continue to be excluded from many of the systems that we have in place that are represented by government and certainly by our land use codes. And I think it's important for us to recognize that, that when we talk about the recognition of history and the cementing of history in our city, we oftentimes don't see the history of people of color and immigrants and refugees acknowledged or captured throughout our city, Chinatown International District. And Little Saigon is an exception to that. It is a a a amazing representation of the rich history and cultural contributions that that community has historically made and had right here in our own city. And and I deeply respect the perspective that Councilmember Morales is lifting up when she talks about racial equity and as it relates to this particular issue and frankly, many, many more so. But with that being said, I do think it's important for us to acknowledge the operational difficulties in this particular period of time. And I do believe that they are temporary in nature and have the same expectations as Councilmember Lewis that the department and agencies will act swiftly to implement the processes needed in order to to address the public comment and input participation piece of the work that that that belongs to them. So with that being said, I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Strauss, who's going to take us home, and then we'll go ahead and take a vote on this bill.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President. Overall, I want to thank all of my colleagues here. Councilmember Herbold loyalists, council President Gonzalez, Mr. Peterson, Councilmember Mosqueda, Councilmember Serrano looking at Councilmember Suarez, even though I don't see your your face and of course, Councilmember Morales, I want to highlight the importance of making sure that we do not have to pass new decisions without public input. We are responding to an emergency. Virtual meetings can be very difficult. They can be very difficult, especially when you are engaging in deep policy analysis of complex issues. For instance, today, just getting back. On to council for council this afternoon. I was kicked off three times and I'm not even sure that my zoom is working correctly. So I'm in. And here we are two months into this. And so, you know, again, everything the council president said in council member Lewis is you sum this up very well. This is intended to be a temporary procedure of moving. Decision making to departments. We hope that virtual meetings will be up and running as fast as possible. Councilmember Herbold, I know that you are dedicated for affordable housing, to creating affordable housing, and I appreciate all the questions that you you raised in this process. Overall, I really want to thank council central staff. Cheadle wish Ali for being on phone calls with me over the weekend, late into the evenings, all last week. I want to also thank Noah in my office being council president's office. Aaron House. Aldridge Again. Councilmember Mosquito Council. President Gonzales. Councilmember Herbold and Councilmember Morales for making this a more robust bill. It is our intent that these practices, the virtual meetings, will be up and running as soon as possible. And I thank you all for your coordination on a very complex subject matter over over Zoom. And I think that that is telling as to the complexity of setting up these virtual meetings that have very complex subject matters. So thank you all for your time. And I urge your support of this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Strauss. I really appreciate those those words. I just want to check in. Speaking of Zoom and technological difficulties, I just want to check in to see if Councilmember Morales is still with us. She is.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I. I kicked off two in the last 5 minutes, so.
Speaker 1: Oh, okay. I'm back. Okay. It looks like we've got everybody else still. So before you get kicked off, let's let's let's call this once you call this one to a vote. Okay, so will the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill as amended? Mosquito I.
Speaker 0: PETERSON No. So what I. Strauss. I heard both. Okay. Excuse me. No, thank you. Juarez. Hi. Lewis.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Morales.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Six in favor, three opposed.
Speaker 1: So, colleagues, this is emergency legislation which requires seven votes in the affirmative. We only have six votes in the affirmative. So the motion the motion fails and the bill, as amended, does not pass. For a lack of having the seven required votes. So we have a couple of options. We can let sleeping dogs lie, or we can resurrect a motion for reconsideration that would allow us to find an alternative way to move forward. I will say that on a motion for reconsideration, only the prevailing party is allowed to make a motion for reconsideration, and in this case, the prevailing party are one of the no votes. Councilmember Herbold, you are recognized.
Speaker 5: Thank you so much. I move for reconsideration of the bill before us, including Amendment One, and into a friendly amendment to that to include other sections of the bill. Second.
Speaker 1: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to reconsider Council Bill 119.
Speaker 0: Excuse me.
Speaker 1: I'm just off the bill. Number seven, six, nine. So, colleagues, we're going to just take a vote on the motion to reconsider. So we're not considering any amendments at this point. We have heard a intent statement from Councilmember Herbold, who is part of the prevailing party, because she intends to bring this back for reconsideration with a reintroduction of her amendment, as well as the invitation for other potential amendments to the substitute bill. So but right now we are voting just on the motion to reconsider. Council Bill 119769 as it appears on the agenda. So as I remember from Thelma.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. Excuse me. This is Amelia, I'm sure.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's Clark.
Speaker 0: And because of the fact that the council did not pass the bill at this meeting, the motion to reconsider is correct at this point. But actually following through on the motion for reconsideration needs to happen at another meeting per the city charter. Good. And I can quote the city charter, if you.
Speaker 1: Like, for me to do that right now. Could you please? Because I think that's inconsistent with some motions and motions for reconsideration that we've done in the past.
Speaker 0: Okay. If a bill is moved for final passage and fails to pass and a motion to reconsider is made, the motion to reconsider shall not be voted on before the next meeting of the City Council.
Speaker 3: That's the president in.
Speaker 1: Oh, hold up. Hold on, hold on. Okay. So it is. So, Emilio, last week we have last week or two weeks ago, we had a motion for reconsideration on the introduction of referral calendar and voted on that motion for reconsider. At the same meeting. Why is that correct and correct?
Speaker 0: And those emotions.
Speaker 1: Relating to.
Speaker 0: The adoption of the injection for all.
Speaker 1: Calendar.
Speaker 0: Not bills that the charter requires, that bills as fail cannot be reconsidered at the same meeting, but at.
Speaker 1: Another meeting. Jason So because I want to make sure, because I want colleagues in the public to make sure that we have some consistency and understanding of how this rule applies. So what I'm hearing from you, Amelia, is that as it relates to a motion for reconsideration, because this is a substantive bill, the charter requires us to wait until next Monday to hear the motion for reconsideration. Now, we were able to take the reconsideration vote on the introduction reversal calendar because that wasn't substantive legislation. Is that accurate?
Speaker 0: That is accurate. You can reconsider any vote except for a passage of a bill that did not pass.
Speaker 1: So at this juncture, can we vote on a motion to reconsider but have it slated for next Monday? Is that the clerk's recommendation? The clerk's recommendation.
Speaker 0: Is to do this at the next meeting of the city council.
Speaker 1: So no motion for reconsideration at all right now?
Speaker 0: Correct. It'll stay pending until the next meeting of the city council.
Speaker 1: Okay. So, colleagues, unfortunately, we've heard from our our clerk that that this is not appropriate for us to consider under the charter rules, which is news to me. But but it is what it is. And so we will have to convene with our law department and the clerk and and and discuss what to do next as it relates to council level 119769. Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President. I also have Councilmember Morales on the line because she has been kicked off. I've got her on the phone up against my computer. A question for you and the clerk's. Is there an ability for council members to change their votes on the previous action?
Speaker 1: That is what a motion for reconsideration is designed to do. And I'm hearing from our clerk, the Council for a motion for reconsideration on a substantive bill is out of order.
Speaker 3: And there's no opportunity for suspension of that role. Is that is that a correct understanding?
Speaker 1: Madam Clerk.
Speaker 0: According to Roberts, both the border and member may actually change their votes if there's unanimous consent. But unfortunately, because the actual council, the city.
Speaker 1: Charter preempts the.
Speaker 0: Council, the Roberts rules of order, and the motion has been made to reconsider. It cannot be made today. So unfortunately, the only opportunity that we have at this moment would be to reconsider it.
Speaker 1: At a future council meeting. Correct. Not today.
Speaker 3: Thank you for wrestling my deep disappointment in this motion. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay, colleagues, unfortunately, that bill fails, as I mentioned. So we will I will my office will consult with a lot of parliament and the clerk's office on identifying next available steps. My understanding was that this was time sensitive legislation that needed to occur today. So the fact that it is not occurring today and has not been successful today may have some intensely negative consequences for some of the issues that we were discussing here. I will go ahead and move along in our meeting now so that we can continue on the other items of business. On the agenda. Will the clerk please read agenda items two and three into the record? Agenda items two and three quick file. | Council Bill (CB) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use review decision and meeting procedures; temporarily modifying and suspending procedures in Titles 23 and 25 of the Seattle Municipal Code and amending Chapters 23.41, 23.49, 23.66, 23.79, 25.12, 25.16, 25.20, 25.21, 25.22, 25.24, and 25.30 of the Seattle Municipal Code, consistent with the Governor’s proclamations and the Mayor’s proclamation of civil emergency on March 3, 2020; declaring an emergency; and establishing an immediate effective date; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04132020_CB 119766 | Speaker 1: The Report of the City Council Agenda Item one Council Vote 119 766 relating to commercial tenancies temporarily restricting increases in commercial rents, authorizing repayment of late rent installments for small businesses and non-profits, declaring an emergency and establishing an immediate effective date all by a three fourths vote of the City Council.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I will move to pass council bill 119766. Is there a second?
Speaker 3: Second.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilmember Herbold is the lead sponsor on this bill, so I will yield the floor to her to allow her an opportunity to address the bill first. I understand that there's also an amendment, but why don't we go in and address the underlying bill first and then we will consider the amendment?
Speaker 3: Fantastic. Thank you. So this legislation builds off of the rent moratorium for commercial tenants that Mayor Durkan proposed a number of weeks ago and is intended to address the sort of inherent tension between that moratorium and the fact that rent is still due for folks. It establishes a way for property owners to get paid and for small businesses and nonprofits to minimize their rent debt as it may accumulate over the period of this crisis. My office has heard from small businesses concerned about their ability to survive the public health emergency. I'm sure many other council members have heard those stories as well. Seattle Times writer Danny Wesley wrote a story recently that I think reflects a lot of what we see happening across the city. The difference between property owners who are being very generous and understanding in creating the time and space necessary for tenants to pay the rent and other responses that are much more stringent and not really appreciative of the crisis that that we're in right now. A number of months ago I'm sorry, a number of weeks ago, a coalition of small business owners led by Molly Municipal, reached out to council members early on to propose ways that the city could help more small businesses survive. This was one of those ideas contained in that in that letter requiring rent payments to be payable over longer periods of time. In developing the legislation, I consulted with other additional small business owners, including Joe Karger of to develop Pizza and Beetaloo Ventures, a nonprofit that supports entrepreneurs, as I say, with limited resources and unlimited potential. And they provided a lot of feedback and and good.
Speaker 0: Ideas that we worked to incorporate.
Speaker 3: I have a just a short closing statement that I would like to also say at the end, if that's okay. After we work on the on the amendment.
Speaker 0: That is fine. So why don't we go ahead and take up the amendment, which is Amendment One on the agenda? Why don't we go out and take that up and then we will consider the amendment and then we will have comments on the bill as amended at the after we we consider the amendment. How does that sound? Okay, great. So would you like to formally move your amendment?
Speaker 3: I move Amendment one.
Speaker 0: I will second it.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Said Amendment one.
Speaker 0: Let me go to the the Roberts rules word if I can. So it's been moved and seconded to amend the bill. Council member Herbold will now address Amendment One.
Speaker 3: So Amendment One came out of some work with Washington Commercial Real Estate Development Association. This amendment is intended to put some common sense limitations on the small businesses that are covered. Businesses will need to have experienced an economic hardship either because they were forced to stop doing business or because their revenue dropped by 30% or more as compared to the previous year. And the amendment also clarifies that local outposts of large change would not change, would not be eligible, even if they have 50% or fewer employees. But we've been careful to make sure that small franchisees would still be eligible, even if the franchisor is excluded from the definition. The goal is to ensure that when we talk about helping small businesses survive, we're really focusing on the businesses most likely to need help to do so and not opening the doors for businesses who don't really need the protection. And I, I appreciate the fact that an organization that is devoted to the interest of commercial real estate, it has has been willing to come forward and recognize the need for this legislation while making some some recommendations that I feel are reasonable.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Are there any questions or comments on Amendment one to counsel bill 119766. Looks like there are no questions or comments. So will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of Amendment One?
Speaker 1: Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Councilmember mosquito. I. Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Council Members on site Council Member Strauss Site Council Member Herbold i. Councilmember Suarez, I. Council member, Lewis.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor nine opposed.
Speaker 0: The motion carries in the amendment is adopted before Councilmember Herbold makes her final comments. Are there any other further comments from any of my other colleagues on the bill as amended? Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 2: I thank you. I do just want to make a quick comment. As Councilmember Herbold said, all of us, I'm sure, have been hearing from our small business constituents, and we know that commercial tenants really have almost no rights and our small businesses need protection, especially during this emergency, so that they have some kind of chance to come back once we are in recovery. So as Councilmember Herbold said, this isn't complete rent forgiveness, it's just a freeze on increases. And they have a year, but they can't pay the money back. So we know that small business already takes a big risk, regardless of what kind of business they're doing of our business. Work really hard to make our neighborhood commercial districts really so excited for this opportunity to offer some rent relief to support them.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Morales, any other comments from my colleagues? Okay. Hearing non councilmember approval. I just want to say thank you so much for the introduction of this of this bill. I think it is a very fine compliment to some of the work that we're seeing in this landmark space as it relates to residential tenancies. And I will have a bill for consideration by the full council later this month that effectively does the same thing that this bill does. But in the in the residential category of tenancies as opposed to the commercial tenancies. So I think everything we can do to create as much stability as we can in this space is going to be absolutely critical to making sure that we allow people the best opportunity to see the light at the end of the tunnel once we hopefully and I believe we will get through this public health crisis. So I'm going to let you have the final, final word before we call this bill to a vote.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Just a personal note that, again, I know everybody who represents a district or or even our.
Speaker 0: At-Large.
Speaker 3: Council members share this this really personal feeling that our district and our city is so is so benefited by just an incredible way array of truly beloved small businesses. It's really our small businesses are really what gives our city vitality and make our neighborhoods such wonderful places to live. I really believe that we cannot let the coronavirus attack what makes our communities so special. And the hope is that this legislation will give these beloved small businesses and essential non-profits a fighting chance to survive. One of the things that folks have have reminded me is that we do that small businesses do have financial relief coming to them. Many folks have have applied. But again, although that financial relief is coming, we don't know how much of the the how much the relief will will mitigate as it relates to the financial impacts of this of this virus. Nor do we know necessarily the timing when people will receive receive funds. So this bill will allow people to buy some time and it allows them to enter into a time payment plan of six months after the end of the crisis and allows them a full year to pay off their rent. In addition to, as we mentioned before, freezing rent on the types of leases that don't have multiyear commitments for rent increases within them themselves. So thank you, everybody, for working with me on this bill. I think it's a really good example of the types of things that we could do to address the needs of our institutions that we care so deeply about.
Speaker 0: Well said, Councilmember Herbold. Let's go ahead and get this bill into law. So I will ask the court to call the roll on the passage of the bill as amended.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Mishra i. Councilmember Peterson, i. Councilmember to what.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: See. Councilmember strauss.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Herbold, I. Councilmember suarez i. Council member lewis.
Speaker 2: High.
Speaker 1: I think Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Not in favor, not opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the list to the legislation on my behalf? Let's move on to item two. Will the clerk please read item two into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to commercial tenancies; temporarily restricting increases in commercial rents; authorizing repayment of late rent in installments for small businesses and nonprofits; declaring an emergency; and establishing an immediate effective date; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04132020_CB 119771 | Speaker 1: Agenda Item two Council Bill 119771 relating to the 2018 Families, Education, Preschool and Promise Levy amending the Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan adopted by Ordinance 125807 to provide for emergency child care services provided by and confirming the Mayor's Civil Emergency Order. Emergency Childcare Services for frontline essential workers, declaring an emergency and establishing an immediate effective date all by a three fourths vote of the City Council.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I will move to pass cancel bill 119771. Is there a second?
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: It's been moved on second. It did pass the bill and as the sponsor of the bill, I'll go ahead and address the substantive parts of the bill and then I will open it up for an amendment that is a friendly amendment from Council member Herbold. And then we'll go ahead and take your comments about the bill as amended so really quickly. In June 2018, the City Council approved Ordinance 12560 for submitting a proposition to voters to fund education services with a property tax levy that would generate approximately $619.6 million over a seven year period. The Families, Education, Preschool and Promise Levy or FAP lays out four investment areas for levy funding, preschool and early learning K through 12 school and community based grants K through 12 Health and Seattle Promise Section seven of the adopting ordinance, provided that levy proceeds may only be spent in accordance with an implementation and evaluation plan approved by the ordinance and by the City Council. That plan was approved by the Council in April 2019 originally, and this plan provides detailed information about Council's funding expectations in each of the four areas that I just previously outlined and March 27, the mayor issued an emergency order that would provide emergency child care services to essential workers, as defined by the Washington Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. These workers include health care workers, first responders, pharmacy workers, and Grocery Store Workers. Council Bill 119771 was originally transmitted to us by the Mayor's Office and the Department of Education and Early Learning. This legislation would amend the Families in Education, Preschool and Promise Levy Implementation and evaluation plan to include temporary emergency child care services for essential or frontline essential workers consistent with a mayor's emergency order that was issued on the 27th of March. These would be FAP Levy funded services in order to formally include these childcare services as an eligible expense for use of levy funds. The executive transmitted this proposed legislation to Council amending the Levy's implementation and evaluation plan and the total and total expenditures by the child care services is limited to the amount of funds that otherwise would have been used to fund the Seattle Preschool Program during the same period of time. Contracts. All contracts under this bill will be limited to an initial term of 30 days, and the Director of Deal may extend these contracts for up to two additional 30 day periods. This proposed bill would declare a finding of the council that child care services with developmentally appropriate activities provided on an emergency basis during school closures. Closures are consistent with a suite of education services defined in the enabling ordinance, and that this bill would also declare that there is an immediate need for essential workers to have access to child care services, and it would ratify and confirm the mayor's emergency order. The proposed bill attaches as attachment two to that is listed on this agenda an emergency addendum to the FAP Implementation and evaluation plan that effectively operationalize the Mayor's Emergency Order on child care services for essential workers. The agenda makes clear that child care services will be paid for by using funds that were allocated within the preschool and early learning investment area only. These dollars, under normal circumstances, as I previously mentioned, would have been used to support the delivery and operation of the Seattle Preschool Program and the Seattle Preschool Pathway Program. However, with the closure of schools and the governor's stay at home order, many of the SBP and STP pathway programs are not currently in operation. That means that FAP levy funds are available to be redirected to support these emergency child care services. Importantly, the executive cannot exceed an amount equivalent to the funds that would have been spent on these strategies during the emergency time period. This is an important provision to make sure that future years of SBP and the SBP pathway programs will continue to be fully funded as originally intended in the implementation and evaluation plan we adopted in the spring of 2019. And then lastly, I did receive written confirmation from Deal that the FEP Levy Oversight Committee was consulted as required by law, and the Oversight Committee agreed that the implementation of emergency child care services is. Inappropriate use of Beth Levy funds during the civil emergency. So colleagues, out of the abundance of caution, I wanted to make sure that we have this bill before us to make sure that we continue to have the accountability and oversight necessary for the expenditure of these important but limited taxpayer approved levy funds in the space of early learning. So that is the structure of the bill and what is before us and what this bill will do. Councilmember Herbold has an amendment that she'd like to make to the underlying bill that would require additional reporting requirements. So I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Verbal to introduce formally introduced her amendment, and then we'll take up her amendment and then come back to the substantive bill as amended for comments. Councilmember Herbold and you are on mute, Councilmember.
Speaker 3: I certainly am. Thank you. So I am moving Amendment One to Council Bill 11 9771.
Speaker 0: Back in. So it's been moved and seconded. So why don't you go ahead and address the amendment?
Speaker 3: Sure. So this amendment just simply requires a monthly report from the executive on the emergency child care efforts. I've been hearing from people in my personal network that today, in the efforts of both SPS, Seattle Public Schools, as well as DIAL, that the demand for child care for the identified populations has not been what they initially expected . And of course, we know that one thing that often happens is once it's provided, then the demand grows. And I just want to make sure that sites don't end up having excess capacity and that there be consideration to expanding child care, a child care provision to other groups of essential workers, for instance, transit workers, the folks who are putting their their selves in in harm's way to do the essential work of getting people around, as well as our homeless service providers that are on the front lines. Just want to make sure that if there is excess capacity within the system, that there is an ability to to serve more families. And so the required monthly reports from the executive includes the number of emergency child care sites currently open operating and their locations, the number of staff at each site, the number of students at each site, including this aggregation, but the type of essential worker that the parents of those students perform. The amount of funds spent on emergency child care services and the fiscal impacts to other families. Education, preschool and promise levy investments from redirecting resources to emergency child care services. This amendment was circulated on Friday to council offices by a central staffer. Brian Goodnight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. Any questions or comments about the amendment? Hearing and seeing none. We will go ahead and take up the amendment. Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment One?
Speaker 1: Councilmember Morales. Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 2: Hi. Sorry about that.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Macheda.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Council members want.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Herbold, I. Councilmember Suarez, I. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: President Gonzales.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor, nine opposed.
Speaker 0: The motion carries and the amendment is adopted. Colleagues, are there any further comments on the bill as amended? Councilmember Herbold, the floor is yours.
Speaker 3: Thank you. This is more of a just a flagging of an issue. And. Council President Gonzales, you may you may know whether or not Jill is planning to to address this. But one of the issues I think that was in some ways raised in the letter from the advisory board relates specifically to a really important equity issue . Given that child care providers provide care for the children of doctors and nurses who are on the front lines and exposed to coronavirus every day and through the children that they're caring for, child care workers are facing are facing the same exposures. And there's been a movement towards hazard pay for grocery workers, hazard pay for homeless service provider providers. And I'm just wondering if the department is considering whether or not to consider hazard pay for this this group of professionals that are doing essential work that is critical to the functions of our first responders.
Speaker 0: I do not know the answer to that question. I know that the question has been posed. I think it's an important question, and I know that there's been, at least as it relates to the contracts with childcare providers in in school public school buildings, there's been a lot of conversation about sanitation and how to make sure that the environment is is as safe as it can possibly be under the circumstances. But I think that it's a it's an important question to get a follow up information from from deal, and we'll make sure to do that and circulate it to you.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: You're welcome. Are there any other questions or comments? Councilmember Mosquito, please.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 0: I thank you for your work on this legislation.
Speaker 3: And thanks to the Mayor's office for sending it down. I agree with all of the comments that Councilmember Horrible just outlined as well in terms of.
Speaker 0: Who needs access to these critical child care services. So I appreciate.
Speaker 3: That friendly amendment. I also note that the Department of Early Learning director.
Speaker 0: Chappelle has received.
Speaker 3: A email from the folks at SEIU 925 who are contract workers who provide childcare to individuals throughout the city and SEIU. 925 represents family childcare providers throughout the city. I'm hoping that they will continue to be used as an.
Speaker 0: Important resource in this effort.
Speaker 3: To make sure that all of our essential.
Speaker 0: Workers have access to high quality childcare.
Speaker 3: As we current for the current population and for any.
Speaker 0: Expanded population.
Speaker 3: Just want to note from the email that they sent, they note that the city of Seattle is a strong has a strong.
Speaker 0: Labor history and that.
Speaker 3: SEIU wants to help provide.
Speaker 0: Workers across our region with access to high quality childcare and also make.
Speaker 3: Sure that they're accessing high quality childcare.
Speaker 0: For those who are organized and have a.
Speaker 3: Voice on their job, especially in this time.
Speaker 0: We know how important.
Speaker 3: It is for people to be able to raise their hand and speak up if they feel unsafe at their place of employment. And that's true for the grocery workers who we help protect by removing the five cent fee for bags last week and also.
Speaker 0: Includes childcare providers as we look to make sure that their services are available across the city.
Speaker 3: So just want to ping.
Speaker 0: That for our department as they're looking.
Speaker 3: To deploy not just our city dollars, but also the King County PTA money and look forward to their ongoing.
Speaker 0: Participation with our friends at SEIU United five. Thank you for those comments. Really appreciate the the note there. I will say that in my conversations with the executive, it's my understanding that there's they're looking at at every single opportunity they can to figure out how to meet the childcare needs for essential workers. And so that includes not just contractors in center based facilities, but, you know, sort of making sure that we're keeping an eye on how we can make sure that the system is being fully responsive. And I think that the amendment that was advanced by Councilmember Verbal that we've now adopted is going to help us fine tune exactly where the gaps are to the extent that there are gaps. And so I think that that that those data points will be absolutely critical to understanding how else we can modify the model in order to meet this critical need for these workers. Are there any other questions or comments from my colleagues? Okay. Hearing them. I just want to say that I'm I'm I'm really excited that we can advance this legislation. I'm also mindful of the impact that it can have on levy existing levy funds and programs and services that we fund through it. That's part of the reason why I wanted to make sure that out of the abundance of caution, we had a legislation to formalize this as opposed to just relying on an executive order. I think it's important for us to have that accountability and that transparency around how these dollars are going to be spent and having sort of additional details out in the public about our expectations around how the executive order was going to be operationalized in this space. I will say that that that doing this work just really highlights for me that we still have an absolute crisis around child care in our city. It's part of the reason why we are scrambling. And so it's not not just a crisis for these essential workers, but for everybody. And I think we're seeing that during a period of a public health crisis, in a pandemic like this, we are experiencing the gaps in our child care system and in an even deeper, more profound way. And that's part of the reason why I've been working with so many of you and former council colleagues on on really, really making sure that we're having a conversation about how to best meet the needs of working families who have children in our city. So I think this is a good step, good step forward for this small body of workers, but look forward to being on the other side of this coronavirus and continuing to have a conversation about how we meet that, how we close the gaps in the childcare space in the long term. So with that being said, I am going to ask the clerk to call the roll on the passage of the bill as amended.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Mesquita.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Council members. So what.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Herschel. Council member Herbal. I. Councilmember Suarez. Right. Councilman Lewis, I. President Gonzales.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it will court please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. All right. Agenda item three. Will the clerk please read agenda item three into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the 2018 Families, Education, Preschool, and Promise Levy; amending the levy implementation and evaluation plan adopted by Ordinance 125807 to provide for emergency childcare services; ratifying and confirming the Mayor’s Civil Emergency Order - Emergency Childcare Services for Front-line Essential Workers; declaring an emergency; and establishing an immediate effective date; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04132020_CB 119770 | Speaker 1: 119770 relating to the Office of the Hearing Examiner temporarily suspending deadlines imposed by the Seattle Municipal Code for the duties of the hearing examiner temporally standing several sections of the state on a separate but imposed deadlines on the actions of the hearing examiner and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I will pass Council Bill 119770. Is there a second?
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: And thank you. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. And as sponsor of the bill, I'll go ahead and address the bill first and then we can I will ask for comments. So as I mentioned this morning during council briefing, the hearing examiner has requested that the council consider passage of Council Bill 119770. This legislation will temporarily suspend deadlines required in the municipal code for the Office of the Hearing Examiner. Due to the COVID 19 emergency, in response to the governors and mayors orders during the Civil Emergency Hearing, Examiner Ryan Mansell published important emergency rules to provide guidance on the operating rules for the Office of a Hearing Examiner during the COVID 19 emergency. Those rules were to be in effect for 60 days and include closure of his office to the public, allowing remote hearings, allowing electronic filing of documents, suspending in-person payment of fees, and allowed people to pay their fees later if the office closure impeded, if the office closure prevented payment from being made timely. These are all important actions to comply with public health guidelines and to help prevent the further spread of the coronavirus to the public and to the hearing examiner staff. Of course, the Office of the Hearing Examiner is something that is created by statute, is an independent office, and they require this bill in order to have the flexibility needed to continue to comply with these public health orders. So Council Bill 119770 will temporarily suspend statutory deadlines. The suspension will automatically end with the termination of the civil emergency. It's important for us for me to note that this bill does not suspend deadlines applicable to city departments, appellants or other participants in cases that come before the hearing. Examiner And this bill only provides the hearing examiner relief from the stringent deadlines that would make it difficult for the Office of Hearing Examiner to comply with the governor's stay home state health order. So for those of you who took a look at Amy Goard, city council central staffer Amy Gore's memo, you will note that she made sure to highlight that there is that particular issue. If we as a council want to take up the issue at a future date to consider suspending deadlines for city departments or for the other litany of folks that I just mentioned. We could do that, but council central staff has identified that it would be appropriate to consider that that temporary policy relief or shift in the separate and newly introduced bill. So I will have conversations with the hearing examiner to see if that is something that makes sense from a policy perspective. And also happy to hear from any of you all at a future date as to whether or not that is a policy shift that would be of interest. So that is the essence of this bill and I'm happy to entertain any comments. Are there any comments on the bill? Hey. Hearing and seeing none. I will ask the clerk to please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Mesquita I council member Peterson. I help the members a lot. I. Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Herbold. I. Councilmember Suarez, I. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: President Gonzales.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor.
Speaker 0: Nine oppose the bill so those in the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? We will now move to other business. I have one item of other business, but before I go through that, is there any other further business to come before the council from any of my | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Office of the Hearing Examiner; temporarily suspending deadlines imposed by the Seattle Municipal Code for the duties of the Hearing Examiner; temporarily superseding several sections of the Seattle Municipal Code that impose deadlines on the actions of the Hearing Examiner; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04062020_Res 31941 | Speaker 1: To be part of the City Council agenda item one Resolution 319 41 establishing a committee to develop recommendations to enhance the capacity of the Office of City Auditor to conduct performance audit.
Speaker 0: I moved to adopt resolution 31941. Is there a second?
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Lewis, you are the lead sponsor of this resolution, so I will yield the floor to you.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much, council president. All right. So as I mentioned last week during the briefing, I started working on putting this together with central staff and the council president's office in January. Given that COVID broke out, we put it on hold for a little while. But having consulted with the city auditor and with the Office of the Inspector General, that there was a lot of feeling from stakeholders that there was capacity to move forward and do this work remotely, since it didn't really involve much field work or require people to meet in person. And the meetings could probably be accommodated remotely. The idea behind the resolution is, is essentially to have a group of experts composed of folks who have been practicing and the auditing space, our own office, the inspector general and the city auditor, both of whom report to us and perform the auditing function for the city of Seattle as legislative officers in the legislative branch, though not the Legislative Department, but in their own departments, but in the legislative branch of government. And for a group to come together and make a couple of recommendations to Councilmember Gonzales, this committee, on something that could possibly enhance the oversight and efficacy driving role of both the Office of the Inspector General and the City Auditor, just based on really looking into a lot of the capacity of those offices and what their running and current needs are. Just just a little bit of overview of the Office of the Inspector General as it has been created in the post consent decree space and beefed up has essentially the softball auditing function of overseeing the Seattle Police Department and making sure that arm's one through collective bargaining and mandated by this council are being implemented and that the department is meeting its goals. And then obviously the Office of the City Auditor, which has that same goal for our role essentially for every other department in the city. We we have a from initial analysis, and I think that Lisa Kay is on the call. Lisa, can you confirm that? I saw your name earlier, see it in front of me now, but from central staff, but from an analysis that she put together that I took a look at relative to other other yard.
Speaker 1: Yes. I'm on the line. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Right. And based on an analysis that the mosque and central staff put together for my office, you know, the city of Seattle does have some things that are kind of unique to it in terms of how our auditing function is set up. We have a a smaller staff relative to some of the other auditing offices in our region, including King County and the city of Portland. We we use a lot more outside consultants than internal staff, than some other auditing offices. So instead of kind of stumbling through this as an amateur, because I'm not an expert in performance auditing, I thought it would be a good idea to convene a group with the blessing and support of the Inspector General and the auditor, David Jones, to look at some ways that maybe the function and capacity of their offices could be enhanced and then have that report possibly inform some work for us as a council in the fall and beyond that. So that's essentially what the resolution does. It's pretty bare bones, but part of my inspiration for it was the Rental Housing Inspection Stakeholder Committee that I was appointed to by Nick Licata and the City Council back in 2011 or 2012, and sort of the work that that group did to be sort of a sounding board to help inform Councilmember Lacob his office on the eventual rental housing inspection legislation that was passed by the council. So that's what that's what we're getting at with the resolution. And I know Lisa's on the call to possibly answer some questions, and I'm happy to answer your questions as well.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Lewis so you know, ordinarily we have to suspend the rules to allow non council members to address the city council. So before I suspend the rules, I'm just going to ask first if any of my colleagues have questions about this resolution that are directed to council's central staff. Okay. I'm not seeing any of our colleagues expressing an interest in or a desire to get additional information from from Lisa Kay. So I don't think we need to go unless you disagree. Councilmember Lewis. I don't think we need to go through the process of having Lisa address the the council. Do you have an objection to that?
Speaker 2: Oh, no, no. But I just I do want to thank Ms.. Kay for for calling in so that we did have that. And but if no one has any questions for I. I think we're okay.
Speaker 0: Okay, great. Thank you. I appreciate that. Are there any questions or comments on the resolution? Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I wanted to thank Councilmember Lewis for introducing this. Anything that can give our city auditor a high profile is great. We just talked about an audit they released last week that Councilmember Skinner had initiated about Seattle City Light. I really believe that the city auditor can do a lot of good for our city, especially as we face an economic recession where we're going to see our revenue sources dropping. We're going to have a hole in our budget. The city auditor is well-poised to find savings and has done that in the past, and I hope that this will make the office even more robust in finding savings, making the city government even more efficient. So I want to thank Councilmember Lewis for that. And to those of those of us who are really familiar with the workings of Capitol Hill know that the Congress has the Congressional Budget Office, the current National Research Service, the General Accounting Office. And so by us having a stronger city auditor is going to be better for for all of us. So I just want to thank Councilmember Lewis for introducing us. I did have a quick question and a clarifying question about one of the sections or subsections of the resolution. Section one, a list the members of the working group. And just wanted to clarify when it says, since we're talking about city government, when we're talking about a representative of a labor union, I'm hoping that would be a labor union that is representing city employees just so there's more of a connection. Yeah, and I'm happy to speak to that. First, I want to thank you for for Your Honor. The resolution as a whole. Answer the question. I, I do want to state, though, that it's really important to note that while oftentimes performance audits do lead to practices that are more efficient and do save money, and in fact, King County has saved over $200 million in the last three years. The performance auditing. Auditing goes first and foremost to advocacy. You know, our programs working. Are they doing the things that we as a council wanted the programs to do oftentimes and not uncommonly, that actually leads to programs needing more money or finding holes where more repairs are needed for a program to realize that the full effect and impact. So a flag that that you know like while efficiency is something that that tends to come as an ancillary benefit to an audit efficacy and foremost a the primary goal and it's the primary goal of what I hope will come out of this this resolution. So I just want to flag that to make it clear that that efficiency and efficacy, while they sometimes go together as an audit, comes back and says, you know, we actually need more revenue, we need more money because we're not we don't have enough to to make it work with this. To respond to the question. Yeah. I mean, my my intent and I've discussed this extensively with Protect 17, my hope would be someone from Protect 17 would be the lady, the person who would serve on this because they represent a lot of folks. I'm across different departments. I've talked to Sean VanDyke and he's excited and to work with the council on this and to really see some of the changes that Protect 17 has flagged over the years as places where the city could be more accountable, responsive and efficacious. So I appreciate that comment, Councilmember Peterson. And I would hope that one of the bargaining units with then the city would be in that position. You.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council Members. Councilor Lewis, I have in my notes that you intended to make an amendment to this Council bill. Do you still intend to bring that amendment forward?
Speaker 2: Yes, I do. Councilmember Gonzalez, thanks for flagging that. And here I'm just going to look up in the exact language of the amendment here just to make sure that I get to. Wording, right? But I believe it was circulated in advance.
Speaker 0: That it is. It is. The proposed amendment is proposed amendment one. It is listed on the regularly published agenda. So it was appropriately and timely circulated. And so we just need you to make the motion, get a second, and then we will talk about the proposed amendment.
Speaker 2: You are now going to have it in front of me. I do move proposed Amendment one to be adopted.
Speaker 0: Second, and as the prime sponsor of the amendment, you should feel free to speak to it. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 2: Right. I mean, mostly it just clarified. That now. It went to Lisa's. Sorry. Doing all this on one screen is challenging. All right, so the proposed amendment one, it puts in an amendment to substitute Section one A to just basically make it clear that Councilmember Gonzales, you can designate somebody to be the primary city council member to , um, to chair this workgroup and then report back to your committee. Whereas the, the old language doesn't necessarily make it clear that you have the power and authority to, to make that delegation so central staff felt it was important to have that language in there. You know, I agreed with central staff, so we are putting that amendment forward.
Speaker 0: Right. So it's been moved and seconded to amend the resolution as described by Council member Lewis. He's already spoken to it. Are there any comments or questions about the amendment hearing and will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the amendment?
Speaker 1: Councilmember Lewis. Hi. Councilmember Morales. I Council member Mesquita i council member Peterson I. Council member salon I. Council member stress i. Councilmember Hurdle I. Councilmember Juarez. I. President Gonzalez, I. Nine in favor none opposed.
Speaker 0: I think in the motion carries and the amendment is adopted. Are there any further comments on the resolution as amended hearing? And then I will ask the clerk to please call the roll on the adoption of the resolution as amended.
Speaker 1: Council member, Lewis. I'm sorry, Councilmember Lewis. Oh, I. Councilmember Morales by. Councilmember Macheda. I don't remember Peterson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Council members want I. Council Member Strauss I. Council Member Herbold i. Councilmember Suarez, I. I think. Gonzales, I. Nine in favor.
Speaker 0: None opposed the resolution as adopted, as amended, and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Is there any other further business to come before the Council? Okay, colleagues. But did somebody say no?
Speaker 1: No. Yeah. I won't tell you who I suspect.
Speaker 0: I know who it was. Okay.
Speaker 1: So love a gun. No.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I hear you. So. So that concludes the business on our agenda for today. There is no further business on today's agenda. And we will convene again on Monday. April, I know what that day is. April 13th at 2 p.m.. Otherwise, we are adjourned. Thank you, colleagues, for your patience and your attention.
Speaker 1: I thank the council president. Thank you, everybody. Good job by.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Goodbye. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION establishing a committee to develop recommendations to enhance the capacity of the Office of City Auditor to conduct performance audits. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03302020_CB 119763 | Speaker 2: Agenda Item one Capital 119 763 Relating to city finances, creating a fund for depositing donations, gifts and grants related to the city. Seattle's Response to the COVID 19 pandemic. Creating a budget summary level. Amending Ordinance 126000, which adopted the 2020 budget. Changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels and from various funds in the budget. Declaring an emergency and establishing an immediate effective date all by three fourths of the City Council.
Speaker 0: Thank you. This is a bill that I'm sponsoring, so I will move to pass council bill 119763 again. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill as sponsor of this bill. I'll first address the bill and I know that there are three amendments, two amendments to the underlying bill and one amendment to the amendment . So I apologize that this seems a little clunky, but bear with me as we work through the parliamentary procedure. So really quickly, I'll describe the Council bill and then I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Mesquita to put to put amendment number one on the table before we then put it over to Councilmember Herbold, who will discuss an amendment to Amendment One. So in response to this COVID 19 outbreak and its economic effects, many philanthropic and business partners have expressed an interest in donating resources to assist people and businesses in Seattle that may be in need as a result of the economic crisis that we are currently experiencing. Article one Section one of the City Charter provides that the City of Seattle may accept gifts and donations of all kinds and do all acts necessary to carry out the purposes of the gifts and donations. However, our Seattle Municipal Code requires that even though in a proclaimed civil emergency, the mayor may accept gifts, grants or loans, the council must act legislatively to allow for the acceptance of those gifts, grants or loan. So that is what this legislation is designed and intended to do. The legislation would create a new fund in the city treasury for the receipt of gifts, donations and grants to the city to assist in the management of and recovery from crises created by the COVID 19 global pandemic. The uses for these funds could include food assistance for persons in need. Financial assistance to small businesses. Assistance with childcare costs. Loan guarantees for small businesses or individuals. Rent assistance for small businesses or individuals. And operating assistance to cultural and nonprofit organizations. We will be considering some amendments this afternoon to expand that list of allowable uses, which I consider to be from the amendments. This legislation would also create a new budget summary level line to allow city departments to spend from the new fund for the purpose of assisting in the recovery from the COVID 19 pandemic. It also gives the exact the executive authority to accept gifts, donations and grants consistent with the purposes of the fund without additional approval by the City Council so as to move the assistance forward in a timely manner. There'll also be an amendment that we will consider this afternoon that requires reporting back to the city council so that we can make sure that that the executive is still staying accountable to the intent and design of this legislation. This legislation would also gives appropriation to finance general contingent on the receipt of those donations so that they can quickly deploy these resources. And lastly, the legislation is necessary to go excuse me, this legislation is considered to be emergency legislation to allow it to go into immediate effect in order to protect public health, safety and welfare. So that is a summary of the of the legislation and what it is intended to to address. And I'm going to go ahead and hand it over to Councilmember Mosqueda, who has an amendment Amendment one to this council bill. Councilmember Mosqueda. Thank you. Council President. I'd like to move to amend council bill 119763 by including amendment number one. It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill. Councilman Muscat, I'm going to ask you to address the amendment first and then I'm going to have Councilmember Herbold make an amendment to your amendment, and then we can have a discussion about the whole package. And then we'll vote on Councilmember Herbold amendment to Amendment One. And then, if that passes, will vote on your amendment, Amendment One as amended. All right. So, Councilmember Mosqueda, why don't you address your amendment before we hand it over to Councilmember Herbold? Thank you, Madam President. I put forward this amendment because I support the goal of being able to act quickly to deploy resources from private donations or grants as soon as possible, to provide relief to those in our community who are experiencing the impacts of COVID. At the same time, I think it's important that we have transparency and oversight in how we're allocating those dollars. As a council, I think it's important that we understand the full picture of dollars going to support various needs, such as small business support, food assistance, homeless support and housing, so that we are able to make informed decisions about other expenditures. The amendment that is included here in Amendment One would require weekly reporting on how these funds are being spent so that we're able to maintain proper oversight and also enabling expedient direction of these funds to where they need to go in the community as fast as possible. Thank you so much to Councilmember Herbold for her amendment to this amendment, which I see as friendly as well. Thank you. Councilman Mosquito, we will not handed over to Councilmember Herbold to discuss her friendly amendment. Thank you so much. I move to amend Amendment One as presented on version two of Amendment three on the agenda. Second. It's been moved and seconded to amend Amendment One. Councilmember Herbold. Please speak to your amendments. Thank you so much. I really appreciate Council President Gonzalez for bringing forward this legislation as well as councilmember up for her Amendment one and the Amendment two that we'll be hearing in a little bit. Amendment three is intended to build off of Amendment one to specify that reporting requirements are are needed to be according to the categories of spending listed in Section three of the resolution in the category of emergency housing and homelessness supports added by Councilmember Mosquito in a subsequent amendment that we'll discuss in a minute. As we know, this legislation allows for quick action on donations in line with this being an emergency. However, authorizing up to $30 million in appropriations, the Council is forgoing its normal budget carry authority. So reporting as proposed by Councilmember Muskat and her Amendment One makes a whole lot of sense. This amendment simply ensures that the reporting includes the categories that we have identified as allowed categories so that we have a clear sense of which needs are being addressed and funded. And that's what this amendment would do. Thank you. Council Member Herbold, are there any comments or questions on Amendment three, which is Councilmember Herbold Amendment? Okay. Hearing none will the clerk call the roll on the adoption of Amendment three?
Speaker 2: Councilmember Juarez. I. Councilmember Lewis, I. Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Macheda.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Council members a lot like. Councilmember Strauss. Councilmember Strauss. Thank you, Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: President Gonzalez, I. Nine in favor and on the post.
Speaker 0: The motion carries and amendment three is no, I'm sorry, the motion carries an amendment three passes. So now we will consider the amendment one as amended. Are there any further comments on Amendment one as amended? A hearing nun. Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment One as amended?
Speaker 2: Councilmember suarez. I. Councilmember lewis.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Mesquita.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Swan, I. Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Herbal. Hi. President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Nine in favor, none opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The motion carries an amendment. One is adopted as amended. I believe there is a Second Amendment to Council Bill 119763, which is sponsored by Councilmember Mesquita. So I'm going to hand it over to her to make the motion to amend the Council bill accordingly for discussion. Thank you, Madam President. I move to amend Council Bill 119763 with the text included an amendment to. Is there a second? Second, it's been moved and seconded to amend the bill. Councilmember Maceda, please feel free to speak to your amendment. Thank you, Madam President. This amendment expands the list of authorized users of this fund to include emergency support for housing and homelessness services. As this crisis unfolds, the existing housing and homelessness crises are also well beyond the emergency level capacity. We need to make sure that new funds can also go to those on our front line providers who are working to get folks out of dangerous close quarters off the streets and into dwellings where they can safely practice social distancing and make sure that they get the care that they need during this crisis. This is critical for those who are also in permanent supportive housing, as we've heard from many of our human service provider organizations who are providing assistance, both in terms of counseling and food delivery. They are in dire need of additional support for those who are in permanent supportive housing as well. Appreciate the generosity that's been already shown by the support for this fund. And I'm hoping that with this amendment to include emergency housing and homelessness supports as an authorized use, we can see more funding being available for things like affordable hotel rooms, food delivery, PPE for frontline workers and staff who provide services in our housing and homelessness shelters. This enables the funds from the donation to the city to go to those who I think are really on the front line, helping our most vulnerable residents in need of secure housing. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Mosqueda for that amendment. Are there any comments or questions about amendment to. K hearing none will the clerk call the roll on the adoption of amendment to.
Speaker 2: Councilmember suarez. All right. Councilmember lewis. I am. Councilmember morales. I. Councilmember Mesquita.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Council members. So on.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Herbold, i. President Gonzales.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Nine in favor. None opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passed. I'm sorry. The motion carries and the amendment is adopted. Are there any other comments on the bill as amended? I'm not seeing any. So sorry. Oh, yes, I do have comments. Okay. Please. Councilmember Salon.
Speaker 4: Thank you, President Gonzalez. I will be voting yes on this bill to create a structure of a fund to allowing the city to accept philanthropy, to support people whose lives have been devastated and are going to be in the coming months by the coronavirus crisis. However, we do need to be clear that in general, when big business gives what they call philanthropy, they often get back far more in profits and through favorable political legislation or absence of legislation, much more than they donate because they are donations by political power. Guzman, Morales and I have advocated for a big business tax of 500 million per year. I have no doubt that big business will attempt to use their donations into this much smaller, $3 million fund to attempt to argue that they should continue to avoid paying anything in terms of significant taxation. Furthermore, we also need changes statewide and federally, and I think statistics that are being compiled through economic studies in the past decades have shown that actually corporate philanthropy does very little do nothing to address the massive inequality that has just grown nationwide, and now it has become even more emergent in the face of this pandemic. So we need changes at every level. My office has launched a petition to Governor Inslee to make a number of those changes, and we will need a movement to fight for this. If members of the public are watching this, then please get involved in this fight. We're calling on Governor Inslee to close all corporate tax loopholes to immediately tax big business and wealthy households. And then, of course, federally, we need massive changes. And that's why I'm strongly supporting Senator Bernie Sanders's $2 trillion proposal for a bailout of working families, which also includes $2,000 per month income for working families through this crisis. It's also been noted, Sadistically, that on average workers give a higher percentage of their income to charity and the middle class give higher percentage of the income to charity than does big business or the wealthy. And nobody argues, ever, that taxes on workers should be eliminated because they are already giving charity. So I would urge everybody who's watching this for us to build a movement that is vigilant about not accepting that argument from big business. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. So on. And I agree with your remarks. You know, it seems like every time we talk about progressive taxation or taxation in general, we oftentimes get the philanthropic efforts of big business thrown back at us as an argument to prevent or minimize taxation or revenue creation tools. So I appreciate your reminder on that front. Are there any other comments or questions about the underlying bill before we vote on it? You have not seen any one come forward. So we'll go ahead and vote on the bill. So will the clerk call the roll on the passage of the bill as amended?
Speaker 2: Councilmember Suarez. I. Councilmember Lewis, I. Councilmember Morales, I. Councilmember Mesquita.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Council members who want a. Councilmember Strauss. I Council member Herbal.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 2: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Nine in favor, nine opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay. We're going to go ahead and move to item two with the clerk. Please read item two into the record.
Speaker 2: Agenda Item two Capital 119 760 4126000, which adopts the 2020 budget changing appropriations to the Executive Department's Office of Sustainability and Environment, the Department of Neighborhoods, the Department of Education and Early Learning, Parks and Recreation and Budget Control levels, and from various funds in the Budget for the purpose of providing support to individuals. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE related to City finances; creating a fund for depositing donations, gifts, and grants related to The City of Seattle’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic; creating a Budget Summary Level; amending Ordinance 126000, which adopted the 2020 Budget; changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various funds in the Budget; declaring an emergency; and establishing an immediate effective date; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03302020_CB 119764 | Speaker 2: Agenda Item two Capital 119 760 4126000, which adopts the 2020 budget changing appropriations to the Executive Department's Office of Sustainability and Environment, the Department of Neighborhoods, the Department of Education and Early Learning, Parks and Recreation and Budget Control levels, and from various funds in the Budget for the purpose of providing support to individuals. Seattle and ratifying confirming certain projects all by force both at the City Council.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I moved to pass Council Bill 119764. Is there a second again? It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilmember Mosqueda, you are the prime sponsor of the bill, so I will hand it over to you to make remarks about the bill. Thank you, Madam President. I want to first thank the Mayor's office for sending down this legislation to transfer $5 million from the Seattle Budget Resources to a new food voucher program, which would provide grocery money for many families in need. Thousands of families across Seattle. Council Bill 119764 creates this fund in an effort with the Office of Sustainability Environment to support 6250 low income families facing food insecurity because of the response to COVID. The program is funded with the sugary sweetened beverage tax revenues, and due to the crisis that we're in, we decided to reallocate that it was a good idea to reallocate some of the funds that were going to parks and to the Department of Neighborhoods to make sure that we could provide food security for these families. The CAB or the Community Advisory Board of the sugary sweetened beverage tax revenue that provides ongoing analysis and feedback to this Council on the implementation implementation of the tax. We have contacted them and as you all saw via their correspondence back to the council, there was a few questions, but they were supportive of the reallocation of the funds due to the large layoffs and because of COVID. We need to make sure that we're maintaining food security for families across the city to be able to put food on their table. The council is the governing body in charge of the budget, has to make tough decisions and I think this is one of them. On how we spend our resources in response to COVID. While the sugary sweetened beverage tax funds are important programs, and many of you have spent years trying to get this effort off the ground passed and implemented, the city must pass push to pause in order to make sure that we ensure families in Seattle, especially our kiddos who are enrolled in Seattle's child care programs, have food that they need so they can remain healthy during this public health crisis. I want to thank all of you for your past work on the sugar sweetened beverage tax effort. Again, this is a pause, not a repeal. And it is in line with what the goals of the sugar sweetened beverage tax revenues were intended to do. I appreciate the cab for reminding us that the very programs that we're talking about supporting are also for the population that benefits from this tax. Again, thanks to the cab members, the community advisory board members for their weighing in with overall support. And we'll make sure to follow up on implementation and tracking this closely in conjunction with the CAB members. Thank you, Councilman Mosqueda, for those introductory remarks. And I count the 119764. So we that is the introduction to that particular council bill. I believe that there is an amendment that is going to be addressed by Council Member Morales. So I will hand it over to Councilmember Morales to make her motion to introduce Amendment One.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President Gonzalez I move to amend Council Bill 119764 as presented on Amendment one on the agenda.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Is there a second? It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill, and I will hand it back over to Councilmember Morales to address her amendment, Amendment one.
Speaker 3: Thank you. So I want to thank you, Councilmember Musgrave, for your last comments. We know that this crisis is more than any of us really can can deal with. And I know from here out, we will be asking ourselves the question over and over again how we acknowledge the great need that we have for protecting folks who are in jeopardy across the city, whether we're talking about seniors or immigrants or children or our homeless community, those who have been laid off and those who don't have a job to have been laid off from. We are going to have some hard decisions to make. This amendment would ask the Office of Sustainability and the Environment to prioritize certain categories of satellites should additional funding become available. Particularly, we're concerned about immigrants and refugees who are recipients of the State Food Assistance Program, but who don't qualify for federal programs. We're also concerned about folks who are over 60. We know that seniors are particularly susceptible and vulnerable to this disease. People with disabilities and of course, workers have been dislocated because of the COVID virus. I have spoken to a couple of CAB members of the Community Action Board members, advisory board members to get their thoughts. And like Councilmember Mosqueda said, these folks really hard just a couple of years ago for allocation of this tax for their food security programs. And the idea was that money that is taken out of our communities of color in particular get put back in through some of these food security programs. So that said, everyone acknowledges that we're in a crisis and that it's really important that we find other ways to to protect our community members. So the folks in the camp consider this a friendly amendment. And they also want to make sure that we are serving seniors who are susceptible to COVID and that we're looking out for the folks who are falling through the cracks of some of our some of our federal programs. And that's what this amendment is intended to do. So I move passage of Amendment one.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as described by Councilmember Morales. Are there any questions or further discussion about Amendment One? Okay. I don't see any questions or here any questions. So we will go ahead and I will I will ask that the clerk please call the role on the adoption of Amendment One
Speaker 2: . Councilmember Juarez, I. I remember Lewis. I remember Morales.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Council member must get a.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 2: Council members. The one.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: I think Gonzalez, I. Nine in favor of the post.
Speaker 0: The motion carries and the amendment is adopted. We will now move over to Councilmember Herbold, who has an amendment to council Bill 119764 listed as amendment to. Councilmember, what would you like to move amendment to? Thank you for. I move to amend council bill 11 9764 as presented as Amendment two on the agenda. Is there a second? Okay. It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill with Amendment two. I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember her bill to address her amendment. Thank you so much. One of the things that we've heard from constituents, in addition to the gratitude that we are hearing from folks at finding these vouchers in their mailbox, is an interest in having more a selection of stores beyond beyond Safeway. I've learned from central staff's conversations with the Office of Sustainability and the Environment that the city welcomes having more retail partners and has identified some some priorities for what it would mean for additional grocers to join, including having multiple stores within the City of Seattle limits, being able to to use the do the technical processing necessary for the for the program and make it interoperable in their store and ensuring that vouchers expire monthly. Commit to handing back and data and sending the city weekly information on voucher debt, redemption, invoicing, partners that United Way or the city monthly and ensuring that cashiers will be fully trained on this program so customers have a positive in their experience when using the voucher. So this amendment to adds a new section that requests O.C. to continue to pursue partnerships beyond Safeway with additional retailers with a preference for those that are unionized to expand retail operations for households receiving emergency grocery vouchers. Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. Are there any questions or comments on Amendment two? Councilmember Morales, please.
Speaker 3: I just want to thank Councilmember Hogarth for this amendment. I have also heard lots of people say that Safeway is, well, we appreciate their willingness to partner. Folks would really appreciate having some other options. So if we can find other folks, other grocers who are interested in participating in this, I know my constituents would certainly be grateful for for some more choice.
Speaker 0: That's fantastic. Any other questions or comments on Amendment two? Okay. Scene one. We will go ahead and have the clerk call the role on the adoption of Amendment two.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Juarez. I. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 1: High.
Speaker 2: Council member Morales. I council member Mesquita. I don't remember Peterson.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Sala. Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Herbold, I. And President Gonzales.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Nine in favor, nine opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The motion carries and Amendment two is adopted. Are there any further comments on the bill as amended? When I'm president, we council members data. Thank you so much. And again, thanks to all of you for your possible support for this and for the mayor's office for sending it down. I do want to take a minute to hearken back to something that Councilmember Swan said last week, and I think the point was really well taken around wanting to make sure that we don't have austerity budgets and borrowing or robbing Peter to pay Paul. I think that it's a really important point. Well taken. I have talked to the CBO and I understand that they're in the process of providing a sort of emergency fiscal note so that we can have a more real time understanding of how various proposals that are being sent down actually impact our budget. And I know that this will be important to all of the council members as we think about our own budgets and supplemental budgets coming up here soon. I don't take lightly in taking from any of the programs. Last week we talked about housing. This week we're talking about sugary sweetened beverage tax revenue. And while the money is going directly to, I think, priority populations that the tax had really intended, I think the bigger question remains around the revenues that we have in our emergency funds and overall, I think in other pockets of the budget. So customer response was a point well taken and I want to make sure all the council members know that the fiscal notes that we should be seeing in the future will help us in evaluating what the impact is on our current budget and potentially our future budgets and future emergency funds. I think that this is all a really critical time for us to make sure that we don't get into austerity budgeting and recognize that, as Naomi Klein talks about, we don't want to use this emergency to further escalate inequality or deficiencies in our budget, which we've seen done at the national level and across the globe when there's times of emergency. So thank you all for your support potentially for this amendment. And please know that we will have more information in the future as future pieces of legislation come down. Thank you, Customer Muscat, for those remarks. I think last week I also signaled agreement with those remarks made by councilmember members as well and have had conversations with executive director or council central staff around making sure that our memorandums or memorandums from our policy analysts and from council central staff really clearly describe and include how these the shifting of these dollars is going to impact programs that may have been identified as council priorities in our last budget season or that have been listed as priorities through the funding mechanism, whatever that funding mechanism might be. So I think it's really important for us to make sure that we're tracking how this money is moving around. And and in addition to that, what the what the programmatic impact really is as a result of choosing to shift dollars in the way that we're choosing to shift it in this period of crisis. So hopefully we will continue to see that level of analysis, good analysis from our council central staff. And I know that Director Ariston and others on Council central staff are open to ongoing suggestions and feedback about how we can make sure that we have all the information we need to fully understand the impact of of how we're moving money around through these bills. Appreciate it. Any other comments or questions about the bill before we vote on it? It seems none. Will the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 2: Councilmember suarez. Hi. Councilmember Lewis, I. Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Mitch Geller.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Council members. So what.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Herbal, I. President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Nine in favor, none opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? We're going to go and move to agenda item three. We're so close to being done, folks. If the clerk will please read item three into the record.
Speaker 2: Agenda Item three Resolution 319 39 The resolution in support of the bid by the City of Seattle to host the National League of Cities 2025 City Summit Conference. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 126000, which adopted the 2020 Budget; changing appropriations to the Executive Department’s Office of Sustainability and Environment, the Department of Neighborhoods, the Department of Education and Early Learning, Seattle Parks and Recreation, and budget control levels, and from various funds in the Budget, for the purpose of providing food support to individuals in Seattle; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03302020_Res 31939 | Speaker 2: Agenda Item three Resolution 319 39 The resolution in support of the bid by the City of Seattle to host the National League of Cities 2025 City Summit Conference.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I meant to adopt resolution 31939. Is there a second? Second, it's been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Herbold, you are the sponsor of this resolution, so I'll hand it over to you for remarks. Thank you. So, as I mentioned at this morning's briefing, this is a resolution in support of Seattle's bid to host the 2025 National League of Cities Conference. The National League of Cities is the country's oldest and largest organization, serving municipal governments with a mission to strengthen and promote cities as centers of opportunity, leadership and governance. Seattle is a long term longtime member of NLC and previously hosted this conference in 2013. Visit Seattle is preparing Seattle's bid, working in partnership with the Association of Washington Cities. The mayor has signed a letter indicating her support for hosting the 2025 conference. My mayor my office has previously circulated additional information to all council members about this conference and its expected impact on Seattle, including answers to a checklist of questions that is required by Resolution 30340 for special events. This resolution declares that City Council support of the bid and invites the National League of Cities to conduct a site visit here as it considers whether to host. It is projected to be about 4500 attendees, with an estimated economic impact of $13.8 million for the city of Seattle, and in particular the tourism and hospitality industries, which, along with so many industries, are being really hard hit by the coronavirus right now. In 2018, some of you may remember Councilmember Bagshaw sponsored in the council, passed Resolution 31813 in support of hosting the conference in 2024 or 2025. At the time, the question the checklist of questions required by Resolution 3034 when considering hosting events was not prepared. Visit Seattle believes a new resolution that specifically identifies 2025 as the target date will be required to ensure a competitive bid. So given the desire for a new resolution, I initiated the review process outlined in Resolution 30340 to ensure that the City Council is providing appropriate oversight for large events. Central staff.
Speaker 2: Reviewed.
Speaker 0: The visit Seattle's request and indicated that the National League of Cities conference meets the definition of a major event in the resolution. Because city resources will be required for planning and or security and special permitting is unlikely to be required. This event is unlikely to result in the triggering of a future obligation. As. As. Anticipated. As. The resolution anticipates concerns with future obligations, and the city's financial exposure and resource commitment to the event is unlikely to to meet the threshold to trigger that obligation. In addition, another trigger is anticipated overtime expenditures exceeding 3% of Seattle Police Department's budget for overtime. Another trigger that is not anticipated to be met. I requested that the Office of Intergovernmental Relations and visit Seattle complete an evaluation of Nlc's request using the checklist list of questions outlined in resolution 303400. That's all I have. Thank you. Remember Herbold for those remarks. Are there any comments on the resolution? Once a president kills more of a skater, the floor is yours. Thank you very much, council president. I want to thank council member Herbold and her office for the work that they've done on this resolution. As someone who's also been in touch with folks from the U.S. about the possible possibility of including encouraging the summit to be held here in Seattle, initially had some concerns about funding and future obligations, which Councilmember Herbold just spoke to. So I want to especially thank Councilmember Herbold for all the time that she spent tracking down the information on past city summits and working with a number of stakeholders to get answers to those questions that I know we shared as one of the two city representatives with Councilmember Strauss on the Association of Washington Cities Board. I am excited to support this resolution now that we have answers to those questions. I know that it will be easy to find additional revenue to support and host the summit as we get closer to 2025. But I know that there is options for us to work with others in the community to make sure that the funds are brought in. The summit does allow for us to highlight what's great about Seattle, I think provides us with the opportunity to highlight our great union workforce that's in much of the hospitality and in our greater Seattle region as folks come into the city. They will be able to see how Seattle has hopefully been able to rebound with our great workers on the front line and to bring in much needed revenue to our industry. That's being hard hit right now, including in food service, tourism and hospitality. So the National League of Cities also participates in charitable event giving during this summit, and this allows us to bring in national attention and resources. And I think that it's a great opportunity for us to highlight what's good about Seattle and help build towards that 2025 deadline. Thanks so much, Councilmember Herbold, for all the work you do to answer those tough questions. Thank you very much. Are there any other comments on the resolution? Case hearing none. Well, the clerk called the roll on the adoption of the resolution.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Suarez. Hi, Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Moschella.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 2: Council members. What I. Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Don't remember Herbal. Hi. President Gonzalez, I. 9 a.m. favorite nun post.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the adoption on my behalf? I'm sorry to the legislation on my behalf. Okay. So we are going to move now to adoption of other resolutions we have. I think this is our last second to last agenda item. So we will go ahead and hear about Resolution 31940 if the clerk can please read the item. Item four into the record. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION in support of the bid by The City of Seattle to host the National League of Cities 2025 City Summit conference. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03302020_Res 31940 | Speaker 2: Agenda item for resolution 319 40, a resolution calling on Governor Inslee to impose an immediate moratorium on rent payments and urging the governor to call on federal legislators and the Trump administration to impose an immediate moratorium on rent and mortgage payment, and calling on federal legislators and the Trump administration to impose an immediate moratorium on rent and mortgage payments.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I'm going to I'm going to move to adopt resolution 31940. Is there a second second? It's been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution. I know that Councilmember Morales is the sponsor of the resolution, and I'm going to hand it over to you, Councilmember Morales, to make some comments about the the bill. But I know that Councilmember Strauss has an amendment which I understand is a friendly amendment. Councilmember Morales, would you like us to consider the amendments before you make your remarks or after you make your remarks?
Speaker 3: Let me explain what the resolution is. And then and then we can talk about the amendment.
Speaker 0: Okay. So the resolution has been moved on and then I'm going to hand it over to you, Councilmember Morales, to speak to the resolution first, and then we will hear about the a moment, please.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Well, first, I do want to apologize to my colleagues. I left our briefing this morning to tour the field hospital before actually having the opportunity to share with you this information about this resolution. So. So I will do that now. Before I do that, I do want to acknowledge and thank Councilmember Sea-Watch. She is circulating a letter and petition to achieve a similar goal. Councilmember Mosqueda is also circulating a letter. I think all of us are all of us as a council are eager to make sure that we're protecting our neighbors. And this resolution is really aimed at protecting. I'm sure all of you are getting calls from your constituents about their fear about the rent crisis. It is the end of the month and we've got constituents who are worried about being able to make their rent payments. We also have landlords who understand that their tenants can't pay rent, but who still have mortgage payments that they are responsible for. And so this is really calling on the governor to use his emergency power to freeze rents and calling on our federal legislators, our congressional delegation, to freeze mortgage payments during this public health crisis. I am getting hundreds of emails from folks who are really worried about their ability to cover their bills. And the truth is that we've got, you know, tens of thousands of Seattleites who are worried we may be entering. We're certainly going to enter a recession, possibly worse. And so we want to make sure that we're doing something now to protect people and keep them from having, you know, just pushing this debt out and not being able to cover it later. So we are proposing this resolution. I do want to let folks know that we're working with other legislators up and down the West Coast. This is part of a broad coalition of supervisors from San Francisco, council members from Los Angeles, Boston, New York state senator, who are moving these kinds of resolutions through their jurisdictions in the next week in a real effort to push our federal administrators to to make this to make this happen for our constituents and to keep people in their homes during this crisis where they are safest. And so I move passage of this resolution.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Morales, for the description and explanation of this resolution. And before I open it up to the the whole the whole for discussion and additional comments, let's consider Councilmember Strauss's amendment first. And once we consider that amendment and have a vote one way or the other, we can go ahead and go back and have a conversation on the resolution as amended if the amendment is successful. So I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Strauss to make his and excuse me to introduce his amendment.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President. Council members. I have an amendment that I would like to propose that did not meet the council rule of distributing it by noon today. My apologies for the late notice on this. It simply adds to the the resolution, a moratorium on insurance payments that are related to either residential, commercial or primary ownership. So insurance. Policies that cover your home and your tenancy as well as property tax. Is that is it?
Speaker 0: Okay. So if there is no objection, the council rules will be suspended to allow an amendment that was not distributed by 12 noon today. Hey, hearing no objection, the council rules are suspended and we can proceed with consideration of the amendment. So I will now ask Councilmember Strauss to make the formal amendment to and to consider Amendment one.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President. I move to amend resolution 31940 and present as presented on Amendment one.
Speaker 0: Is there a second? Okay. It's been moved and seconded to amend the resolution. Councilmember Strauss, you already spoke a little bit about Amendment One. Is there anything else you'd like to add?
Speaker 1: Yes, thank you. Council President Just to add that, beyond rent and mortgage, we also need to be aware that insurance policies need to maintain coverage despite a person's ability to pay this month if they were laid off or for other reason. Economic reasons as well as property tax for some folks may be the final straw that breaks their back during this moment. So as we advocate, because resolutions are not legally binding ordinances, as ordinances are here at the city of Seattle, as we advocate to suspend rent and mortgages, I do believe that we should also advocate to suspend insurance and property taxes. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Hey, are there any comments on the amendment as proposed? Question it. Councilmember Peterson has a question of the floor is yours.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Just wanted to clarify on this amendment, Councilmember Strauss, is this to temporarily suspend those payments, but they'll still be due at the end of the crisis. So they're not giving them. Yeah, I think the importance is the nuances are very important. And since this is not legislation and we are advocating to higher levels of government whose jurisdiction it is, and we we know that at the broadest base, the broadest tax base is the best place to make policies, rather than creating Swiss cheese by making, you know, different policies at different municipality levels. I think that it is important to understand the nuances, and I'm not advocating for any which direction I'm at this time. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Are there any other questions or comments about the amendment? Okay. And I'll see and hear any other questions. So I'm going to ask the clerk to call the roll on Amendment one.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Suarez. All right. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Councilmember misgender.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: Council members a lot. I. Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Herbold. I. President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The motion carries and the amendment is adopted. Are there any further comments on the resolution as amended? It's. Okay. So I thought Councilmember Peterson raised his hand first, followed by Councilmember. So what? So Councilmember Peterson floor is yours.
Speaker 1: Thank you. This question is for the sponsor, Councilmember Morales, regarding the moratorium on residential and commercial rent payments. I just want to clarify that it's a it is the intent that it would be that we're asking the governor and federal legislators to temporarily suspend the payments, but that at the end of the crisis, those payments would be due. Are we asking actually to outright forgive all payments? And they will never be do.
Speaker 3: Yeah. We're asking for them to be forgiven. I'm getting hundreds of calls a day and emails from people saying that, you know, it's if I don't pay rent for four months, especially in Seattle, where rent is, you know, $2,000, there's no way that that accumulated debt is something I will ever be able to pay off. So and similarly for for property owners. So this is a crisis that is, you know, people are experiencing across the country. And we are saying that in this situation, we need to just freeze the the rent for folks until the crisis is over. That might be two months. It might be three months, but that should not be added on to their to the end of their rent payments, especially if folks might be experiencing it might be ending their lease. You know, it just creates more complications. So we're calling for a rent freeze for the time of the until the crisis is lifted and people are able to go back to work and pay their bills, whether they're renters or or have a mortgage payment.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any any follow up questions or comments from our Peterson?
Speaker 1: I just I'm just struggling with this one just because, you know, it did come up on Friday. And there are sorts of legal issues associated with this potentially. And I have also, on the other hand, so so I'm concerned that. You know, people are getting other relief. Should they? Would we want to then suspend the payments that are due when they're getting relief from other angles? However, I have received a lot of emails from constituents who are are expressing their major concern and fear and pain that they're suffering during this crisis. So it's I wish we had more time just to think this through. I appreciate the comments of Councilmember Strauss that this is a resolution and we're simply asking the folks at different levels of government to consider these and they can deal with those specifics. But the sentiment that we're expressing here is that people are struggling and that we need our of their elected officials to address that. I do want to commend our congressional delegation, though. I don't want this resolution to be viewed as that. We feel you know, I feel that Congresswoman Jayapal and our U.S. senators are doing a phenomenal job, as is Governor Inslee and our and our mayor. So I just hope that it's taken in that spirit that we're just trying to communicate concerns we're hearing from our constituents about their financial distress.
Speaker 3: Sure. Sorry. Can I respond?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Yes, you may.
Speaker 3: So I appreciate that. And it's true that I did not get to talk to all of our delegation. I did talk to Representative Typology, supports this and believes that we you know, this is part of what she's fighting for in D.C.. I will also say that, you know, our our leaders gave a trillion and a half dollar windfall to the financial sector to make sure that they were able to weather this storm. And so I think it is is critically important that we do what we can to help our constituents who don't benefit from that kind of windfall and who are literally at risk of being out on the street if they if they don't get some assistance. So you're right. We are trying to sort of cobble together assistance in as many different ways as we can. But we know that the reality is that rent is a, you know, for some people, 50% of their monthly expenditure. And and so they need relief. So we're asking our our state and federal leaders to help provide it.
Speaker 0: Okay. We're going to move over to Councilmember Solent, who I had in the queue next. And if anyone else wants to speak, if you can, I can see you with the exception of Councilman Juarez. If you have questions that or comments that you want to make, if you could just raise your hand so I can put you in the queue of every great. And I'll make note of it. Thank you. Councilmember Lewis Culver. So Laura's yours?
Speaker 4: Thank you. President Gonzalez. I support this resolution. Which will the resolution itself, what it will do will support or show the support from the Seattle City Council to what is now a demand made by literally millions of people. And I wanted to clarify that the resolution's passage itself is not enough, this moratorium, but it will provide support for the movement that has been happening on the ground. You know, several weeks before the city council got involved over the last couple of weeks, a nationwide petition initiated by socialists from all across Washington state making this demand to suspend rent and mortgage and utility payments has garnered over 2 million signatures nationwide, which is roughly one out of every 100 adults. In addition, my council offices also sent letters to Governor Inslee last week, one on Thursday morning and one on Friday, urging that he immediately enact a suspension of rent, mortgage and utility payments with no adverse. And what we mean by suspension is no adverse consequences to renters and homeowners such as any eviction notices, damage to credit rating or incurring back payments or debt. So, you know, do do do respond to Councilmember Peterson's question or concerns. No suspension does not mean you will have to pay it later. No suspension means you don't you don't have to pay it at all because of the crisis that the scale of the crisis that we're in. My letter to my two letters to the governor also called for a statewide rent freeze through the end of 2020, which is no rent increases through the end of 2020. And I just want to acknowledge, by the way, just on that there is the phrase rent freezes are used interchangeably by different people. I just want to clarify that in common sort of housing expertize, related parlance. Rent freezes usually meant to say no rent increases. And but we but the letters that I've written to the governor are upholding both the demands, both the suspension of rent and mortgage repayments without any consequences, plus no rent increases through the end of 2020. And believe it or not, we had to add that that letter, because we are hearing from many, many people who are saying that we are corporate landlords are in the middle of this pandemic, sending them notices for rent increases starting in the spring. This is absolutely unconscionable. My in in coordination with a letter that my council office sent to the governor, we also launched a public petition making these demands of the governor. And this petition has rapidly gathered enormous support. The petition was launched on Thursday afternoon and released to the public and over 6300 people from across Seattle and Washington state have now signed it and people are still signing it. And I urge members of the public who are watching this to continue showing it. There is so much support for these demands because they are absolutely necessary. You know, it's March 30th today. Rent is going to be due in April. And we're talking about households that have lost their incomes because of this crisis and because of capitalism's crisis, because capitalism is incapable of dealing with normal needs, let alone a pandemic for working people. These are people who are already living paycheck to paycheck. And so in a city where thousands of people were already being priced out of their homes and in normal times, paying rent was already becoming difficult. Now it is going to be mathematically impossible for people who are going to be forced to survive at best on reduced paychecks of unemployment if they're lucky enough to qualify. But we know gig economy workers will not qualify. What what are rideshare drivers going to do, for example? And many part time workers don't qualify. And also, we have to make the point that, you know, if if a household has to make a choice between rent and food or prescription , we absolutely want them to be able to have their basic needs satisfied, like groceries and prescription. We cannot have them paying their rent to their landlord and then going hungry or being sick without any medication. In the council briefing this morning, some council members referenced movies like It's a Wonderful Life. You do appeal to banks to do the right thing and suspend foreclosures. I have to say, it is strange to me that this even needs to be said. But that's a movie. It's a fictional story in real life capitalism. But big banks are absolutely ruthless. The decisions that they make are driven by market forces, not personal kindness. In fact, big banks, corporate landlords are some of the most precious corporations who have plundered the economy. In the Great Recession, there were millions of foreclosures of middle class and working class homeowners while the big banks got bailed out . So I just wanted to say, in the interest of our movement, that watching basing any idea on the expectation that big banks, mortgage holders and corporate landlords will do the right thing is just a recipe for massive impoverishment of millions of working families. We've already seen the Federal Reserve's projection or second quarter unemployment. They're predicting a 30% unemployment rate. That is depression level unemployment just now. Just two days ago, we heard from the Department of Labor that statewide unemployment is at least around 130,000. But that is not underestimate. We know that. And so we we are talking about just endless numbers of families and working people, individuals who are just going to be wiped out if we are not going to do something about this. And obviously, the city wide issue won't be enough yet. We do need to fight for it as well. And as far as there are any concerns raised by which again, it's stunning to me that these so-called concerns are being raising that or maybe people are getting working, people are getting some relief from other sources or what if they are? Absolutely, they should be. And we should be thanking people like Senator Bernie Sanders for absolutely fighting for working people in the US Congress. But whatever support people are getting right now is not going to be enough. And in the meanwhile, the banks are getting $1,000,000,000,000 a day bailout. So let's be clear about that. All the money is going it's not going to working people. And we are not in any danger of over funding working people's needs. And I just want to close by saying that this is a nationwide movement. Right. There may even be similar demand for an amazing 150,000 signatures. And I support this resolution, of course. But most importantly, I'm committed to building this movement because we all need to be clear. This is a resolution. It makes a statement, but does not by itself enact a suspension of rent and mortgage payments. And it is an important step forward. But I want members of the public to understand that we need to keep fighting. We cannot rest on on what what would be best today, which would be a good step, but not enough. And I would urge everybody who is watching this, please continue to share the petition for my office. Let's get to 10,000 signatures and I need to go home to my office on the day I did that.
Speaker 0: 68. It comes from a recent council. Lewis You had raised your hand next in the queue, so the floor is yours.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Madam President. So I'm proud to support this resolution today. I want to first thank Councilmember Morales for bringing this forward. And Councilmember Strauss, I want to thank you for your amendment. To really strengthen this. I think now more than ever in these times of uncertainty, it's critical that people get some surety around their insurance payments as well. You know, just to echo the comments that Councilmember Morales made in response to some of the things that Councilmember Peterson said, and I think that this goes a long way to assuaging some of the concerns were raised by Councilmember Peterson. We just saw on Friday, Congress passed a massive bailout for four airlines, for lots of industries that are impacted and affected by the uncertainty of the COVID 19 crisis. You know, the basis and argument for this bailouts is these are companies that have been adversely affected. There's no way they could have planned for a pandemic and what a pandemic would have done to them. The exact same argument can be made in support of the renters and people who have recently entered into mortgages to be homeowners who never could have anticipated or planned that when they signed their mortgage or when they signed their lease, that they were going to be in a position where they were going to lose their livelihoods, lose their homes, and have to be in a position where they could not make their rent or could not make their mortgage and face the threat of eviction or foreclosure. So I think it is they warrant the same consideration. I mean, even more so, our consideration under consideration of government and these big companies that got him out to bail out last Friday, so to speak, to Councilman Peterson's concerns, which I think are warranted. I mean, in my understanding and Councilmember Morales could correct me on this, there's nothing in this resolution to suggest that should Governor Inslee or should Congress heed our request that there be some support to back up those policies and those actions? I think it's very foreseeable that when inevitably there's another relief bill that comes from Congress, and we know that ultimately, you know, be it this summer or later, the spring, there's probably going to be another big relief bill that a big part of it, based on the exultation in this resolution and the other resolutions from other cities and other governments, could include support for helping to cover folks mortgages and people's rents. So there's nothing to even though it's not necessarily specifically enumerated on what are the exact policy prescriptions be that Congress and the governor take and pursue? You know, I mean, the point is we're still asking them to basically put renters and people with mortgages in a position where they are not going to be they themselves are not necessarily going to be expected to come up with the the aggregate debt from this period that they basically be in line to receive the same kind of consideration that we generate lend to to banks and to airlines at the national level, but that we aren't lending to working families. So I think it's fully appropriate given the posture of this. I don't think that let me put it this way. I find it highly unlikely that Congress would or that the state government, for that matter, would put something like this forward without putting some resources behind it to make sure people are whole. So I don't have a concern in voting for it on that basis. The only other thing that I want to do, and similar to the exhortations that were made earlier by some of my or the the urgings that were made by some of my colleagues earlier, I just want to briefly address the general public for the folks that are listening in today, based on a lot of the communications my office has received on this resolution, I do think there's fairly widespread misunderstanding that this resolution will, in and of itself have the effect of freezing the payments to two mortgages and rents. I just want to join my colleagues who have mentioned this already in this meeting and saying if you were in a position to continue to make payments on your rent or your mortgages, please do so. This resolution in and of itself is not going to immediately provide that relief. And relying solely on this resolution is not going to put you in a position where. Where you can get some relief if you fail to pay your rent or your mortgage. So just just I just wanted to remind folks, if you are in a position, continue to do that. Barring pending developments from the state and the federal government in response to this resolution. So with that, I'm proud to vote for this resolution today, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Lewis wi and then Councilmember Morales, i'm going to get once the folks are done talking about the resolution and I'll let you have the last word. So I have Councilmember Juarez who is in the queue. So, Councilmember, whereas the floor is yours.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I just want to follow up with what Councilmember Peterson said and also share that we all agree and understand the crisis we're in. And I really don't want to go into the US and them saying I just for once, can we all be in the end zone at the same time? The clarification that I have is when I'm looking at the resolution, which is four pages long. It talks about the immediate moratorium on residential and commercial mortgage payments and rent. It is. And I'm glad Councilman Peterson pointed this out, because when I was looking at this resolution and looking at the letter that Councilmember Mosquito put together, you know, I was inclined to vote yes because, first of all, there really wasn't a date in there. But when you actually read it more thoroughly and I, I pulled it out and then finally printed it. It goes on in the last one of the last sentences to add that and no renter in the nation should be required to pay rent during this health emergency or accumulate debt for unpaid rent. So I, I just want to be clear that what we're voting on is a resolution. And you're correct, it is not a law. It's not ordinance. It means that the Seattle City Council is speaking in one voice and that we are resolute to do the following. So we are voting if we vote yes on this, that and I'm guessing as obviously extends to residential and commercial mortgage payment. But not only do we have a moratorium, but we also have a forgiveness of all the debt. Is that correct? What I'm hearing in the sentence so that means that we have a moratorium during this crisis. And whenever this crisis ends, whatever was accumulated, residential and commercial mortgage, folk, people who are on these documents, payments notes that they'll be forgiven of all debt. And that's what that's what the that's the core of what's happening here. And I just want to make that clear. So this isn't about that. We are all and everyone is is not in agreement that we don't want to see a renter, a homeowner, not be burdened with this kind of debt in light of the package that was passed by Congress. We all been watching the news. We all get it. So. So just so we have clarification from council to councilmember up, is that what you're actually this is actually what will be voted on, including with Councilmember Strauss's amendments about the other items that would be a moratorium on and forgiven as well.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Morales, would you like to answer that question?
Speaker 3: Sure. So I'm sure we've all heard, as I said, you know, heard from tenants, heard from business owners. I've talked to several property owners who say, you know, I understand that my small business tenant can't pay rent there. They would shut they don't they're not bringing in any money. So it makes sense to me that they shouldn't be paying rent. But I still have a mortgage to pay. And so what am I supposed to do? So that's what this is addressing. Yes, we have it. Not just tenants and residents, but we also have commercial property owners and commercial renters who are in the same boat. And so this is a way to to address the property owners issue, the tenants issue, and understanding that, you know, deferring payment for three or four months isn't really going to solve the problem for some of these folks. So so the short answer is, yes, that is what we're calling for. As I said before, this is part of a national organizing movement because this isn't just happening in Seattle. Across the country, renters and property owners are trying to figure out how they're going to pay their bills. And so this is this is an unprecedented national event, a global event. And things are going to be very jarring for quite some time. So yes, the short answer is yes. That is what this resolution is calling for.
Speaker 2: Council president. May I follow up?
Speaker 0: Yes, it is. Councilman Juarez.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President So you're saying that a commercial, somebody that owns 20 plus units or apartment. Who also has a mortgage to pay if they don't collect renters, which we're going to exempt. So that person, let's say, owns 30 units of rental is going to also, from our resolution, understand that we are lobbying for them as well under this administration and to our governor, that they, too, don't have to pay their mortgage to the bank.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 0: Any other follow up comes from our was.
Speaker 2: Okay. Well, no.
Speaker 0: Okay. Are there any other questions or comments about this resolution? Okay. Here, bring in seen none. We will go ahead and have the corner call the role on the adoption of the resolution as amended.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Suarez. I. Councilmember Lewis high councilmember morales I. Councilmember Mascara.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Council members want. Council members on. Okay. Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Eight in favor, nine opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The motion carries. And the amendment. Excuse me. The resolution, as amended, is adopted. The Resolute Bench and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please fix my affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? All right. Give me just a minute, folks. I'm toggling between two different scripts here, so I need to get back to my. Other set of notes here. All right. All right. Well, the clerk fees read item five into the record.
Speaker 2: Agenda item five. Resolution 319 42. Adding the West Seattle Bridge Emergency Closure and repairs to the watch list of capital projects for enhanced quarterly monitoring. Establishment Resolution 319 31. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION calling on Governor Inslee to impose an immediate moratorium on rent payments and urging the Governor to call on federal legislators and the Trump administration to impose an immediate moratorium on rent and mortgage payments; and calling on federal legislators and the Trump administration to impose an immediate moratorium on rent and mortgage payments. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03232020_CB 119760 | Speaker 2: Agenda item one. They're part of the city council. Bill 119 760 126000, which adopts the 2020 budget changing appropriations to the Executive Department's Office of Housing, the Executive Department's Office of Economic Development and Budget Control levels, and from various funds in the Budget for the purpose of providing financial assistance to small businesses and ratifying confirming certain prior acts.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I'm going to move past Council Bill 119760.
Speaker 1: Second.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. This bill is sponsored by Councilmember Morales. Would you like to address this bill?
Speaker 3: Sure off me. It's okay. Thank you. Council President Gonzalez. This is a bill I referenced last week. This would add another approximately $1,000,000 to the Office of Economic Development for the purpose of expanding the business stimulus, small business stabilization funds. I know there are some folks who are concerned that this is shifting money from the low income housing fund in the Office of Housing. My understanding is that the Office of Housing Plans to do two offers and that there will be an additional opportunity for funding for housing in the fall. And while I completely understand the the struggle and this is probably the first of many that we're going to have to balance how we how we make adjustments to our plans during this crisis. You know, it's important that we support small business and certainly shouldn't be pitting them against any housing production that we're going to be doing . And we know that we have very limited options as a city for how we support small business and community development. BLOCK Grant money is one of our very few options. So I am going to we support this bill so that we can expand the support for small businesses through the Business Stabilization Fund. I do want to say, if I might, as I've said many times already during this crisis, we need to be aware of, you know, that we're not robbing Peter to pay Paul during this crisis. And also that as we as we look to these emergency measures that we're taking, that we aren't creating new systems that might perpetuate inequities in our community. That said, I do think that it's important that we proceed with this bill.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Morales, are there any comments on the bill?
Speaker 1: Council. President Gonzalez, this is Councilmember Mosqueda.
Speaker 0: Please, the floor.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. And thanks to the prime sponsor for bringing this forward, along with the mayor's office for sending it down. I want to reiterate a few points that were made in conversations with the Office of Housing. We have been able to confirm that the redirection of these CBG funds will not hurt any existing housing projects, and we will continue to be vigilant, along with our partners in the Mayor's office as we move forward to make sure that there is sufficient funding for housing. But the roughly $1 million in redirection will not affect any of our currently funded projects. I want to thank the Office of Housing for their opportunity to engage with us and make sure that we plan for affordable housing projects to move forward. That there's not any negative impacts as we think about the emergency that's in front of us, especially as we think about how important it is for folks to have access to housing and affordable housing in the near future. When and if this virus continues in the fall and winter, we want to make sure that these housing projects continue and that they're funding allocated this year and next year to moving forward on these important housing projects. I think that we talked a little bit about it this morning and have talked repeatedly about how the COVID pandemic has made affordable housing production even more critical. And it really is our only long term strategy for creating affordable housing and stability. So as we ramp up our sheltering capacity and we think about immediate assessment facilities that we're going to stand up soon, having an equal amount of emphasis on building affordable housing is going to be critical . So I want to thank the mayor's office and the Budget Office for helping to explain the budget impacts of this decision. And I think overall, to echo what Councilmember Morales said, we want to make sure that the COVID crisis, when it means the loss of revenue coming in the door, that we do protect funding for critical services , including affordable housing, as we think about reallocating funding. I think this is a good use of these funds and and appreciate the effort to get these dollars out the door for our smallest businesses.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember mosqueda, are there any other comments on the bill.
Speaker 1: After president resolved?
Speaker 0: Okay. So I heard two people, Councilmember Herbold and Councilman Swan. Did I get that right?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Herbold, I heard your voice first. So I'm going to let you go first and then I'll call on Councilmember seven.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. I really appreciate knowing that this transfer of funds from the Office of Housing will not impact any current funding commitments that OHSU housing has made to to our affordable housing projects. And we take knowing that the Office of Housing Estimates at this time that they'll have 67 million to allocate the new housing projects in need of funding. And of course, I understand that CDBG funds can uniquely support the business assistance program as other city and state funds cannot be used to provide this assistance due to constitutional limitations. We know that COVID 19 will put pressure on many thousands of households who will be out of work or under-employed and struggling to make ends meet, as well as pressures on the affordable housing providers who have very tight margins to keep people house. I did reach out to the Housing Development Consortium this weekend. They are supportive of this legislation, but I think we need to assume that housing must be a key component of the city's response to COVID 19. And I don't want to regret these kinds of transfers away from the Office of Housing. We know that the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance has made a request of the governor's office that should any future shelter in place, orders be be instituted, that housing production be considered an essential opportunity and be permitted to continue. In addition to the housing affordable housing projects that are already planned, it seems very likely that we may have emergency housing related needs, where future CDBG funds could be an important funds source. We've checked in with the city's CDBG administrator. We know that emergency housing and shelter is an eligible CDBG activity. It is defined as a public service. We are limited on how much CDBG dollars we can spend on a public service, such as emergency housing or shelter. We are only permitted to spend 35.92% of our total CDBG grant on public services. And it has been our policy of the city to spend those dollars towards emergency shelter. So as I understand it, those that 36% has already been contracted out for 2020. But our CDBG administrator indicates that Congress may be working on statutory relief to temporarily remove the cap on public services for CDBG. We will be kept updated on the progress on this, but what this means is we may have the ability to use more CDBG funds for emergency shelter and emergency housing related needs related to COVID 19 . And so I think this important conversation that.
Speaker 0: We're having now.
Speaker 1: About striking the right balance between all of these competing needs is is really critical to the council and the city's ability to be fair and meet those needs.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. So on.
Speaker 1: Thank you, President Gonzalez. I have concerns about this bill from the mayor, and I have the concern not only about this bill, but that the concern I'm going to express that it's going to start becoming apparent from the emergency orders that come forward and that it will be an ongoing issue. And I have shared my concerns with Councilman Morales in advance, but I wanted to show them here and then also explain what I intend to do with this bill today in the vote. Yes, we already funds relief for small businesses, which are absolutely supported. In fact, it was my office, along with community members, that we were able to fight for businesses in the Central District a couple of years ago. And when 6000 $650,000, it was that is unprecedented for really struggling people of color own businesses that we were able to win through organizing. And so there's no question that small businesses are struggling, as well as the vast majority of working people who are reeling from this crisis. However, this bill would pay for small businesses by cutting the low income housing fund, and I oppose that. But I agree with those members who said that it does not come from currently planned project. That is true, but it takes away from the next round of projects, the projects of the 2020 that will come under the 2020 notice of funding availability. My office has checked thoroughly with city council central staff and they estimate that if this those million dollars, if the funding housing funds are not made whole, this would cost ten individual families, individuals or families, affordable homes to live in during this crisis. That's concrete. That's a concrete loss that could happen if we if we did not actually take care. And I don't understand why we have to do that when there's actually a lot of money in the city is just in the hands of the wealthy and big business. Now, it would be reasonable to ask whether the affordable housing construction was being suspended right now in accordance with social distancing guidelines or shelter in place. That is being anticipated. But we know the notice of funding availability has gone out as planned. So either though it will affect the schedule or the scheduled affordable housing for this year, or it will not affect this year, but it will affect, you know, in a in an ongoing basis. And so my point is that regardless of whether this million dollars comes from the spring or fall, no fine. Regardless of whether or not construction was suspended, the fundamental problem here that I'm objecting to is the robbing Peter to pay Paul approach that is going to be used by the mayor. I'm anticipating that more more emergency orders of this kind and the council needs to take action. But I think all of this is being done in order to avoid taking on big business so that until we have the perpetuation of this politics of scarcity, which I don't accept, most struggling small businesses and working families need to be supported and their need should not be pitted against each other. The city of Seattle has an emergency fund of $66 million that is reserved exclusively for emergencies like this. And we should use emergency funds rather than cutting funding for affordable housing and council members. And they argue that the emergency fund will have many other demands on it, which of course is going to be true. But we know that $66 million can only scratch the surface of what is needed to support our community at this moment. I mean, we are in a pandemic that is going to result not only in completely preventable loss of life due to the criminal primodos health care system, but we're going to have depression like economic effects, with the Fed estimating 30% unemployment rate in the second quarter. I mean, that is devastating. So we you know, that is why Councilwoman Morales and I put forward the Amazon tax. But even that is not going to be enough. The city needs to use the emergency fund for more immediate needs. It needs to immediately approve the Amazon tax to make additional funding available. And we need to demand that the state also act by closing corporate tax loopholes and facing big business and taxes on the wealthy at the state level. My office checked with us and Gustav about possibly amending the bill to change the source of funding to be the emergency fund. But because that would require our title change, it cannot be legally be done in the same bill. That is why if Councilwoman Morales or any other council member were to make a motion to hold this bill from a vote today, I would support that motion or I will make that motion if no other council member makes it. And I don't I wouldn't agree if councilmembers are going to say that such a motion holds up emergency relief, I do not agree with that. Today the council could pass an Amazon tax and make relief available. So I don't accept that. I wouldn't accept that excuse on its face value, but I will make that motion if nobody else is going to make it. And if the motion. It's a majority rule, and we could easily put forward a replacement bill to use emergency fund. Living funds and if there is agreement, my office is happy to rapidly put this together. I know there are concerns that have been expressed that the funds need to be community development block grant money in order to legally be used for this purpose. And emergency fund does not come from anybody. We all know that is easily solved by using CWG money from any other part of the budget and backfilling it with emergency funds. And I will use the guidance of the Council President and the City Clerk to make that motion. But I also wanted to say that if this bill goes out today, unfortunately it allows to vote no on it. For the reasons I have just explained, we cannot adequately address this extraordinary crisis by simply shifting the damage back and forth between working people and small businesses. We need a fundamentally different approach.
Speaker 0: Excuse me. Thank you. Sarah So, unfortunately, I think your intention to hold the bill would be out of order. This bill has been moved and seconded and is now in the discussion phase. If there wasn't an interest in your part to move to hold the bill, I believe that that should have been done consistent with the council rules at the time that we were considering approval of the agenda. Will the city clerk please clarify that my understanding of the rules of order here.
Speaker 2: Yes. Come some of us can be quick second so I can get my little cheat sheet out. But I believe that the motion to hold has a higher it's a higher motion. And so therefore, it takes over the motion to pass the bill right now. So two calls could be changed and if it weren't, so we can go back to the motion to pass the bill. Okay.
Speaker 0: So customers. So if you intend to make a motion to hold this bill, now would be the time to do that. It would require, I think, a significant and then a majority of the city council to pass. Is that correct, Amelia?
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: Okay. I'm not sure exactly the words I want you to use, but I will say I make the motion to hold accountable 119760.
Speaker 0: And Councilor. Excellent. Are you proposing to hold it for a date? Certain or to hold it? Indefinitely.
Speaker 1: But I'm obviously it's not indefinite in my mind, but I don't want to specify a date because I'm not exactly sure whether this will be done in a week or not. But obviously, needless to say, the intention would be to do it, work on it as soon as possible.
Speaker 0: Okay. So yes.
Speaker 2: If you don't mind. So our council rules provided that I'm to hold something to be held for a certain time. As far as a specific date meeting or hour until when the actual item will be taken by the council.
Speaker 0: So in.
Speaker 1: That case, I.
Speaker 0: Miss a lot. No, go ahead, please.
Speaker 1: No, I think I heard Amelia say that I need to attach a date to my motion.
Speaker 0: That's what I heard. Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay. In that case, I will make the motion to hold the bill until the City Council meeting of March 30th.
Speaker 0: Okay. There's been a motion to hold council bill 11976. So until the full council meeting on March 30th. Is there a second? Okay. Hearing those seconds, the motion fails for a lack of a second. So we will now move on to continue discussion of the previous motion that was made, which was a motion that was moved and seconded to pass Council Bill 119760. I can appreciate the concerns that were expressed by all of the other council members, including Councilor Sylvan, and I understand that we want to make sure that as we are considering these emergency funding sources, that we are doing so in the full context of making sure that we are not sort of engaging in mission creep, if you will, where we are taking from other priorities to address the needs of of the emergency response as it relates to the coronavirus. And fortunately, there will be situations, I think, where we will need to make some intentional, transparent decisions that might require reallocation of funds, either in the short term or the long term. And I think it is prudent for us to have a conversation with the executive and with the guidance of our council central staff and the Chair of the Finance and Housing Committee to make sure that we have a clear understanding of where those lines are drawn. I do want to address sort of the issue around small businesses and the intersection between that and affordable housing. Several of us have already spoken to that. I want to clarify that. It's my understanding that one of the largest housing nonprofit housing consortiums, the Housing Development Consortium, does support this proposed Small Business Stabilization Fund and the legislation to expand that fund. They have indicated in an email to Councilmember Herbold, dated March 23rd at 1:48 p.m., that they're, quote, anti displacement policy position calls for support of locally owned small businesses with tools that would allow them to thrive in their communities. We understand the inextricable link between small business livelihood and the ability of residents to pay rent or mortgage payments and remain housed, which is of paramount concern to EDC members. Now more than ever, we call for compassionate support that keeps us east, keeps us a strong community. A close quote. So I think it's important for us to take that into consideration with the understanding that they support the bill, knowing that it's not going to take away from existing projects and really sort of making sure that we understand that this bill is is specifically not in contravention to some of the housing interests we have , but is, in fact, something that is going to continue to promote this council's priority around ongoing future affordable housing opportunities. We certainly could use more in that regard and look forward to seeing the federal and state resources coming through that allow us to leverage future affordable housing projects through the Office of Housing to make sure that we are meeting the dire housing needs of so many in our city that certainly existed before this crisis. And and, you know, as I think many of us are nervous about might be exacerbated as a result of this of this crisis. So councilmember councilmembers, any other individuals have comments on this. Otherwise, I will allow the sponsor to make closing remarks and I will call this to a vote. Hearing on Caspar Morales. Do you have any other comments to make on the bill before I ask the clerk to call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 3: I'll just say that. Well, as we've all said, it's important that we support these small businesses. You know, this is one of the few CDBG funding is one of the few sources that we have. And many of these small businesses that we're supporting with this fund are themselves low income folks who are dealing with, you know, all of the same issues, rental issues, being able to provide for their families. And so the assistance that this provides them is going to be really important. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Morales. Okay. I will go ahead and ask the clerk to call a role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Herbold, I. Councilmember Suarez. I. Council member, Lewis. I. Councilmember Morales. I. Council members must get a. I. Council member Peterson. Hi. Council members want. No. Councilmember Strauss i. Council President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Eight in favor. One opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Right. We're going to go ahead and move to the next agenda item. Will the clerk please read agenda item two into the record? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 126000, which adopted the 2020 Budget; changing appropriations to the Executive Department’s Office of Housing, the Executive Department’s Office of Economic Development, and budget control levels, and from various funds in the Budget, for the purpose of providing financial assistance to small businesses; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03192020_CB 119758 | Speaker 0: Agenda item two? Constable 119 758.
Speaker 2: Relating to the City Light and Seattle.
Speaker 0: Public Utilities.
Speaker 2: Departments temporarily removing the charge of interest on delinquent utility consumption and utilization accounts, superseding several sections under Title 21 that authorize and.
Speaker 0: Require the collection of interest on delinquent utility.
Speaker 2: Consumption and utilization accounts. Declaring an.
Speaker 0: Emergency and.
Speaker 2: Establishing an immediate effective date all by 3/1 vote of the City Council. Thank you to the clerk for that. We're going to go through the same process that we did with item number one. So I'm going to move to pass it. I'll need a second. Then we will go ahead and invite the prime sponsor, who is Councilmember Peterson, to speak to the bill. We will then suspend the rules to allow central staff to address the council and answer any questions. Councilmember Peterson and I believe Councilmember Lewis have some substitutions and an amendment, and then we will go ahead and consider those and then vote on the full bill. So that is the the run of show, as they say, for this particular item. So I'm going to move to pass Council Bill 119758.
Speaker 1: Second.
Speaker 2: It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill again. Council members please note that Eric McKinney and Brian Goodnight of Council Central Staff have joined this meeting. Should you have any questions? I will move to suspend the rules if there are any questions for central staff after the prime sponsor speaks to the bill. Councilmember Peterson, would you like to address this bill?
Speaker 1: Yes. And welcome back, Council President Gonzales. And thank you for leading with a moment of silence for all of those suffering from the COVID 19 emergency. So with this of course, with this public health emergency becoming an economic crisis to all levels of government need to provide immediate financial relief. And that includes relief from the utility bills that all households, small businesses and nonprofits face each month with necessary public health protocols resulting in restaurants, cafes, other social establishments closing. Many of our neighbors are seeing reduced paychecks or layoffs, and the last thing they need to worry about are bills for essentials like electricity, water and garbage removal . So this legislation I'm sponsoring, council bill 119758 will waive all late fees for utility bills to provide additional relief for hundreds of thousands throughout Seattle during this crisis. In addition to thanking the mayor, I'd like to commend both Deborah Smith of Seattle City Light and Mummy Hara, the head of the Seattle Public Utilities. This effort builds upon a separate policy of no shutoffs, which is a humane policy that our utility departments put in place in large part due to the leadership of Councilmember Mosquito. I also want to thank Councilmember Ed Lewis for requesting an amendment that we will consider shortly that will make it crystal clear that nonprofit 501c3 organizations would also benefit from this legislation. This ordinance would waive late fees and interest charges from both Seattle City Light and Seattle Public Utilities until the mayor's emergency declaration is terminated, or August one, which whichever comes first. If the COVID 19 emergency lasts beyond August one, the Council can take additional action to extend this waiver. So I am prepared to move the substitute and I can explain that, but let me know if that's the appropriate time.
Speaker 2: I think what we're going to do first is I'm going to go ahead and suspend the rules to allow council central staff to address the council if they need to, and then we can go ahead and move it into substitution. In the last Council member Peters, do you believe that speaking to the substitution first would be would allow for a smoother conversation with council central staff.
Speaker 1: Yes. The substitute is is fairly simple in that it makes it. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Why don't you go ahead and go through the substitution first. Just describing it will will hold off on the moving of the substitution until after we've had an opportunity to hear from council central staff. So go ahead and speak to that substituted substitution.
Speaker 1: Sure. So version two, the substitute makes it easier to administer this ordinance by clarifying that the income for small businesses is based on the annual receipts from 2019. It also adds some, whereas clauses to underline the public health emergency that we are in.
Speaker 2: Great. That's a very simple, clearer explanation of that substitution. I appreciate that. I'm going to go ahead and suspend the rules now. So if there is no objection, the council rules will be suspended to have council central staff address the council. Hearing no objection. The rules are now suspended. And I would invite Eric and Brian to provide us with any additional information about this particular council bill for consideration by council members.
Speaker 1: Hello. This is the Carnegie on the council's central staff. Thank you, Consul President. At this point, I don't have anything that I think is more clear than has been already offered. I am on the line. It would be happy to answer any questions. I will add a separate from the bill. It's already been mentioned that this bill is a part of a package utility relief that the city is offering. Under the emergency, the utilities will not be shut off. Folks can apply for flexible payment plans and the utility discount program has been opened up more broadly for folks to self-certify and make it easier for people to get into that program. So I just wanted to take the moment to mention those aspects of utility relief the city is offering in tandem with the effects of this bill.
Speaker 2: Great. Brian, anything to to add?
Speaker 1: I don't have anything at this time. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Great. Thank you, Eric and Brian, for being on the line and for and for being available for questions. So I'm going to go ahead and in the same fashion as I did on item one, I'm going to roll call each of you to see if any of you have any questions. If you do not have questions, just say that you do not. And we'll go ahead and move on to considering the substituted version of the bill. So we'll start with Councilmember Herbold. Any questions for council central staff or the prime sponsor?
Speaker 0: Yes. Thank you for council central staff as it relates to the impact of the bill, both to the utilities in the reduced.
Speaker 2: Revenue in.
Speaker 0: Interest payments, as well as the reduction to the general fund, the estimate to the reduction to the general fund. Can you let us know whether or not these impacts are eligible for.
Speaker 2: Federal.
Speaker 0: Reimbursement?
Speaker 1: Councilmember, thank you for the question. This is Brian Goodnight. I believe we would have to check with the department about that. That's not information that we have at this time.
Speaker 0: I think it might be useful for all of these bills coming forward that have financial impacts that I would have thought to ask, I might have asked as it related to additional CDBG fund allocations in the future or.
Speaker 2: Reimbursement.
Speaker 0: Under the COVID 19 crisis. It might just be a good standard practice for all of these revenue impacts to ask CBO whether or not the actions that we're taking to that that have financial impacts are our actions that we can receive reimbursement for under COVID 19.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you, Councilmember. We will follow up with you on that.
Speaker 2: Any other questions, Councilmember Herbold? None. Thank you so much. Councilor Morales, any questions or comments on the bill for counsel, central staff or the prime sponsor?
Speaker 0: I don't have questions, but I second Councilmember Herbold request that we keep in mind anything that we could possibly get reimbursed for later. I'm sure CBO is doing that, but the recovery plan is also on my mind, and that's an important piece of it.
Speaker 2: Great. Thank you. Council Salon. Any questions for council central staff of the prime sponsor or comments about the bill?
Speaker 0: None. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Peterson, I know you've already spoken to the bill, but any additional questions for council central staff or comments that you'd like to make?
Speaker 1: No, thank you.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Suarez, same questions or comments.
Speaker 0: About the.
Speaker 2: Building. Thank you. Councilmember strauss, any questions or comments about the bill?
Speaker 1: Great Bill. No comments, little questions. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Lewis, any questions or comments about the bill?
Speaker 0: Not at this time.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 2: And Councilmember mosqueda, any questions or comments about the bill?
Speaker 0: Thank you. The president I first, I want to thank Councilmember Peterson for all of your work that you're doing for those who are on limited incomes already, and especially thinking about them in the post-COVID world as it relates to families and to businesses. Given the financial impact that this public health crisis could have. I want to also come in the folks at Seattle City Light, who we've been engaged with since Mesa last year. Thank you for the shout out early, Erica Peterson and a huge shout out to the folks at Seattle City Light for their creative thinking, not only with stopping the implementation of shut off notices, but to being really open and receptive to community feedback on how to improve a number of their communications. So I look forward to a future conversation in your committee. Councilmember Peterson, where I think our council colleagues will be able to hear a number of provisions that they've put into place. Waiving late fees is a really great first step. And some of the other things that they're looking at that we really appreciate is how to simplify the language to make sure that notifications are less scary and intimidating, especially in times like these. Ensure that we're using language that is inviting to understand the ways in which payments can be done. And I'm looking forward to a future conversation about basically debt forgiveness at some point, given some of the conversations that have happened in other municipalities. As I say that I also recognize we need to be looking at the revenue impacts. And in our conversations with the Budget Director of Venable, we've been asking a number of questions on each of the executive orders. I really appreciate the suggestions from our colleagues to make sure that that is presented as we look at the various executive orders. I will echo that call and look forward to the future conversations about how we not only address the crisis now, but make sure that we're budgeting for the future recovery and that the funding going, especially to those in the biggest crisis. And right now, I think that this is an excellent example of us following through on those priorities and values in this legislation. So thanks again to Councilmember Peterson and to the mayor's office for their good work on this.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Mosqueda. That concludes the roll call on any questions or comments on the bill. I want to thank Council Central Staff Brian and Eric for being available for questions and for presentation. Thank you so much for being available. So I'm going to go ahead and hand it back to Councilmember Peterson, who needs to say the magic words, move the substitution formally.
Speaker 1: Yes, I'd like this is Councilmember Peterson. I move to amend council bill 119758 by substituting version two. Version two is, as I described earlier.
Speaker 2: And we need a second. Second back. Okay. It's been moved and seconded to substitute the bill. Councilmember Peterson has already addressed the substitution as the prime sponsor of that substitution. Are there any other comments on the substitute? Hearing none will the clerk call the roll on the substitute.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold. I. Council member, Maurice. I. Council member, Lewis. Hi. Councilmember Morales. I. Councilmember Macheda. I. Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Council members want. I. President Gonzalez, I. Nine in favor, nine opposed.
Speaker 2: Thank you. The motion carries and the bill is amended. Are there any further comments on the bill as amended? Councilman Peterson, any additional comments?
Speaker 1: Well, I would like to discuss amendment number one, which was published along with the agenda.
Speaker 2: Excellent. So I will go ahead and hand it over to you to discuss and ultimately move amendment number one.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Council President. So amendment number one, which was published along with this agenda, would amend section two of the substitute. And what it does is and I want to thank Councilmember Andrew Lewis for raising this and working with me and central staff on this to get this done. It will clarify, make it crystal clear that nonprofits are also getting the waiver of the late fees. So what it does is in section two, it adds a subclause, saying customers that are nonprofit organizations as defined under Seattle Municipal Code Section 5.30.040. C and basically saying that's 501c3 organization. So what we would consider as a traditional mission driven nonprofit would be crystal clear that they are exempt or we were giving the fees for them to.
Speaker 2: Great. I'm going to go ahead, Casmir Peterson, and ask you to say the magic words and move this for consideration. And then we'll go ahead and open it up for questions or comments.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So I move to amend Council Bill 119758 Section two as presented on Amendment one on the agenda.
Speaker 0: Second.
Speaker 2: It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill. Councilmember Peterson has already spoken as to that amendment as the prime sponsor. Are there any comments or additional information for Council member consideration by Council central staff?
Speaker 1: Uh, President, this is Carnegie. I don't have anything to add.
Speaker 2: Great. And Brian, nothing bad.
Speaker 0: Nothing to add. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Great. Excellent. Okay. Are there any comments on the proposed amendment?
Speaker 1: Uh, that's Councilmember Lewis. Madam President, I have a couple of questions at the appropriate time.
Speaker 2: Yes. Council member Lewis. The floor is yours for questions.
Speaker 1: Oh, sorry. Well, I. I don't have any questions. I just have a comment.
Speaker 2: Great, Councilman.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 2: I just. I called for question. Sounds like nobody had any questions. I'm now going to hand it over to you to provide some comments on the bill, please.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you.
Speaker 1: So I just want to first thank Councilmember Peterson for working with me on this and putting this amendment forward. Obviously, District seven has a massive concentration of arts organizations in the city. The arts are really, really reeling from the response from COVID 19, given that so many of our artistic events involve gatherings of large numbers of people . They have just been absolutely slammed as an industry with a lot of workers who, as we know, unfortunately, do not receive the renumeration that they should for the cultural contributions that they make so they have a particularly vulnerable population. One thing that has come up in talking to arts organizations in my district is that utilities are an ongoing concern for them. Most of them are organized as mission driven nonprofits. So I just wanted to make sure that the opportunities that we are looking to create, to provide relief through this ordinance, be set up in such a way that those arts organizations could take advantage of this as well. So I want to thank him for his leadership. It's been good to work with him on this over the last couple of days, and I do hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting the amendment.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Lewis, are there any other comments on the amendment? Hearing not. Oh, go ahead.
Speaker 0: Sorry. Council President. This is Tourism Council Member Locator. Um, I do have a question, and I hope it's appropriate to ask an hour of central staff. I can hold it for the overall bill if that's more appropriate.
Speaker 2: If it's a question about the overall bill, I'd ask you to hold that question for when I solicit comments and questions about the the bill as a whole.
Speaker 0: Wonderful. Thank you so much.
Speaker 2: Great. Okay. So we're are just voting on the amendment right now. So we'll if are there any other comments or questions about the amendment? A hearing on Will Clarke call the role on the amendment.
Speaker 0: Council member strauss.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Council members are both. I. Councilmember suarez i. Councilmember Lewis. I. Councilmember Morales. I councilmember muscular. I. Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Councilmember. So what? I. President Gonzalez.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Nine in favor, nine opposed.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. The motion carries and the bill is amended. Are there any questions or comments on the bill as amended? And I believe, Councilman Mosquito, you indicated that you had a question.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, council president. This may be a question for either the sponsor or the central staff. Our utility fees also waived for our nonprofit partners in in contracts with the Human Services Department and other city providers.
Speaker 1: Yes. Because they would be under this definition of the Seattle Municipal Code, the 501c threes. Thank you for clarifying that.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Ms..
Speaker 2: Mascara. Any other questions or follow up?
Speaker 0: No, I just I think that that's an important reminder for folks. A lot of our service providers are really trying to stretch their dollars right now as they respond to the COVID crisis as well. So I think this is going to be very welcome for them. Um, I think that Plymouth and the City, for example, we saw their presentation in years past about the cost of utilities. So thank you for thank you for that clarification.
Speaker 2: Great. Thank you so much for the for the question. Are there any other comments or questions on the bill as amended? Harry Dunn. Will the clerk call on the passage of the bill as amended?
Speaker 0: Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold. I asked Councilmember Juarez. I. Council member, Lewis. By Councilmember Morales. I council member must get up. I don't remember Peterson. I never saw one. I President Gonzalez I nine in favor and then opposed.
Speaker 2: The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? All right, folks, that was our last item of business on the agenda. And we have no other items to discuss for today. So that concludes our item of business on today's agenda. Our next meeting will be Monday, March 23rd at 2 p.m.. Council is now adjourned. Thank you all and be safe and healthy. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light and Seattle Public Utilities Departments; temporarily removing the charge of interest on delinquent utility consumption and utilization accounts; superseding several sections under Title 21 that authorize and require the collection of interest on delinquent utility consumption and utilization accounts; declaring an emergency; and establishing an immediate effective date; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03162020_Res 31932 | Speaker 0: Moving on to item number two Transportation Utility. Please read the report referred to Transportation and Utilities Committee Agenda Item Member two Resolution 319 32 relating to the City Department acknowledging and approving city lights. Adoption of a biannual energy conservation target for 2024, 2021 and ten years of conservation potential. The committee recommends that the resolution be adopted as amended. Peterson, would you like to speak to this Bill?
Speaker 1: Yes, thank you very much. This resolution 31932 acknowledges and concurs with Seattle City Lights adoption of its biennial energy conservation targets. The update is required by state law and reflects the positive impact of stronger energy conservation, building codes and the implementation of recent conservation measures, such as the installation of energy efficient LED lighting. The committee asked that it move forward and I recommend we move to adopt this resolution 31932.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Peterson. Are there any other comments calling? Shearing then? Well, the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold. I. Councilmember Juarez. I Council member Lewis. I Councilmember Morales. By Councilmember Peterson. I council member. So what? I Council President Mesquita I a10 favor and unopposed. Thank you, madam, for the resolution is adopted. I'm sure will find it will, of course. Please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. All right. Moving onto the newly added item number three, adoption of other resolutions. Madam Clerk, will you please read item number three into the record for adoption of other resolutions? Resolution 319 38 The resolution modifying the March 14, 2020 emergency order relating to residential evictions. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Couple colleagues. So sorry about the confusion earlier. We still have Alex Mucci on the line. I'm going to move to adopt the resolution. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION relating to the City Light Department; acknowledging and approving City Light’s adoption of a biennial energy conservation target for 2020-2021 and ten-year conservation potential. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03022020_CB 119749 | Speaker 0: Excellent. Item number two, could you please read the agenda item number two into the record.
Speaker 3: Agenda item two, Constable 119 749 Relating to historic preservation, imposing controls upon the University of Washington Eagleson Hall, a landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board under Chapter 25.12 seven Vicodin. Adding to the table of historical landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32 of the set on the Speaker Committee recommends that the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, councilmember Strauss. Many of the items on today's agenda come from your committee, so I'll be turning it over to you again.
Speaker 2: Thank you. We have seven items on today's committee because we get a lot of work done quickly. So Council Bill 119749 imposes controls on you dubs Eagleson Hall. This legislation imposes controls upon the both the site, the exterior, original main lounge and social room. It was designated as a landmark by the Landmarks Preservation Board in June. Eagleson Hall was built in 1923 in the Collegiate Gothic style by architect Bevan Gould, who also designed Sousa, Lou Hall and the administration building at the Ballard Locks in the Seattle Asian Art Museum, the Seattle Times Building, among others. This building was originally constructed for the University Branch YMCA and also shared some space with the YWCA for some time. In the 1960s, the building was sold to the university, who have used it for the School of Social Work in the Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences ever since. In fact, my father is a u dub social work student studied in Eagleson Hall. So there's a personal connection here as well. I we reviewed this council bill in committee and all of our questions were were answered and I would move to adopt Council Bill 119749.
Speaker 0: Second movement, second, second. Are there any additional comments? Yes. Yes, Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 5: Yes. So this is in District four and I am very pleased to see it move forward. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Excellent. Great. Any additional comments on anything then? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: I swap.
Speaker 4: Like.
Speaker 1: Strauss purple. Lewis.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 4: Morales i.
Speaker 1: President Macheda.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Excellent. Thank you. Please read agenda item number four. Oh, scuse me. Let me say this for officially the bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read agenda item number three into the record. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to historic preservation; imposing controls upon the University of Washington Eagleson Hall, 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_03022020_CB 119748 | Speaker 0: Excellent. Thank you. Please read agenda item number four. Oh, scuse me. Let me say this for officially the bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read agenda item number three into the record.
Speaker 3: Agenda item three Council Bill 119 748 Relating to historic preservation, imposing controls upon the Sunset Telephone and Telegraph Exchange, a landmark design by the Landmarks Preservation Board under Chapter 25.12. I misspoke. Code now into the table of historical landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32 of the Master Code. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Excellent, Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 2: Thank you. In addition to having seven items before full council today, we have also had four in district walking tours with small businesses, helped over 30 constituents and met with 28 different constituents in district. Now speaking to Council Bill 119748, imposing controls upon the sunset telephone and tough graph exchange. This legislation imposes controls on the site and the exterior of the building, which was built in the neoclassical style. And this building was also designated as a landmark mark by the Landmarks Preservation Board in June. The structure was built in 1905 to serve as one of Seattle's earliest telephone exchange buildings. And it's significant to women's labor history because of its role as a workplace for many women. At a time when there were few employment opportunities for women, after it was a telephone exchange, the this was used as a masonic lodge. Masonic lodge two for two purchased the building in 1924 and occupied the space for ever for the next nine decades. Today the building sits vacant and is unreinforced masonry, and I also share the sentiments of Councilmember Herbold and Morales regarding unreinforced masonry. And so these controls will help preserve the building while while it is remodeled and seismically retrofitted.
Speaker 0: Excellent. Thank you very much, Councilmember Strauss. I really appreciate in your committee how you called for additional attention to the historic use of it. And I think Councilmember Lewis also was pointing out that there had been previous buildings that had plaque. So that's correct. To call out the previous historical usage. So love the connection there to building on our history of strong women occupying that building. Any additional comments? Yes, Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Just really briefly, to echo comments that I made this morning during briefing, fully support this bill, this before us today. I think it's a really great example of how we can increase housing density in some of our neighborhoods while also protecting and expanding the esthetic character of the neighborhoods through the unique identities that some of these buildings bring in, in terms of the not only how they look, but also the unique history that some of them bring to our neighborhoods. I think it's something that as a council, we should continue to incentivize and work with folks to bring forward because it really is a a unique way to introduce more density. The fact that this building is now going to turn into two townhomes where it was a not frequently used in recent years meeting center for the Masons is a step in the right direction and fully look forward to voting for this today.
Speaker 0: Excellent. Thank you very much, Councilmember Lewis. Any additional comments since then? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Peterson Hi, Suzanne Strauss. Herbold Hi, Lewis. I'm Morales. I'm President Macheda I seven and Fabian unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Madam Clerk, please read agenda items four and five into the record. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to historic preservation; imposing controls upon the Sunset Telephone & Telegraph Exchange, 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_03022020_CF 314434 | Speaker 0: In the opposing thing none. The motion carries and the appointments are confirmed. Thank you very much, Councilmember Strauss. Madam Clerk, please read the agenda item number six into the record.
Speaker 3: Agenda item six. Clerk 5314 434. Application of those Ryan LLC to rezone an approximately 20,000 square foot parcel located 4544, 45, 1540 600 Union Bay Place Northeast from commercial to with a 55 foot height limit and mandatory housing affordability suffix to commercial two with a 65 foot height limit and one MH suffix, the committee recommends that the application be granted.
Speaker 0: Excellent. Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes. Item six and seven. Are the two items related to the contract reason of 4600 Union Bay Place. This is a quasi judicial matter which I brought up at Council Briefing this morning. So if anyone has received communications from proponents or opponents of this process, please make sure to confer with Keel Freeman. Or if you have questions about quasi judicial process, please confer with Colonel Freeman and our central staff. This is a contract rezoning application for three parcels at 45, 44, 45, 50 and 4600. Union Bay Place Northeast. The applicant is, as we heard, seeking a reason from commercial two with a 50 foot height limit to commercial two with a 65 foot height limit. One of the things in committee that struck me about the presentation in which we received at committee was that with the gradation in the setback from the Berkman Trail, there is this brings it to the building height limits to a similar height, even though it is a higher height being allowed. The reason increases the affordability level required under MHR from the lowest and level two and one, and the applicant is planning to develop 98 unit building with 2000 square feet of retail space. In addition to the MTA requirements, this project will be participating in the mandatory and multifamily tax exemption and 20% of the units on site will be rent restricted and and affordable to households between 65 to 85% of area median income. SDC I am the hearing examiner have both issued recommendations to approve and there were no appeals.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Councilmember Strauss. We will take item 6/1 and then item seven. Before we do that, any additional comments on item number six, Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 5: Yes, this project is in District four. And because it's a contract free zone, we're not able to actually delve into it until we receive the clerk file at the committee. But what was presented to us was very thorough and thoughtful. And so, as Councilmember Strauss noted, there were no appeals to it. So I support this project.
Speaker 0: Excellent. Thank you very much, Councilmember Peterson, any additional comments? Okay. CNN, all of those in favor of granting the application, please vote I and raise your hand.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 0: Any opposed seeing none. The motion carries, the application is granted and the president will sign the findings at conclusion and decision of the City Council. Item number seven has been alluded to. Council Clerk Would you please read item number seven into the record. | Clerk File (CF) | Application of BarrientosRyan LLC, to rezone an approximately 20,000 square foot parcel located at 4544, 4550, and 4600 Union Bay Pl NE from Commercial 2 with a 55 foot height limit and M Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) suffix (C2 55 (M)) to Commercial 2 with a 65 foot height limit and M1 MHA suffix (C2 65 (M1)) (Project No. 3030253, Type IV). | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02242020_Res 31931 | Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Thank you. Thank you. Let's continue with our agenda. So first matter on our agenda, item number one, finance and housing. The report on the Finance and Housing Committee. Please read the report. Agenda item one Resolution 31931. A resolution establishing a watch list of large, complex, discrete capital projects that will require enhanced quarterly monitoring reports for the 2020 calendar year. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended. Casper Mosquito.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. This resolution adopts the 2020 watch list of projects from the Cities Capital Improvement Program, for which the executive will provide quarterly reports. This is a list of 17 large, discrete, complex projects that will be subject to in-depth quarterly reporting this year. This watchlist was established, as you all know, I think, in by ordinance in 2018 after several projects had significant overruns and delays. Without the council or the public's knowledge involvement, including the $70 million overrun at the Seattle seawall and streetcar. So this watch list is a result of the hard work of my colleagues, Councilmember Herbold and former colleague Councilmember Johnson. Thank you for all of your work on this. And I'm excited that we were able to have an in-depth conversation in our committee. Add to the watch list. This watch list now contains projects that would like that. We would like to have additional oversight and transparency on making sure that there's clear scope and that we watch for shifting estimates in cost or uncertain capital funding plans. If there's ill defined operation costs, plans or other funding plans, we will be able to have clear, I think, heads up on that and be able to have the legislative branch weigh in on our perceived priorities, identify significant, significant questions and ask questions about scope, schedule and budget so that we can ensure that the public's dollars is being well accounted for and that we are on track to fulfilling the Council's desired outcomes for these projects. Happy to bring forward this resolution today and thank our colleagues from the Finance and Housing Committee for their work to make this resolution even better.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any more comments? Casper Hubbell. I just want to flag that. One of the things that we talked about in committee was a recognition that the intent of the resolution was for the Finance Committee to be the designated committee to hear the reports overall. But there is a hope that individual committees that have responsibility for capital improvement projects that are on the watch list, that those individual committee communities do a deeper dove on monitoring projects that are in the watch list and consider spending limitations where appropriate, as yet another way to enhance oversight, perhaps by using stage gating or budget provisos to have additional oversight on some of those projects. And thanks to Chair Mascara, I appreciate that. She has indicated that she also has interest in figuring out a way whether or not we can, as a council, identify some ways, some checks and balances on ourselves to make sure that that enhanced oversight is happening. We can't we can't rely totally on the Budget Office and we can't totally rely on our central staff. I think we have to also think creatively about ways that we can do our part in monitoring.
Speaker 5: Some of these projects.
Speaker 0: Thank you for your comments, Councilor Muscat, you want to make a motion?
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that the full council approve resolution 31931 as amended in the Finance and Housing Committee.
Speaker 0: Second motion and a second. With that, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I don't suppose they know the ayes have it. Thank you. The resolution passes. Thank you. Let's go to item number two on the report of the Transportation Utilities Committee. Please read the short title agenda item to Council Bill 119744 an ordinance relating to the Department of Transportation's Hazard Mitigation Program. The committee recommends the bill pass. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION establishing a Watch List of large, complex, discrete capital projects that will require enhanced quarterly monitoring reports for the 2020 calendar year. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02242020_CB 119741 | Speaker 0: It passes and I'll sign it. The next item is please read item three. Agenda. Agenda item three. Council. Bill 119741. An ordinance relating to the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority authorizing execution of a funding and cooperative agreement for Northgate Station area, access improvements between sound transit and the City of Seattle, and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 2: Yes. This ordinance approves a spending agreement between the Seattle Department of Transportation and Sound Transit related to the pedestrian bridge that will span I-5 to connect the Northgate Sound Transit Station. It opens in the fall of 2021. Where would that bridge be again? That would be in D5 District five, which is that happens to be Councilmember Juarez's district. I move that this was was approved unanimously in the committee and I move that we approve council bill 119741.
Speaker 0: All right. We've been moved into it. Will the clerk please call the roll? Herbold. Hi.
Speaker 1: Lewis. Hi. Morales. I mosquera. I.
Speaker 2: Peterson, i.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Council president. Was I seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passes. All right. And the chair will sign it. So can we please please read item number four? Agenda item four Council Bill 119743. An ordinance relating to grant funds from non city sources. Authorizing the director of transportation to accept specified grants and execute related agreements for and on behalf of the city. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (“Sound Transit”); authorizing execution of a Funding and Cooperative Agreement for Northgate Station Area Access Improvements between Sound Transit and The City of Seattle; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02182020_CB 119656 | Speaker 1: So now we have a new item number two, which is a little bit different than what we have on the agenda that was published, the Select Committee on Homeless Strategies Investments, the report of the Committee on Homeless Strategies and Investments. Please read the short title.
Speaker 9: Agenda Item two Constable 119 656 Relating to land use and zoning provided that transitional encampments for homeless individuals are allowed on any property owned or controlled by religious organization without approval of a permit under the Shelter Land Use Code. The committee recommends the bill passes, amended with councilmembers Luis Herbert Morales once and Strauss in favor with an abstention from Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 1: Okay. So before we begin, this is how we're going to do this. I'm going to allow Councilmember Lewis, since this came out of his committee and also council members who want to kick us off. And then I have a few comments to make about the nine amendments that we are going to have in front of us for discussion and vote. So with that, I'll hand it to you. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much, Madam President, pro tem. And I'll be brief on this so we can get into the meat of the matter and give council members who want the opportunity to talk more broadly about the bill. I'll just say I'm really grateful to my colleagues on the committee for the two great sessions that we had on this Council bill leading up to this. We had a really good presentation from folks in the community, as well as service providers and folks with learned experience about the need to protect and expand tiny house villages and the scope and scale of these changes. We had a really good session a week ago where we passed some essential amendments and moved it forward for the final council action today. And I just want to thank everyone for being diligent with those tight timelines and having very productive conversations during those meetings. I want to thank Councilmember Swan for bringing this ordinance forward. I think it's a testament to the strength of the ordinance that the changes that we did enact through amendment last week really did not go to changing the core of her ordinance, merely made a couple of cosmetic changes, cleaned a couple of things up and then clarified a few things that needed clarification. And we'll talk about the additional amendments in more depth after this. But I will at this point turn it over to council members who want.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Casper. Silent.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I wanted to start by thanking everybody who has advocated not only for this bill, but also has been fighting for our homeless neighbors and for housing justice as a whole all these years, many of them preceding my time in Seattle, a special thanks to Nichols Ville Community and to the Low Income Housing Institute for spearheading the work that eventually became tiny homes. As you all know, I hope you all know this bill expands options for and removes obstacles to establishing dining halls, villages and Seattle. But it also, as Jerome Lee from Lee, I pointed out, is relevant to safe parking spaces and other sanctioned homeless encampments. Daniels villages have been hands down one of the most successful homeless services that have been created in our city. They are decidedly the most humane, the most respectful and dignity offering to our homeless neighbors and have one of the best drag records in helping people find permanent housing. Their self-managed model helps homeless people form a community and really, you know, abandon the isolation and alienation of life on the streets. In the public hearing last fall. We are moving testimony after moving testimony of homeless people, courageously sharing personal stories about how Daniels villages helped them get safe, get clean and sober, get their dignity and begin to manage post-traumatic stress, help their neighbors in the village and ultimately find housing. This city council should be doing everything in our power to make it easier, not more difficult for people to set up tiny house villages. And this includes providing every assistance possible with this legislation to Danny House community providers who work on shoestring budgets and don't need any more obstacles in their path. They need it to be easier for them to do what they are doing. That means removing the red tape that has been associated, which this bill will do, minus some of the bad amendments that are being proposed and fight for funding to expand villages and provide them with services like case management. Just to be clear. This legislation does not provide the funding for additional dining villages. We will need to fight for that funding in the budget this fall. So we should not confuse the two things. And we know, we all know that a dining house is suddenly far better than having a tent. And we need to support every effort to replace tents with tiny homes. However, I do not agree with making that a condition to get a permit because it does not that, you know, putting that obstacle in the way does not help anyone from go to go from a tent or a tiny house. It only makes it harder because what homeless service providers, what homeless service provider will set up a tiny house in an unsanctioned encampment. You know, you need to make sure that we remove the obstacles. This bill addresses the land use laws that create the restrictions on dining halls, villages. They have proven beyond any doubt their effectiveness. And I don't think that any councilmember who adds more obstacles in the path of making sure that, you know, people are able to provide this service can claim to be serious about addressing the homelessness crisis. I urge council members to support this legislation and to oppose amendments that would constrain opportunities to establish tiny house villages first as a substitute bill. That is a technical amendment it corrects numbering of the amendments in committee, updates, the date on the signature line, and so on and so forth. The Second Amendment, though, that I'm bringing forward, would grandfathering the existing encampments, and I'll talk more about that. But there are also other amendments that would actually not help this bill and appreciate people speaking in public testimony about them. And I will reserve my comments for when the specific amendments come up.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilor Sawant. So I believe we have nine proposed amendments on the agenda. And as chair, I will call on each council member in the proposed order, as outlined on the table at that time to sponsor will have the opportunity to move their amendment. And I'm hoping somebody will second their amendment or I will. So just let me just share this as follows. And then we have a we actually have it lined up online. So we'll start with I'm just going to list the council member and what amendment numbers they are. And then we'll start with the we'll just go down the way it's listed in the following order. But we'll start with this. Councilmember Peterson has amendment number one, number seven and number nine, councilperson has amendment number two and number four. Councilor Mesquita has amendment number three. And I understand that Councilmember Lewis will be presenting Councilor Mosquitoes amendment. And then Councilmember Lewis has amendment number five, six and eight. So with that, we're going to start with amendment number one for Councilmember Peterson. Mr. Peterson, you have the floor.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President Pro tem. So the purpose of this substitute would be to one of the reasons we're here is because the current ordinance is expiring. So this substitute would extend the ordinance for two more years. The idea is to honor the original homelessness authority that we just established, because that authority will be coming back to us with a five year plan. It will be informed by experts on this issue, including people with lived experience, and we set that up so that we can have a regional response to this regional crisis. So this substitute would extend the current law by two years. It would also allow greater flexibility with the one year extensions on interim use encampment permits. And then it would it would also increase the number of allowable interim use encampments from three, which is the current number under the current law to 15. As just a reminder to the public, there is no limit on the accessory permits, those that are accessory to a religious institution. This is just for the interim use, but again, it's increasing it from 3 to 15. Now, realistically, there are several that have a temporary use permit that would convert to an interim use. So it would be using up about, you know, we'd get to just under ten. So but this is still adding a greater number and I'm got feedback from that at our committee of the whole last week to look for a larger number. I'm I am fine going up to 15 again this is meant to extend the current law allow greater flexibility with the one year extensions and go from 3 to 15. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Peterson, did you move to amend the council bill?
Speaker 4: So this is a this is I would so my motion is to have this substitute my substitute bill with those three parameters.
Speaker 1: Tuition. I'm sorry. Is there a second? Okay. Seconded by counsel Herbold, is there any other comment? Okay. I'm sorry. It's been moved and seconded. Are there any comments on the substitution?
Speaker 8: Thank you. I just want to speak to appreciation to Councilmember Peterson in hearing, I think, some of the feedback that he heard last week about the fact that the sunsetting encampments are very likely to be roll rolling over to use this this this un sunset it authority. And the number of encampments that he proposed last week would essentially take up the new authority. I, I regret, though, that I think the number 15 is still too low and does not allow for enough growth because as we have learned, that safe parking projects also count as transitional encampments and they will count against this total. I we we received we all received a really welcome update from Human Services Department Director Johnson Acting Director Johnson about new safe parking lot locations that are in development. Some of them are hosted by by religious institutions, but some of them are not. And so I am concerned I would hate to just take this action today and not not realize any ability for significant growth to meet the need, particularly the need for moving people directly from the streets into safe shelter with a door, with a sense of community, the things with the key, the things that are making this intervention so successful in realizing outcomes to permanent housing.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Governor. All right. See no further. Oh, I'm sorry, Councilman. Of what? I apologize. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I just want to be clear with members of the public that this is not really I don't consider this a substitute bill. I consider this is really a no vote disguised as a substitute. And since Councilmember Peterson obviously opposes expanding opportunities to build Chinese villages, I would have preferred if he was just honest about it and voted no on the bill rather than attempting to tell the public a story that is not actually accurate. I mean, just to give you an example, he just gave you an an impression that he's increasing the number of sanctioned Daniels villages or sanctioned governments to 15. But really, what what what his substitute would do is take away what is in my original bill, which is 40, and then reduce it to 15. So, you know, it's a sleight of hand that is is doing is engaging in.
Speaker 5: And.
Speaker 7: And in reality, this amendment remove would remove. If this if this passes, it would actually be really bad for the the whole the whole objective that we are trying to achieve here, which is that this is the tiny home project has been so successful know and it has been through so many evaluations of all kinds of metrics . I mean, compare it to the sweeps of homeless people that continue year after year. And the city spends over $8 million every year and it has not proven to be effective in any way whatsoever. In fact, it creates drama in people's lives. And yet it is a program that very hardworking nonprofit providers have worked on, which actually is providing service. And the best assessment of this is from homeless people themselves who will tell you that this is the only thing that will actually help them get their lives together. And if this amendment passes, so-called amendment passes would be really bad for the underlying bill because it would take away many progressive measures that are contained in this bill, such as streamlining the permitting process for religious and temporary encampments, making tiny houses available in different zones, significantly increasing the number of permitted tiny homes. And as I said before, and then it would create another sunset clause expiring in two months. Do your sorry in 2022, which would mean that we have to go through another seven month period to extending the permit. And in reality, if you look at the timing, it would mean we would have to start the process of the next bill to extend it again in the next couple of months. I'll just say in closing, when my office earlier this year put forward resolutions taking a stand against the war with Iran and against religious persecution in India, issues that matter very deeply to our constituents. Councilmember Peters and said that there was a waste of council's time and that the council should be focused on addressing the homelessness crisis. But I brought now I brought forward a bill that will actually address the homelessness crisis, and we have the council member opposing it and attempting to really undermine it. So I will oppose this amendment. I will urge the public to be aware of what is going on.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. So. Okay, let's. Let's go forward with the vote.
Speaker 8: Point of order.
Speaker 1: Sorry. Point of order.
Speaker 8: I just want to speak to r r comments as individual council members and as a body in impugning the motives of our colleagues. You know, there was another there was another proposal before the committee last week by Councilmember Lewis. That was for 20. And so I believe that Councilmember Peterson has brought forward this amendment in good faith. Nobody accused Councilmember Lewis last week of acting in bad faith. I believe that Councilmember Peterson heard my concerns and tried to bring forward a proposal. I'm not supporting that proposal, but I would just like us to show a little grace for one another up here on this dais.
Speaker 1: Okay. I'm going to let councilors respond briefly and then we're going to go to a vote. Go ahead, Councilor. Silent.
Speaker 7: Well, my colleague, council member, well, is free to have whatever opinion she has. But I also am an elected representative and I was elected by the voters of my district. And my loyalty is to ordinary people, not to any elected official. And I don't believe that this kind of substitute is directed with good intentions. But it is not a question of intention. It's a question of what effect this substitute would have. And I am primarily focused on the effect it would have, and that is on debatable.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. So, listen, we have nine amendments in front of us. And so I'm going to ask that you withhold your clapping. This isn't a rally. I two will agree. And second, what Councilmember Herbal said about impugning other people's other people's intentions. I think we're all here trying to do the right thing in a good way. So with that, I'm going to move forward with our vote. Those in favor of the amendments. Last substitution vote I and raise your hand.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Those opposed? Well, no, no, no. You know, at times like this, I would like to the public to know that most of the time, 90, 95%, we are in agreement. It's just how we get there. She's all right. So let's go on to the next one. The next two is have amendment number two, which is council members who want which is a substitution and councilor. So what do you want to go ahead and present it and move to amend or make a motion?
Speaker 7: Yes, this substitute bill is a technical amendment. It corrects numbering after the amendments that were made in the committee. It updates the date on the signature line to 2020 from 2019, and it corrects the language around the amendment that Councilmember Herbold, who just left the room bill passed in committee for geographic spread of villages. That connection with Councilmember Herbold agreement makes the language match how the amendment was verbally described at the committee table because the written language of the amendment was not the way she had intended. And so we we worked it out great, I think have to move this amendment. Yes. Move amendment to.
Speaker 4: Second.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Peterson, for providing a second to Councilmember Silence amendment slash substitution. Are there any other comments before we move to a vote? Okay so with that those in favor of councilmember members substitution vote I in raise your hand I suppose they know the ayes have it. It passes, the motion carries and the amended is adopted. All right. Let's go to amendment number three. This is Councilmember Mosquito, but I understand Councilmember Lewis will be presenting it. Councilman Lewis, please take the floor in the moment. Make the motion.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. That is correct. In councilmember skater's absence, I will be moving her amendment. Quite simply, this amendment modifies a recital in the ordinance proposed ordinance to reflect that the appropriation, subject to a council proviso in the 2020 budget for homelessness, could be expended on tiny house villages, enhanced shelters, or both. And then it references council budget actions home to dash deed one and H home dash three, dash b-3. So just a kind of technical change to the recital. All right. And I move that. We so amend the council bill.
Speaker 1: Okay. So we have the motion can have a second.
Speaker 4: Second.
Speaker 1: Great. And who said it? But somebody three people did. So we have a second as well. It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill. Are there any other comments? Okay, let's go to a vote. Those in favor of councilmember mosquito as presented by Councilmember Lewis's amendment. Those in favor vote I in raise your hand. I those opposed. No, the ayes have it and the motion carries and is adopted. So let's move on to amendment number four. Councilmember so want the floor because.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 7: Yes. The I don't expect this amendment to be controversial. It would be it would grandfathering the existing and government the setback requirements that were created in an amendment in the committee meeting, practically speaking. This would only impact one and campaign with your high heights in that in government the structures are three feet inside these new setback requirements . On one side, the neighbors are supportive of the incumbent. It would be inefficient and unnecessary to remove them to move a number of their structures by three feet when they renew their permit. There would be no other impact of this amendment, so I assume it should be. Okay, great. And I need to move amendment for the second.
Speaker 1: Second. Great, we have a second. Are there any other comments for Councilmember Silence? Kessler Lewis And.
Speaker 4: Just really briefly, Madam Chair, I just want to state that this is a particularly personal amendment to me, given that it does impact the inner bay, tiny house village in District seven, which I am particularly proud of. I think they're great neighbors in District seven. I live just up the hill in the uptown neighborhood. The idea that we would pass something and it would accidentally not incorporate them is something that would would really grievously affect me if I found out about it later. So I appreciate that this was caught in time to incorporate in here. You know, I had the opportunity earlier today at the State of the City address to talk to a few Port of Seattle commissioners again. And Commissioner Steinberg did come to the committee meeting last month to talk about the port's commitment to that village as well . It really is a great example of intergovernmental cooperation, and I really enthusiastically support this amendment and support the work that's being done at that inner bay village.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So with that, we it's been moved. It's been seconded. Are there any other comments before we move to a vote? Okay. Those in favor of the amendment vote I and raise your hand I those opposed vote no. The ayes have it and the motion carries and the amendment is adopted. Let's move on to amendment number five. Councilmember Lewis, you again? Sorry.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. So this amendment this was part of our discussion as a committee last week where we were discussing the requirements for case management and security at the encampment sites. I had previously proposed an amendment. The language and wording of that amendment had perhaps in practice would have been too prescriptive and could have impacted the current practices of some of the encampments. That was something I was concerned about, so I pulled back that amendment to work on it. Over the course of the last week, having consulted with service providers and central staff, it's my belief that this amendment more appropriately fits the kind of current standards HST uses when they are talking to providers to provide case management and security in accordance with an approved encampment management plan that allows for the flexibility to accommodate unique circumstances . And so based on that, I move that we incorporate that amendment and that language into the Council bill.
Speaker 0: And.
Speaker 1: I just have a little sidebar here.
Speaker 0: So you may not actually second it.
Speaker 1: Oh, because remember, else I might.
Speaker 0: Be doing this too soon. It's okay. But I have a proposed amendment to this amendment.
Speaker 1: Oh, that's great.
Speaker 0: Is this. Is this the right time? Yeah. Okay, so I'll finish my statement. And it was not distributed before noon today, so I'm requesting that the rules be suspended to allow consideration of the amendment that did not meet the council rule.
Speaker 1: Okay. So I need to go back. I apologize. I didn't know that if you were going to come forward with that.
Speaker 0: Yes. So you did. That's okay.
Speaker 1: So this is actually your amendment to Council Member Lewis's amendment, correct? Yes.
Speaker 0: I have one right here and now. Yes. Are you passing it out? I can pass it out here. I don't know any different numbers.
Speaker 9: To suspend the council to allow consideration.
Speaker 1: So I move to suspend the Council rules to allow consideration of Council Member Morales's amendment to council Lewis's amendment number five.
Speaker 0: Now.
Speaker 1: Oh, there it is. I see it again.
Speaker 4: Second.
Speaker 1: Okay. So we haven't moved and we have it seconded and go ahead, Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 0: So I'm moving to amend Councilmember Lewis. I have it as Amendment one. So we should.
Speaker 1: That's what.
Speaker 9: We need to move to now.
Speaker 0: Suspend now we need to vote.
Speaker 1: So I need to now we need to vote on suspending to allow consideration of the amendment. Okay, all I think it's just a hearing. No objection, but okay. All those in favor of the Councilman Morales introducing an amendment to Mr. Lewis's amendment vote. I. I, i. I oppose. No, the ayes have it. Floor is yours.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And again, my apologies, especially after complaining last week about everybody bringing amendments at the last minutes. I appreciate your indulgence. I moved to amend Councilmember Lewis's amendment as presented on the distributed document. The amendment revises Section D .1.2 of the Municipal Code 23.4 2.056. By deleting and security after provide case management. And the reason that I'm doing this is because when I do think that the security requirement can can pose additional barriers and costs to beginning new communities. But also, I believe that.
Speaker 7: We shouldn't be.
Speaker 0: Codifying the security requirements when there are different circumstances for different kinds of encampments. And this the kind and whether security should be provided, can be determined based on the circumstance and really managed during the contracting process. So I so that is the rationale for removing it from for this amendment, removing that language from Councilmember Lewis's amendment.
Speaker 1: All right, Councilor Lewis, to go speak to this.
Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you, Madam President, pro tem. And I do appreciate Councilmember and Councilmember Morales bringing forward this amendment to the amendment, because I do think this is an important thing to to discuss and talk about. I appreciate the spirit in which this amendment has been introduced. I do think it's important first to mention that regardless of what we do here today as a council, that security requirement that is enumerated in my unamended amendment is in existence. So regardless of what our action is and Councilmember Morales did acknowledge that in her remarks just now, that requirement does exist. There does need to be an approved security plan. From my conversations over the last couple of weeks with service providers, you know, one of the things that I think has been the most inspiring is looking at a lot of the peer managed governance systems that exist in a lot of these camps, how effective they are at coming together as a community, at empowering folks to help manage and run the camps, including providing the security. And a lot of the security programs that have been approved by HST are significantly peer participated in or even peer run. And this amendment allows more flexibility for that in a way that the amendment last week might not have. The second consideration, and I think this is important, too, is I do think, you know, there has been a considerable amount of press and public scrutiny regarding the ordinance. You know, I think one of the criticisms that is often mistakenly levied in the public press against the tiny house villages is that there is no allotment for security or collaboration with neighborhood groups, which we all know is patently false. I think it helps to enhance this ordinance as a public facing law to be able to go to the public and say like, well, look, this is currently in the HST rule for good measure. We've also enumerated it, spelled it out and codified it in the final ordinance. I do think it's important that we acknowledge that that is a requirement. It is one that's enforced and that in many cases it is peer driven and cognizant of the specific needs of a specific camp. So I will be respectfully voting against Councilmember Morales amendment.
Speaker 1: Okay. So before we go, I need a second for Councilman Morales's amendment to council Lewis's amendment number five. Can I get a second? Thank you, counselor. So on. So we have a second. Is any more comments? Go ahead.
Speaker 7: Council members want I will I want to speak to both the amended version of the amendment and the original.
Speaker 1: Do it to me right here. Okay. I see how it is.
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 7: I will be voting yes to the amendment. To the amendment, but I will be voting no on whatever the final result and resulting amendment. Is it whether it is an amended version or not?
Speaker 0: Sorry.
Speaker 7: But I would like my comment will explain both. So practically speaking, either version of the amendment, but it includes just case management or case management and security. I don't think it changes much because the requirements are already a condition of receiving funding from the Human Services Department. And because of that, if the if the if I'm abstaining were an option, then I would have abstained. But we have to vote yes or no. So given that I will be voting yes on Councilmember Morales's amended version of the amendment because it sort of mitigates it, but voting no on the final amendment, because if there was ever a scenario where the clauses could result in a tiny house village failing to receive a permit, then I think that would be a bad outcome, even though those conditions are already, you know, sort of contained in the requirements to receive a permit. But in the spirit of making, you know, the the whole spirit in which I brought this bill forward was to remove obstacles, not put them back in place. And so in that spirit, I would vote no on the final amendment, because it's largely even though it's largely academic in this case, because then government already have these requirements
Speaker 1: . Thank you. Okay. So what we're going to do is first we it's been moved and seconded and we're going to vote on Councilmember Morales's motion to amend Councilmember Lewis's amended number 5/1. So those all in favor of Councilmember Morales's motion. Vote I and raise your hand, I. Okay. Those opposed. No, no, no. If it fails, the motion fails. Thank you, Councilmember Morales, for providing that for us. So we will go on and now we will vote on the Bass legislation, which is Councilmember Lewis's, which is amendment number five, all those in favor of amendment number five as presented by Councilmember Lewis and seconded vote a vote. Those in favor of the amendment. Vote yes and raise your hand. Well, if you want to vote. Yes.
Speaker 4: Yes, yes.
Speaker 1: Okay. All those opposed? No. If it passes. All right. Let's go to Amendment number six, which is council member Lewis again. Councilor Lewis.
Speaker 4: And so this amendment and I spun this amendment off from amendment number five. They used to be combined. The reason for that is currently it is theoretically possible, though it has not happened yet, that a a service provider not receive HST funding but still open a village. So this amendment would require that encampment operators who are not funded by HST still provide case management and security in accordance with the all home standards. Those are standards established in the Seattle King County Continuum of Care Community Standards. So this just gives some guidance to providers who might want to go ahead and get a permit without HST funding, how they would get security in case management requirements met. But I separated it from the other amendment because it is sort of a distinct category of potential tiny house village operators.
Speaker 1: Do you want to move?
Speaker 4: And I do move that it be adopted.
Speaker 1: Second. Thank you. Councilmember Strauss. Any other discussion, Councilor Herbert.
Speaker 8: Thank you. I just want to honor the many, many years, maybe decades at this point of transitional encampments that have functioned without city funding and recognize that onerous obligations such as case management for a more do it yourself approach of taking shelter and providing companionship and safety in numbers that has, you know, been able to do so for years and has gotten us to this point that we're talking about expanding sanctioned encampments. I don't think it's fair to have onerous requirements on the sponsors of of traditional encampments that don't receive city funding. I do feel it is absolutely 100% responsible for requiring it of encampments that do receive city funding. And for that reason, I will not be supporting this amendment.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay, so we have a motion. We've had it seconded and let's move to a vote. Oh, I'm sorry. I guess.
Speaker 7: One. Thank you. I do agree with Councilmember Robles points as were just made. And just to clarify, unlike the previous amendment that was put forward in this case, this amendment, if passed, could really result in Daniels villages failing to get a permit, unlike in the previous case, where there's a potential, but not really, because there are those requirements already in place. We know many Daniels villages start as groups of self-organized homeless people forming a village like a community, and then they request a permit and start to put together services like replacing tents with tiny homes and getting case management services. I mean, if if we want to be connected to the real world, that has been the process through which this has happened and many, many people have worked on as hard as going to, Mirabel said for years, if not decades, on these issues. And so, you know, I think we have to make it clear that that we don't want to increase obstacles in their power. So I would be voting no against this.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Swan. Okay, let's move to a vote. Those in favor of the amendment. Vote I and raise your hand.
Speaker 5: I and.
Speaker 1: Those opposed. Vote No.
Speaker 0: No. It fails.
Speaker 1: Else let's move on to amendment number seven, which is Councilmember. Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 4: Thank you. The purpose of this amendment would be to memorialize the benefits of tiny home villages in that they are providing a physical structure. They are providing a roof for walls, a door. And this legislation, when it originally came out, it was called a tiny home village bill. But it was really just expanding the number of in the tent encampments and not providing the structure what we know of as tiny home villages. We we know that tiny home villages had a shaky start in terms of getting the outcomes we were seeking, in terms of getting people to exit to permanent housing. Tiny home villages made substantial strides. One of the reasons is because of the case management. And so I appreciate my colleagues amendment to add the case management. This amendment would, in addition to providing that physical structure, would have required case management as well as security. So the second part of this amendment is consistent with what just passed the. What I what I'd like to do is there was some discussion during the committee about vehicles and making sure that we were including vehicles in this. So I am I am open to removing the last sense that talk or the part that talks about sleeping areas shall not include recreational vehicles, but may include other owner occupied vehicles. Happy to accept friendly amendments to that. But again, the purpose of this is to provide the structure, the case management and the security. Thankfully, we just amended it to provide the case management security. So that's really leaving us with providing that structure that we know of. When we see when we visit tiny home villages and we see the structure, that's the attraction to have the roof, the four walls and the door. So that's what this amendment would do.
Speaker 1: So, Councilmember Peterson, for clarification, are you are doing is anywhere are you is someone proposing a friendly amendment to strike the language you're suggesting? Are we just moving forward? Nope. Okay. Is there any other comment?
Speaker 0: Moved on second in.
Speaker 1: Getting ready to ask if you need to move the.
Speaker 4: Yes. So I'd like to move this amendment number seven.
Speaker 1: Sort of second. Okay. So the motion fails for lack of a second. Let's move to Amendment Number eight and that would be council member.
Speaker 4: LEWIS Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. So amendment number eight. This is a pretty technical change. One, it occurred to central staff that there were some modular developments, more modular encampments that perhaps would not fit into the definition that we had previously established. Specifically, there is a modular development that I'm very excited about coming online and Sodo that Chief Seattle Club will be the operator for that uses these kind of modular structures that are secure and good spaces. This just closes that loophole to make sure structures like that are included and camps like that could get permitted under this ordinance . And so I move that. We incorporate that into the definition and move that this amendment be adopted.
Speaker 1: Thank you for any comments. Okay.
Speaker 0: So can I ask a question?
Speaker 1: Yes, go ahead.
Speaker 0: Um, so, um, the legislation would not preclude this kind of housing from being used in different contexts.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Good question, Councilmember Morales. So all this amendment would do is just add modular structures to our current definition of structures that can be included. It wouldn't it wouldn't preclude any of the other definitions that are in there now. And and it's strictly talking about this permitting authority, not talking about other buildings or other types of arrangements.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: So it's been moved?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay. And it's been seconded. Oh, commercial one. Oh, okay. Is there a second?
Speaker 0: Second?
Speaker 1: We have a second there. Okay. So with that, we have it moved and seconded. So let's go to a vote. Those in favor of the amendment. Vote I in. Raise your hand. I it was opposed. Vote no. Ayes have it. Amendment number eight passes. Is it.
Speaker 9: 7720?
Speaker 1: Let's go to amendment number nine, Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 4: Thank you. This amendment would extend the sunset date by three years. So right now, the it's sunsetting unless we pass what we're aiming to pass today would sunset next month. This would extend it three years. The rationale here is that we've made some amendments to to strengthen the the proposal by adding case management, for example. I'm dismayed that we haven't actually created a tiny home village structure, that this is really a tent encampment expansion instead of tiny home villages as the as the bill was originally advertised. But because we passed the Regional Homelessness Authority, it's important that we allow those experts to come back to us with their five year plan and their evidence based strategies to reduce homelessness. And we we revisit this in three years. Three years is plenty of time for the regional homeless authority to get back to us with their recommendations and their five year plan.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Did you move to.
Speaker 4: And I'd like to move this this is Amendment nine.
Speaker 1: Is there a second?
Speaker 4: Second.
Speaker 1: Any other comments?
Speaker 8: Caspar Herbert I just want to say that I believe that the legislation before us is zoning and permitting legislation. It is not legislation that will be impacted by future decisions of the Regional Homelessness Authority. Decisions about how to support tiny home villages and transitional encampments with our budget might be impacted by those discussions in the future, but not zoning legislation that we had.
Speaker 1: Before us anyway. Councilor Strauss.
Speaker 5: Jones, Member Pro-Tem, thank.
Speaker 2: You for the opportunity to speak and thank you, Councilmember Peterson, for bringing all of these amendments forward. And to all my colleagues, speaking as the land use and Neighborhoods Chair, I do want to remind the body that this is a technical bill regarding our land use code. All of these tiny home villages have a two step process that they must go through to be stood up, and that includes funding and that includes a permitting process. So there is an additional regulatory process that every tiny home village will have or interim encampment or safe lot or any of these programs that we have discussed to go forward in that it is in the in our best interest in to align ourselves with the CPA analysis that has already occurred to not support this amendment and to use the maximum capacity that we have and to move the bill forward as the procedural.
Speaker 5: Bill that it is.
Speaker 1: So you're voting no? That's correct. Okay. And it's because you believe that it would be duplicative of what your committees are already doing.
Speaker 2: This is in accordance with the CPA analysis that was that was done even before the new.
Speaker 5: Council came to the came to the dais.
Speaker 1: Okay. Got it.
Speaker 4: Their response?
Speaker 1: Go ahead, Casperson.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilmember Strauss. I just want to go on the record to say when when there is a determination about CPA. That is that's very important for us to get that input. It's required to get that input. But that doesn't remove our policy decision as policymakers on on whether to proceed with a particular proposal. And again, this amendment would give us three years of runway to allow this ordinance to take root and to blossom, and then to take the input from the Regional Homelessness Authority, which will be coming to us with a five year plan that will include the entire menu of evidence based strategies.
Speaker 1: All right. All right. We have a motion in front of us and it's been seconded. And so now we're going to move to a vote. And this. I'm sorry. Oh, go ahead. Councilors one.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Presenter Adam. Whereas I will just add to the comments that have already been made by Councilmember Herbold and Strouse that. DANIELS Well, I just again, you know, just as a reminder of a proven track record of success and should not be forced to fight for their very existence every few years, that is the whole point of the what we're doing here, this exercise here. And I'd also say this is a thought exercise. Imagine if big business was treated that way. Imagine if corporate developers were told that they could get a master use permit only until 2023 if such a thing doesn't happen. But just think about it. Think about all the hoops they'd be forced nonprofit homeless service providers to jump through to provide the modicum of services for our most vulnerable neighbors.
Speaker 1: All right, we ready for a vote? Okay. So we have in front of us the amendment. And so those in favor of the amendment vote. And raise your hand. I think those opposed.
Speaker 0: No, no, no.
Speaker 1: That fails. All right. So we have gone through nine amendments. I want to thank all of my colleagues for all their conscientious comments, concerns. I know this has been a lot of work. I apologize for not being here the last two Mondays as president pro tem. I was out of town and particularly to Councilwoman Mosquito, who took my place for me. But I'm here today, so we're going to move forward on the final vote, vote on the bill as amended. So I believe before we go, that councilors who want wanted to make some comments before the final vote. Is that correct? All right. And then if there's anyone else. And then we will vote. Customers want you on the floor.
Speaker 7: Thank you. So I just want it to be harder to say. I start by saying there is no reason why a city like Seattle, it is one of the wealthiest cities in the history of humanity. Why a city like Seattle should be home to any homelessness, let alone the amount of homelessness that we see. This is a city that is home to so many millionaires and even billionaires, and still we have not succeeded in ending homelessness. In fact, the skyrocketing rents have created a pipeline into new homelessness. And to be sure, even after the passage of this bill, which I hope it passes in its current form, we will need to tax big business to fund a massive expansion in investments in publicly owned or controlled social housing. We will need rent control. We will need to shore up renters rights as a whole. We will need to make sure that middle class property owners, working people and small business owners are not facing the brunt of the funding, though addressing the crisis. But today, this will be an important victory for our movement to stand with our homeless neighbors and to make sure that we take steps toward making this a humane city. Reno dining houses are not a replacement for actual housing, but while homelessness exists, there is no reason why people should be left on the streets. There should be a tiny house available for anyone who has nowhere better to go to. While not an alternative to affordable housing. It is a powerful way to make homelessness less harmful and has been proven to help Hamlet homeless people get back on their feet. Passing this legislation will be a real triumph for homeless activists and advocates who have fought for years to establish their first encampments and then tiny house villages. It is really important to remember the history of this struggle because homeless people and their advocates and their house neighbors had to fight for it and they had to be united to fight for it. GAM second chance was first to be created when activists took bolt cutters to the chain lock blocking access to the unused mayor's red parcel.
Speaker 0: And set up an.
Speaker 7: Encampment. It's important to remember this history. They were threatened with a sweep and we had to organize to stop the then mayor from kicking them out at that early stage. Similarly, Sherrill and Nichols will have occupied city, county and state land to set up unpermitted encampments until they won permits. Over the last year, both the Georgetown and North Lake tiny house villages have been threatened with losing their permits, and North Lake is currently under threat. Our People's Budget Movement one the first funding for encampments in 2014. And I want to do again in terms of remembering ten councilmembers at that time, councilmembers Liccardo and O'Brien and also Councilmember Herbold, who worked and got some really good offers at that time to help win that funding and then when increases to that funding in subsequent years. Imagine what tiny house villages could accomplish if they were really supported by the by City Hall rather than having to fight constantly for their right to exist. Today we are passing this legislation to massively expand opportunities to build tiny house villages. But tomorrow we will have to fight for their funding in the budget. I don't mean literally tomorrow, but this year to make this expansion.
Speaker 0: To all.
Speaker 7: The homeless people who have fought for and won tiniest villages. Today's victory belongs to you because of your dedication and courage. And I also want to thank the churches and all the faith leaders of different faiths who have not only hosted dining halls, but they just are currently hosting. But I've spoken in favor of the dining halls, villages, the neighbors, the house, neighbors of the villagers who have shown that the majority of Seattle does not buy into the safe Seattle rhetoric, and that we care about our homeless neighbors deeply and that we care about ending homelessness. And I want to thank Chair Rachel Nichols. Well, Lee I Women in Black. Thank you for all your organizing. The history of the struggle of tiny houses in Seattle has shown that when we fight, we can win. And I thank members who voted against some of the worst amendments keeping this bill as it goes out strong.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I'm good. Oh, you good? Yeah. So before we go to a vote, I just briefly want to thank the public for coming here today and providing public comment. Believe it or not, we actually listen and appreciate we see some of the same faces and it means a lot. Some of us up here have experienced homelessness and we do know what that feels like, including myself. I think at the end of the day, though, all of us want to do one thing with you and all of us in this city is that we continue to make a commitment to be connected to each other's humanity, because at the end of the day, we do care about sheltering the unsheltered, and again, it's how we get there. So with that, I'm going to go and now that we've had in front of us, please call the roll on the passage of the bill as amended.
Speaker 5: Strauss, I.
Speaker 3: Herbold.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 4: Lewis Hi.
Speaker 3: Morales.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 4: Peterson No.
Speaker 3: So aren't.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 3: President Whereas.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Six in favor one.
Speaker 0: Opposed this.
Speaker 1: Okay. So.
Speaker 6: Okay. Hold on. Okay. Okay. Hey. Right now.
Speaker 1: And with that, the bill passes as amended, and the chair will sign it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1: So moving along in our agenda, we're going to go to the Public Safety Human Services Committee. The report, please read those items, three and four, both appointments into the record. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; providing that transitional encampments for homeless individuals are allowed on any property owned or controlled by a religious organization without approval of a permit under the Seattle Land Use Code, to permit transitional encampments for homeless individuals as an interim use on all publicly owned or private property within the City of Seattle, and providing for renewal of temporary use permits for transitional encampments as a Type I decision of the Director of the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections; amending Sections 23.40.002, 23.42.054, 23.42.056, 23.76.004, 23.76.006, 23.76.032, and 23.84A.038 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and amending Ordinance 124747. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02102020_CB 119726 | Speaker 1: Agenda and one to be part of the Sustainability and Renters Rights.
Speaker 4: Committee accountable. 119 726.
Speaker 0: An Ordinance relating to.
Speaker 4: Termination of residents, residential rental tenancies prohibiting eviction in winter months and amending Section 22.20 6.1 60th respect. The committee recommends that the bill passes AMEND with Councilman Russell Morales and Lewis in favor with Councilmember Peterson with abstention.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Madam Clerk. Council colleagues, we have about six amendments that have been proposed to this bill. Council members want this as your bill. Would you like to open with a few comments before we take the amendments?
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. President Mosquito. Last November, the Seattle Renters Commission recommended that council take up this urgent issue. They pointed out that winter evictions are especially cruel and harmful. In 2018, the Seattle Women's Commission and the King County Bar Association jointly issued a study Losing Home the Human Cost of Eviction in Seattle. The study found that nearly 90% of people evicted become homeless, and that people of color were disproportionately, in fact, overwhelmingly were the ones who were evicted. And more specifically, black tenants experienced eviction at a rate 4.5 times what would be expected based on their demographics in Seattle. So it's specifically affecting the most marginalized in our society. Most Seattle tenants are evicted for not paying their rent in, you know, for being short on rent. And in most cases, the study found the evicted tenants owed one month or less in rent. In one case, the tenant was evicted for owing $10. And there was a Seattle Times article, I believe, which showed a tenant being a you know, she fought her eviction, but she was there was an eviction notice for being charged $3 on a rent. You can't make the step up. Eviction also can be a death sentence. The study reviewed 2017 evictions and found that six Seattle tenants died during or right after evictions. Four tenants committed suicide. One died of an accidental overdose a day after being evicted, and one tenant died during the eviction process while receiving hospice care. The study also found that at least nine people who died homeless on the street in 2017 had an eviction filed against them in the three preceding years. And this is happening to so many people. You know, I would urge everybody to read Dan Beckman's excellent article in the Seattle Times that was published over the weekend that shows over a thousand people were evicted in King County in this past year. The data are a brutal indictment of a private housing market that is dominated by corporate landlords who care more about profit than housing people. I recognize that there are good landlords out there, families who own a small number of rental units, or sometimes just one unit who care about their tenants, who make timely repairs, who don't try to get away with charging the highest possible rents, and who don't exploit their Dennis. But those landlords aren't why we are considering a moratorium on renter evictions tonight. They are not the problem. The Renters Commission pointed out in their letter last fall, and I want to just quote from the letter. During winter in Seattle, temperatures regularly fall into the thirties overnight. And according to all home King County's count, does it count? As in a report for 2019, 41% of homeless neighbors sleep outside every night with an additional 19% sleeping in vehicles. Neither of these situations provide much protection from the elements, and both can be deadly. And they have more statistics on how being outside and unsheltered in the winter is a contributor to that. Obviously, you can't fully isolate what the immediate causes of that work. So I really thank the members of the Seattle Renters Commission for demonstrating leadership on this issue and also wanted to point out. One of the members of the Renters Commission, Devon Southern Neil, is now a staff member at NAMI Council Member Darin Morales's office. I wanted to commend his work and work of Seattle as well. I also want to thank Ali Banerjee from City Council Central Staff and also the City Attorney's Office for fully engaging and developing on this issue and developing the work that we need it. And a city attorney's office for developing the precedent setting legislation. Just to give a timeline of where we came here. The bill was recommended by the Renters Commission in early November and December. My office introduced the first draft. We discussed it thoroughly and the Sustainability and Renters Rights Committee on January 23rd. And there the the bill that got voted out of committee was an amended version of the previous version, which took into account many concerns that we had heard in a very thorough manner. And and it was supposed to be voted on February 3rd, but the vote was delayed by the council holding it today. So I hope we are able to vote today. Just one point I wanted to make in general on the amendment and on the specific amendments, I'll speak when they are moved. I am very disappointed to see that many of the amendments that councilmembers are bringing forward will actually, if passed, if these amendments passed, will make it more difficult and more restrictive for renters to be protected by this winter eviction ban. The exception is Councilmember Lewis's amendment, which I support and was already ready last week. And I and I wanted to point out that it is shocking to see how elected officials demand and less data and justification for even the smallest measure to benefit for our working class people. But really that our programs are pushed forward, policies that are pushed forward with no data at all. And in fact, like the sweeps of homeless people, unless data to show that they don't work. And yet the city continues to spend $8 million every year on that. So I you know, I welcome the support of my colleagues on the bill as a whole. But I'm disappointed that the amendments that are coming forward are, I don't think will help other people who are facing evictions. But I'll wait for the amendments.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Swan, as sponsor of the bill, we appreciate you moving this forward. I also want to underscore my appreciation for the council colleagues, ongoing conversations with your office and central staff to come up with various amendments, though, because I think it is important that the bill move forward. This is a really good vehicle for us to build upon. So if amendments do hang, I think that there is always work to do as with any piece of legislation. But I just want to commend you for bringing this forward and our council colleagues who've I think finessed some ways to make sure that this is going to be implementable, meaningful and always the first step to continue to get worked on. I would also like to say for folks in the press, I know if you're used to going to the halls of the state capitol, they have a press table there. We haven't had that as a common practice here, but you're welcome to use the table here if you need to. Here's your laptop or if you need to come behind the diocese. You're welcome to do that, too. So for the security folks here, if there's any press that need a place for their laptop, they're welcome to have that. We now have six amendments and we'll take them in the order as they appear on the agenda. And amendment number one, council members. Would you like to speak to this amendment?
Speaker 2: Yes, I, i of course. I guess I should move amendment one.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. No, no. Can I double check? Do I need to move the bill or are we good? Okay, great. Great. Go ahead and move it and I'll second it.
Speaker 2: I move Amendment.
Speaker 0: One, I second it.
Speaker 2: Thank you. This amendment is a technical amendment. It does not make any substantive changes. It adds a just cause to permissible evictions that is identical to one already included in this legislation that regards a time when a landlord is legally required to evict someone and is responsible for relocation assistant and this assistance and this amendment adds a clarifying whereas clause and provides clarifying language of the moratorium on window evictions is a defense and eviction court. This was already the case, but the language just makes it more clear.
Speaker 0: Are there any other questions or comments on amendment number one as outlined by Councilmember Swanson? Since none I it has been moved and seconded that the bill be amended with amendment number one seeing no additional comments. All those in favor of Amendment one vote I and raise your hand I any opposed? None. Madam Clerk, it appears that there are seven votes in favor of Amendment One. It will be included in the underlying bill. The Second Amendment is from Councilmember Lewis. Councilmember Lewis, would you like to move your amendment?
Speaker 6: Yes, I do. So move my amendment.
Speaker 0: Second, Councilmember Lewis, would you like to speak to your amendment?
Speaker 6: Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. So when we discussed this ordinance in committee, one of my takeaways from it, or one of the most salient criticisms I think of the ordinance, was that there wasn't a mechanism put in. Place to compensate landlords in the event that there was an economic eviction, that that potentially put especially small landlords in a position where they would have to face their own hardship, especially households that are dependent on their income that they make as a landlord. A lot of the comments we heard at public comment today address that very same concern of a lot of landlords in our community where their primary source of income is renting a small number of units. So under this amendment, we would establish a a mitigation fund. It would only be accessible to folks who establish this defense. And I think it is important that when we talk about this moratorium, we're really talking about a defense and an eviction proceeding as the way it's applied in the case that a tenant facing eviction is able to establish this defense. This would then exist as a fund that could be accessed by the tenant in order to pay rent or access additional rental assistance. So it would not. The reason I raise that is this is not a fund that would take from existing rental support funds. This the vision of this is that we would fund, hopefully, in this fall's budget, an additional rental support fund that would apply in the event that a tenant was not able to receive assistance through existing funds. I did have central staff come up with some initial ballpark estimates on how much a fund like this prospectively would cost . The cost varies depending. The cost estimate varies depending on how many months. This legislation today ultimately will cover in the event of five months, it would be $1.6 million. In the event of three months, it would be about half a million dollars in financial assistance. This estimate is based on the current number of evictions for the from the Losing Home report in 2017, based on an estimate for the winter period that evictions minus the number of people who received home based assistance. And then that comes up with a number of an estimated about 169 folks in a given winter that could potentially face eviction in in the winter months. So I think it's a doable number to fund a mitigation fund like this. I think it gets at the core concerns of a lot of the landlords, particularly small landlords, who are in a position where they feel like this eviction moratorium would cause them severe hardship, a hardship in being able to provide in the event that someone is in a position where they can't pay their rent. We do know that it's all too common in this country right now where a overwhelming number of Americans are within complete homelessness or bankruptcy for an unanticipated $500 expense. And so a fund like this can provide much needed assistance. And I hope to revisit this in the fall when we are looking at budget priorities. And for the time being, I would ask that we move this amendment and incorporate it into the ordinance.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Lewis. Any additional comments or questions? Comments? Cosmopolitan then. Councilmember one.
Speaker 2: Thank you. President Mosquito. I support this amendment which, as Councilmember Lewis said, sets up the framework for a mitigation fund to help tenants facing eviction pay, overdue rent and avoid the eviction altogether. And as noted, there are already some funds, most notably the home based program that is operated by the Housing Justice Project and the United Way . And I support increasing funding to those programs. I just wanted to point out how much the mayor's office has opposed this legislation. And in addition to the previous letters that they have sent and memos they've sent, they just a few minutes before this meeting started, they sent us another letter opposing this legislation. And and one of the things that they've attempted to do is to counter oppose the window evictions, moratorium against mitigation funding and other rental assistance. I just wanted to clarify that they're both necessary and they both work together, work well together. And so it's good to have this amendment. And just to echo what was just said. This amendment creates the framework for mitigation funding. But to make those funds a reality, we will need to push for resources in the budget in November.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I just have a question about the mitigation fund and how it it interacts with the effective date of this legislation. As I understand it, this legislation as currently drafted, the effective date would be about ten days before April. And because I am I am truly concerned about the impact of this legislation on small landlords. I'm wondering, is there concerns that. The mitigation, either this mitigation fund or the the capacity of current rental assistance funds will be able to meet the need for those those ten days before this goes into effect. Do we have information about that?
Speaker 3: So thank.
Speaker 6: You. Councilmember Herbold, my understanding from talking to central staff and and executive departments is that we will not be in a position this winter to offer resources through this fund, that this fund we're really this is really a forward looking resource to next winter. So when when this whatever window we decide on, we are considering an amendment later to determine what the window would be. There wouldn't be resources on this until we go through another budget cycle.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Swan Homebase currently has funds though. I mean, this is additional.
Speaker 6: Right. Right. But this particular fund I was saying. But but that's not.
Speaker 1: Because there aren't existing.
Speaker 2: Just in response to the concern that was raised, I'm saying.
Speaker 4: It's my understanding that as it relates to how this this legislation would be implemented, the home funds, the ability to access those funds is is very different because of the timing of of how this how a tenant would assert a defense under just cause. And it's my understanding that they would not be eligible for the home based funds. But I might be wrong. Just shake your head or nod your head. They are eligible. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Seeing any additional comments or questions? Seeing none. I also want to underscore my support for this. Thank you, Councilmember Lewis, for working with our office as well on this amendment. Given the existing tenant support models such as Home Base Fund and we know that they have a proven track record of being successful, improving fund and providing funding for tenants to avoid eviction. I think this makes a lot of sense. And in cases where tenants may not qualify for the support, this amendment creates the fund to meet those needs. So it's, I think, a common sense amendment and really was echoed, I think, by the testimony today. And it also came from some of the calls that we've received in our office. And I appreciate you advancing this. The intent is to create this really as an upstream tool to support tenants and avoid evictions in the first place and to address any concern about impacts to the affordable housing providers, many of which are non-profits, which somebody else testified on earlier today. So I'll also be supporting this amendment with that. All of those in favor of amendment to please note I and raise your hand. I i any the opposition and the oppose none. Wonderful. The amendment passes with seven votes and will be included in the underlying bill. Amendment three. Councilmember Peterson, would you like to speak to this amendment?
Speaker 6: Thank you. Thanks, everyone, for coming out today and the people who were watching at home. I appreciate the desire to address this troubling situation with evictions, and I'm happy the state legislature has made progress on this issue. The city council passed. City councils have made progress on this issue. I appreciate hearing from one of the tenants who was evicted in the winter, Alicia, who had the courage to come and speak to Councilmember Silence Committee. I've received many calls and we've received many emails on this legislation, and I've considered the various viewpoints and perspectives. And I'm. This amendment is to exempt small landlords, those who own four or fewer units. We've heard a lot from small landlords since the legislation was introduced, both phone and email. They they were not invited to our committee table, which was disappointing, I think when we're advancing a piece of legislation that's ever been tried before. I think it's valuable to hear from all the stakeholders. We we would learn things from that. And that's the amendment I think is important to exempt them because they do face economic hardships as well in terms of being able to provide those units to the housing market. They do have a mortgage. They do have utility bills, insurance, property taxes. And five months is a long time if they were not able to collect those. So I would encourage my colleagues to consider this this amendment. I think that it's important that we recognize the we well, we'll be able to talk more to the legislation again as a whole, but happy to answer questions about this amendment.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Peterson. Any comments or questions on the amendment? Okay. And would you like to move the amendment?
Speaker 6: Yes, I'd like to move.
Speaker 0: The amendment back in has been moved on second. And are there any additional comments councilmembers want?
Speaker 2: This is unfortunately an example.
Speaker 1: Of.
Speaker 2: A politician proposing a policy to benefit those who already have more than most at the expense of poor and working class people with really no data or evidence to support it. Now I want to talk about the amendment and explain why I oppose it. But just very quickly, because a comment was made on the structure of the committee table. This is a committee chair. I chaired the Sustainability and Renters Rights Committee, and Councilmember Peterson is claiming that small landlords were not invited to the table. First of all, just to be clear. Most of the small landlords we've spoken to, including the ones who oppose this legislation, say they've never evicted any of their tenants. So there's a whole bunch of what if kind of fears that they have, which are understandable, on the other hand, but also on the other hand, are not the basis for policymaking. In my view. What ifs are not the basis for policymaking. Hard core data, which are so overwhelmingly showing that the most vulnerable are the ones being damaged by not having strong laws against eviction. That's the basis for policymaking. And the the people we had at the table were the tenants union of Washington State and the most impacted, including Alicia, who you quoted, who was evicted in the winter and her as a consequence of the eviction. Her. Her life took a dramatically devastating turn where she lost family members. So I don't apologize for the structure of the committee table. I'm proud that it is one of the committee tables where people who never have an opening in city hall are invited. And we will continue to do that. We have we have hard data of thousands of people who are being evicted. And, as I said, a totally hypothetical specter of an imaginary landlord who only owns four rental homes and is on the verge of winter bankruptcy. I just it's hard for me to fathom that if you own four units, how are you on the verge of bankruptcy? I don't understand. I mean, you know, really, I mean, it's possible, but really, what are the statistics there? My office met with small landlords. It's not like we haven't met with them who testified about their concerns about this legislation in the committee meeting. And as I said, none of them had ever evicted their tenants. We were unable to come to agree on the policy, but I do appreciate their time and willingness to discuss it. But the point remains, the small landlord that this amendment is intended to help is entirely hypothetical. But the tenants whose lives are being destroyed and for whom this amendment would not help. That's very real. Those tenants are very real. The biggest problem, though, with this amendment is the impact it would have on the renters who are unfortunately renting with the worst slumlords in our city. Slumlords overwhelmingly divide up their rental properties into different LLC used to hide their common ownership. So while this amendment technically says that different LLC is owned by the same person would still count as a large landlord, the practical reality is that it's almost impossible for renters to know what other properties their landlord owns. Do any of you who are renters know what other properties your landlord owns and do you have the resources to go and find out? I'll tell you something. My office, with all the resources we have from being in City Hall, we attempted to track down all the properties owned by some of those large slumlords who are we know are abusing their tenants and found that it is extremely hard and actually impossible to do it without completely devoting your resources. We simply don't have access to that information. So if we don't have access to that information, how is it that renters facing eviction, who are the most marginalized anyway? How their world being turned upside down? How are they supposed to find out all this information? How are they going to know if they're protected by this moratorium or not? In fact, many tenants facing eviction, totally despondent about their power to prevent the eviction, don't even come to eviction court. The attorneys who help those renters in the court will tell you that they end up helping a fraction of the renters because most renters don't come to court. So in reality, this amendment will end up meaning whether it's intended as such or not, that they absolutely were slumlords in Seattle who were actually evicting people would effectively be exempted from the legislation in the name of protecting good small landlords, and therefore I will not support this amendment.
Speaker 0: Any other comments or questions? Additional comments or questions. Okay. So, colleagues, I appreciate this and thank you for calling out the intent or versus not intent, because the last council meeting we talked about in wanting to make sure we didn't impugn the motives of anyone. Appreciate that distinction. I see you reach for the microphone because I remember.
Speaker 4: I was just going to say that I really appreciate the the intent of this amendment. I just don't see how it can be implemented, given that it is it is a virtual unknown which landlords own fewer than than four units. So I appreciate the attempt to exempt small landlords. And regretful that we don't have more time to work.
Speaker 1: Out that that part of the policy.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. Any additional comments? Okay. So then I'm going to go Ken Crawford, but unless you'd like to.
Speaker 6: Address the concerns. So. Are you? Is there a concern that the landlords might register under a limited liability company or a limited partnership because that data is available from the Washington Secretary of state?
Speaker 2: Are you really saying that the most vulnerable tenants are going to go into a Washington Secretary of State website and look at.
Speaker 0: The let's not debate up here, but if there is a question, do you have a response to that, where the data is specific to that question?
Speaker 1: Okay. Look at me or both of you. Okay.
Speaker 0: No problem.
Speaker 2: I already said that my office tried to compile such data. It is virtually impossible to do it with all the resources we have. I don't know what more evidence you need to show that. For the most vulnerable tenant, this is this is basically an impossible task you're putting on them.
Speaker 0: Okay. Any additional comments? Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 1: Well, I will just say that the.
Speaker 2: Work that.
Speaker 7: We did shows that the of the.
Speaker 1: Buildings that are registered.
Speaker 2: To almost 29,000.
Speaker 7: Buildings.
Speaker 2: Are registered with four units or.
Speaker 1: Less.
Speaker 2: Which means that this would exclude.
Speaker 1: 87% of the renters in the city.
Speaker 7: So I do think that that's that's a significant impact on what this legislation is trying to achieve.
Speaker 1: So, you know, and we know.
Speaker 2: We've heard most of our small landlords.
Speaker 1: Do try to work with.
Speaker 2: Tenants to prevent eviction.
Speaker 1: Do offer.
Speaker 2: Some kind of assistance.
Speaker 1: Or extension.
Speaker 2: We now have a mitigation fund that has been put in.
Speaker 1: Place to try to make sure that landlords are not affected.
Speaker 7: By this.
Speaker 1: But as we've said, those landlords aren't the problem. The problem are the landlords who do take things too far and are willing to push people out. So I think that it's.
Speaker 7: Important that we consider the scope.
Speaker 1: Or the, you know, how this particular amendment would really limit the scope of what we're trying to do here. So this is not something that I could in good conscience support.
Speaker 0: Councilmember, I appreciate you bringing this forward. I, too, have heard some concerns. Initially, I was intending to support this amendment because similar to sort of the argument that was made around some of our labor standards, we never really expect our employers to know how many franchises they have. And so that argument was sort of used in a similar way, but different here. And we continue to pass labor standards, given the statistic that Councilmember Morales just shared. I'm sorry, I didn't have a chance to check in with you before that. I unfortunately will be voting no on this. But I appreciate where you're coming from with this. And if I'm happy to keep working with you as we think about future amendments, if that sounds good to you and future legislation.
Speaker 6: We have central staff available to answer you.
Speaker 0: No central staff is available to answer questions. Ideally, this couldn't be done in the committee, but what we could do is hold this amendment if that works and we could come back and have central staff answer some questions.
Speaker 2: Well, I as a sponsor of the bill, I would prefer that the bill is voted on today, because.
Speaker 0: I'm not mentioning holding it off today. I'm just mentioning it till the end of our amendments, and then we can come back to it and have that question answered. Okay. I see. Central staff. Come on in. Welcome, Ali. And Ali, if you don't mind introducing yourself for the record. Welcome.
Speaker 1: Good afternoon. Council members. I was running down the hall, so I may have missed the question.
Speaker 6: So thank you. Thank you, Ali. So I appreciate that. It's helpful to have these statistics. I just wanted to understand, when a committee I thought I thought you had mentioned a number in the range of 200,000 or so rental units. Just trying to get the scope of those that are four and under. Or do we have those? If we don't have those readily available, that's fine too.
Speaker 1: So it is a somewhat of I think we're not necessarily comparing apples and apples here. The rental registration inspection ordinance, I'm not sure if the numbers you were quoting, Councilman Morales, is the type of structure. So if it's a unit, we have units that are in detached buildings, units that are duplexes, triplexes complexes and units that are in multi-family buildings, not necessarily all owned by the same people. So what your amendment would do would exclude units that are owned by a landlord who owns more than excuse me, like the only owns four units or less. Those could all be in one unit, so the four plex could be excluded if the same owner all owned all four. But it could be four units spread across four single family homes, four multifamily buildings where they own condos or that sort of thing. So it's hard to know exactly the universe of units we're talking about exempting here. Yeah, and I'll just clarify that. What I was referring to is data offered by SDI.
Speaker 2: That we have, that this would exclude 28,882 of.
Speaker 1: 33,000 buildings that are registered through that ordinance. Units of four or more councilmembers. Yeah, and it's not clear because of owner who owns them, it's hard to know if some of those units in smaller buildings are owned by LLC that own 25 units. I'm just not I haven't seen the data you're referring to to know if I can sort that out. But essentially I don't I don't think I don't know that we're comparing apples and apples here.
Speaker 0: That's okay. Thank you for that answer. Councilmember White, did you have one more thing?
Speaker 2: Yeah. I just wanted to say that. Yeah, I was thinking exactly what Ali was saying in terms of the accuracy of the numbers. But I think having that having clarified that, it doesn't change the fact that it is an almost impossible obstacle to overcome for tonnage to know the exact detail of whether their landlord is going to fit this category or not. In in a way, this is kind of a means testing in a sense that, you know, it's sort of it's putting the burden is the same in the sense that it's putting the burden on the of the detrimentally affected party to figure out whether they are eligible for this protection or not. It is best to just make the protection available across the board. And I'll tell you something, the experience of not just tenants, but also small business owners with whom we've been talking a lot, who are also facing rent gouging from their landlords, is that sometimes when they are even and this is, I'm quoting, a small business owner , they were being gouged by a landlord in Columbia City, and they started looking for spaces all around the city. And they found that so many of the properties are actually effectively owned by the same exploitative landlord, and they're all spread out. So I don't know how we can put this burden on on tenants and the most vulnerable tenants. And really there's a racial component to this also because black families and black children are the most impacted.
Speaker 0: Any other comments or questions? Okay, Council colleagues. I think that we have heard a number of concerns about this. I am interested in getting the actual data. I'm sorry that that was sprung on you, Ali. And we appreciate you running down the hall. I think that there is a rational argument for excluding small landlords, and I wish that I had that that actual number in front of us. I also think that there's a reason that we have excluded small businesses in the past when it came to some of the labor standards, and we didn't make that distinction for workers. So today I'm going to support Councilmember Peterson in looking at the smaller businesses, and we'll see how it goes and continue to advance the conversation today. So all of those in favor of including Councilmember Peterson's amendment, please say I and raise your hand. I opposed.
Speaker 1: No, no.
Speaker 0: Okay. So it's 4 to 3. Okay. And we can continue with the amendments.
Speaker 2: Councilmember just in terms of process, I'm not sure what you mean by continue with the amendment. You already voted for the amendment. What what does that actually mean?
Speaker 1: And there's three.
Speaker 0: More amendments to come.
Speaker 2: No, no, I mean, on that amendment, you said that you. We will continue the conversation on that.
Speaker 0: What the continue the conversation about the amendments to.
Speaker 2: The rest of.
Speaker 0: The year having voted on the prevailing side. There is the chance before the end of today to go back and take a look at that. I'm not sure, Ali, if that did exist. You're looking at me like a dozen, but I do. I would be concerned if it was 80 something percent and if there was a chance for us to go through this and come back. I'm happy to do that. But I would like for us to take a quick second if you have any feedback on that before we move the committee. Before we move the amendment forward.
Speaker 1: I can I can I can try to see if I can get SDI on the phone to understand that data more precisely. But I think because the way this amendment is drafted, it includes if you are the owner or you have an ownership interest in in any unit. And so I don't know that we would be able to tell by looking at the rental registration and inspection ordinance data who has an ownership interest in all of the fees that are included. And so so it is difficult. So essentially, just like the way the ordinance itself, the main the main purpose of the ordinance presents provides a defense eviction proceedings. It would a landlord would have to claim that they own less than four or less than five units, fewer than five units, and that therefore this defense shouldn't apply in that situation. And then if they were lying, they would be lying in front of a court. I mean, I'm not obviously this is an oversimplification of how these court proceedings would work, but I don't know that I will be able to in the next 10 minutes. What I can instead offer is that, as was mentioned previously, this bill will go into effect, assuming it is signed within ten days by the mayor and goes into effect 30 days after, that will really only be relevant for a short period of time. So what I can do is work on trying to figure out what data we have and is available and if necessary. The Council could revisit this prior to next November or whenever the period starts, because I just I don't know if I'm going to be able to give you a satisfying answer in the next however long this meeting last. Okay. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Council President Pro Tem Council President Parker.
Speaker 0: I said, Madam Chair, to the question about this item being included in the bill, let's go through the other amendments and let me see what we can get from as DCI. And then having voted on the prevailing side, there may be a chance for us to come back to this. Okay. So moving forward, I'd like to ask Councilmember Herbold, it looks like you have an amendment. Amendment number four. Would you like to move your amendment?
Speaker 4: I would like to move amendment forward, please.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember, could you please speak to your amendment?
Speaker 4: Did I have a second? Thank you. Perfect. So this is amending a previous language that was added to the bill. Currently, a reason for termination that is exempt from the bill includes unlawful behavior, and this amendment would expand unlawful behavior to a particular type of lease violation that specifically impacts the health or safety of other tenants or the owner. This has been brought forward because of concerns from folks who operate nonprofit housing, specifically through conversations I've had with the Associate Director of the Archdiocesan Housing Authority through six Catholic Community Services. And again, it's a it's a very narrow exemption, not for any rule violation, but specifically rule violations that have a negative impact on the health or safety of other tenants or the owner.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. Are there any other comments or questions? Council members.
Speaker 6: Well, this is still procedural, right?
Speaker 0: This is just amendment. I'm sorry. This is on the amendment number four. And if you have questions for her amendment specifically.
Speaker 6: Oh, no, but I would like to speak in favor of it.
Speaker 0: Okay. Please go ahead, Councilman Lewis.
Speaker 6: Yeah. So, you know, I think that this amendment and I appreciate Councilmember Herbold bringing it forward also goes a long way to strengthening our case in the event that we do have a legal challenge related to this ordinance. I think anything that we can incorporate into it that gives more flexibility is more cognizant of existing rules. And existing things that make this look more reasonable in court does bode well for the legislation as a whole and having it survive that challenge. I think this is a very reasonable addition to make sure that that we're not putting landlords in a position where there is some ongoing activity affecting the health and safety of the building, but they are unable to, for a period of several months, enforce an eviction. So I do support this amendment and hope to see it pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Lewis, any additional comments or questions? Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So I.
Speaker 7: Just want to make sure I understand my my concern with this is that these kinds of notices.
Speaker 1: Can be used for retaliation, for retaliatory purposes, for discrimination. And there is.
Speaker 2: Already.
Speaker 7: You know, with the just cause.
Speaker 1: Laws that we've had, there's there's already a concern that these kinds of leases, these kinds of tools are being used against tenants. And I keep coming back to the fact that the folks who are here.
Speaker 7: Have said themselves like this.
Speaker 2: Mostly doesn't.
Speaker 1: Apply because you try to work with your tenants. And small landlords are really trying hard to make sure that their tenants are able to stay and work out the situation that you have. So, you know, I question how well we could.
Speaker 7: Enforce something that's this broad.
Speaker 1: And I feel like the legislation that we have already includes criminal activity as a reason that folks can definitely be evicted. So I'm I'm I'm concerned about this amendment and I don't think I will be supporting it.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. Well, it's Councilmember Silent and then Councilmember Herb, or do you want to respond? Yes.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I want to just highlight that this language establishes what the legal bar is. It's specifically an imminent threat to the health or safety of other tenants in the rental belt and substantial detrimental impact. So this would be something that would have to be proven in court in order to be held up against a tenant's attempt to use the moratorium. And so a landlord would actually have to demonstrate that it's both a substantial threat and that the danger is imminent. And again, this is this is these aren't just random words. They're words that are established in case law. And that, I think, bound really well the expectations we have for protecting the safety of other tenants. And again, I just want to say that this request has come.
Speaker 1: From a.
Speaker 4: Provider of low income housing, one of our nonprofit partners. This specific request for this language, and it does not in any way expand or extend the existing just cause eviction language.
Speaker 0: Councilmember one.
Speaker 2: Thank you, President Mosquito. I also appreciate the intent of this amendment, but I have similar concerns as to what Councilmember Morales expressed in committee. We amended the legislation to make an exception, as you were saying, go to the mimosa exception for criminal activity. If neighbors or building owners are being put in danger, if someone is cooking meth in their apartment or shooting guns. I mean, you know, obviously something that we would all agree is extremely dangerous. And there is an exception already in the legislation. And it is written in a way that is relatively objective, citing what counts as criminal. I understand that the phrase substantial, substantial detrimental impact may have caselaw background, but I still don't I still don't think that it really is necessary in terms of the fact that we have already put in protections in place to make sure that if there is any such imminent danger that it will be covered already and that the eviction will go through, a landlord who wants to evict the tenant will use whatever tool is available to them. But the problem is that, again, the tenants who are supposed to respond to an eviction order. Oh, how others want to how are they? Are they supposed to respond to claims that the tenant is having a substantial detrimental impact by attracting vermin with unclean habits or by hanging out with bad people? And these are what I'm using these words not as hyperbole, because this is what some tenants, you know, be here, tenants being evicted because they're accused that they attracted vermin and they're not they have no way to prove that they didn't or hanging out with bad people. How do you you know, how do you decide that and all? And, you know, in a fair world that could be arbitrated in eviction court, but overwhelmingly election court rules in a tenant absence or if the tenant is there, then it's still a extreme power imbalance. And I feel like this is does not express the just cause that we have modeled this after. So and I'll be voting no on this amendment.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. Any additional comments or questions on amendment number four from Councilmember Herbal? None. All of those in favor of voting to include amendment number four. Please raise your hand and vote I. I opposed. No, no, no. Okay. The amendment will be included. And amendment number five. Councilmember Strauss. Would you like to speak to your amendment and move it?
Speaker 3: Yes. Thank you. Council President Pro Tem. My amendment number five narrows the no eviction period. And I would like to move this amendment at this time.
Speaker 0: Second.
Speaker 1: Would you speak to it?
Speaker 3: Yes. Thank you very much. This amendment would reduce the period in which eviction defense applies to three month period of December through February. These are the three months that when temperatures are the coldest. And I believe that the three months is a more feasible length of time for this defense to apply because, again, as we've heard, this bill will not prevent evictions from occurring. It will it is more so used as a defense for the eviction, as we've heard from the many small landlords who have come to testify and who have called, they are not the ones that are oftentimes most often evicting people, because the small landlords that I've had are always very willing to pick up the phone, have a conversation and work with me. So again, this three month window is more feasible time for the eviction defense to apply rather than for half the year. And this three month period also aligns with the recent changes in state law that allows a judge the discretion to require a 90 day payment plan before an eviction is issued. And so that for those reasons and that December through February through March, is are the coldest months of the year. And this is a winter evictions Bill. And those are the winter months of the year. That's why I moved this amendment.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Strauss. Any additional comments or questions? Cosmo, so on.
Speaker 2: So this this bill would reduce the number of months of eviction moratorium from five months to three months. And right now, keeping in mind, there's no winter eviction protection at all. So if all that we're able to do is ban winter evictions for the three holders and by those months of the year, that would still be a huge victory and tenants rights. However, we worked with central staff. My office worked with central staff to look at average monthly rainfall and average monthly cold temperatures. And the data shows, again, you know, for a council that says that they want to be data driven, the data shows that the cold and wet months stretch from November to March. And also, if you're living in Seattle, do you really need data to tell you that the cold and wet months to march? I also would like to point out that, Alisha, weren't you evicted on Halloween or just after Halloween? So, you know, so if we reduce this to three months, Alicia and people like her were evicted in early November, one would not be covered by this. So I'm not sure what the logic is. If we're going to do it, why don't we do it right and cover it for the whole winter? There's no logic behind it other than pandering to landlords, the landlord lobby. And so I, I really think at the end of the day it comes down to, as you've seen through all the amendments going down, comes down to who politicians think they they need to support, they need to stand for the most vulnerable are the people who have everything and all the powers. I will be voting no on this amendment.
Speaker 0: Any additional comments? Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 6: So I intend to vote for shortening the window to three months for a couple of reasons. One of the reasons that I mean, speaking for the same reasons that I spoke to Amendment four, the more narrowly tailored that the legislation is, the more likely it is to survive a court challenge. I like that the three month period is lined up to the 90 day mitigation period that was authorized last session under state law. I think that that's a good argument in favor of retaining this in the case of a preemption or takings challenge in state court. I think that it's also important to note that after a year of seeing how a 90 day moratorium operates and how administrative it is, we can entertain extending it to five months. I think that that would be a natural evolution of this policy. And for those reasons, I'm going to vote in favor of the amendment.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Lewis. Any additional comments? Any additional comments? Thing, then all of those in favor of including Councilmember Strauss's amendment. Please raise your hand and vote I on Amendment five. I opposed no. Okay. The amendment does hang. Council Member Strauss, you have one additional amendment. He's made.
Speaker 3: That threat. Thank you. Council President Pro Tem. I think with the number of amendments in the substantive nature of each amendment, it demonstrates the need for further work to have occurred in committee. And so I raised that for the table today. Amendment number six I would like to move which moderate limits this eviction winter eviction prohibition to moderate income households.
Speaker 0: It's been moved in second and. Councilmember Strauss, would you like to comment on your amendment in more detail?
Speaker 3: Yes, thank you. As a renter, I have a very solid understanding of what making rent looks like every month and what transitioning between units looks like and in what the economics are. My amendment number six will allow the eviction defense to be used by only moderate income households as defined by 100% of the area median income or less 100% area median income is $76,000 for an individual or $108,600 for a family of four. Data on rent burdened households supports this 100% area. Median income threshold. Nearly half 49.1% of households at 50 to 80% AMI are rent burdened. 28.5% of households at 80 to 100% area median income are rent burdened. Only 4.8% of households over 100% area median income are rent burdened. And so this amendment would ensure that households making more than 100% area median income. Well, this amendment doesn't make sure. It is just clear that 100 households making more than 100% area median income are also the least likely to become homeless as a result of an eviction. I think that it is very important to provide protections for tenants who are not at the highest levels of our economic spectrum. And I want to ensure that this bill will not protect people who have the money without the who are high earning, but have not followed up on their their due diligence.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Strauss. Additional comments or questions from the council colleagues.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Customers want please.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I first of all, just on the comment about the readiness of this legislation, I don't agree that the amendments, the slew of amendments demonstrates further work. What it demonstrates is the corporate landlord lobby still has a lot of pull on the council and demonstrates the need to build even more powerful movements. That's what it demonstrates. This is another amendment that will make it far more difficult for renters who need these protections the most to actually use them. The reality I mean, this amendment says that, you know, the rent household is a moderate income household as defined and so on. But the reality is that the renters who are being evicted are very, very low income people as just a quote, the tenants union who are coming to table. They said, as they correctly said, the evictions, the, you know, eviction itself is a means tested process because it's I mean, poor it's poor people who are getting impacted. It's not, in my opinion, go look at the data again if you want to be data driven. Find me another 130,000 earning salary, you know, salary earning person who is evicted, which is what council members make. You know, you make about $230,000. I take home only $40,000, but that's the reality. How many people who make on rent $30,000 are being evicted? It's just it's just it doesn't exist. This, again, this is all imaginary things that are pulled out of the hat and said, Oh, we need to make sure that this doesn't happen. That is not some great wave of well-off people being evicted. It just doesn't happen. And if it did and the court would order the rich person to make up all the unpaid rent for those winter months, you know, that would be a fact. So if this amendment doesn't practically exclude rich renters who are already or well-off renters who are already excluded by their ability to pay rent, then I'm not sure what it actually does. And here's what it actually does. It will what it will do. And this is what means testing does in general. This is not the first means testing example. What means testing really does is it forces poor and working class people to jump through additional hoops to access a protection that was meant for them. Without this amendment, a judge could use this moratorium to avoid the election of someone who failed to show up in court. Like so many desperate people who don't show up in court because they don't think the system is going to work because it doesn't work for them. So even in their apps, if this if this moratorium is a strong one, then even in the absence of tenants, a tenant could be protected from eviction. Imagine how much it would improve people's lives rather than sending them into a downward spiral. With this amendment, how would a judge determine eligibility in a renter's absence? It would be impossible. Means tests like this are well documented to severely limit the number of low income people who take a nap, taking advantage of services that are Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. You know, there's tons of data to show that people don't end up you know, the the pool of people who are eligible is far bigger than the pool of people who actually take advantage of it. These are again, these are also established factors. And this is not my opinion. And in fact, we locally there was an example when I first took office in 2014, we found out that a utility discount program for the Seattle City Light, which is supposed to give you subsidized rates for your electricity. That program has existed for years. But when we came, when we took office, it was very sparsely used. It was only 18% of eligible people were using it. Why? Because it was an opt in program, meaning you had to show proof that you were eligible for it. We pushed the mayor's office at that time and Murray to make it an opt out program with the help of a wonderful staff like Ali and right at City Light. And from the time we made it opt out, you know, the the rate of people actually enrolling in being enrolled in the program automatically because they're already poor has gone up tremendously. To quote L.A. Times business columnist, not a socialist business columnist, Michael Hiltzik Hiltzik. The word means testing, quote, can allow officials to pry into the most private aspects of applicant lives. The process tends to discourage applications, thus serving the goal of making the programs less useful for beneficiaries and quote, again, very systematic. I know Councilmember Chavez presented a proclamation last week which I supported to designate February 7th to be International Class Day. I cannot help but quote from the Clash song Know Your Rights, which says You have the right to food money, providing of course you don't mind a little investigation. Humiliation. This is. This. It's a reality. People, also people. And because of means testing, people who are eligible end up not using the program not only because they don't have the paperwork or they're, you know, they're despondent, but also because they feel humiliated. If they are automatically enrolled in the program, then it's not a question of self-respect. It's a question of your right. And so for that reason, I will oppose this amendment.
Speaker 0: Think. Thank you, Councilmember Swan, Councilmember Strauss and then Councilmember her.
Speaker 3: And thank you for your comments. Councilmember Swan I will also quote from Know Your Rights.
Speaker 0: Oh, here we go, guys.
Speaker 1: Look at that.
Speaker 3: Which is that you have the right to free speech as long as you're not dumb enough to actually try and use it. And so I think that using free speech, it's a it is.
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Ironic, right?
Speaker 3: I absolutely understand that and appreciate everyone's coming to council today to use their right to free speech. And so I also my point of returning this comment is just to say that this is also not an asset means test. It is just simply income.
Speaker 0: And I took that comment to be self reflecting, not on any other councilmember. That's the way I took it. Yes. Okay. I am going to call on Councilmember Herbold and appreciate all the good intentions that are up here being expressed, both in the underlying bill and and through the amendments. Councilmember Bill.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Before I get to my the substance of my comments about this particular amendment, I do want to speak to something that I'm sure that Councilmember Swan did not mean as I heard it, but I just want to clarify it for the public she referenced what what would.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: What would happen if a tenant didn't show up to court and how would a judge know what somebody's income was? Even with passage of this law, a tenant will still have to show up because not showing up and and speaking to this as a just cause will limit their ability to use us as a defense. So even using this ordinance that we are poised to to vote on will still require tenants to show up in court if if an eviction is filed. I think that's really important within the context of us all knowing our rights default.
Speaker 0: Please continue.
Speaker 4: I'm going to get on to that next. As it relates specifically to the question of means testing, the utility discount program has brought up been brought up a few times. You do have to income qualify to participate in the utility discount program. And I think I think utilities are actually a really good example for for an analogous situation. Some of our largest, most profitable companies are also some of the folks who have the largest unpaid utility bills. And it's not because they don't have the money to do it. It's just they want to they want to pay it when they're ready to pay it. And so I am actually really supportive of this amendment because I don't want folks of means to just decide, yeah, I can I can pay this in five months if I want. And in the meantime, members of our small landlord community are left holding the bag. Yeah, they might eventually get the money. They might get the money after five months, but I think that will actually have a really negative impact on some small landlords because sometimes people with a lot of money don't pay their bills also. And we know now from the analysis that the council member has done that there are very few people who who would be above this income threshold. For that reason I support the amendment.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Hummel. Council members want.
Speaker 2: Just one sentence to talk about the utility discount program. Making it opt out did make a huge difference because we were able to order. And for example, I'm just giving you one example because I don't have time to go through the whole thing. But we were able to because of me, because of changing it from opt in to opt out, we were able to auto enroll Seattle Housing Authority residents. So that's a big example of how, you know.
Speaker 4: Income.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Swanson. Thank you all for the explanation here. Any. Thank you, Councilmember Peterson, any additional comments or questions? Okay. We're going to call for the vote on this. All those in favor of amendment number six by Councilmember Strouse. Please say I and raise your hand. Are all those opposed?
Speaker 1: Nay.
Speaker 0: Okay, the amendment does hang and we will now look at the bill as amended. Councilmember Swan, I do appreciate you both having a robust conversation in your committee and the process that you went through and also engaging with the council colleagues as folks brought forward amendment. My desire council colleagues was that we make sure that this got on the agenda today and that we got a pass out because this will be a significant policy win for the folks that you've been working with, the Renters Commission and tenants rights folks. I know that this bill has been amended and I appreciate the council colleagues for their work to include various amendments. But I think it's important for you to close this out as you talk. Talk about what this will mean to working families.
Speaker 2: Thank you, President Mosquito. And I agree with you. This is this is going to be historic legislation. And I am you know, I haven't I have not made any. I've not disguised my disappointment with the loophole that I've been put in. And I think the ultimately, the the what it demonstrates is, as I said, the need for even more powerful movements of ordinary people. But I just wanted to also highlight the fact that the fact that we're even discussing this legislation and having it voted out does show how much advocacy people have done. And I wanted to thank everybody who's here and also everybody who spent months advocating for the commission. But I also wanted to mention, you know, among the people we have here are also the activists who are involved in the India resolution. And I've decided that they can be more than just one thing, that they have to be involved in our community as a whole. And I think that's very important that we are bringing immigrant communities together. I also specifically wanted to highlight the Washington Community Action Network and Housing just as broad project for all the work that they have been doing for years because of whom we are at this stage. And I think that at the end of the day, what we have, what we will have achieved if this legislation is voted through, is landmark legislation that has no precedent in the in the in the country and in fact, very little president in the world , because as far as we know, only the country of France has something similar. So this is huge. And I think we should be proud of our movement for this. And I thank God to members for, you know, I'm assuming that have been forgotten. Some members will be voting yes. So I'm speaking a little in advance. Just very quickly, also, you know, just we should also be sober about the limitations of the legislation. It will not end evictions. It will delay them. And we know that delaying will provide a real lifeline and could potentially completely prevent evictions. But on the whole, this won't be enough. We also do need rent control and we need a major expansion of social housing so we can't stop fighting.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. Thank you. Councilmembers the one and four process wise, we have now adopted amendments one through six in the base legislation. I would like for us to take up the amended bill as discussed today. Ready. Can we go? Councilor Bell 119726, as amended, is in front of us. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the passage of council 4119726 as amended sworn i.
Speaker 3: Strauss I.
Speaker 1: Herbal I. Lewis, I. Morales I.
Speaker 6: Peterson I.
Speaker 1: President Musharraf i. Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I. Thank you. So council colleagues, there are a number of.
Speaker 0: Items that are still on our agenda today. Thank you for hanging with us for just a few minutes over 4 p.m. and we just have a few more items. Madam Clerk, would you please read it into the record? Let me just say this. Officially, the bill has passed. The bill has passed as amended, and the chair will sign it. And at this time the bill is not ready for presentation of the signature. But I will announce when the bill is here so that I will sign it in this full chamber before we leave today. Thank you. Counsel. Colleagues, Madam Clerk, would you please read into the record item number two from the Public Safety and Human Services Committee. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to termination of residential rental tenancies; prohibiting evictions in winter months; and amending Section 22.206.160 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02102020_Res 31930 | Speaker 4: The report of the Public.
Speaker 0: Safety and Human Services Committee.
Speaker 4: Janet Janda Item two Resolution 319.
Speaker 0: 30.
Speaker 4: A resolution reaffirming the city's good faith intent to consider raising.
Speaker 0: And the collective bargaining process.
Speaker 4: For the Seattle Police.
Speaker 0: Officers Guild.
Speaker 4: 2021 Contract Renewal. Public Police Accountability proposals that have been identified by the public and the city's Police Oversight Agencies Committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended, with councilmembers Herbold, Lewis and Morales in favor with an abstention for Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Madam Clerk. Councilmember Herbold, this is your resolution. Would you please comment on it?
Speaker 4: Absolutely. So in late 2018, the city council voted to approve a collective bargaining agreement with the Seattle Police Officers Guild. The contract runs through the end of 2020. So in March, just a little bit more than a month away, negotiations for a new agreement will begin for a new contract. The municipal code requires the City Council to hold a public hearing in advance of the commencement of negotiations with the Police Officers Guild and requires the city to consider in good faith whether and how to carry forward the interests expressed at the public hearing. This does not exist for any other bargaining unit in the city, nor for any other any other contract requirement in in the city. As it relates to other city employees, it only exists for police accountability and for the Police Officers Guild because the prior council has identified this as being such an important issue that we need to hear from the public before we enter into negotiations. And it's a it's intended to bring a an amount of transparency to the process before we actually begin the process. So we all have heard you both in the public hearing, but we've also acted and we're about to act on a resolution that identifies what the priorities are. And by us identifying what the priorities are, y'all can hold us more accountable when we're on the other end of the negotiating session. So specifically, the resolution summarizes the comments made by the public at the December 5th hearing in the Gender Equity Safe Communities, New Americans and Education Committee. It includes letters from the three accountability bodies the Community Police Commission, the Inspector General and the Office of Police Accountability regarded regarding collective bargaining. The resolution is designed to meet the intent of the municipal code, and it summarizes comments made by the public at the December 5th hearing in the Gender Equity Safe Communities New Americans in Education Committee. Specifically, the resolution states that we will consider in good faith what we heard about the needs for enhanced police accountability. And we call out specifically the needs to not only facilitate continued community police dialog, but also identifies some of the primary priorities of each the CPC and the LPA and OIG. I believe that the the legislation itself speaks for itself. As far as what those priorities are, I'm happy to take a minute to talk about them, but otherwise I don't believe we need to talk about them because they are memorialized in attachments to the legislation itself.
Speaker 0: That's correct. Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, are there any other comments or questions on the resolution in front of us? Seeing none. All those in favor of resolution 31930. Please vote I and raise your hand I. And he opposed none. It is unanimous. We we thank you, sir. The the votes have it and the motion carries. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Madam Clerk, could you please read it into the record? Item number three from the Transportation and Utilities Committee. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION affirming the City's good faith intent to consider raising in the collective bargaining process for the Seattle Police Officer’s Guild (SPOG) 2021 contract renewal police accountability proposals that have been identified by the public and the City’s police oversight agencies. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02032020_Res 31926 | Speaker 0: Opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read the report to City Council. Item number one.
Speaker 3: The Report of the City Council and Adam one Resolution 319 26 reaffirming Seattle as a welcoming city, expressing the Seattle City Council solidarity with the Seattle South Asian community, regardless of religion and caste and opposing India's National Register of Citizens and Citizenship Amendment Act.
Speaker 0: Wonderful, and this has been introduced by Councilmember Samant. Councilmember Swan, I'll ask you to do an intro to this and I understand there's an amendment.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Swan Thank you, President Mosquito And with your indulgence, I want to make several remarks and I appreciate in advance my colleagues were bearing up with that. And also I wanted to just add, as you said, President Mosquito, that Councilmember Lewis has an amended version of it, which I'm going to support. But before that, I want to make these comments. And also, if you would, let me make some closing remarks after others.
Speaker 0: Hoping that maybe we can have the majority of the comments at the end for the closing, if possible. Go ahead. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. By approving this resolution, the Seattle City Council will show that the city's legislative body will stand with the widespread protest movement courageously facing brutal police oppression throughout India against a national register of Citizens, the NRC and the Citizenship Amendment Act, the CAA, which in tandem with each other, threatened to strip away the basic rights of hundreds of millions of people by approving. This resolution, the city council will go on the record opposing religious persecution and Islamophobia, the discrimination, scapegoating and oppression of Muslims, poor people and marginalized communities by the Hindu fundamentalist regime of the Bharatiya Janata Party, or the BJP and Prime Minister Narendra modi. By approving this resolution, the City Council must show that we understand that the fight against the right wing and bigoted agenda of the BJP and of Modi is not separate from, but in fact inextricably linked with the struggle of American progressives against the bigoted agenda of Trump and right wing Republicans. That we cannot fight Trump's Islamophobic agenda if we also do not oppose the rise of the far right globally. Only late last week, the Trump administration expanded the Islamophobic and racist Muslim travel ban to include six additional countries. By approving this resolution, the City Council urged the United States Congress to support legislation censuring the Indian BJP government for adopting policies that are discriminatory to Muslims, oppressed caste, women, indigenous and LGBTQ people. By approving this resolution, the City Council will draw historic line in the sand, recognizing the ominous similarities between the NRC and the CAA and the early Nuremberg laws enacted by the Third Reich in 1930s. Germany. Recognizing the credible news reports that the Modi regime has already put many people in the state of Assam in detention centers and at new detention centers. And prisons are being built as we speak.
Speaker 0: As a reminder to folks both in the room and to folks who are downstairs in the viewing audience. I know there's a lot of people who want to hear the details, so please continue with your hand motions. I am looking at your comments and folks downstairs that we can't see and please also respect the folks who want to hear the comments that are happening so that we can get through this. Customers want. Please continue.
Speaker 1: Thank you, president mosquito. Before the concentration camps and the death camps, the Nazis enacted the Nuremberg laws, including the Reich citizenship law, which redefined German citizenship to exclude Jewish people. The result was the isolation of Jewish communities, making them an increasingly easy target for scapegoating. The CIA and the Nazi have ominous echoes of these laws, as the board of directors of the Kadima Rican Reconstructionist Jewish community said in their statement supporting this resolution, quote, Within living memory policies closely parallel to these were among the first steps taken by the Nazi government of Germany in the 1930s and are now recognizable as the initial steps to the Holocaust. Policies such as these were central elements in centuries of systematic oppression of Jews, especially in Europe, unquote. On the other hand, if the City Council does not approve this resolution, it will send a chilling message that for elected officials like us taking a stand against dangerous policies that have outlines in them of past horrors only comes when it is convenient and when there is no political courage involved. I sincerely looking look forward to each one of us up here on the dais taking the morally correct action today by voting yes. It is ironic for the Modi regime that while they are attempting a deeply divisive tactic, it has ended up unifying Indians and Indian immigrants in a way that I haven't seen in my own lifetime.
Speaker 2: I want them nationwide.
Speaker 0: And yet please continue. Council members want and have emotions only. Please.
Speaker 1: I want to thank all the hundreds of Seattle's Indian immigrant community members who helped draft and push for this resolution. It has been a real movement from all parts of the Indian-American community Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs and atheists across all guests from India have come together to voice their opposition to these discriminatory and unjust laws. I specifically wanted to commend the courage and leadership of members of the Dalit community in the Seattle region, because I know how much courage it takes for people from oppressed caste to speak out even outside India. Given how given how entrenched the system is, even in Indian communities outside India, I thank Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal for using her position to speak out against the atrocities in Kashmir. And I know she will be speaking out on the CAA, NRC issue as well. I specifically thank Redmond Councilmember, very shaken for coming here and speaking up in favor of the resolution. I thank leaders like Anila Afzali and the Muslim Association of Puget Sound. Our maps, the and many other organizations who have signed statements strongly urging that the council pass this resolution, including Amnesty International, Kadima community, as I mentioned before, Appalachia, One America, the Seattle City of Seattle LGBTQ Commission, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Indian American Islamic Council, the Group of 42 civil and human rights lawyers of South Asian origin living in the United States, who sent us a letter of support, as did hear us sing, who sent us a letter from a group of Sikh organizations and also Imam Muhammad of the Seattle area, Al-Furqan Islamic Center. Our movement here in the Pacific Northwest also sends a message of solidarity to the young people, students and workers all over India who are fighting back with mass ongoing demonstrations on university campuses and strike actions since December. Special mention of the courage of students at Jamia millia Islamia and the peaceful occupation of Shaheen Bagh. On January eight, there were united protests and strikes across India against authoritarian laws and against the devastating economic policies of the Modi government. This was the largest general strike ever in global labor history, with Bloomberg newspaper reporting that 250 million people from banks and transport services in the cities to farmers in rural areas stopped work to participate in the strike, grinding the whole country to a halt. It is telling that virtually no one who spoke against the resolution had anything to say about the National Register of Citizens. Last year in the Indian state of Assam, the BJP government created an updated national register of citizens. NRC people were forced to prove with documentary evidence that they were Indian citizens, and if one had even a modicum of honesty, one would have to call the documentation requirements under the NRC. Absurd on the face of it, and only logical when you see that it seeks to fulfill the specific agenda of snatching away citizenship rights from large numbers of people. The NRC rules for documentation require that if you were born before 1971, like myself, if you have if you have to have your birth certificate. But if you were born after 1971, like myself, I mean, in other words, if you are younger than 48 years old, you must have pre 1971 documents with your parents or grandparents name on it and documents proving your relationship with your parents and grandparents. According to these rules. According to these rules, someone like myself, who was born after 1971, would actually be unable to provide the required documents. So what the Modi government found through the pilot project they did in the northeastern state of Assam is that it is impossible to carry out the NRC without also rendering large numbers of Hindus stateless unless the BJP found some way to target it directly on Muslim Indians. That is the reason for the Citizenship Amendment Act, the CAA, which gives citizenship without documents to people of some religions, including Hindus, but specifically not to Muslim people. So because I happen to have a Hindu name, even though I don't have the documents, even though I was born after 1971, I will still get my Indian citizenship under the NRC update, despite not having the documentation. The BJP government claims that the CAA is a humanitarian act aimed at supporting persecuted refugees, and the NRC is nothing to worry about, but the experience in Assam proves otherwise. Also, if the CAA were truly about refugees, why is the regime building detention camps? Why doesn't it allow refugees to come to India instead of retroactively applying to people who immigrated before 2014? If the CAA allows Indian citizenship for oppressed religious minorities in three neighboring countries, why does it pointedly overlook the oppression of the Shia Ahmadiyya muslim communities in those countries? If it was all about supporting refugees, why does it exclude persecuted minorities and other countries in the region, such as the Rohingya people who are predominantly Muslim, who are facing genocide in Myanmar and the Tamils of Sri Lanka who happened to be the largest refugee group inside India. Unlike Modi's BJP government, our movement, our movement truly supports the right of all refugees, regardless of their religions, and we do not support overt religious discrimination. I will close my comments for now and then you'd like to comment at the end. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Very much. Council Member Lewis. Okay. This is the first warning I'm going to give to warnings. I've already given a precursor. We are going to get through this. Please continue to use your hand gestures as you have so that we can get through this customer. Lewis, I understand that you have an amendment. Would you like to introduce amendment?
Speaker 8: Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. I am seeking to introduce an amendment I believe is the only amendment on this afternoon to the resolution 31926. I believe that amendment has been circulated for council members to consider and review. It adds just one clause into section two of the resolved sections to change the language well, to rather add language. For us to be calling on Congress to take action in response to our resolution, rather than just sending what we're sending to the Indian government. The basis for that request is that I tend to think that when we engage in these resolutions that involve things outside of the jurisdiction of the city of Seattle, I think it's more in our wheelhouse when we are calling on our federal representatives who are charged with negotiations with other countries in international relations to take the formal action rather than us ourselves to be communicating with the Modi government. So I think that this amendment helps us to capture the same attitude as the underlying resolution, but just making sure that we are targeting it towards folks that are in a position to do something about it. I would add, and this might have actually been a good amendment for a whereas clause that Congresswoman Jayapal has been leading on similar issues and introduced resolutions in the House on this. So I think that actually this is a resolution that would be received probably well by Congresswoman Jayapal. So wonderful. That's the basis of the amendment. And I do. So move it.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then again, in advance of moving the amendment, let me go ahead and put this on our docket for for official consideration. I'd like to move to adopt resolution 31926. Is there a second? It's been moved. And second, that the resolution be adopted. Now, I'd love to entertain that motion for your amendment, if you could do that again for me.
Speaker 8: And I do. So move my amendment, Amendment one four on resolution 31926 to be considered.
Speaker 4: Great.
Speaker 0: Then it's been moved and seconded that that resolution be amended as presented in amendment number one. Are there any other comments on Amendment number one as outlined by Councilmember Lewis seeing? None. I'd love to have a vote on this. All those in favor of the amendment as outlined by Councilmember Lewis amendment number one vote I and raise your hand I any oppose none. Any abstentions? None. There are five eyes, as I see it up here, and that means the motion carries the resolution is adopted. I'd like to now see if there's any. I'm sorry. Not the resolution. The amendment was adopted. Thank you very much. For the parliamentarians in the room. The amendment has been adopted to the motion. So now we have in front of us the amended resolution. Amended resolution 31926. I'd like to entertain any further comments on the resolution as amended.
Speaker 1: I have a comment.
Speaker 0: Yes, thank you, Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 1: So last week, this body passed a resolution that offered a generic condemnation of all current and future oppression happening in the world. I opposed that resolution. Even though it did acknowledge that there was oppression happening in India and it was in reference to this resolution. As a Mexican-American woman, it's unacceptable to me not to speak out against the tragedy that is happening on our southern border against families who are desperate to find a better way of life. It is also unacceptable not to speak against the targeting on our northern border. Now, as we know that folks are being targeted for being Muslim as they come into this country. And I have to say that as a Jew, it was not lost on me that that resolution passed on the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.
Speaker 0: Hmm.
Speaker 1: It's important that we stand up for human dignity, for the right of people to find refuge from violence, regardless of their religion. India is a secular country, and I have to say that every comment I heard today, most of the comments I heard today had an undertone of religious intolerance. I think we need to speak up against that. A program that detains people because of their faith. Like our own shameful Muslim bans must be rejected. As elected leaders in our community, we have an obligation to speak up against oppression regardless of where it's happening. And I do want to read a quick paragraph from a letter that we got from One America this morning. Please go ahead. From the executive director, Rich Stoltz. It says, I understand that there has been some discussion as to whether non-binding resolutions condemning oppression in other parts of the world are worth the council's time to the communities that one America works with. These issues are extremely close to home. Resolutions like these provide a vital opportunity to demonstrate that their communities matter and that the world is taking notice of their plight. And for this resolution, there is an obvious parallel to the laws, to these laws and what the current U.S. federal government is attempting to achieve in its immigration policies. I think it's important that we ensure that our own constitution in this country protects people from discrimination, especially if they're seeking refuge. And as an elected leader, I think it is our obligation to speak up when we see tragedies happening across the globe. This resolution urges India, the largest democracy in the world, to uphold its secular constitution and reject discriminatory policies. And I intend to support it.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Morales. Are there any other comments? Yes. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. So, you know, I was not prepared to vote on this resolution when it previously came before the council. You know, having done my own independent research, having accepted a considerable number of emails from folks who have been providing feedback on this from the community, you know, I am prepared today to vote in favor of this resolution as it has been amended. Well, you know, it sounds like I'm probably not going to get elected to the Lok Sabha. But I got to say that in looking into the issue more and looking at two and more in depth, a lot of organizations that I'm very favorably disposed to have reached similar conclusions on the CAA is what the resolution has adopted. The economist of which I follow the editorials can very closely too, has editorialized and opined against the CAA. You know, I did not run for Seattle City Council to pass resolutions regarding international matters. I do not intend, in my own practice here on the dais probably to propose resolutions like this. But the question hasn't been posed to me. The people of District seven did send me here to vote and offer a position when they do come before me. There is no other option for me than to support this resolution and call the CAA what it is. I will therefore be voting in favor of the resolution today. And I thank you, Councilmember Swan, for bringing this forward.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Lewis. Any other additional comments? Are there any additional comments? Councilmember So Sawai, I believe you would like to close this out. I will also just go ahead and acknowledge that it has been important from my perspective as an elected official to make sure that we are raising issues that are of significance both here at home, nationally and internationally, and having both been elected for the last two years and also previous to that, being being an advocate for human rights and labor standards, working families. It is important when people take up resolutions, even if it is not within the confines of the borders of the municipality that's being considered. We have had cities, states, Congress take up resolutions condemning injustice. In many different levels. And I would welcome any country who wants to raise questions, condemn U.S. policies of incarcerating children, of separating families, of enacting wars, of aggression, a person pursuing oppression and occupation in countries around the world. I welcome that type of criticism when it is in our country, and I think that it is important to raise concerns when we see injustice in other countries or in other areas. Even here in Seattle, our words have an important impact across the globe and also locally. I do want to acknowledge many of the organizations that you mentioned and also say to folks who both testified today and who have expressed concern, we did receive your messages. And I know many of you been waiting for a long time to speak. We've also heard from a number of the organizations that councilmembers want mentioned, including individuals who were not able to speak who I know are downstairs. I want to say that I understand that you have been waiting a long time to speak for the folks in this room that didn't get to speak. And downstairs and I really do appreciate you coming forward. This is something that I think Councilmember Lewis referenced, that council, that congressional woman, Jayapal, has been very clear to outline her concerns. And I would encourage folks to look at The Washington Post opinion piece that was published on December 23rd, where she articulates the concerns around the CAA and the NRC. So I think that this is something that is not an individual pushing a certain resolution. This is a community effort that we have heard from. And also at the national level, we know that there are many people that have raised this issue. I will be in support of this resolution. I look forward to you closing us out and then we will move to a vote.
Speaker 1: Thank you, President Mosqueda, especially for recognizing that this is not something that's coming from an individual. But this has been a tremendous community effort and I also greatly appreciate the powerful comments from yourself and from Councilmembers Morales and Lewis, and I hope that this resolution's passage will provide inspiration for other legislative bodies like city councils and state legislatures to do the same as well. And I also wanted to add that such resolutions, as important as they are, will not be sufficient to defeat Modi and BJP and Trump agenda. You know, we are facing similar questions, as you all have echoed about how do we defeat Trump? And there are lots of similarities. Trump and Modi even held an odious joint rally last year in Texas called Howdy Modi. Both Modi and Trump won their election not because their xenophobia and Islamophobia majority support in either country, but because of the complete failure of the political establishment to address the needs of ordinary people, people who hate the BJP voting for them in the election last year.
Speaker 0: This is the third and final warning. This is the third and.
Speaker 8: Final one in a pro tem. I'm I would support you. Clean the chamber.
Speaker 0: Go ahead. Council member.
Speaker 7: Speak to the.
Speaker 0: Council members. What council members want please.
Speaker 1: Do you hate that hated the BJP actually ended up voting for them in the elections last year because they saw no alternative after all.
Speaker 0: Right. Do you want to continue after that.
Speaker 1: After decades of open corruption?
Speaker 0: All right. The chair has asked the meeting to come to order, and order has not been resolved. If you do not resolve this and come to order, the room will be cleared. I know folks want to hear this. The room will be cleared or individuals will be asked to leave. Is the security present. Okay, Councilman. Hey. Security guards. I will ask that the individuals who are yelling, please be removed from the room if they do. If they do, they are welcome to stay. They want.
Speaker 1: People who hate the BJP ended up voting for them in the elections last year because they saw no alternative. After decades of open corruption, privatizations and neoliberalism by the Indian National Congress Party.
Speaker 0: They continue.
Speaker 7: You can read. So you don't have to clear the room. I think they're leaving on their own. Excited about. Sir. You don't mind to calm.
Speaker 0: And that people are taking their own initiative to leave. Thank you for.
Speaker 2: How can you be like, sir? You make the Americans.
Speaker 0: Want you very much.
Speaker 4: Whereas you we.
Speaker 0: Understand that some folks have decided to leave. They are welcome to leave. Folks who are willing and interested in hearing the rest of the comments are welcome to stay those who are being disruptive. We appreciate them walking out on their own accord. But we need to continue with this. We have about three more minutes until we have to get to this last item. So if you want to wrap us up, that would be appreciated.
Speaker 7: Okay. I'm going to get on it in security.
Speaker 0: I mean, the vote. Okay, at this point. But at this point, we greatly appreciate those who have stayed in the audience and for the viewing audience. Some individuals have chosen to leave, so we are going to go ahead and ask security to let the folks who are still being disruptive get out of the room. Great counsel, colleagues, the sponsor of the resolution has asked that we go ahead and consider the resolution in front of us. At this point, I would like to ask if there are any further comments you're seeing none. All those in favor of.
Speaker 1: Leaving for once again.
Speaker 0: All of those and all of those in favor of adoption of the resolution as amended, please vote. I.
Speaker 8: I. Any abstentions.
Speaker 0: Our guys saw no abstentions and no opposition. There was five votes in favor. The motion carries the resolution as adopted and as amended is adopted and the chair will sign it. Okay. We still have some more items on our agenda. We are going to go to item three through seven items, three through seven. I know. I can skip it. Can I get it? Oh, I can't skip it. Okay, great. We have a few more items on our agenda. I'd like to quickly do item number two, because I understand there's been a change in the agenda that's been suggested. Before we do that report of the Sustainability and Renters Rights Committee, please read the report. Okay. I've got it. Let's do that. Because we have a hard time deadline for our council colleague who needs to leave it for. I would like to move that. We hold item two until after consideration of items three through seven and we will come back to item two at that time. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION reaffirming Seattle as a welcoming city, expressing the Seattle City Council’s solidarity with Seattle’s South Asian community regardless of religion and caste, and opposing India’s National Register of Citizens and Citizenship Amendment Act. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02032020_CB 119726 | Speaker 0: And Madam Clerk, from up here I see six votes for I. The motion carries and the appointments are confirmed. Thank you, Councilmember. Let's go back to item number two. Report of the Sustainability and Renters Rights Committee. You please read the report into the record.
Speaker 3: The report of the Sustainability and Renters Rights Committee Agenda Item to cancel 119 726 relating to termination of residential rental tenancies, prohibiting evictions in winter months and amending Section 22.20 6.1 60 and CNN Pacifica. The committee recommends that the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: Wonderful Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 8: Councilmember Pro tem. I move to hold council bill 119726 until February 20/10, 2020.
Speaker 0: It has been moved. I will second that to may i second that. Okay, great. It's been moved and seconded that we hold the bill until February ten, 2020. Are there any additional comments? No. Looks like. Can I? Yes, please.
Speaker 1: Councilman Morales ask why I'd be interested in voting. I think I feel like we've discussed this bill. And are there additional amendments that are forthcoming that we need to anticipate?
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Morales. I see heads nodding this way.
Speaker 8: I'm happy. Councilmember I, I myself have a number of amendments to bring forward and we'll be sharing those with your office, Councilmember Swan, shortly. And I believe that this bill has a little bit more work to to have accomplished before it's ready for full council.
Speaker 1: Councilmember one I'll just quickly add that we, in response to Councilmember Morales's very question that we do, we did have a very energetic discussion and thorough discussion in the Sustainability and Renters Rights Committee on January 23rd. And in fact, the legislation that was discussed was itself an amended version based on the feedback we had already received from tenants, rights advocates and also small landlords. I am happy to look at amendment that are forthcoming, but I would really urge the council offices to send us the amendments as soon as possible so that we have time to review them.
Speaker 0: Wonderful and appreciate the dialog this morning as well at council briefing. It sounds like this is a friendly request to hold and appreciate the council colleagues working together on this. And I appreciate the question from Councilman Morales, as we're all eager to see the language. Being worked up and I know the community is as well without any additional hands that I see requesting to comment. It's been moved and seconded to hold the bill until February ten, 2020, seeing no additional comments. All those in favor of holding the bill. Please vote I and raise your hand I. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Madam Clerk, it appears that there are six votes in favor of holding the bill until February ten, 2020. The motion carries and the Council bill 119726 will be held until that time. Council colleagues, thank you so much for your indulgence. This is my first day back from family leave and acting as president pro tem. I appreciate your working with needs to get through this full agenda.
Speaker 7: But before we wrap up before we wrap up counsel.
Speaker 0: Counsel, colleagues, are there any more is there any more business to come before the court. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to termination of residential rental tenancies; prohibiting evictions in winter months; and amending Section 22.206.160 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_01212020_Res 31925 | Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. See that C rim report of the. Not I guess not committees. We have a report from previous previous items on on the agenda.
Speaker 3: The report of the city council agenda one Resolution 319 25 expressing the Seattle City Council's opposition to the Trump administration's escalation toward a war with Iran and two attacks on the democratic rights of people with Iranian heritage in Washington State and requesting the Office of Intergovernmental Relations communicate these offers excuse me, these positions to the Washington State Congressional delegation.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Would customers want to address the resolution?
Speaker 4: Yes. Should I? Should I move to substitute, speak to the substitution. Then we take a vote. And then I speak to the best of.
Speaker 0: Yes. That sounds great. Would you like me to move or would you like to?
Speaker 4: I'm happy to move. And then if you stick it in, then I just want to say something. I move to substitute version three of resolution 319254. Version one.
Speaker 5: I second. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Did you want to speak to it or.
Speaker 0: Sure. I appreciate the opportunity to work with Council Councilmember so on over the last week as well as the Office of Intergovernmental Relations and additional stakeholder groups beyond ones who had been consulted.
Speaker 5: As of as of last week.
Speaker 0: And I feel that in although there's been some concern about the the resolution becoming weakened after our weeks worth of deliberations, I think in many ways it's actually been strengthened because we have really, I think, honed in on why it is appropriate for the Seattle City Council to weigh in on this and and and the impact of these international actions on residents of our city, the impact of actions that are happening at the border on residents of our city. And so rather than just simply being a resolution against certain international actions, we are really focusing on our values as a city of being an inclusive, welcoming city and pointing to, I think, a lot of the strength of this community, while I hope preserving the intent of the language in the resolution to also be a strong antiwar statement.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President Pro Tem Herbold I It was my original intention to have this resolution in opposing Trump's escalation to toward war in Iran last week. But we needed to hold it. And as Councilmember Herb also having talked to us, the Office of Intergovernmental Relations Governor Herbert Office proposed a series of amendments just before the vote last Monday. And I do agree that this resolution is a strong, resolute, strong enough resolution. And I really appreciate my colleague for working with me and my office to find the language for the substitute that we can both accept. But I do want to state for the record that the original substitution that was offered greatly weakened the antiwar language and the whole motivation behind the disastrous history of U.S. imperialism and why this war should be opposed. As our Sharifi said, the reason we are opposing the war in Iran is because we know what has happened to previous wars, and it's important to recall that in the resolution and this is also what Dan Gilman from Veterans for Peace was referring to. However, thanks to all of your organizing, thanks to hundreds of people, ordinary people writing to city council and calling and urging that the resolution not lose its antiwar character. We have arrived at a version that I think does present a strong case from the city council, why we are opposing the resolution. And so I, I will support this substitution and then I'll speak to the resolution and thank you.
Speaker 0: So it's been moved in, seconded to amend the resolution. Are there additional comments on the amended version of the resolution? Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 2: Just in general on the resolution, is that a no on the amendment?
Speaker 0: Will we speak to the resolution itself after we get the amended version in front of us if you have comments on the amended version. Okay. All right. With that, those in favor of the proposed substitute vote i. I. I those oppose vote no. And the motion carries and the resolution is amended. We now have the amended version in front of us. Are there any further comments on the resolution as amended comes out of this?
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 2: Sorry, I'm new to.
Speaker 0: This as a sponsor, I'm going to defer to of course, on first.
Speaker 4: Thank you. This is the resolution in opposition to both Trump's escalation toward war with Iran and also in opposition to reports of Border Patrol agents targeting people of Iranian descent at the border crossing in Blaine, Washington, and at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Trump's policies towards Iran, including airstrikes and the prominent drone assassination of Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani in Iraq, are risking war and that is totally unacceptable. The U.S. wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq have not expanded the freedom, democracy, standards of living or safety of ordinary people in the Middle East and have not increased the safety of people in the US. Instead, they have caused massive loss of human life and ongoing suffering in Afghanistan and Iraq and among US soldiers. It is ordinary people, especially women, young people and marginalized communities who always pay the greatest price for imperialist war. As a socialist elected representative, I will do everything in my power to prevent another disastrous war in the Middle East. And I look forward to the whole city council taking that position. In 2019, working people in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon both inspiring mass movements against poverty, corruption, ethnic oppression and authoritarian rule. However, now the threat of war with the US has undermined the momentum of these movements, especially in Iran, and strengthened the authoritarian Iranian regime. Instead of threats of war, we need a mass antiwar movement in the US and globally in solidarity with the movement in the Middle East. In drafting this resolution, my office looked to see if there was a precedent set by the City Council in 2003, when Bush drove the U.S. to war with Iraq, using similarly sketchy intelligence reports claiming imminent threat with no details. We were shocked. I was on I wasn't on the council in 2003. We were shocked to find a 2003 resolution that totally failed to oppose the war in any way, which I think really illustrates how our movement has now, in the current time, moved politics in this city and nationwide. Just to read the first few lines of the resolution passed on March 18, 2003, by the Seattle City Council, two days before the start of the Iraq War. It says, quote, A resolution in support of the men and women of the armed forces of the United States, expressing our pride in their service. Whereas the President of the United States has activated and deployed numerous men and women of the armed forces from Washington State and from Seattle to the war in Iraq, and to assignment in Afghanistan that are related to the ongoing war on terrorism. And. Whereas, their service in our armed forces is one of the highest traditions of American patriotism. This is on. These are the words of a progressive city council about a war started by George Bush. And so let's be crystal clear. It is dishonest for a ruling elite to engage that engages in endless imperialist war in order to apportion the spoils of global capitalism among themselves, while they exploit the majority to then turn around and talk about well-being and pride of the soldiers who are sent to fight their wars. The best way to keep your soldiers safe and protect their well-being is don't start endless war. Another casualty of war is the democratic rights of people at home. Border Patrol agents in Washington state are now targeting people of Iranian descent, including U.S. citizens. People have been detained and questioned for hours, including families with young children, as they return home to Seattle through the border in Canada, near Canada or the SeaTac Airport. We have heard personally from people who have had these experiences. My office spoke to a representative from the Port of Seattle, which is the government entity that operates the SeaTac Airport. First, we were told by them that there was no increased targeting of nor increased targeting of people of Iranian descent at Sea-Tac so far, which is clearly not true because we are hearing incidents that are happening. But then he they claim that this was what Homeland Security is claiming. He then told us that Homeland Security is expecting to start increasing its targeting of Iranian Americans at the airport. This is extremely concerning to us. But what the public should know is that this person, from this representative of the port then told my staff, I requested my staff member that we avoid the sort of peaceful, civil disobedience protest that we had organized at the airport in 2017, which was a protest that joined similar actions at airports around the country and which helped temporarily halt Trump's Muslim travel ban. My office has, of course, told them that we are not going to stop any civil disobedience protests at the airport. And in fact, if peaceful civil disobedience is required to protect our Iranian sisters and brothers, and that is exactly what we will do. And so it's my it's been my pleasure to work with many of the groups, including Veterans for Peace, the Council on American Islamic Relations. And I should also mention all the activists who are fighting for the India resolution are also strongly supporting this resolution. And I've been part of that as well. And. Alice.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Well, I want to thank everybody first for being here and taking time from your work day. If you needed to do that to be here. I know that's not easy. And I do want to say that I stand in solidarity with the people of Iran and heritage who have been unfairly targeted by our Border Patrol and law enforcement following the assassination of General Suleimani. Our neighbors should not be questioned or detained based on their ethnic, religious or cultural identities. Doing so follows the dangerous tradition of condoning race based discrimination, which we all know becomes enshrined in government policies that exclude people from their ability to pursue prosperity. We have governed based on fear before in this country, and it has led to shameful practices like entering our Japanese-American neighbors, who somebody spoke about earlier. And by questioning the loyalty of longtime residents who deserved their shot at safety and prosperity and opportunity. We know that Seattle must oppose any discrimination against immigrants and refugees and reject the escalation of war with Iran, which puts the lives of millions of Iranians, Iranian Americans and Muslims at large in greater danger. And I am supporting this resolution.
Speaker 0: Any other comments, Councilmember Peterson. Yes.
Speaker 1: Thank you to everyone for being here today. Taking time from your busy days to tell us your thoughts on these resolutions. I share the passion and views of my colleagues about these important matters, and I thank you for raising them. I appreciate that. Colleagues have spent many hours over the past week revising the original resolution. Every day I'm deeply troubled by the rhetoric and actions of the Trump administration. I will vote yes. And so I will vote in favor of this resolution, because, of course, it's wrong for President Trump to start a war against Iran. And of course, it's wrong for our federal officials to discriminate at the border, at our airport or anywhere. I will vote yes. And also, please allow me to ask that we try to not craft a city council resolution for every horrible thing that our president or any world leader does. I believe we can do the most good and deliver the best response as elected to City Council members by proving how well a government can be run. And by government, I mean the city government of Seattle. I believe we could research, right, review, debate and vote on a new resolution every hour of every day to counter every bad thing that President Trump or his administration does. But every minute, as a legislative body, we spend researching, writing, reviewing, debating and voting on these resolutions is a minute. We could be spending to reduce homelessness, to improve emergency medical response, to make sure we get through dangerous snowstorms, to oversee a city budget of $6.5 billion, spanning over 40 city departments, impacting over 700,000 people right here in Seattle. So. But I do support this resolution. We must speak out against these injustices. We should. I believe we can send letters of our support to congressional colleagues, to our Port of Seattle colleagues. But to take up time before and during city council meetings for all of these resolutions is a slippery slope where we could take our eye off the ball of running this city government. So, again, I'm voting yes. And I'm confident that our congresswoman, Pramila Jayapal and our U.S. Senators Murray and Cantwell and our esteemed port commissioners are more than capable of dealing with this situation with or without a city council resolution, which I will support today. Thank you.
Speaker 0: And as the proposer of the resolution, if there's no further, folks who want to talk about allow Councilmember Swann to close out debate.
Speaker 4: Thank you. In closing out, I wanted to respond to the comments made by Councilmember Peterson just now. He used terms like that. If we pass or if the council acts on resolutions such as the Iran resolution or the India resolution, that is somehow it's going to be a slippery slope and direct the city council away from the cities deaths in my in my view saying that the city council is in danger of passing a resolution on every injustice going on in the planet is a strawman argument. That is not what the City Council does. The purpose of these. The purpose of such resolutions as the two that have been brought forward from my office is not for. For me as an elected representative or someone else to take a pro forma or, you know, just in name only position against oppression and check off that box. The purpose is to use such resolutions as a tool to empower and build social movements, which is ultimately what makes the difference. We are. I as a city council member, I am under no illusion that simply by passing a resolution here, things are going to change. What the resolution does do is it empowers the movement to keep building. And we know that a yes vote on the India resolution from the City Council will not only empower the global movement against Modi's regime, but beyond that, actually, it is going to be nothing short of historic because it will be the first such position taken by a legislative body in the United States.
Speaker 7: And last. And as far.
Speaker 4: As the local questions are concerned and if there are any concerns by Councilmember Peterson that somehow we are not paying attention, let me tell you, I've been on the council for six years. The reason the city council continues to oversee an unprecedented crisis of homelessness and housing unaffordability is not because we are passing too many irrelevant resolutions , but it is because of the lack of moral and political courage to do what is needed urgently, which is to tax big business and find a major expansion. Tangible, publicly owned, high quality social housing as part of a Green New Deal program. The climate change and housing crisis are the two crises facing the city urgently, and that is why that is what we need to do. But passing resolutions is not the barrier. The barrier is a lack of courage, and that is why I hope everybody will join us. The Dogs Amazon Action Conference this Saturday at 10 a.m..
Speaker 5: In favor of adopting the resolution as amended.
Speaker 0: Vote i.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 0: I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted as amendment amended, and.
Speaker 7: The chair will sign. Oh. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION affirming The City of Seattle’s support for its local Iranian-American and Iranian-immigrant communities, recognizing the importance of people-to-people diplomacy at the local level, calling for a de-escalation in the conflict and damaging rhetoric between the U.S. and Iran and an end to the attacks on the democratic rights of people with Iranian heritage in Washington State and requesting the Office of Intergovernmental Relations communicate these positions to the Washington State congressional delegation. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_01212020_Res 31926 | Speaker 7: The chair will sign. Oh.
Speaker 3: Agenda Item two Resolution 319 26 reaffirming Seattle as a welcoming city, expressing the Seattle City Council's solidarity with Seattle's South Asian community regardless of religion, caste and opposing India's National Register of Citizens and Citizenship. Citizenship Amendment Act.
Speaker 0: I moved to hold Resolution 31926 until February 3rd, 2020.
Speaker 6: Second.
Speaker 0: Appreciate that. A lot of folks took time out of their day to come and speak to us today in anticipation of a vote on this resolution. The legislative process always has as a potential the a request for for a hold. I am asking that my colleagues support me in my request for a hold. We have heard from the Washington State Trade Relations Action Committee, as well as we have heard from a number of individuals representing themselves. And we have heard also from the the Indian consulate in in San Francisco that this resolution would benefit from a little bit more time and care. I'm very sensitive to how these resolutions are appropriately and powerfully used, and they are used in an in a way that encourages other legislative bodies to adopt them. And for that reason, I want to really make sure that we have taken the extra time and care to make sure that everything in this resolution before bringing it forward to vote is characterized in a way that we can stand by and say that we have done our due diligence and that we are certain that the information contained in the resolution is accurate. We're working with our Office of Inter-Governmental Relations because, as Councilmember Peterson mentions, our staff, because of the heavy workload that we have working on city business doesn't have the time to to fact check resolutions like this. So we have an Office of Intergovernmental Relations that has reached out to an individual who is with the Seattle International Affairs Advisory Board at the Jackson School of University of Washington, who's working to connect OIRA with subject matter experts in south the South in the South Asian Center for additional feedback. And so I'm confident I was willing to hold this for one additional week. Council member Swan asked that it be held instead until February 3rd, when she will be able to be in attendance because she will not be here next week. And with that, I would request the support of my colleagues on the Council for the hold until February 3rd. It has been moved and seconded that the resolution be held until February 3rd. Are there any comments members want.
Speaker 4: Just in terms of process? I have comment on the hold itself, but I also have comment on the base legislation which I think I have the right to speak to it as well because it's on the agenda. So do you want me to say it all at once or.
Speaker 0: I think all at once would be great. Okay.
Speaker 4: So first I want to speak to the hold up. And, you know, again, I'm speaking to members of the public in the movement who are here and also who are watching. I know many, many, including people in other countries, are watching the proceedings of this city council today. I want to be clear whether the resolution is passed today or at a future date in a couple of weeks. We are going to make sure that council members are going to vote yes on this resolution because it will be up to them to explain why they would why they would not support a fight, a global fight against egregious injustices. And I'm confident that that's going to happen. But I do not but I do not support delaying this vote. I think as many of you yourselves who have taken time off from work, I know some of you have actually taken the day off. Some of you got your children early from school because you wanted them to be here as well. I think it's disrespectful to all of you and people who are watching this. And also it it sort of quells the you know, it has a dampening effect on the movement. But I want to urge you to not be discouraged by this, because, as I said, we're going to make this happen and. But I do want to state for the record that it is it is unfortunate and disrespectful to the ordinary people who have come here. You know, we we as council members do a lot of work. Yes, I should know that because my office fight on a lot of issues on the ground. However, people here are also hardworking. They have their day jobs. They are there looking after their families and they make time to come here. So I want to say that it's really unfortunate and also a wonder to point out that the council has had access to my draft resolution for a week now, but I hadn't heard any questions about it or any comments for it for all of that time until just 2 hours before this before this meeting today. And I am. Can I. Let me. Let me speak. Let me. No, no, no, no. Nobody's lying. It's just. I just want to clarify.
Speaker 6: We had some fire.
Speaker 4: We. I completely agree. I mean, as an economist myself, I completely agree with fact checking. But I don't believe that the origination of the delay is is from a fact checking concerning the origination of the delay is because the consul general of India sent an email to the establishment, and they are worried by that. So it's fine. It's fine. We will we I'm going to vote. I'm let me speak I'm going to vote no on the on the delay. But I also I'm completely willing and able I mean, I'm I'm looking forward to working with the whole council to make sure everything is fact checked. However, I do want to point out that some of those are some of the entities. I think I remember her well. You mention I don't see them as neutral agencies on fact checking. So we our movement will also be doing its own fact checking. And from there, from whatever amendments are proposed, and we are going to make sure that the essential character of the resolution is not taken away. And we also I also just wanted to share that just as a point of information that I've been in touch with myself, with professors at the Jackson School of International Studies who are also experts on this. And so I look forward to a a frank discussion on this. But I want to be clear that we are not we're not accepting the consul general's position because the consul general is nothing but a modi representative. It's an extension of the administration. So and and I want to talk about I look, I want to I want to talk about the base resolution in a second. But just want to point out that I just want to point out I have gone through the consul general general's letter. I am not misguided. I am not misinformed. You know, as people would like to believe, some people would like to believe. I'll tell you the most striking thing, and I urge you all to read that letter as well, we can share it with you. The most striking thing about that letter, and this is what makes that letter completely dishonest and basically useless, is that it avoids any mention of the National Register of Citizens. That is where the problem starts and ends, because that's where the crux of the problem lies. And that's what I want to get to, because that's the explanation of why the combination of Syria and anarchy is so bad and why it's a blatant threat to the citizenship rights of India's 200 million Muslims, hundreds of millions of poor people, indigenous communities, oppressed, gassed women, women and LGBTQ people are going to be at some point that made for the benefit of my colleagues in the morning. But since you all are here, it's important to share this. The National Register of Citizens came long before the Citizenship Amendment Act even existed. There was no Citizenship Amendment Act. US There was a National Register of citizens. This requires that every person in India produce proof of citizenship. But not a passport, not your Aadhaar card, nothing like that. But a new set of criteria have been devised by the NRC. The NRC was tried out in one state in Assam, which others have mentioned. What are the documents required under the Assam National Register of Citizens? I want you to read that pre you if you have a pre 1971 self-identity, you know, like a birth certificate, you're fine. If you don't have that, then you have to present both a pre 1971 parents identity proof and a relationship proof with your parents or grandparents. Think about this. I was born after 1971. I have none of those documents, so technically I would not get that. I would be rejected as a citizen personally in India. But I won't be affected. Why? Because when they saw the Nazis, disastrous effects were. Indians were. I mean, Hindus were falling into the non-citizen category. They immediately had to act and, you know, make make something happen so that Hindus were not unintentionally getting caught because their intention was to put Muslims in the non-citizen category. And so then they quickly came up with the Citizenship Amendment Act, which basically says that if you have a Hindu name, you don't have to provide documentation. So in other words, because I come from a Hindu family, even though I don't have any of the documentation I am, I'm all set . I will get citizenship. But those of you who are Muslim will not get a citizenship. And not only that, if you can't provide the documentation as a muslim or as a person of other religion or whatever, then you are facing the prospect of detention centers or prisons. And again, this is not speculative. This is actually happening in Assam. We have seen 2 million people become stateless, being declared stateless, and many of them are languishing in detention centers. You know, people said, you know, little children are dying. So protests have been happening throughout the nation. They started on university campuses, but now they are all over the country. And as piece I note said in recent, you know, in my lifetime, I have not seen India, the whole of India wake up in the way that it has. And we've seen massive actions. I, I, I wanted to quickly read out the message of solidarity that Arundhati Roy, famed writer and activist, has sent to me personally on this resolution. I wanted to quote that quickly because it's very brief. It says, quote, The Indian government Citizenship Amendment Act, coupled with a national citizenship register, resemble the Nuremberg citizenship laws of the Third Reich. They go generate panic, uncontrollable chaos, and a population of stateless people on an unimaginable scale in the state of Assam alone, pending a last round of appeals. The number is close to 2 million. The government must be prevailed upon to repeal these laws as quickly as possible. I support Seattle City Councilmember Sharma Salman's resolution. I hope others around the world will follow its example. And I'm happy to say also that the City of Seattle LGBTQ commission voted unanimously last week to support this resolution . We will make sure other commissions also follow. We also have API Chia and the Indian American Islamic Council and we also had the continent American Islamic relations give us solidarity and there are hundreds of South Asians who are not necessarily under any group but are organizing together. And it's all the way from tech workers to less paid workers to small business owners who are all coming together. And just last point that I want to make, the people who are supporting Modi are saying that our resolution is divisive. Let me tell you, it's exactly the opposite. Is the Citizenship Amendment Act on the National Register of Citizens that is deeply divisive and actually what they are doing is uniting people. I wanted I wanted to quote the last paragraph of B.S. letter that Sujata read out, but she couldn't finish B.S. and says.
Speaker 5: The one.
Speaker 4: Thing that can be said for the authors of these vicious laws, they have succeeded in uniting countless millions of people across the length and breadth of the land, many of whom are out there showing the world what democracy is all about. So let's remember these encouraging words. If the vote is for February 3rd, then and I'm sorry because I'm out of town next Monday, but let's make sure we keep getting organized. Let's not stop here. Let's bring more people on February and let's make sure we win this. And let's and the next stop is, you know, where it's Bellevue City Council. Let's demand Bellevue City Council. Doesn't this.
Speaker 0: So it has been moved and seconded that the resolution would be held until February 3rd. Are there any additional comments? Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to first off, thank everybody here on both sides of this discussion who came out and commented publicly. It's always hard to get up in front of your neighbors and express strong opinions on these public matters. I want to start out by saying I didn't run for Seattle City Council to opine on matters of international relations. I certainly didn't to comment on the internal politics of India. But we as council members aren't always the people that decide what is important. The community does as well. And as you coming out here tonight have shown, there is massive interest in Seattle in debating and discussing this matter. And I think it is appropriate that we take it up. I do want to comment, and I think that the Iran resolution we passed earlier is a good example of this, that while I think we on occasion we can or should comment on matters of international relations, I think it's most proper to do it in the form of instructing our congressional delegation or instructing the federal authorities in our system that have the power to take action most immediately on addressing these concerns. I think we have a very strong partner in Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, who has taken on leadership in this issue in the United States Congress. So I would just saying this by way of flagging from my colleagues that going forward, I would like to work on potentially strengthening the resolution going forward and structuring it more toward instructing our congressional delegation in the kind of things that we would like to see addressed. Just for the record, I believe it's House Resolution 745, but I'm not sure that Congresswoman Jayapal has introduced that. I did read this morning that touches some of the same issues, but not all of them. The process that we went through with the Iran resolution did produce a I believe, a stronger resolution. I don't think that delaying for a little bit of time, especially on issues that I am not personally at this moment, a proficient expert in, without further deliberation and broader consultation. And I have the humility to recognize that. I don't think that that is going to make the final product suffer. And I look forward to folks continuing to express through email their sentiment on this issue. I have gotten a considerable amount of emails from all sides of this issue over the last couple of days, and I do appreciate that feedback in that outreach and look forward to working with my colleagues and everyone in this room in this conversation going forward for a meeting on February 3rd. And do you support holding the ordinance or resolution? Okay.
Speaker 0: All right. So those in favor of holding the resolution vote i, i.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 0: I, those oppose vote.
Speaker 6: No, no, no.
Speaker 0: I believe the motion carries and the resolution is held until February 3rd, 2020.
Speaker 5: We will be back.
Speaker 0: All right. Look forward to seeing you again. So other business, adoption of other resolutions, please read into the record. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION reaffirming Seattle as a welcoming city, expressing the Seattle City Council’s solidarity with Seattle’s South Asian community regardless of religion and caste, and opposing India’s National Register of Citizens and Citizenship Amendment Act. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_01212020_Res 31927 | Speaker 0: All right. Look forward to seeing you again. So other business, adoption of other resolutions, please read into the record.
Speaker 3: Item three, agenda item three, resolution 319 27 relating to the sale City Council Member Participation for 2020 and 2021 on King County Committees, Regional Committee, State Committees and City of Seattle Committees and Superseding Resolution 319 23.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So this resolution updates the councilmember assigned to the MOVE Seattle Levee Oversight Committee in order for it to be consistent with ordinance 12 4796 Ordinance 12 4795 was adopted to place the levy on the ballot and specify that the Chair of the City Council. Excuse me, can you take your conversation out front, please? We're trying to conduct business. Could you please take your your conversation out front? Thank you. I appreciate it. The ordinance was passed in the in the past to place the move Seattle levee on the ballot. And it specified that the chair of the City Council Transportation Committee should sit on the oversight committee for the levee. The resolution also adds an assignment for the King County Affordable Housing Committee of the Growth Management Act I'm sorry, the Growth Management Planning Council. And it also finally removes an assignment to the Trade Development Alliance because it is no longer pending. I moved to adopt resolution 31927 second. I must also now move to amend Resolution 31927 Section one B by substituting the Council member assigned to the Advisory Council on Aging and Disability Services to change it from assigning Council member Debra Suarez to the Council and swapping out for Council member Tammy Morales as presented on Amendment One. May I have a second? Second? Okay. It's been moved and seconded to move, amend the resolution and I've addressed the amendment before us. Are there any comments? Seeing no comments. Those in favor of the amendment vote i.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 0: I. Those oppose vote no. The resolution carries and the resolution is amended. Are there further comments on the resolution as amended? Seeing none those in favor of adopting the resolution as amended. Please vote. I. I. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries, the resolution is adopted as amended, and the chair will sign it. Is there other business to come before the council? Councilmember suarez thank.
Speaker 5: You.
Speaker 0: I respectfully request.
Speaker 5: To be excused on Monday, January.
Speaker 2: 27th and Monday.
Speaker 5: February.
Speaker 0: 5th.
Speaker 5: I will be in.
Speaker 0: Portland at the affiliated tribes of Northwest.
Speaker 3: Indians and I'll be at the National Congress of American Indians in Washington, D.C. should move on that 1/1.
Speaker 0: I don't too. We don't vote, do we? We just we hear them. We do get we do vote. Okay. I'm sorry. You do together or separate. We must be together. Together. Okay. Can I just put them both in? All right. Thank you. None opposed. Nobody. All those in favor vote. I opposed, not abstain. One more note, Madam Chair.
Speaker 3: I'm designated as Council President Pro tem for the month of February. So thank you, Councilmember Mosqueda.
Speaker 0: Who will be.
Speaker 3: Taking my place while I'm gone on.
Speaker 0: February four. Fantastic. I believe we have another absence.
Speaker 4: Yes, thank you. Council President Pro-Tem Herbold. I would like to be request. I mean, I would like to request to be excused on Monday, February as our January 27th City Council meeting.
Speaker 0: Those in favor. But I. I am not opposed. I'm standing. Yes, you are excused. And if there is no further business to come before the council, we are adjourned. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION relating to Seattle City Councilmember participation, for 2020 and 2021, on King County Committees, Regional Committees, State Committees, and City of Seattle Committees; and superseding Resolution 31923. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_01132020_CB 119731 | Speaker 2: The bill passes and the chair will sign. It will now move on to the committee reports. We have a report from the Select Committee on Campaign Finance Reform. Can you please read the report? The report of the Select Committee on Campaign Finance Reform Agenda Item one Cancer Bill 119 731 relating to elections prohibiting foreign influence corporations from making independent expenditures or contributing to campaigns and independent expenditure committees. Amending Section 2.04.0. 10.2 60.2. 70.3 69.3 77. Civil Code and adding a new section 2.0 4.400.
Speaker 1: To the Seattle Code. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 2: And test it. Thank you. Just moving right into the amendments. I want to start off and we can speak to the merits of the bill after passage of the amendments. I move Amendment one to amend Council Bill 11 9731, Section two, as presented on Amendment one of the agenda and second.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 2: This amendment adds the definition of independent expenditure committee to the Definition Definitions section. This necessary definition was previously missing. So any comments? All right. That pass those in favor of voting in support of the amendment vote i. I can oppose not abstaining. A member two is I move to amend a council bill 11 9731 Section seven as presented on Amendment two of the agenda.
Speaker 1: I have a second ticket. Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 2: This amendment changes the title of section seven from limits on expenditures to independent expenditure committees to simply independent expenditures. This what seemed to be a technical amendment is actually a subset of amendment because it would ensure that foreign influence corporations would not be able to simply make political expenditures themselves.
Speaker 1: The bill.
Speaker 2: As drafted focuses on limitations to foreign influence corporations, to expenditure to independent expenditure committees. And so this is definitely another loophole that would be useful.
Speaker 1: To.
Speaker 2: Close any comments. See no comments. Those in favor of amendment to please vote i.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: I am opposed and abstaining so to the bulk of the bill. I want to thank Councilmember Gonzalez for her leadership on this effort, as well as the various stakeholders who have been involved in the Clean Campaigns effort. We know that out of the 20 largest corporations to PAC in 2019, at least seven of those 20 could have met the definition of a foreign influence corporation, federal law and judicial decisions. Interpreting that law make abundantly clear that foreign foreigners are barred from spending money to influence U.S. elections. This is true whether they attempt to influence U.S. elections in their personal capacity or through a corporation. Foreign investors own increasing shares of U.S. corporate stock, going from only 5% in 1982 to approximately 35% in 2017. Foreign interests can easily diverge from U.S. interests. That is true nationally, and it can be certainly true locally in municipal government. The areas of tax, trade, investment and labor law, there are often divergent interests. Corporate directors and managers view themselves as accountable to their stakeholders, including foreign stakeholders. And a quote from four former CEO of U.S. based ExxonMobil Corp..
Speaker 1: Starkly stated.
Speaker 2: I'm not a U.S. company, and I don't make my decisions based on what's good for the U.S. corporate governance. Governance experts and regulators agree alike that these thresholds, as proposed in this bill, capture the level of ownership. Necessary to influence corporate decisions. And even the conservative former chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services and the Business Roundtable concur that 1% is a threshold at which a single shareholder is able to influence significant corporate decisions. One of the most important campaign finance limits that we have is that foreign nationals are absolutely barred from spending directly or indirectly in U.S. elections at any political level federal, state or city. Thus, it defies logic to allow groups of foreign nationals or foreign nationals in combination with American citizens to fund political spending through corporations. One cannot have a right collectively that one does not have individually. That concludes my comments on the first of the two bills related to clean campaigns that we're going to hear today. And do I call for the vote? If there are any questions or comments.
Speaker 1: Good. Okay, Rock. All right.
Speaker 2: Get to my right. Please call the role on the passage of the bill as amended.
Speaker 1: Whereas. I. Lewis i. Morales i.
Speaker 0: Peterson I.
Speaker 1: Swann i.
Speaker 0: Strauss i.
Speaker 1: Pro tem herbold i. Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: Thank you. The second bill that we have. I'm sorry. Absolutely. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Thank you. The next bill is Council Bill 11 9732 Agenda item to Council Bill 119 732. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE related to elections; prohibiting foreign-influenced corporations from making independent expenditures or contributing to campaigns and independent expenditure committees; amending Sections 2.04.010, 2.04.260, 2.04.270, 2.04.360, and 2.04.370 of the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC); and adding a new Section 2.04.400 to the SMC. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_01132020_Res 31925 | Speaker 2: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. We'll move on to adoption of other resolutions. Please read into the record. I had number three adoption of the resolutions, agenda item three, resolution 319 25 expressing the Seattle City Council's opposition to the Trump administration's escalation.
Speaker 1: Toward.
Speaker 2: War with Iran and to attack an attack on the democratic rights of people with Iranian heritage in Washington State and requesting the Office of Intergovernmental Relations communicate these positions to the Washington State Congressional Delegation. Council Members one Thank you.
Speaker 3: Council President Pro Tem Herbold. I would like to describe the motivation behind the resolution, but then also make a motion to hold it and explain what it does.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 3: I wanted to thank all the activists who came here, Veterans for Peace Care, Washington Council on American-Islamic Relations. I really appreciate everybody who's here who testified and who didn't testify, but who are here for supporting this resolution. This is the resolution in opposition both to Trump's escalation toward war with Iran and also in response to reports of Border Patrol agents targeting people of Iranian descent, including U.S. citizens at the border crossing in Blaine, Washington, and also at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Trump's policies towards Iran, including airstrikes and the prominent drone assassination of Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani, are risking war and it is totally unacceptable. The U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq we have seen, have not expanded the freedom, democracy, standard of living or safety of ordinary people in the Middle East have not increased the safety of people in the United States. Instead, they have caused massive loss of human life and ongoing suffering in Afghanistan and Iraq. And for U.S. soldiers, it is ordinary people, especially women, young people and the marginalized who always pay the greatest price for imperialist war. In 2019, working people in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon built inspiring mass movements against poverty, corruption, women's oppression, ethnic oppression and authoritarian rule. However, what has happened now is that the threat of war with the US has cut across the momentum for this movement and helped strengthen for now, the authoritarian Iranian regime. Injured of threats of war. We need a mass antiwar movement in the United States and globally in solidarity with the movements in the Middle East. In drafting this resolution, my office looked to see if there was any precedent set by the City Council in 2003, when Bush drove the U.S. to war with George W Bush and drove the U.S. to war with Iraq, using similarly sketchy intelligence reports claiming imminent threats but no details. It was shocking, actually, to find that the resolution that was passed in 23 did not actually oppose the war in any way. And I think we need to set a different kind of precedent, actually, for the Seattle City Council to take a stand against any kind of military aggression. Because I know because we know it will be it will it will not favor the safety and security of our country either. And so we need to make sure that our movement is reflected. The movement that has changed the politics in the city and nationwide and internationally is reflected in the resolution that we passed. And I also want to be crystal clear that the way to honestly support the well-being of soldiers is don't start this war. And I think we have broad agreement that was reflected in the public comment that we just saw. We also want to make clear that we are opposed to the border control, border patrol agents in Washington targeting people of Iranian descent. And it and we and I want to speak more in detail about this, but I will reserve more comments for Tuesday, January 21st. And just more like before I make the motion, I want to explain to members of the public and especially who are here for this resolution. We have had requests for amendments to this resolution, which I'm happy to consider, but I would like for time to consider them so that we actually send the amendments to the activists who are involved, the organizations that have been involved in drafting my current resolution. So do you all have a chance to look at it and tell us what you think? And so I think in in favor of that kind of public scrutiny, I will move to hold resolution 31925 until January 21st, 2020. Thank you.
Speaker 2: And I just want to also add that there are a number of organizations that through the Office of Intergovernmental Relations that I worked with over the weekend, they, too would like.
Speaker 1: To have.
Speaker 2: Be an active consultation in the development of the final resolution, and that includes the Iran. An American Community Alliance pay band which supports the University of Washington, Persian and Iranian Studies program. And then finally, the Seattle Esfahan, a sister city advocacy organization who's working where we work with them every year to hold an annual event. And they're working towards also becoming a sister city here with us. So they have expressed that more time would allow us, allow everyone more thoughtful consideration and consensus. And they're very honored to have their work and their community noticed and supported and believe it's really.
Speaker 1: Critical for.
Speaker 2: Their community to see this sort of gesture of allyship at this particular time. So thank you for your for your willingness to to work through some of the issues of.
Speaker 1: A very, very diverse community here in Seattle.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Let me just add, just to clarify to members of the public, my office was and has been in touch with the Office of Intergovernmental Relations and thus a sister city advocacy organization as well. And we're happy to continue to be in touch with them, but will make sure that the proposed amendments are run through by the other organizations as well and come up with a recommended resolution. That is but but a strong but I would say a strong resolution that takes a position against war in Iran and also against the detaining of people of Iranian descent.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It has been moved in, seconded that the resolution be held into January 21st, 2020. Any further comments? CNN. Those in favor of holding resolution vote i. I those opposed. But now the motion carries. The resolution is held until January 21st, 2020. Is there any other business to come before the council seeing? Then we are adjourned. It is 2:51 p.m.. Thank you. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION affirming The City of Seattle’s support for its local Iranian-American and Iranian-immigrant communities, recognizing the importance of people-to-people diplomacy at the local level, calling for a de-escalation in the conflict and damaging rhetoric between the U.S. and Iran and an end to the attacks on the democratic rights of people with Iranian heritage in Washington State and requesting the Office of Intergovernmental Relations communicate these positions to the Washington State congressional delegation. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_01062020_CB 119720 | Speaker 5: Oh, right. So next step is report of the committee reports. Will the clerk please read? Agenda item one.
Speaker 2: The report The City Council Agenda and one Council Bill 119 720 and many ordinance 125 724 which adopted the 2018 budget, including that 2019 through 2024 capital improvement program. The committee recommends that the bill passes amended.
Speaker 5: I just need a minute to get to my remarks here. All right. So Council Bill 119720 is the fourth quarter 2019 Supplemental Budget Ordinance, which proposes adjustments to the 2019 adopted budget, including appropriation authority for the grants accepted by Ordinance 126023, which was adopted by Council last month on December 16th. This ordinance would appropriate approximately $132.7 million, of which $101.6 million is for operations and $31.1 million is for capital. The operations appropriations include approximately $16.7 million or 16.4% from the general fund, of which $8.6 million are grant funded. This was an ordinance that was heard in the former Finance and Neighborhoods Committee, and the that committee recommends that the City Council pass as amended this council bill. 119720. Are there any comments or questions? Okay. Will the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 2: Herbold. I. Suarez.
Speaker 3: Lewis, i.
Speaker 2: Morales, i. Peterson. I so want strauss. I. Council President Gonzalez. All right. Eight in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 5: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Right. Adoption of other resolutions. Will the clerk please read into the record items two and three. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 125724, which adopted the 2019 Budget, including the 2019-2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various funds in the Budget; adding new CIP projects revising project allocations for certain projects in the 2019-2024 CIP; abrogating positions; modifying positions, and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.