meeting_id
stringlengths 27
37
| source
stringlengths 596
386k
| type
stringlengths 4
42
| reference
stringlengths 75
1.1k
| city
stringclasses 6
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
SeattleCityCouncil_01062020_Res 31924
|
Speaker 5: Okay. The Council will now discuss and consider one motion to suspend the council rules before we consider item four on the agenda. The Council rules require that the Council adopt by resolution a monthly rotation for the position of Council President Pro Tem in order of seniority and requesting that this Council rule be suspended to allow consideration of Resolution 31924, which does not delegate the Council President Pro tem rotation in order by seniority. Two thirds of council members must vote in favor of this motion for us to consider Resolution 31924 as proposed. If two thirds are in favor, the Council will then consider Resolution 31924. So I am going to move to suspend council rule one as yeah, one de point one relating to the delegation of a council president pro tem rotation in order by seniority. And I think this has been motion and it's been seconded. Are there any comments? You see no comments from my colleagues. Those in favor of the motion vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries in the council rules suspended to allow consideration of the resolutions. So now the Council will consider resolution 31924. Which has not been read into the record. And we lost our clerk. Let me read here. We're going to go ahead and read it into the record first and then we'll we'll move through.
Speaker 2: A resolution designating the monthly president pro tem of the City Council of the City of Seattle for 2020 through 2021 and superseding Resolution 31884.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Judy. So we have now read. Agenda item four into the record. So I'm going to move to adopt the resolution, ask for a second and then we'll call for any comments. So I moved to adopt resolution 31924. It's been moved and seconded that the resolution be adopted. Are there any comments? Seeing none those in favor of adopting the. Sorry. No, it's okay. Those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 5: Any opposed the motion carries and the resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it.
Speaker 0: I can get in here. It's going be.
Speaker 5: Okay, folks. And for those of you who weren't quite following what we did on agenda item four, we essentially suspended the rules around around the need to do our council president pro tem schedule by seniority. So we have shifted things a little bit. Again, it's wasn't controversial and it was a agreed upon thing. So I don't want folks to think that this is an affront or an insult somehow to to you councilmembers talent.
Speaker 1: And in fact, I appreciate.
Speaker 5: So it means that that Councilmember Herbold will be council president pro tem in January, followed by Councilmember Suarez and then followed by Councilmember Mosqueda. And the only reason I'm highlighting that is because it's particularly relevant for the first three months of this year, which we will get to in a moment. So before I talk about my other business, is there any other further business to come before the council? And for the for the new members. This is if you need to be excused for a full council meeting, this is the opportunity for you to do that. All right. So I am though I don't have I'm not required under the council rules to be formally excused by the full council. I am nonetheless taking the opportunity to, in oral form, request that I be excused for all four Council meetings between January 13th and oh, what's the week before March 30th?
Speaker 2: S.O.S. We have March 30th.
Speaker 5: What's the Monday before that? March 20, March 23rd. So January 13th and. And March 23rd. I will be and I'm excited to be leaving on maternity leave. I will be the second council member in three months and in the history of the city of Seattle to request maternity leave and am very excited about about the opportunity to step away from my council obligations to bond with my first child. And I'm looking forward to be to being able to spend some time away from City Hall a little this morning I was having a little bit of FOMO, hearing all of you all talk about the wonderful things that are going to happen in the first quarter . But it is just an absolute humbling experience for me to be able to be in a position to start a family and to be able to have had some of the best prenatal care I could have ever asked for, and to have the support of my former colleagues and my new colleagues in carrying some of the work through in the first quarter. In my absence, I really appreciate all of the ongoing support from each of you up on the dais and from my own staff who have been key to making sure that the work will continue in my absence. So we have a solid work plan that we've been working on for weeks in my office to make sure that the roles and responsibilities of the council president office that are part of my office's responsibilities now are going to flow well with each of the three council president pro times that are going to be in place for January, February and March. And we are really looking forward to continuing to advance many of our policy priorities around child and and affordability and transportation issues and early learning and education issues throughout the city. And look forward to establishing all of that foundational work in my absence over the next three months. And then and then hitting the ground running on March 30th when I return to the city council. So really appreciate the again support from all of you as I step away and and focus on on family for for three months this this year undivided attention hopefully to that and really look forward to being able to do that . So if there's no objection to my being excused, I will be excused.
Speaker 3: That's it. All right.
Speaker 5: So as a reminder, once again, there is a short reception and that will commence now in the Bertha Knight Landis room, which is on the first floor of City Hall. All are welcome to attend. That is the last item on our agenda. And with that being said, we are adjourned. Thank you, colleagues.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION designating the monthly President Pro Tem of the City Council of The City of Seattle for 2020-2021 and superseding Resolution 31884.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07262022_CB 120372
|
Speaker 1: The Report of the City Council Agenda Item one Council Bill 120372 An Ordinance relating to employment in Seattle amending sections of the Municipal Code to establish a new date for ending hazard pay requirements and automatically repealing the ordinance.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And today I'm going to move to postpone Council Bill 1 to 0 372 to August 2nd, 2022. Is there a second think thinking has been moved and seconded? Are there any comments? See more comments on the clip. Please call the role on the motion to propose postpone council bill 1 to 0 three seven to.
Speaker 1: Council Member Nelson I. Council Member Petersen.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Council Member Silent.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council Member Herbold. Yes. Council Member Lewis.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council President Pro Tem Strouse.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Six in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The motion carries in council 120372 is postponed to August 2nd, 2022. City Council Meeting Item number two Please read the short title. Read the item to into to the record.
Speaker 1: Agenda Item to Council Bill 120375 An ordinance relating to the Seattle Criminal Code adding a new chapter 12 .8.32 to the Seattle Missile Code and amending Section 12 .8.20.06 out of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to employment in Seattle; amending Sections 100.025, 100.030, and 5 of Ordinance 126274 to establish a new date for ending hazard pay requirements and automatically repealing the ordinance.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07262022_CB 120375
|
Speaker 1: Agenda Item to Council Bill 120375 An ordinance relating to the Seattle Criminal Code adding a new chapter 12 .8.32 to the Seattle Missile Code and amending Section 12 .8.20.06 out of the Seattle Municipal Code.
Speaker 0: Thank you. A move to pass Council Bill 120375 to bring this item before us. Is there a second? Thank you. It has been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilmembers want as the sponsor of this bill. Would you like to share opening and closing remarks with others joining in between?
Speaker 2: Yes. Thank you, Jordan Strauss. This is legislation from my office to make Seattle a sanctuary for women and pregnant people and their doctors and other care providers facing persecution for seeking and performing abortions. Laws violating basic bodily autonomy and criminalizing reproductive health care are fundamentally unjust, and we should not allow Seattle to be complicit. This bill prohibits Seattle police from arresting people, either patients or providers, based on outstanding warrants or otherwise aiding investigations related to and abortion laws around the country. Let anyone burdened by draconian anti-abortion laws come to Seattle without fear of prosecution. This will unfortunately not make unjust arrest warrants go away. That would require building of powerful women's rights and LGBTQ rights movement to win back the right to bodily autonomy nationwide. But the legislation will mean that people with unjust arrest warrants can live in Seattle without being extradited to whatever state is attempting to prosecute them. This is decisive because the police of other states and cities do not have the power to arrest outside their jurisdiction. And if Seattle police, the county sheriff and Washington state patrol refused to do those arrests based on anti-abortion laws, there is no law enforcement agency left to arrest. If this legislation passes in Seattle alone, it will have a vital impact on protecting many women in a particular people. However, if bringing it here can help it spread to other cities and states, the impact could be truly profound. If half the states in the nation refuse to extradite people under investigation for breaking abortion laws in the other half of the states, those laws will become extremely difficult to enforce. Like all this is already being conducted by elected representatives in several cities and counties interested in similar legislation. Thank you to Chicago Alderman Biden, Sergio Lopez and Minneapolis City Council member Robin Wamsley, both members like me of the Democratic Socialists of America who planned to push for similar legislation in their respective cities. Thank you. Especially to Heidi. Wayne White, Light, district supervisor in Dane County, Wisconsin, who met with me and other activists yesterday and who wrote to the Seattle City Council in strong support of our legislation. As Supervisor Greg Lightner said, quote, The immediate impact is severe and sickening in my state where we had an abortion ban on the books from 1849. The abortion ban makes it a felony crime to provide an abortion unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother. There are no exceptions for rape, incest or other health issues of the parent. After all, for 50 years, the 173 year old law was not enforced after the dogs decision was announced. Abortion providers stop scheduling appointments in Wisconsin. Now pregnant persons in the stands need to find a way to get an abortion provider in a state where they can still access an abortion. Like Illinois or Minnesota, they have to line up the forms, not just for the procedure or pills, but arrange transportation and lodging. And they have to wait likely much longer to get the care they need. They have to worry that our state legislature will enact even more draconian restrictions on their right to pursue the health care they need in other places. I plan to pursue legislation to prohibit county resources from being used to report, investigate or prosecute any person for violating the 1849 abortion ban. I write to let you know that your commitment to protecting those providing and seeking abortion care is incredibly important to me. It's important to me as a woman who has been pregnant four times but only birthed one child. It's important to me as a fellow local elected official, working with other legislators, activists, public health officials and health care providers to figure out how to do everything in our power to push back against the horrifying 1849 abortion ban in a country which no longer recognizes the constitutional right to access an abortion. Please vote yes on this bill and reject any attempts to watering down like some of what is found in Amendment B. As policymakers, we have a responsibility to use our power to protect human rights when we choose to change the words in our policy to , quote unquote, request something to do, quote unquote requiring it. We are failing the people who elected us. Anyone can request something of a government body. Legislative bodies like your council can require it. Watering down this bill would render it virtually meaningless. Pregnant people and people with uteruses in my state and in yours need more than grandstanding. They need real legislation which will protect them. End quote. Thank you, supervisor regulator. I do want to also clarify that this legislation is very different than current state laws such as House Bill 1851 and legal opinions which protect people who perform or have an abortion in Seattle, including if a pregnant person lives in another state and comes to Seattle to have an abortion. Because their. State ban stuff. Those laws are good to have, but they do not protect people who perform or have an abortion in a state where they have been banned in, which requires breaking those unjust laws and consequently they need refuge. This is what this legislation will address. If people break the unjust, unfair abortion laws in their own state and believe they will be caught. They can come to Seattle and be protected from prosecution. After I announced this legislation at a press conference, Governor Inslee issued an executive order in May. Harold Brett pledged at a press conference to temporarily instruct state and city police not to aid in those out-of-state abortion related investigations. However, those executive orders are significantly weaker than those legislation because they make no mention of out-of-state arrest warrants. They're also no substitute for actually codifying these protections in the law, which our legislation will do. The overturning of ROE shows the importance of codifying human rights into law. I want to thank Jasmine Morrow from City Council Center staff for all the help she provided in drafting this bill. And thank you to central staff member and Gorman for continuing the work on the bill. Thank you to the over 5500 people who signed the public petition from my office in support of this legislation. Special thanks. Go to the rank and file union members who have supported this and local unions have endorsed the legislation. UAW 4121 who represent thousands of registered workers. The Resident and Fellow Physicians Union Northwest who represent physicians and residents of the University of Washington Hospital, American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3197 representing the healthcare workers of the Seattle Veterans Administration. Thank you to real change through this town navigator Diamond Action Group up and the Puget Sound Mobilization for Reproductive Justice who have publicly supported this legislation and Socialist Alternative my organization whose members have been doubling almost daily every week across the city and gathering thousands of petition signatures. Finally, my office has prepared an amendment amendment to this bill, which I will move after concluding these introductory remarks and with the permission of the Council President Pro Tem. The amendment makes some small technical edits and removes a line in order to make the bill better reflect its original intent. The line deleted had said code provided by a licensed healthcare provider operating within the scope of their practice, unquote, when describing the abortion related arrest warrants and investigations that Seattle police would not be. The reality is, states that have provided or passed draconian abortion laws also make it impossible to be licensed to provide reproductive health care. And as a result, people find other illegal ways they are forced to find other legal ways to do the same thing. Thousands will find their own solution to unwanted pregnancies because they will be forced to do so. We will order the abortion bill online or get it from a friend by limiting the protections in this bill to licensed healthcare providers operating within the scope of their practice. It would have inadvertently undercut the impact of the bill. So this amendment corrects that. As I said in the council briefing yesterday, this amendment aligns the bill's language to its original intent and is consistent with how I have been publicly describing the bill. I fully agree with the dozens of working people who spoke today during public comment, including the opposition to any amendments that would weaken the legislation. I want to make it clear to all working people that this amendment I'm moving also is not an amendment that will weaken the legislation but actually make sure that the intent of the legislation is fulfilled. So I urge Council members to support this legislation, including Amendment eight and Council.
Speaker 0: Would you like to move your amendment?
Speaker 2: Yes, thank you. Council President Jordan Strauss I move amendment a to council bill 120375.
Speaker 0: Second, it has been moot. It has been moved in seconding to amend Council Bill 120375. Councilmember Swan, I know you've addressed the amendment already. Any further remarks on the amendment?
Speaker 2: Nothing for me unless any questions.
Speaker 0: Fantastic colleagues. Any questions? Seeing no questions. I had just been moved when the clip was called around the amendment.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Nelson. I. Councilmember Peterson I council members want.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Lewis. Yes. Council President Pro Tem Strauss.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Six in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The Motion Kings and the amendment is adopted. Councilman or so on. Any clue? I know you spoke very well to the bill in the amendment. Anything else? I guess let me call and colleagues, any comments on the bill? Colleagues. Councilmember Herman.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. Just a couple very quick words. I'm very pleased to vote in support of this legislation, which provides important safeguards to ensure that people seeking abortion here are protected from an attempt to stop or prosecute them. I do want to say for the record that I publicly stated my support for this legislation at last week's full council meeting, and I'm frustrated that an email was sent out from the sponsors office incorrectly claiming that no council member had done so. I've since received a significant amount of advocacy. I welcome the advocacy but urged me to take a vote that I had already committed to taking more broadly on the substance of the bill and the substance of the issue. Ensuring safety and full access to reproductive health care is an urgent and very, very important priority for me. I've created sort of a track record on on some of these issues by first adding language to the original resolution that the Council passed, sponsored by by council members to want. But focusing on the immediate investment that the Northwest Abortion Access Fund was was needing to receive, which the Mayor has called that that has answered that call. And the council is now poised to approve $250,000 for this purpose this year, consistent with that amendment. I've met regularly with advocates and providers on the front lines of abortion, access to understanding their ongoing needs and emerging priorities. I had a briefing this morning from Public Health on how they're working to protect abortion access and what more we can do here at the city council. Had that rethink in my public committee this morning. I'm also co-sponsoring two bills with Councilmember Morales to protect pregnant people who are seeking abortion here, which the council will consider on August 9th. I think these are important, significant pieces of legislation. I don't think it's appropriate to minimize their importance. One bill is to create a protected status of of people seeking abortion. The other relates specifically to the actions that others may take towards people seeking comprehensive reproductive services. And I'm really looking forward to bringing those bills before the full council. They have already passed the committee where they were heard. And then I'm really looking forward to working to find ways to expand abortion access and protect what can only be called medical refugees, people who are coming here and cannot receive basic health care in their home states so that we can make sure that people understand the the the places here in Washington State where they can receive those those services, because it's very confusing right now with some of the deceptive practices that some clinics are engaged in and the fact that we have hospital mergers with with hospitals that simply don't provide those services services. Again, more important work that is yet to be done in closing. Again, I support this bill and I thank members to want to bring it forward.
Speaker 0: No, thank you. Other colleagues. Any questions? Comments. Seeing none. Councilmember Swanton, final words passed quickly.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I appreciate councilmember horrible support for this bill and I hope all councilmembers will vote yes on it. And this fall, the people's budget movement will also be bringing forward a budget amendment to fund free abortions in Seattle, both for residents and those escaping rightwing and abortion laws in their own states. That would be another way that Seattle and hopefully other states as cities in Washington state and other states as well, can work to make these deeply unjust and rising laws difficult to enforce.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Great. Thank you. Will the court please call the roll and the passage of the bill as amended?
Speaker 1: Council Member Nelson I.
Speaker 0: She said, I.
Speaker 1: I said, I.
Speaker 4: Don't.
Speaker 1: Think you.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Peterson?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Councilmember silence.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 0: Yes. I said yes.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Council President Pro Tem Strauss.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Sits in favor and unopposed. That's a press release now.
Speaker 0: Huh? The bill passes as amended, the chair will sign it with a clear. Please fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Next time. Number three will the clerk please read item three into the record? I am very excited about this.
Speaker 1: Agenda Item three Report of the Sustainability and Riches Rights Committee. A point nine excuse me. 02268. The appointment of Justine Justine Bell as Director of the Office of Sustainability and Environment. The Committee recommends the Council confirm the appointment.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Criminal Code, adding a new Chapter 12A.32 to the Seattle Municipal Code; and amending Section 12A.20.060 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07262022_CB 120365
|
Speaker 1: The Report of the Finance and Housing Committee Agenda Item for Council No. 120365 and the authorizing and 2022 acceptance of funding from non city sources. The committee recommends the City Council pass the Council bill.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Ruiz, on behalf of Councilmember Mosquito, you are recognized in order to provide the committee report. Yes. Thank you so much. President Pro Tem strauss i so council member Mesquita indicated that you wanted to hold these bills. So I think at this time I'm going to move to hold them. And I could explain after I make the motion and it's seconded or before. Thank you. Councilmember Lewis, I understand that there are two of four bills to be held. Did you want to hold all of them or were just two of them just the two budget bills? President pro tem. Yes. So which requires seven it requires seven members to pass without appropriate quorum today. But otherwise, as you indicated, the committee report does include the gift. Well, I think that that's one of the ones that we need to hold for the quorum. So maybe we could have interim clerk Adkinson jump in on this. It's my understanding that the gift of public gift.
Speaker 1: And unless I heard something from earlier that I am for does not need the three quarter vote and could be moved forward today. It's agenda item five that takes the seven council votes.
Speaker 0: And the supplemental budget bill, the supplemental and the and the CHP, those are the two that require seven votes. The other.
Speaker 1: I was only aware of item five.
Speaker 0: Okay. Just when we lose hope, we can hold everything if you want. No, no, no. I think that we can go ahead and proceed with Council Bill 120365. Council bill per the clear representations if we can go forward with countable 120366. And. So we are currently on three, six, five. It has been read into the records at this time and acceptance of funding from non city sources.
Speaker 1: Yes and pass or a motion to postpone. Sebelius is.
Speaker 0: Concerned. Nelson.
Speaker 1: Do you know if council bill 120365 could be voted on today? Is that what are the words?
Speaker 0: Yes. Could be voted on today. Was that the question?
Speaker 1: Is that what are the words it needs to be? I just remember in committee we handled those three, six, five and three, six, six together. So as I understand it, they don't have to be voted together as long as agenda item four is passed before agenda item five. So if we were to pass agenda item four today and agenda item five on next city council meeting next week, we should be fine.
Speaker 0: That's my understanding as well. Yeah. Thanks for that clarification. And no need for words when we've got Deputy Clerk Schwinn at the helm. Yes. So with that, Mr. President pro tem, I would move that we pass council bill 120365. Thank you. Second set has been moved and seconded customer reviews. Would you like to provide the committee report? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem. So we had a discussion on this legislation in committee last week. It ultimately passed with four council members voting in favor and recommending full passage. This legislation allows these departments to accept grants of funds from non city sources and the committee recommends that we pass legislation. Wonderful colleagues. Any questions? Comments. Concerns. Seeing none of the cultural.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Nelson, I. Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Sawant. Yes.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Lewis. Yes. Council President Pro-Tem Strauss.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Six in favor, nine opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes with the clerk. And the terrible sign over the cliff. Please fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. I remember fiber click please read the short title written five into the record.
Speaker 1: Agenda Item five Council Bill 120366 An ordinance amending ordinance 126490 which adopted the 2022 budget, including the 2022 to 2027 Capital Improvement Program. The committee recommends the bill pass as amended.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE authorizing, in 2022, acceptance of funding from non-City sources; authorizing the heads of the Executive Department, Department of Finance and Administrative Services, Department of Neighborhoods, Human Services Department, Seattle Parks and Recreation, Seattle Public Library, Seattle Public Utilities, and the Seattle Police Department to accept specified grants, private funding, and subsidized loans and to execute, deliver, and perform corresponding agreements; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07262022_CB 120366
|
Speaker 1: Agenda Item five Council Bill 120366 An ordinance amending ordinance 126490 which adopted the 2022 budget, including the 2022 to 2027 Capital Improvement Program. The committee recommends the bill pass as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Also known as the supplemental budget, this is both the budget and the capital improvement program, which both Councilmember Lewis and I just referenced. Councilmember Lewis also noted for budget bills we require seven votes in the affirmative. We currently have six council members present and so we will hold the bill for next week. So I move to postpone Council Bill 1 to 0 366 to August 2nd, 2022. Is there a second second? It has been moved and seconded. Are there any comments seen or comments with a quick please called on the motion to propose postpone cancel 120366 by one week.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Nelson, I. Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 0: By.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Sawant.
Speaker 2: Yes. Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 1: S. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Council president pro-tem Strauss.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Six in favor nine.
Speaker 0: Opposed the motion carries comfortable 120366 is postponed to August 2nd 2022 City Council Meeting I remember six with the court read item six into the record.
Speaker 1: Agenda Item six Council Bill 120367 An ordinance accepting the gift of a hybrid government performance lab zero and not a fine confirming certain facts. The committee recommends the bill pass.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 126490, which adopted the 2022 Budget, including the 2022-2027 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various funds in the Budget; revising project allocations for certain projects in the 2022-2027 CIP; creating positions; modifying positions; abrogating positions; modifying or adding provisos; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07262022_CB 120371
|
Speaker 1: Agenda Item seven Council Bill 120371. An ordinance relating to the Department of Finance and Administrative Services declaring a portion of Lot 31 BLOCK two Grammar Heights edition Item 13 of Pratt's Page 66. That is not needed for street purposes. A surplus to the city needs. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Russo. Again, on behalf of councilmember skater, you're recognized to provide the committee report. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. This is a great opportunity that's being pursued by the Department of Finance Administrative Services. One of the fairly routine departmental matters that have to come to the council was the city's board of directors for final approval involves the swapping around of a couple of properties for the use of the department. This was scrutinized in a presentation before the committee last week and resulted in a unanimous decision from the committee to recommend full passage to the Council. And I do so move that we pass Council Bill 120371. I think it comes from colleagues questions, comments, concerns. CNN was the piece called The Wrong Passage of the Bill.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Nelson, I. Councilmember Peterson. Hi. Councilmember Swan?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council President Pro-Tem Strouse.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Six in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes the General Senate with a plan to fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. I items removed from the consent calendar. There were no items removed from the consent calendar today. Item J Adoption of other resolutions. There are no resolutions for introduction and adoption today under item K at a business colleagues. Is there any other business to come before the council? I'm seeing none. I will. I believe that I made this request previously. I'll make it again today.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Finance and Administrative Services; declaring a portion of Lot 31, Block 2, Kramer Heights Addition, Volume 13 of Plats, page 66, that is not needed for street purposes, as surplus to the City’s needs; authorizing the sale of said northern 45 feet of the property to the owners of the adjoining property at fair market value; and authorizing the transfer of the southern 65 feet of the property to the owners of the adjoining property, with covenants on the property to benefit affordable housing; authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services to execute all documents for the transfer of the properties; and directing how the proceeds from the sale shall be distributed.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07192022_Res 32056
|
Speaker 2: A report of the Economic Development, Technology and City Write Committee Agenda Item one. Resolution 32056. A resolution related to the city write department adopting in 2023 through 2028 strategic plan update for the satellite department and endorsing the associated six year rate path. The committee recommends the council bill be passed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Councilmember Nelson, the floor is yours. COSAT Nelson.
Speaker 2: One moment.
Speaker 0: Please. Okay. Item number one.
Speaker 2: So if you can hear me first, I'd like to give some background. Resolution 32056 would adopt the City Lights 2023 to 2028 strategic plan and endorsed the associated rate path. But by background, I went to explain that the disruption of the pandemic in 2020 interrupted the expected update of City Lights Strategic Plan in rate path. In recognition of the economics due to the COVID 19 pandemic. The executive did not transmit and council did not take up rate setting legislation during 2020. In 2021, Council approved rates for 2021 and 2022, and they were effective in April of 2021. So in differing from regular practice, City Light proposed in council adopted a five year, not a six year strategic plan for 2022 to 2026. So now in 2022, City Light has proposed a 2023 to 2028 strategic plan starting there, the the normal two year cycle of planning and rate path determination and rate change adoption and because only one year has passed since the adoption of the previous plan. City Light characterizes the 2023 to 2028 plan as an update rather than a wholly new plan. So what we have before us has been approved by the review panel and unanimously passed out of committee last Wednesday.
Speaker 0: HSA and Wilson. Are there any comments or questions regarding this or Councilmember Nelson? Casper Peterson.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council president. The resolution approved last year Resolution 32007. Scheduled electricity rates to increase by 3.8% in 2023 and by another 3.8% in 2024. But City Lights resolution before us today is asking the council to increase their rates by a higher amount, 4.5% in 2023 and another 4.5% in 2024. I appreciate all the hard work she does. I appreciate the thoughtful rationale for the utilities proposal, consistent with my comments on substantive changes and rate increases that I have communicated to my constituents. Though I'll be voting no on today's resolution. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Peterson, is there any other comments customers want? Thank you. Guns have proven worse as I've done previous years. I will be voting yes on this legislation approving Seattle City Life Strategic Plan. It accurately analyzes what resources city will need to continue its important work. However, as I've said in previous years, also, I would not agree that working people who are now facing punishing inflation should be asked to pay any rate increases. Instead, Seattle should be increasing the rates on big business. For that reason, while I'm voting yes on the strategic plan, I intend to vote no on rate increase legislation as long as it continues to put the burden of those rate increases on working people. Thank you. If your customers want this or any other comments or concerns. All right. I have some closing comments. I was just going to do that comes from Nelson. So why don't you go ahead and have a closing comments before we go to a vote?
Speaker 2: Well, I do want to acknowledge Councilmember Peterson's historic knowledge. I really appreciate that you have that perspective coming into this year's vote. It's true. We're talking about a 0.7% increase from what was anticipated to be the 2023 rate increase to what is actually proposed in this plan. And I just wanted to explain a little bit about what's behind that. So City Late developed the average rate for 2023 by including inflationary costs from 2021 in 2022 that were not included in city lights, operations and maintenance budget for those years. And in addition to that, the the inflationary adjustment from 2022 to 2023 is a significant driver. So, you know, right now, the the inflation is anticipated is the current projection is I believe it's C 7.8. And when that last plan was adopted, the projection was 5.1. So that is a significant driver. And also it's noted in the report and I want to make clear that the people watching this know that City Light makes plain that the annual increases of the proposed rate path fall short of anticipated inflation in cost going forward. So they are absorbing some of the the higher than usual inflationary costs. And in the past two years, just for an example, some of those cost increases when it comes to city lights cause steel, aluminum and copper increased 70 to 80%, conduit 33%. So that those are the sorts of things that they're grappling with. And two councilmembers once point many people lost their jobs and it is but city light didn't turn off people's did not close accounts in they are currently operating under $44.7 million in arrearages. So I acknowledge that I acknowledge Councilmember Peterson's concern, but I, I ask for my colleagues support of this plan. I think that what's most important is really what's going on in the pocketbooks of of Seattleites and actually the city late reports that actual rates in 2023 to 2024 will be slightly lower at 11.4 cents per kilowatt hour compared to the anticipated 11.4 $0.09 per kilowatt hours. So actually, it's lower than anticipated, and this is because of the lower than anticipated Bonneville Power Administration pass through cost. So that cost that we all that also factors into rates is lower. So anyway, like I say, I ask for consideration of these issues as we as we go forward for a vote today you.
Speaker 0: To me also I would apologize to quickly to Councilor Nelson for closing remarks. And then I saw Councilor Maceda and Councilmember Strauss had some comments. So, Councilmember Nelson, I'm going to allow Councilmember Strauss and Councilman Rosetta to respond. And if you want to respond again, I will give you that opportunity. Councilor Mosqueda.
Speaker 2: Thank you, council president. I want to underscore some of the things that are my colleagues have also said today, echoing what Councilmember Salinas said about a more progressive rate structure. That's something that I also worked on in 2018 and 2019 after taking the helm at City Life. I know Councilmember Peterson has raised concerns about the impact on some of the smallest rate payers as well. And he and I had worked on utility discount program and really trying to push and move towards a more automatic enrollment for utility discount programs over the last few years. Much appreciated that Seattle City Life is taking some steps on the utility discount program and moving towards what I hope will be more auto enrollment. But I just wanted to bring up the longstanding desire to see a more progressive rate structure here and underscore some of the points about needing to see that in the future. I also think that as we look to maybe codify some of the things that have made it easier for some of our community members who've been hardest hit by COVID, one of the things that we have done is, for example, waive the design review for affordable housing. But what affordable housing folks have really said to us is they also want to see the utility hookups cost be waived. So I will be voting yes for this strategic plan today. But as we think about, you know, how we strategically plan to address the hardship that has been worsened by COVID, a more progressive rate structure, auto enrollment and utility discount programs, and making sure that we're waiving utility hookups for affordable housing would be policies that I know that there would be shared interest for on this council. With that said, I will be voting yes for this and look forward to those future conversations. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Castro Mosquito. Councilor Strauss.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Council President. This is. Apologies. I didn't mean to take the last word. After Councilmember.
Speaker 0: Nelson speaking.
Speaker 1: It made me think of some questions. Councilmember Nelson, can you help me remember? We did not increase city the scale. City Light did not increase their rates in 2020 and 2021.
Speaker 2: That is correct.
Speaker 1: And so I just in the two hardest years that we've seen in many in a long time, city Light did not increase rates at a time that they could have. With that understanding, wouldn't it be true that these rates are less than we could have experienced much higher rate increases? And when we look at if these increases have been spread out over two years, it would be much less than what we're asked to vote on today. Is that correct?
Speaker 2: I think that is a logical observation. And I have to say that that is partly why I gave that background. And you're just cutting to the chase much better than I did.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Just wanting to highlight that point. Thank you, young president.
Speaker 0: Okay, sir. Anyone else? Before I let Councilmember Nelson say anything in closing, in response to the last two comments we had or anything else from you. Councilmember Nelson.
Speaker 2: Again, I appreciate my colleagues engagement. I want to make sure that the public is aware that we are not voting to increase rates right now. That conversation will begin on August 10th in my committee and continue to the following meeting. We will have a possible vote on September 14th, so there is time for my colleagues to ask city late questions or our central staff can he before that as well. So right now we are we are approving a rate path based on some of these factors that I've just that I've just outlined. And so bottom line is that if inflation is going up faster than we thought, that's driving cost increases. We're not. Those aren't necessarily reflected in the rates that we're endorsing in this rate had we have not increased rates in the under normal schedule. And in fact, the decrease in the amount that we paid Bonneville Power Administration does help reduce those costs. So thank you very much for those last words.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilor Nelson. And Customer Support. And Councilor Petersen, thank you. As I know, you were former chairs of Seattle City Light in which I sat on those committees and we should note that this did pass out of committee 420 with no opposition. So with that, Madam Clerk, can we please call the roll? Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Morales Yes. Councilmember Mosquera I. Councilmember Nelson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Petersen.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 0: Council members want. Yes. Member Strouse.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold? Yes. Council President Waters? Yes. We didn't favor one opposed. Thank you. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Madam Clerk, can you please affix my signature to the recently passed legislation on my behalf? Moving on on the agenda, item number two. Well, Madam Clerk, will you please read item two into the record? And Councilmember Strauss, the floor. Yours.
Speaker 2: The Report of the Land Use Committee Council Agenda Item two Council Bill 120313 An ordinance relating to land use and zoning defining the addition of a single development that includes residential uses at a community or technical college located within an urban center.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION related to the City Light Department; adopting a 2023-2028 Strategic Plan Update for the City Light Department and endorsing the associated six-year rate path.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07192022_CB 120313
|
Speaker 2: The Report of the Land Use Committee Council Agenda Item two Council Bill 120313 An ordinance relating to land use and zoning defining the addition of a single development that includes residential uses at a community or technical college located within an urban center. The committee recommends the State Council pass the bill as amended.
Speaker 1: Because.
Speaker 0: Of stress.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Council President, Clerk Schwinn said. Great. We also had Lincoln Farris come to speak to us before for public comment. This has been a process that has been ongoing for more than five years to allow for housing at one of Seattle's colleges. This allows for the minor amendment rather than a major amendment to a major institution master plan. We did receive a technical amendment in committee, as well as an amendment from Councilmember Peterson. Both were accepted unanimously. I urge and I vote and I look forward to continuing this work.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Strauss, are there any comments for Councilmember Strauss before I let him do closing comments? Sir, anything from my colleagues? Before we move forward. Kessler Strauss, thank you so much. And Councilmember Petersen, as you know, we have North Steel College in District five and we've worked very closely with former president Dr. Brown and now Dr. Crawford. We work closely with the Chief Seattle Club and looking at housing for students, low income students, indigenous students. We've had great success working with North College for the Community and Health Board in a clinic and also with all of our labor groups in our apprenticeship programs and also working with our colleges for the not only ready to start, but the Promise program. Those of you that have colleges in your district, those are great resources to leverage and this is just moving it forward on the housing piece. So thank you, Councilmember Strauss very much and Casper Peterson and your committee for moving this forward. With that council member. Strauss, you want to close this out before we go to a vote?
Speaker 1: Just to say that, see, our colleges provide a unique opportunity for students here in the city to receive an education with lower amounts of debt than the larger institution and by allowing them to provide housing near regional transit. We're hitting three of our goals with one with one bill here. So I urge a yes vote. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Light rail. Two words for you. All right. Will the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 2: Remember Lewis?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: I remember Alice. Yes, I remember Mosquera. I remember Nelson. I don't remember Peterson. I remember Sawant. Yes. Councilmember Strauss. Yes. Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Council president was high nine in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The bill passes. The chair will sign it. Madam Clerk, could you please affix my signature to the bill? We'll get on to item number three. Casimir Strauss, this is you again. Madam Clerk. Will you please read item number three into the record?
Speaker 2: Agenda Item three Resolution 32059a resolution stating the City of Seattle's intent to address climate change and improve resiliency as part of the one Seattle update to the Comprehensive Plan. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; defining the addition of a single development that includes residential uses at a community or technical college located within an Urban Center as a minor amendment to an existing Major Institution master plan; amending Sections 23.42.049, 23.45.504, 23.47A.004, 23.69.008, 23.69.026, and 23.69.035 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07192022_Res 32059
|
Speaker 2: Agenda Item three Resolution 32059a resolution stating the City of Seattle's intent to address climate change and improve resiliency as part of the one Seattle update to the Comprehensive Plan. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 1: Councilmember strauss he council president. We have the major update to the comprehensive plan coming next year. The one seattle plan and this was last legislative session. The legislature failed to act on passing a bill requiring major updates to address the climate crisis before us. Thankfully, when the legislature doesn't act, we have the ability to, and that's what we have before us. A resolution stating our intent to address the climate crisis through our major update to the comprehensive plan bank accounts.
Speaker 0: President I should add that Councilor Macheda is a co-sponsor.
Speaker 1: Kaspersky's regional sponsor.
Speaker 0: Missouri.
Speaker 1: She wrote.
Speaker 0: Sorry, I this councilor Mosqueda, please.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you very much, Madam President, and thank you very much to Councilmember Straus. I'm really excited that we are co-sponsoring this resolution. This resolution states the city's intent to address climate change and improve resilience as a part of that major comprehensive plan that Councilmember Strauss just noted. And we want to make sure that at the forefront, as we consider the plan, that we think about our environment and environmental justice as a cornerstone to our work over the next few years. I think Aaron House, this was really a product of her saying we can do this in Seattle. Other jurisdictions have done this, providing examples to our team in the apartment to show that there is a really great opportunity for us to weigh in and support the good work that our state legislator members have considered doing. Again, I want to thank Representative Doer for joining us in Councilmember Strauss's Committee on Land Use and for all the work that she and the legislative team have done in Olympia, including Representative Joel Fitzgibbon and so many others on the state and the House excuse me, on the House and the Senate side who are truly fighting and will continue to fight for a statewide approach to require all cities and counties to address climate change through their local planning. As noted, this resolution follows up on House Bill 1099 that Councilmember Strauss noted did not make it through the state legislature. This is Representative Dora's legislation that is going to continue to seek to make sure that climate change is incorporated as climate planning excuse me, as as climate plans continue in cities and counties, and make sure that everyone is taking an active role in committing to climate resilient communities while reducing contributions to the climate crisis. There were valiant efforts by Representative Doer and others in the state legislature this last year. There was a broad based, broad coalition, broad based support from advocates across the state. And while the piece of legislation did not make it through last session. It really underscored there is a gap. There is a gap that this legislation was trying to fix at the statewide level to make sure that more cities and counties are truly considering climate justice as part of their comprehensive planning process. As we talked about in committee, this is also about making sure that we're leading with a racial justice lens as well, recognizing that it's bipoc, brown, black, indigenous communities of color who are often in either front line or fenceline communities, meaning they're living in communities or working in industries that have higher rates of exposure to toxins and the effects of climate injustice, such as extreme heat, wildfire, floods, and the disproportionate impact on our health as well. So as we think about the climate conference excuse me, as we think about the comprehensive plan, we should think about this as our best tool to combat the inequities that are driving climate injustice and to help use the comprehensive plan to drive the creation of additional housing and fight displacement. So it's really using that intersectional lens. I'm excited that this legislation will be part of our effort to not only build housing, but also as we think about what rezoning looks like, how we make sure that more people can live near the places that we call high opportunity zones, places that make sure that you don't have to rely on a car so you can get to work childcare, community centers, senior centers without having to have a car. And this is our tool to help make sure that fewer people are being pushed an hour or two outside of the cities, contributing to Seattle being the third highest mega commuter city in the entire country. So again, thank you to all of you for your possible support for this two representative doer, for all of the work that she did in Olympia to our state legislative champions who have not finished their work on this. We'll be back next session. And colleagues. You can tell that this will be part of our legislative agenda next year. I want to make sure that folks know that we are part of a growing list of jurisdictions that are doing this as. Well, trying to codify the intent of 1099 House Bill 1099 in our city and local, local statutes. We're now joining King County, Pierce County, Whatcom County, Bothell, Kirkland and Redmond in our proactive commitment to address climate change. And I want to thank the King County Council, who recently adopted a climate planning framework in their plan. Scoping motion and aligning this effort here today with the counties will make sure that we are in compliance with the Growth Management Act and also in compliance with, I think, our core values, which is to address climate injustice. Again, thanks to Aaron Lish, Yolanda, the law department, Robin Briggs and the strong coalition of community organizations that have been fighting for House Bill 1099 and are supportive of this legislation, along with Obesity and Office of Sustainability and the Environment. Madam President, thank you as well. I will turn it back over to you and thank you for your partnership, Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilor Mosqueda. So with that, is there any other comments before we move to a vote for either Councilmember Strauss or Casper Moscato? I don't see any. But what I want to add is I want to thank Councilor Mosqueda and Councilmember Strauss for doing this. But it did pass out of committee 5 to 0 with no opposition. I want to thank everybody because we've been working on this since the Green New Deal was passed. It was not passed or the House resolution was in Congress. But council members so want addressed this issue in her committee Friday as we were appointing Justin Farrell as the new O.C. director, and they had their discussion regarding the Green New Deal, climate justice and the false narrative that it has to be jobs versus in the environment, that there is a false narrative, and we don't need to follow that narrative any more. So again, Councilmember Mosqueda has been working on this since she got elected and Councilmember Strauss is now working on this and looks like we're all on board here. So with that, Councilmember Strauss, is there anything you want to add before we move to a vote?
Speaker 1: Well, council president, I couldn't say it any better than Councilmember Mosquito did. I urge you to vote.
Speaker 0: Nobody can. So with that, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the passage of the bill? Council member, Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: No resolution. Councilmember Morales. Yes. Councilmember Machado, i. Councilmember Nelson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Salant Yes. Councilmember Strouse.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Council President Was I not in favor and unopposed and I misspoke. It's a resolution, not a bill without the. Well, now it's a bill. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And will the clerk please fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? So moving on to item number four, we have something other than neighborhoods education, civil rights and Culture Committee. And this will be Councilwoman Morales, but first will have the clerk read item number four to the record.
Speaker 2: They're part of the neighborhood education, Civil Rights and Culture Committee. Agenda Item for Council Bill 120335 An ordinance relating to service animals conforming the definition of service animal to federal and state law. Establishing a uniform definition for service animal by removing similar terms and including the definition in the parks code and making technical changes to the Seattle
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION stating The City of Seattle’s intent to address climate change and improve resiliency as part of the One Seattle update to the Comprehensive Plan.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07192022_CB 120360
|
Speaker 2: Agenda Item five Council Bill 120360 An Ordinance relating to Historic Preservation Imposing controls from the original Ban Assault School. The committee recommends the bill pass as memorials.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We've got three bills coming up here, all related to landmarking of Seattle public schools. This bill is about a school which was built in 1909. It is South Beacon Hill School. And one of the original or the original building is architecturally significant. It is an old school that is been the Landmarks Board has agreed to allow for an expansion of the facility. But the original piece of it will be preserved and then the expansion of the school will happen around it. And the committee recommends that we pass the legislation. Thank you. Casimir, also there, any questions for Casper Morales? All right, Kasman. Ross, I'm guessing you don't have any closing remarks. You're good. Okay with that? Madam Clerk, will you please call the role on the passage of the bill? Councilmember Lewis. Yes.
Speaker 2: Morales.
Speaker 0: Yes. Councilmember Mosqueda. I don't remember, Nelson. I can't remember Peterson.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Council members want. Yes. Councilmember Strauss. Yes. Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Council president was high nine in favor and unopposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes. The chair will sign it. Madam Clerk, Lisa fixed my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Moving on to agenda item number six, will you please read item number six into the record?
Speaker 2: Agenda item six Council Bill 120361 An Ordinance relating to Historic Preservation, imposing controls upon the Boyle Heights Elementary School. The committee recommends the bill pass.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to historic preservation; imposing controls upon the Original Van Asselt School, a landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board under Chapter 25.12 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and adding it to the Table of Historical Landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07192022_CB 120361
|
Speaker 2: Agenda item six Council Bill 120361 An Ordinance relating to Historic Preservation, imposing controls upon the Boyle Heights Elementary School. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Accused Mr. Morales. Thank you. This elementary school was built in 1932. It's located in the Loyal Heights neighborhood, and the Preservation Board's Controls and Agreements Agreement would indicate that it applied to the site, to the building exterior and portions of the interior, but not to maintenance and repairs that are necessary of the designated features. And the committee recommends that we pass the bill. Thank you. Any comments or questions for Councilmember Alice and not seeing any customer? Also, I'm guessing you're okay with moving forward on the vote. I'm okay. All right with that. Madam Clerk, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Morales. Yes. Councilmember Mosquera.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Nelson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Salant Solent. Yes. Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Council president was high. Ran unopposed. Thank you. The bill passes. The chair will sign it metaphorically. Sticks my signature to the legislation. And we are on item number seven, which is also Councilmember Ellis again. Go ahead, Madam Clerk.
Speaker 2: And Item seven Councilor Bill 120362 An Ordinance relating to Historic Preservation Imposing Controls upon Ingraham High School. The committee recommends the bill pass.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to historic preservation; imposing controls upon the Loyal Heights Elementary School, a landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board under Chapter 25.12 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and adding it to the Table of Historical Landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07192022_CB 120337
|
Speaker 2: A report of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee Agenda Item eight Council Bill 120337 An Ordinance relating to civilian and community oversight of the police. Establishing a process for investigating complaints. Naming the Chief of police and adding sections to the municipal code. The committee recommends the bill pass as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Kasper Herbold.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. This bill addresses a technical issue from the 2017 Accountability Ordinance, which didn't address how complaints that named the chief of police should be addressed. I became aware of this issue earlier this year and immediately reached out to the mayor's office, the Inspector General and the Office of Police Accountability to chart a path forward to address this issue. As noted in the recitals, there were three complaints against the former chief in 2020 that linger for some time until.
Speaker 0: Mayor Harrell's.
Speaker 2: Office forwarded the complaints to an external agency for investigation. Moving forward, it's important for public trust to have a clear process to resolve these types of complaints. The legislation establishes a process for the intake, evaluation, classification and investigation of complaints that name the chief, either by a city unit or by an independent investigative body that is external to the city. That process would involve the Office of the Inspector General, and the legislation also requires key stakeholders in the person or people who made the complaint to be notified at investigative milestones. I'd like to thank Inspector General, Judge and interim okay Director Perkins, as well as their staffs for their assistance and time in developing this legislation. Central staff in my office held a number of meetings with them, and I worked through a number of complicated issues. I'd also like to thank the Community Police Commission, the Mayor's Office, for their collaboration on this legislation, as well as my own staff. Aldrich The Public Safety and Human Services Committee made changes to the original draft in response to a letter from the Community Police Commission to state that both intake and any investigations conducted by okay shall be conducted exclusively by civilian personnel. There are four civilian personnel at the OPA. Now two civilian investigators into civilian supervisors. Any non. It also requires that any non city entity conducting an investigation of a non criminal violation will not be a law enforcement agency and that any investigation of a suspected violation of law would be investigated by a non law enforcement agency. The committee heard this bill four times before sending it to council. It moved forward with the unanimous vote and I urge my colleagues to vote for it today. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilor Herbold, are there any questions or concerns for Councilor Wolf Herbert regarding item number eight? I am not. Oh, I see what customers want. Thank you. Guns have been worse. I will be voting no on this legislation. Establishing the investigation procedures for complaints against the chief of police. This legislation is largely technical establishing timelines and notification requirements for the investigations, while maintaining the current accountability system of the OPA, OIG and the political establishment. This is a system that is completely failed to hold the Seattle Police Department accountable for their militarized response to the Black Lives Matter movement of 2020, with the billowing clouds of tear gas, stun grenades and pepper spray. This is a system that is designed to condone when officers kill Charlene Lyles in her own home for small children because she made the mistake of calling the police. What we need is an elected community oversight board with full powers to investigate complaints against the police, including the police chief. Not further reliance on the OPA, OIG and other entities that we are going to be going to accountability structures for those reasons. I will be voting no. Thank you. If your customers want, are there any other comments and Councilmember Mr. Verbal, is there anything you'd like to add before we close out? You could. No, thank you. All right. Thank you. With that, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Councilmember Lewis?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Alice.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember mosquito by.
Speaker 0: For Nelson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Sawant No. Councilmember Strouse.
Speaker 1: Yes. Councilmember Herbold?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: President was high eight in favor when opposed. Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And, Madam Clerk, please fix my signature to the passage of the bill. That concludes the eight committee reports that were listed on the agenda. And with that, moving on to the agenda, we moved two items removed from the consent calendar. There were no items removed going to Section J of the agenda, adoption of other resolutions, not seeing any other resolutions for introduction and adoption today.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to civilian and community oversight of the police; establishing a process for investigating complaints naming the Chief of Police; adding a new subchapter V to Chapter 3.29 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and amending Section 49 of Ordinance 125315 to renumber the existing Subchapter V of Chapter 3.29 and Sections 3.29.500 and 3.29.510 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07142022_CF 314495
|
Speaker 2: Excuse me. Agenda item one clerk file 314495. Report of the Senate on the Certificate of Sufficiency for initiative number 134. Concerning approval. Voting for Mayor. City Attorney and City Council Member. Primary Elections.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Since this is my matter. Clark, file one hour. Three one. I'm sorry. Four, four, nine five is notice that initiative 134 has sufficient signatures to go on the ballot. The Clark File is on the agenda today for the city council to now determine what action will be taken in response to Initiative 134. I move to file Clark file 314495. Is there a second, second, second. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to file the Clark file. The Clark please call the roll on the filing of Clark file 3144952.
Speaker 2: Number Herbold that's. Councilmember Lewis. Yes. Councilmember Morales. Councilmember mosqueda i. Councilmember Nelson. I. Councilmember Peterson, I. Councilmember. Silent? Yes. Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Council president was high nine in favor and opposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The motion carries and the clerk file will be placed on file. Let's move to item number two with the clerk. Please read item number two and to the record agenda.
|
Clerk File (CF)
|
Report of the City Clerk on the Certificate of Sufficiency for Initiative No. 134, concerning approval voting for Mayor, City Attorney, and City Councilmember primary elections.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07142022_CF 314498
|
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The motion carries and the clerk file will be placed on file. Let's move to item number two with the clerk. Please read item number two and to the record agenda.
Speaker 2: Item to clerk file 314498. City Council Motion and Declaration of City Council Intent to Reject Initiative Number 134 Relating to voting in City Primary Elections and placing initiative number 134 on a November eight, 2022 ballot in conjunction with the ranked choice voting measure, which is Council Bill 120369, a proposed alternative alternative measure on the same matter.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Lewis, I believe you have a motion.
Speaker 4: I move to approve and file clerk file 314498.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Is there a second?
Speaker 0: Second?
Speaker 1: It's been moved and seconded to approve approve clerk file 314498. In Casper. Lois, you are the sponsor of this bill. Can you please address this item?
Speaker 4: Thank you so much, council president. Appreciate the opportunity. I want to say at the front that. In this entire conversation. I don't know that there is necessarily a fundamental need to change the nature of our elections in Seattle with districts and democracy vouchers. We have competitive elections where young people and people of color are viable candidates. I, myself, as the youngest council member, can personally attest to that. But the question has been called.
Speaker 0: And we are here.
Speaker 4: In City Hall to discuss whether there should be measures that are advanced for the people of Seattle to decide whether the system of our elections is or is not appropriate and should.
Speaker 0: Be changed.
Speaker 4: The proponents of Initiative 134 have forced that question, and I commend them for it and commend them for their organizing. And I'm not going to use my platform today to disparage their proffered alternative approval voting. Beyond some comments I will make later about the limited adoption of approval voting.
Speaker 0: But rather, I'm.
Speaker 4: Bringing this proposal forward today to give voters the choice to choose the election reform that is more broadly adopted across the United States. The approval measure voting before us is conceptually new and sparsely adopted in the United States. Only Fargo, North Dakota and Saint Louis, Missouri used this system, and we would be by far the largest jurisdiction in the country to use this comparatively novel way of conducting elections. By contrast. Several know a couple of United States States, Maine and Alaska use ranked choice voting. And it's much more broadly adopted, as do the municipalities, bearing more similarity in size to Seattle, like Oakland, California, Oakland, California, New York and San Francisco, California. In total, more than 30 American jurisdictions of all sizes have adopted some form of ranked choice voting. I'm not going to go into detail in explaining the mechanics of the choice voting proposal. I think Whish-Wilson did a serviceable job of that. But I will just talk a little bit about some of the attributes of ranked choice voting that I do find appealing and that a lot of advocates in our community have proffered and found appealing over several years of organizing to adopt this alternative method of conducting elections under ranked choice voting models, candidates need to demonstrate strong and broad appeal to be successful. Polarizing candidates have a more difficult time of securing first place preference showings and fade in support as votes are reassigned in multiple rounds of assigning the vote. It is important to note that the principle of one person one vote still applies with ranked choice voting at the end of any reassignment of preference. Only one final vote remains that as tallied, reflecting the voter's use of their franchise. In practical terms, ranked choice voting greatly enhances the discourse of our elections. And I'm going to digress just for a moment to summarize a what I thought was a really enlightening social media exchange a couple of years ago from our miserly, our county council colleague across the street who has similarly advocated for King County to adopt a system of ranked choice voting, council members actually gave an example that all of us as candidates can relate to that if you go out knocking on doors and you talk to one of your neighbors, especially in a crowded primary, and that neighbor says, Oh, sorry, I'm not voting for you, I'm voting for one of your opponents. They're my friend. They're my neighbor. That's who I'm going to vote for in this election. Under our current model of voting, that conversation ends, but under ranked choice voting, you can stay at the door and say, Well, you can rank me as a second preference. So let me talk a little bit about what I want to do. Let me talk about what my issues are. Let me talk about how as a member of the city council or as a mayor or a city attorney, I can respond to your issues and let me more importantly, hear what your issues are and how I can set my priorities to address them. The conversation doesn't end the same way it currently ends in our one vote and it's over primary process, as I alluded to just now by referencing councilmembers, Hawaii's interest in this and the process that King County has been pursuing over the last couple of years with several King County Council members , not just council members ally, it's very likely if I were to predict and get out my crystal ball that King County will at some time in the near future adopt some form of ranked choice voting. There is significant momentum and significant support for a proposal like that. We got close to having a King County measure that was going to be put forward this year, as from what I can tell from the public discourse on that issue. But they decided to wait for another cycle. I do just want to raise as a potential issue. It is possible, if approval voting were to be adopted, that king that Seattle would have a non-conforming voting system to our umbrella jurisdiction in King County. I do just want to raise that possibility of a future where approval voting is what is adopted instead. That is not necessarily a reason for the voters to not do it, but they should have a potential choice on the ballot that has a stronger chance of being adopted by the umbrella jurisdiction. And that is more in line with what state voting reform advocates have proposed and supported as a long term alternative to how we conduct our elections. I also just want to address that it is totally proper and is a totally clear charter power of the Seattle City Council to put an alternative on the ballot when a initiative gets the proper signatures to qualify. This is something that the Seattle City Council has done in recent history. I was not on the council the last time those deliberations were conducted, but my colleague, Councilmember Stewart, was, and perhaps she can discuss that process. I know that Councilmember Herbold and Councilmember Peterson were legislative assistants at that time, and Councilmember Peterson was actually a legislative assistant to the council member who adopted that alternative. And maybe he could speak to that process. I'll leave it. To them to discuss if there is any first hand experience that might be helpful to us from 2014. But I just want to offer that that process that involved a preschool measure offers similarities to the question that we're faced with today. The extent is of that similarity is something we can reasonably disagree on. But fundamentally, the council faced a similar question in weighing Councilmember Burgess's alternative. Should the voters of the city in facing a question to programmatically respond to a demonstrated need in that case preschool? In this case, the method that we conduct our elections have an alternative option that proposes to solve the same problem with a different method. That's why the Council has a clear charter power to exercise its authority to send the voters an alternative. If we deem it is appropriate for the public discourse in the city, there is nothing unusual or untoward in our decision to exercise it. Indeed, there is strong and demonstrated public support for this ranked choice voting alternative. We just went through a public comment session where two times the number of people called in supporting ranked choice voting as called in supporting the approval voting alternative. That proves this is an appropriate question for the voters to be the final arbiters of whether this is something we should or shouldn't do by electing to not put this proposal on the ballot. We are, in effect, depriving the people of Seattle of the chance to make the final decision. I want to give some thanks and allow my colleagues opportunities, too, to weigh in to our city clerks for queuing up this process to duly consider this alternative proposal. I want to thank Liz Whitson on Council Central Staff for doing a really excellent job of putting a proposal together that is representative of the ranked choice system that we see in lots of jurisdictions around the country and indeed around the world. I want to thank Council President Suarez and her chief of staff Brendel for really being excellent collaborators and in setting up the process and going really far in a way to be accommodating and making sure that we had everything lined up to give this due consideration. And I really, really appreciate the the clarity and the skill and flexibility in making sure we could do that and give ample opportunity to the public to weigh in now in a couple of public comment sessions. I also want to thank my chief of staff, Jacob Thorpe, for really shepherding this process in my office. And with that council president, I will turn it back over to you to facilitate the discussion so you.
Speaker 1: Can up a little bit. So I open up the floor of discussion and Councilmember Lewis, I remind me to come back to you if you have some closing remarks or if you want to close this out. So with that, the floor is open. All right. Elsewhere, herbal. I was deferring to other folks might want to speak first, but somebody who worked for a brief time in radio on the air makes me uncomfortable. So I put in here. So as the sponsor ably described as voting is used widely across the U.S., I have a different count of the number of jurisdictions . But we can we can take that up at another time. The number I have is 52%. It's in local jurisdictions where candidates in order of offense allows for more nuance in voting, removes that question that I know we have a lot when we're voting, which is should we vote our conscience or should we vote for the candidate most likely to win, even if it's not your first choice?
Speaker 2: Well, voting does not offer the.
Speaker 1: Same level of nuance. And instead of ranking candidates, you only vote for those that you are the means. By voting for more than one candidate, you are voting equally for each. Even if you have a strong front for one of the candidates. I want to quote Jasmine Smith, the former Washington boss who recently wrote, If Seattle were to adopt cutting, it would be the first major city with a majority white electorate to use this system. A scenario that risks giving white voters an outsized voice in determining election outcomes at the expense of voters of color.
Speaker 2: Some have said that adding an.
Speaker 1: Alternative option to the ballot is influencing the outcome of the election. Council is not interfering with the initiative process. The initiative process explicitly grants the Council the authority to add an alternative in the ballot design. The initiative process says if our city is going to consider an alternate voting system by initiative, we can allow a vote on both approving voting and ranked choice. Voting is our responsibility. Anchor voters have the ability to choose a voting system that they must support. Appreciate the sponsor bringing this forward and appreciate as as the sponsor said. Council President. Madam. Madam President, your flexibility and allowing us to to have this discussion. Thank you. Councilor Herbold, Councilmember Mosqueda. Thank you very much. Madam President, just give me the sign of my Internet is unstable. I'll be brief. I really appreciate the dialog that we're having today, the dialog that's been brought forward and initially nationally initiated by Initiative 134 proponents and those who are seeking to add ranked choice voting as an alternative to the ballot. I want to thank Councilmember Lewis for his work with the staff members. And he noted to really provide an option, an option for voters. And I wanted to echo some of the comments from the sponsor. And Councilmember Herbold. Sending an alternative to the ballot for voters to choose is not precedent setting. Council member Tim Burgess spearheaded this effort less than ten years ago to offer voters the alternative regarding child care that council member Lewis noted This is an initiative about excuse me, this is a question to voters about engaging in our democracy, and there is nothing more democratic than giving voters a choice on something as consequential. I have friends who are supporting both policy approaches, folks who similarly want there to be more engagement and more options. And I think it goes to show that there is a long and deep standing interest in broadening out options for voters to cast their vote for a candidate who really represents them. Proponents of each approach will then get a chance to talk to the voters, and the voters will get to weigh in and make the decision. Seattle has been on the cutting edge of voter reform in our country. Other jurisdictions continue to reach out and ask about how our local elections work. They are very excited to learn more about the democracy voucher program and our election transparency laws. We are on the national map for the ways that we have improved voting and voter access over the years. And now with this option, voters will get the chance again to decide about how we will continue to amend how voters can engage in our local election. I'm going to be voting yes, and I really appreciate the dialog today and I know that there will be much more dialog to come throughout the next few months. And again, thanks to everyone because this is really about increasing voter turnout and increasing voter options. And I think the conversation is to come and will will continue to evolve over the next few months with both options. Thank you. If you council members want. Thank you. I will be voting yes to a ranked choice voting option on the ballot alongside approval voting. Democracy means much more than simply having the ability to vote for a candidate. How the votes are structured can have a big impact on the ability to have a democratic debate. To win support prior to the vote has the biggest effect. And the reality is big business and the super rich on most of the forums of that debate. In Seattle, they owned the Seattle Times and the TV stations, and they use those media to blatantly promote their own interests. There is a limit to how much struggling working people can donate to an election campaign, but there is no limit to the spending of corporate backs which are used by the wealthy. For example, last year I faced a recall election which started less than a year after I was reelected in 2019. The signatures required to put the recall on the ballot were selected by paid signature gatherers. With enough money, anything can be put on the ballot. In fact, the Seattle Approves Ballot initiative before us today was put on the ballot by paid signature gatherers from essentially true deep pocketed donors. When we consider the structure of elections, we have to consider not only how it might work in a hypothetical, hypothetical, apolitical or neutral world, which we all know does not exist under capitalism, but how big business can use their resources to take advantage of any system in reality. For example, in presidential elections, the two party system is used to pressure voters to accept the so-called lesser evil. As a result, American working people have never had the option to vote for a presidential candidate in the general election who actually represents our interests, who supports progressive measures like single payer, universal healthcare, which the overwhelming majority of working people support. The two party system has been used ruthlessly by big business and the party establishment for decades to disrupt all efforts to create a new Worker's Party and to stamp out challenges from left populist candidates like Bernie Sanders in Seattle. The current doctor primary system has been a relatively good electoral structure, given the fundamentally undemocratic nature of elections under capitalism. It offers candidates to win often win support on the basis of our program without being immediately drowned in lesser evil arguments and bears similarities to what are called runoff elections in other countries globally, allowing a greater opening for third parties and independent candidates than many other structures. Approval voting would be a major step backwards. While it is being presented as more democratic, it would in fact give even more of an upper hand to big business by filling the ballot with well-financed brand candidates who ostensibly stand for nothing and attacking working class candidates with smear campaigns reinforced by corporate media and big business PAC money. They would be in a much better position to control who can make it onto the general election ballot. But there is far higher voter turnout and to block working class and socialist candidates from the outset. Approval voting makes no distinction between whom a voter really wants to win the election and whom they merely do not actively oppose. But that lack of opposition is strongly influenced by the forces in society who control the debate. Big business candidates rarely campaign openly on their plans to maximize the profits of the wealthy at the expense of workers. Instead, their campaigns have empty slogans and slogans and pictures of their families in their fancy ads talking about how they want to address homelessness, crisis, make Seattle affordable, and keep our communities safe. All this is a coded way to make it very clear they will be loyal to the political establishment and corporate interests. They will not mention rent control, taxing Amazon and other wealthy corporations to pay for the housing. We need real measures of police accountability or concrete steps to reduce the deep inequality at the root of crime in our neighborhoods. Approval voting is a scheme to drown out establishment voices in a sea of pro-establishment candidates. In this process, the goal of big business is to deny voters the opportunities to have any real alternatives. Ranked choice voting is significantly better than approval voting because it at least gives voters the ability to prioritize who they actually want to win the election, rather than lumping everyone together into a general category of approval and drowning out the differences. However, I think ranked choice voting is still less democratic than our current primary system, which, as I said, bear similarities to runoff voting in other countries. Socialist Alternative has had experience with ranked choice voting in Minneapolis, and we have found that the political establishment can use the ranked choice voting to game the system and prevent third parties from gaining a foothold. Candidates recommended supporters formed a list of second and third choices when a socialist candidate looks like they may win the election. The political establishment throws well-financed additional candidates into the race who can get the second and third round votes of both. And more conservative voters such as the Socialists and come in first place and Bush and get drowned out in later rounds. Essentially, this allows the political establishment to pull the votes of several candidates campaigning to different demographics. This is only possible because they have the money to run several candidates for the same position, but it can have a big impact in 2017. Socialist Alternative Run. It ran a candidate in Minneapolis who has the most first choice votes but was eventually knocked out of the race by the Democratic establishment. To do just this kind of boat pooling while ranked choice voting is significantly better than approval voting. I do not support changing the go to primary system either of them. The reason the current primary system is being challenged is precisely because it has been successful, independent and third party challengers and victories that have disrupted the status quo and the Chamber of Commerce of the wealthy of this city are fed up. However, I do support putting ranked choice voting on the ballot. I think voters in Seattle should have the Democratic choice to vote for ranked choice voting if they prefer, not just approval voting, which has had lots of money behind putting it on the ballot and not for no reason. Elections in the United States have always been heavily weighted against working class third party candidates. Despite the Socialist alternative, rank and file workers and union members and community activists have been able to win four elections on the basis of fighting for working class demands, like the $15 an hour minimum wage, the Amazon bags, renters rights, and standing with working people. With a strong enough movement behind us, regardless of which electoral system is adopted, that will continue to be true, which is that working class people can win victories if we have a movement building approach based on strong demands. But we should not accept attacks on democracy lying down either. I will be voting yes. Thank you. Thank you. So what she has Premiere Louis. Do you have some closing remarks before I make a few statements and then we'll move to about.
Speaker 2: It looks like there are a couple of them.
Speaker 1: They just showed up. Thank you. Did not you guys have a little bit quicker there? So Councilmember Nelson and then Councilmember Peterson. Councilor Nelson. I'm sorry. Please move on to Councilmember Peterson and then I'll go. Okay. Are you ready, Counselor Peterson? Go ahead.
Speaker 0: Thank you, counselor. President Juarez. Let's see. Well, to provide more options to Seattle voters, I'll support Councilmember Lewis's proposal to add the ranked choice voting to the ballot. In that way, voters will have three choices. Initiative 134 Ranked Choice Voting and the current system, which already includes major election reforms such as democracy vouchers, easy to use mail in ballots and extended voting periods. As I understand it, this afternoon may be our only opportunity to address these complex issues officially before they become external campaigns. So I'd like to present an additional and somewhat skeptical view toward all of this. This is just about elections for nonpartisan offices in city government. And right now, the top local government concerns of people in Seattle are increasing public safety and reducing homelessness. If either of these two new measures is enacted into law, will they really increase public safety or reduce homelessness? I'm not so sure. I'm afraid that no matter how much we tinker with the local electoral system in Seattle, which already includes robust reforms, there is no easy fix to guarantee that will generate more candidates for city government who are qualified for city government, who adequately appreciate what city government does, who will be responsive to their constituents , and who can deliver on the basic requirements of our city charter. And so while I'm supporting adding more options to the ballot, I don't think either option will solve the problems facing Seattle today. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Peterson with that, Councilmember Nelson. And Q Very much so today. I'm not going to take a stand for or against approval voting or ranked choice voting. I am taking a stand for good governance. And so for the viewing public initiative 134 which would replace the way the city of Seattle officials are elected with a new system called Approval Voting Initiative 134 gathered more than the required minimum 2000 26,000 signatures to qualify for the vote. And it is standard practice for council to just send that measure to the ballot. In ranked choice, voting has not qualified for the ballot. Instead of running an initiative, advocates opted to persuade us to advance the proposal by sending it to the voters as our preferred alternative, which we've done only twice in the past 20 years. And so here we are about to vote on changing the way Seattleites elect their leaders. And before doing that, we should first identify the problem we're trying to fix with our existing system transparently deliberate on potential solutions, consult experts, and conduct extensive constituent outreach just like we would on any other important issue. And we haven't done that. This is our first meeting, our first public meeting on the matter. And Councilmember Lewis brought up the the last time that we sent an alternate to the ballot, to the ballot. And, yes, we do have that authority. And in that case, Councilmember Burgess had been developing his preschool program for months. And so that is that's not the same. I don't think that the situations are are equal here. So I don't know if approval voting is better or worse than ranked choice voting or even what's wrong with our current system. But I do know that we're about to take five. If we take five votes to send an alternate to the ballot, that could that could influence the outcome of the election without a lot of public discussion on our preferred alternative end. And and and I think that there's a better way of coming to these kinds of decisions. So I think the council should just get out of the way, send I 34 to the ballot and let the voters decide in November. If you. Councilmember Nelson, Councilmember Lewis, do you want to make any statements before I say a few and then we go to a vote?
Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: I'll be I'll be very brief.
Speaker 4: But I think there might be a few things I could say to respond to the concerns raised by Councilmember Nelson, which, you know, I completely respect but disagree with. I think it's perfectly within the right of the council when facing a question like this, to have the people of the city be the final deciders, as we do have a very strong and representative movement in the city towards ranked choice voting. This is a election option that, like I said earlier, has been has had the benefit of an extensive parallel process over at King County. They did inform the process that we are proposing to send to the voters. A lot of the potential issues with administering the change in election type can be accommodated with the timeline that we have assigned the ranked choice voting under this measure. I don't know if it was made clear in Fisher's presentation. If passed by, voters would not go into effect until 2027. And part of that is, is the to give King County elections the space and the time for the rulemaking and the implementation that goes into any kind of significant, major change. The people of the city who have really reached out and advocated for a model like this, I think shows that the best way forward is to let them make the final decision. As I said in my comments earlier. I think this discussion has gotten to a point where we run a risk of making a more undemocratic decision by depriving the voters of making that choice based on the movement that's turned out for this. And in essence, there will be a proxy vote where voting no on approval voting is going to be reflecting a yes vote for ranked choice voting anyway in terms of how the question has been framed in the minds of many voters in the city. So for those purposes and the reasons that I stated in my opening statement, I do think this is an appropriate action for the Council to take. The people of the city are going to make the final decision, as they rightly should. On whether we should adopt this and this gives them the opportunity to do so.
Speaker 1: And you have to remember, Lewis, I don't make comments about how severe. Louis You raised a really good point and I actually had thought about sharing this as well. US going to a district system, seven districts and us having democracy vouchers has expanded the opportunity for many people to run. Otherwise it would not run. And I think Councilmember. Councilmember. I was in Saint Louis, but Councilmember Peterson mentioned about mail in ballots. So I don't think that either approval voting or ranked choice voting is going to fix some of the issues that Councilmember Peterson brought up. But I will say, this is kind of maybe turning the mirror on ourselves. I'm always I'm always a little bit suspicious when people use communities of color as a reason to pass any type of initiative bill proposal, because I don't think we can look away from the fact that six of our nine council members were either legislative aides or worked in this council in some way or were meant were mentored by a council member. And I'm not taking anything away from my colleagues that fit that description. So I just want to be clear about our choices. And my main concern is increasing candidate participation is getting more candidates that haven't had the opportunity to benefit from such a pipeline. And that's just that's just my observation. And again, I don't mean to cast any aspersions against my colleagues, but it is indeed a fact. So that being said, I think we should just go forward at this point, Madam Clerk, and. We'll just call the role on the approval and the filing of the court file.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Morales. Councilmember mosqueda i. Councilmember Nelson, a. Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 2: Councilmember. Yes. Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Council president was no. Eight in favor, two opposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So with that, colleagues. I'm sorry. Sorry, Madam President. I thought I heard eight in favor to oppose. Seven of favor, two.
Speaker 2: Opposed, is that correct? Yes. Seven. I'll be very sorry.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry about that. I didn't catch the math either. So it is seven two and it passes, correct?
Speaker 2: Yes, it does.
Speaker 1: Okay. So the clerk file is approved and filed. And will the clerk please affix my signature to the motion and declaration of the City Council Intent? So with that, since this file has passed, we will move on to item number three, which is also Councilmember Lewis. But the clerk please read item number three to the record.
|
Clerk File (CF)
|
City Council motion and declaration of City Council intent to reject Initiative No. 134, relating to voting in city primary elections and placing Initiative No. 134 on the November 8, 2022 ballot in conjunction with the Ranked Choice Voting measure (Council Bill 120369), a proposed alternative measure on the same matter.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07142022_CB 120369
|
Speaker 1: But the clerk please read item number three to the record.
Speaker 2: Agenda Item three Council Bill 120369 An ordinance relating to ranked choice voting requesting that a special election be held concurrent with the November eight, 2022 general election for submission to the qualified electors of the City of Seattle. Now the city of a proposition to institute ranked choice voting for primary elections for City of Seattle. Elected officials adding a new Chapter 2.18 to the Seattle Municipal Code. Proposing a ballot title and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Customer Lewis, I believe you have a motion for us.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I move to pass Council Bill 120369.
Speaker 2: It's their second.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Hubble. It's been moved and seconded. And Councilmember Lewis, this is indeed yours. And you are recognized in order to address the bill.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President. I will rest on my previous comments from the previous discussion.
Speaker 1: I think you also have emotion for me. Two men?
Speaker 4: Yes, I do have a motion to amend.
Speaker 2: The next one.
Speaker 4: Sorry. I'm just going down my notes here. To amend Council Bill 1 to 0 369 as presented on Amendment one on the agenda.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I'm sorry. I should have cut that and let you know, give you a heads up. Is there a second? But thank you, Councilmember Herbold. It's been moved and seconded to amend Council Bill 120369 as presented on Amendment one. Councilmember Lewis, you are the sponsor and you are recognized.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. This amendment adds a couple of technical changes if we are still here. He can answer if colleagues have any feedback on it, but it doesn't really change the substantive background of the process that we would be asking the voters to approve. It clarifies a couple of passages and it just generally cleans up the initial proposal. But I can see time to list or as council president deems appropriate.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Luis.
Speaker 2: Wish to acknowledge that.
Speaker 1: This is just going to start over and then we can move on.
Speaker 0: Yes. Thank you. This just is a technical amendment to improve the language in the bill, make it clearer about how the ranked choice, voting counting, would occur.
Speaker 1: Are there any questions of wish on the technical amendment proposed by Council member Lewis? Okay. Not seen any. Thank you for being here. Are there any more comments? Not seeing any comments. Well, the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the amendment.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 2: Council Member Morales. Councilmember Mosquera i. Councilmember Nelson. I. Councilmember Peterson. Hi. Councilmember SWAT? Yes. Council member Strouse. Yes. Council president was.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: Nine in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The motion carries an amendment. Number one is adopted. My understanding there. Are there any further comments on the amended bill? Bill. Okay. So will the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill as amended?
Speaker 2: Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: Member Mosquito I. Councilmember Nelson. Nay. Councilmember Peterson?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Salant. Yes. Council member, Strauss. Yes. Council President. Was I? Eight in favor. One opposed, right?
Speaker 1: Okay. So with that, it looks like it passes. And so I got to excuse me, I got to go back on the language here. The bill passes as amended. The chair will sign it. And will the clerk please to fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Great. Moving on to item number four. This is Madam Clerk. Please read item number four to the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to ranked choice voting; requesting that a special election be held concurrent with the November 8, 2022 general election for submission to the qualified electors of the City of a proposition to institute ranked choice voting for primary elections for City of Seattle elected offices; adding a new Chapter 2.18 to the Seattle Municipal Code; proposing a ballot title; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07142022_Res 32057
|
Speaker 1: Great. Moving on to item number four. This is Madam Clerk. Please read item number four to the record.
Speaker 2: Agenda item for resolution 32057, a resolution regarding a proposed initiative measure concerning allowing voters to vote for multiple candidates in primary elections. Authorizing the city clerk and executive director of the Ethics and Elections Commission to take those actions necessary to enable the proposed initiative measure to appear on the November eight, 2022 ballot and the local voters pamphlet requesting the King County Elections Director to place the proposed initiative measure on the November eight, 2022 election ballot and providing for the publication of such proposed initiative measure.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Clerk. As sponsor of this resolution, I moved to adopt resolution 32057. Is there a second?
Speaker 0: Second.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. At the top of this agenda we passed clear file 314495. The Certificate of Sufficiency Initiative 134 gathered enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. This resolution, unamended, will place Initiative 134 on the ballot this November as originally intended as required under the City Charter. This council also passed Clark file 314498, which places the ranked choice alternative on the ballot in addition to the original proposal. Therefore, we will now consider a substitute resolution which places I 134 on the ballot with the Alternatives Council member. Are there any comments before I hand it off to Councilmember Lewis for a moment? Okay. Not seeing any councilmember. Lewis, I believe you have a motion form.
Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you, Madam President. I move to amend resolution 32057 by substituting version two for version one as presented on the agenda.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Lewis, is there a second?
Speaker 0: Second.
Speaker 1: Thank you for the second. It's been moved and seconded to substitute the resolution. Councilor Lewis, would you like to address the substitute?
Speaker 4: Yes, thank you. Council President and thank you, council president for navigating the Byzantine agenda process this afternoon. You're doing an excellent job. I don't really have extensive remarks on this. This substitute reflects the changes, the substantive changes based on the actions that we have previously taken in this meeting. And I would just urge that we pass the amendment and then pass the underlying resolution reflecting the changes in and how the Council has decided to proceed.
Speaker 1: Take a chance for a moment and I'll come to the very end. But are there any comments on the substitute? Okay. Not seeing or hearing any comment, any further comments. Well, the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the substitute resolution.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Herbold? Yes. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Morales. Yes. Councilmember Mosqueda, I. Councilmember Nelson. I Councilmember Peterson. I councilmembers silent. Yes. Councilmember Strouse.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Council President. Was I not in favor and unopposed?
Speaker 1: Right. The motion carries and the substitute is adopted in version two of the resolution is before the council. Are there any comments on version two of the resolution before us? Okay. Not seeing any. So now we're going to do the amended. So will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the amended resolution?
Speaker 2: Councilmember Herbold. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Morales. Councilmember Mosqueda. I. Councilmember Nelson. Hi. Councilmember Peterson. Hi. Councilmember silent. Yes. Councilmember Strouse. Yes. Council President. Was I nine in favor? Nine opposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The amended resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. And Madam Clerk, will you please to fix my signature to the resolution or the legislation on my behalf? Let's see. Are there any other comments? So now are we done? Should be done right.
Speaker 2: That concludes business.
Speaker 1: Okay, hold up, everybody. Okay. Got it. Sorry, I switched up papers here. Before we adjourn, I want to thank Councilmember Lewis and his staff and for getting all this material to us and all the information and a huge thank you to Switzerland. Let's thank you for providing not only a PowerPoint and a guide and a memo and a briefing. And we want to thank the city attorney's office for walking us through some of these issues. I want to thank all my colleagues who engaged in the discussion and the debate about whether or not approval voting or ranked choice voting . It looks like at the end of the day, both matters will be on the we'll go forward. So with that, before we adjourn, I see Councilor Lewis is that old hand customer Lewis or knew him.
Speaker 4: But that's just a new.
Speaker 0: Good of the order.
Speaker 4: Madam President, I want to also thank you again just for running a complicated process this afternoon and making it look easy. And and also just really want to thank all in your office who was an incredible asset in winding up this process and just making sure everything was done efficiently and professionally. So thank you. And of course, Jacob Thorp, my chief of staff, for measuring that Durham ushering that forward to as well as. LESCH But, you know, I really wanted to take a moment council president to really you know, you you did an excellent job presiding over a very long meeting today. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Well, if we were playing C on a city council. Bingo. I did not see Byzantium coming up, so thank you for that kind of colleagues. This does conclude the terms of business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is Tuesday, July 19th, 2:00. I hope you all have a wonderful afternoon and we are adjourned. Thank you, everybody.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION regarding Initiative 134 concerning allowing voters to vote for multiple candidates in primary elections (rejected by the City Council on July 14, 2022); authorizing the City Clerk and the Executive Director of the Ethics and Elections Commission to take those actions necessary to enable proposed Initiative 134 to appear on the November 8, 2022, ballot and the local voters’ pamphlet in conjunction with the Ranked Choice Voting proposal (City Council Bill 120369), which is a proposed alternative measure on the same subject matter in accordance with Charter Article IV; requesting the King County Elections Director to place the proposed Initiative 134 and its alternate on the November 8, 2022, election ballot in accordance with applicable law; and providing for the publication of such proposed Initiative Measure and its alternate.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07122022_CF 314495
|
Speaker 1: The report of the City Council Agenda Item one Quick File 314495. Report of the City Clerk on the set of the on the Certificate of Sufficiency for initiative number 134.
Speaker 0: Thank you. CLERK 5314495. As notice of Initiative 134 is sufficient signatures to go on the ballot, according to the city charter. The city clerk has 20 days from receipt of notice from King County elections to file the notice with the city council. The clerk city clerk filed a report and certificate of sufficiency with the Council via this clerk file on June 28. This action started the 45 day clock for council action on the initiative in order to provide my colleagues with additional time to consider this initiative, recommending holding the clerk file for another week until Thursday, this court file will appear on every agenda until the City Council determines what action will be taken in response to initiative number 134. As a reminder, the City Council City's Election Code, SC 2.0 4.300 prohibits elected officials and city employees from using their office for the promotion or opposition of any ballot measure. According to the code. We should refrain from discussing the merits of the initiative until we are actually voting on the legislation to support or oppose the ballot proposition that will occur at a future meeting and within 45 days of this court file 314495 being filed with the Council, I recommend that councils refrain from discussing this initiative today . And until the Council considers legislation supporting or opposing this ballot measure ballot proposition, I move to postpone clerk file 3144952 July 14th. Is there a second second? It has been moved and seconded to postpone the clerk filed with the clerk. Please call the roll on postponement clerk file 314495 until July 14th.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Herbold Yes. Councilmember Lewis Yes. Councilmember Morales Yes. Councilmember Mosqueda i. E. Councilmember Nelson I. Councilmember Peterson Yes. Councilmember Sawant. Yes. Council President Pro Tem Strauss. Yes. Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The motion carries a quick vote is postponed to July 14, 2022, and this item will appear on every agenda until the City Council determines what action will be taken in response to initiative ember 134 Item number two Will Clerk please read item two into the record.
Speaker 1: Agenda Item two Union Council Bill 120363. An ordinance relating to prosecuting violations of domestic violence and other protection orders to make the Seattle Municipal Code consistent with state law. Amending Section 12 .8.09.020 about Seattle Municipal Code.
|
Clerk File (CF)
|
Report of the City Clerk on the Certificate of Sufficiency for Initiative No. 134, concerning approval voting for Mayor, City Attorney, and City Councilmember primary elections.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07122022_CB 120363
|
Speaker 1: Agenda Item two Union Council Bill 120363. An ordinance relating to prosecuting violations of domestic violence and other protection orders to make the Seattle Municipal Code consistent with state law. Amending Section 12 .8.09.020 about Seattle Municipal Code.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I move to pass counts bill 120363. Is there a second second? Thank you. It has been moved in, seconded to pass the bill. Councilmember Herbold as sponsor of the bill. Please take it away.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much.
Speaker 4: As noted in the central step update from Asha Venkataraman yesterday, this legislation is time sensitive. If the change is not made, the city attorney's office cannot prosecute misdemeanor violations of domestic violence and other orders. While these misdemeanors could, in theory, be referred to the King County prosecutor because of their enormous backlog of cases and the emphasis of the King County prosecutor on filing felony cases, the city attorney's office, domestic violence personnel feel that these misdemeanor charges would not be filed if not for the action before us today. So there are three key aspects of the bill. Just as background, in 2019, Ordinance 12 5881 was enacted to adopt certain state criminal statutes, and it repealed identical municipal code criminal sections effective July 1st this year. One of those statutes that had been adopted by reference was repealed and its provisions were transferred to another state statute. So the substance of the state statute remain primarily the same, and the RTW code numbering was changed. So the first aspect is that this ordinance would reflect those numbering changes. Secondly, the ordinance would adopt by reference a part of state law that reflects enforcement and penalties for specific types of extreme risk protection order violations which the city attorney's office, if adopted, could prosecute. And then lastly, it would adopt by reference a section of the CW, which details how the city attorney's office prosecutes specific violations of anti-harassment protection orders already within its authority to prosecute under municipal code. So in order to ensure that the violations of domestic violence and other court orders can be prosecuted by the City Attorney Municipal Court, our code needs to be amended to reflect this RTW change as well. Thank you. And I will try to answer any questions if there are any. Otherwise, I hope you can support me in voting for this bill.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, colleagues, any questions? Any comments? Questions or comments. Council Member Harold, do you have any closing remarks that you saved? Seeing none. Will the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Morales. Yes. Councilmember Mosquera i. Councilmember Nelson, I. Councilmember Peterson. Yes. Councilmember Salinas. Yes. Council President Pro Tem Strauss. Yes. Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Or the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Item number three with a click please read item number three into the record.
Speaker 1: The Report of the Transportation and Seattle Public Utilities Committee Agenda Item three Council Bill 1203.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to prosecuting violations of domestic violence and other protection orders to make the Seattle Municipal Code consistent with state law; amending Section 12A.09.020 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07122022_CB 120358
|
Speaker 1: The Report of the Transportation and Seattle Public Utilities Committee Agenda Item three Council Bill 1203.
Speaker 4: Five eight. I have a wrong number here. Sorry.
Speaker 1: An ordinance relating to.
Speaker 4: Grant funds from the United States Department of Transportation and other non city sources.
Speaker 0: Thank you, gentlemen. Petersen is chaired committee. You are recognized in order to address the bill.
Speaker 3: Thank you, President Pro Tem colleagues. Counselor 120358 will authorize the director of the Seattle Department of Transportation to accept specified grants totaling $3.7 million and to execute related agreements on behalf of the city. While it technically amends the adopted budget, it remains consistent with it. It simply adds these grants to existing appropriations.
Speaker 0: For the Seattle Department.
Speaker 3: Of Transportation's capital projects. This was adopted or recommended unanimously by our committee. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Peterson. Colleagues, any questions? Comments. Seeing none. Well, the court was called the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Mosqueda So I see now.
Speaker 4: You know, I actually thought there was going to be a long line up of people speaking, so I was going to wait. I did want to say thank you to the chair for his work on this legislation. And I also want to thank Councilmember Herbold for her amendments as well. I'm excited that we are, as a city, continuing to stand in solidarity with advocates like Seattle Subway and so many more who are calling for a connected and coordinated.
Speaker 0: That's the next one.
Speaker 4: That's why no one was speaking. Okay, hold off.
Speaker 0: We got, you know, some great grant funds from the United States Department of Transportation, other non city sources, but not as exciting for the main show for.
Speaker 4: I see it now. I needed to scroll up in my script. Apologies, everyone.
Speaker 0: No problem. Councilmember Peterson, any closing remarks?
Speaker 3: No, I just anytime I get calls from a skater to give an eloquent speech in favor of anything, it's always better for me that way. So thank you, councilmember and skater.
Speaker 0: Thank you, colleagues. Great team. Here we got Clark. If you wouldn't mind reading the. Now I got. Could you please call the role on the passage of item number three? Passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Lewis. Yes. Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: It's member Mosqueda. Hi, Councilmember Nelson. Hi. Councilmember Peterson. Hi. Councilmember Salant. Yes. Council President Pro-Tem Strouse. Yes. Eight in favor, nine opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes. The chair signed with the clerk. Please fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Item number four or the clerk, please read item number four into the record.
Speaker 4: Agenda item four Resolution 32055. A resolution relating to sound transit providing recommendations.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to grant funds from the United States Department of Transportation and other 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 126490, which adopted the 2022 Budget, including the 2022-2027 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations for the Seattle Department of Transportation; and revising allocations and spending plans for certain projects in the 2022-2027 CIP; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07122022_Res 32055
|
Speaker 4: Agenda item four Resolution 32055. A resolution relating to sound transit providing recommendations.
Speaker 1: To the Sound Transit Board as to the selection of the preferred alternative for the West. Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Project to be studied in the final Environmental Impact Statement, the committee.
Speaker 4: Recommends the City Council adopt the resolution as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Peterson. As chair of the committee, you are recognized in order to address the resolution.
Speaker 3: Thank you, President Pro Tem colleagues. Resolution 32055 is a joint resolution with our mayor on Seattle's recommendations regarding sound transit. West Seattle Ballard link extension routes and stations. As we all know, this voter approved expansion of light rail is a massive investment in the benefits of regional transit and will substantially impact communities throughout Seattle. On February 15, our Transportation Committee had a presentation on Sound Transit's Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and on April 19 we had presentations from both Sound Transit and the Executive on the various options at our committee. On June seven, we received a thorough presentation, had a robust discussion of that joint resolution 32055.
Speaker 0: To provide more time for.
Speaker 3: Consideration. We scheduled our second committee meeting on that resolution at our July five committee rather than June 21st. Then on July five, we amended the resolution and our committee passed it unanimously.
Speaker 0: As we confront the climate crisis.
Speaker 3: We want more people to ride transit. I recognize there's a strong desire to make sure the design and construction of this mega-project builds in flexibility for future expansion options beyond sound transit. Three And to make sure the experience for transit riders streamlined and efficient to address those two issues, it's important to note that the resolution currently states that the principle of financial stewardship includes.
Speaker 0: Quote.
Speaker 3: Prioritizing future expansion opportunities in planning and design. Also due in part to the concerns raised by several community leaders about the Fifth Avenue option. Today's resolution acknowledges that more time and community engagement are needed before making generational decisions that impact the Chinatown International District. And the resolution signals that we favor quicker, shallow alternatives instead of the deep options that would.
Speaker 0: Add travel.
Speaker 3: Time.
Speaker 0: I want to thank my.
Speaker 3: Council colleagues for their thoughtful engagement on this resolution and the expertize and care they brought to the table for their districts and for our.
Speaker 0: City.
Speaker 3: I like to thank the executive, especially Sarah Max, Santa, Marcia Foster and the Mayor's Office for their collaboration on this resolution. I also want to thank our city council, central staff, transportation analyst Calvin Chao, and my own legislative assistant, Hannah Thorsen. Ultimately, all of these decisions will be made by the 18 member Sound Transit Board that represents King Pier since two Homesh counties. But the city of Seattle will continue as the most populous and most supportive linchpin for the entire transit system. Time is money, and Seattle will be asked to expedite construction approvals to make sure the entire system expansion and its massive benefits for the region happen as quickly as possible. I'm hopeful that the thoughtful preferences on routes and stations expressed by the Seattle resolution will be helpful to sound transit and achieving our mutual goal of quickly expanding light rail within our.
Speaker 0: City and across our region. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Now, colleagues, this is the one where I'm expecting everyone's going to want to jump up. I see Councilmember Herbold from West Seattle, the city also annexed in 1907 by the city of Seattle. Councilmember Herbold, you are recognized.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much. I also would like to extend my thanks to Chair Peterson for his collaborative approach to developing this resolution and incorporating his colleagues feedback. Colleagues who are working to represent our constituents. I won't repeat all of my comments from committee. I do want to note that the resolution includes a clear statement of support for the medium tunnel option for the West Seattle Junction, in line with strong community support for a tunnel in the junction. A tunnel would have significantly less impact on residents and businesses. For Del Ridge, there's no clear community consensus. The draft is clear that all alignments have impacts on residents and businesses. The deal five and six options were developed to minimize impacts on the Youngstown community adjacent to Tennessee, but they were added late in the scoping process at the board level. So potential impacts of these options weren't discussed during the scoping process. And so perhaps that might be why the draft the EIA has failed to note the existence of the Elk Beach Academy Daycare Center as a potentially impacted social resource and did not fully analyze the project's impact on child care centers. Another impact would be transitional resources, offering 24/7 services to people with serious mental illness through both living facilities and a service center. They depend on 24 hour a day, seven days a week services the holistic system in the draft. This does not address the integrated nature of the program. For these reasons, the committee amended, including a statement that the city is not able to state a preference for the DART Station, given the inadequate D.S. DHS analysis of impacted social resources and the state, though that this future support of the city for a DEL Bridge option is conditioned on avoidance or mitigation of impacts or relocation of impacted child care and transitional housing service providers. So, you know, we're we're we're saying there's no preference now, but we're setting the bar for what we would need to see in order to be able to support a preference. I really appreciate the Executive's addition to an earlier draft version of of the bill requesting specifically a transit access study for the communities identified in the racial equity toolkit, including self-storage in White Center, and also adding mention of the important protections for Longfellow Creek. These are these are great additions. And I'm really pleased that the executive added them early. And I encourage folks to lend their support to Paterson's fine legislation. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. Other colleagues. Councilmember Lewis and then Councilmember Mosqueda. Thank you, Mr. President pro tem. Really looking forward to voting on this resolution today and appreciate the process and the ability to participate in the deliberations on the resolution. Even though I'm not a member of the relevant committee, the implications of sound transit three are amazing and at the same time offer a lot of challenges to District seven in particular. And this resolution addresses those challenges that have been expressed by important stakeholders representing cultural, economic and sporting interests in the area. We have crafted recommendations in this resolution that address preserving the viability of our strong and robust maritime.
Speaker 3: Economy.
Speaker 0: In the Salmon Bay area and throughout Inter Bay, preserving the cultural institutions and important public infrastructure in the Uptown neighborhood, particularly around the Seattle Center campus. And I look forward to continuing to have these discussions with sound transit on aligning their final planning priorities with the values that are expressed and the priorities that are expressed in this resolution. And I appreciate the opportunity to have gotten a lot of that feedback manifested in the four corners of this. And I know it's been appreciated by a lot of the constituencies in District seven. So looking forward to voting yes on this. Thank you, Councilmember. This councilmember must get it.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. And now's the chance to thank the sponsor and my good friend from District one out here for all the work that they did. So let me repeat some of the things I was starting to say. I really want to thank the chair. Councilmember Peterson, thanks for all your work in spearheading this resolution to reflect the many needs and priorities of the city and our communities. It was our pleasure as well within our office. And thanks to Aaron Howson. There's a approved for their work that they did with central staff and the Seattle Department of Transportation, along with community partners like Seattle Subway, to be able to make sure that the resolution as introduced included prioritization of future expansion opportunities at station location and design, references to making sure that the refines the South Lake Union Station location best serve the surrounding community and for the better location requested that sound transit consider ridership impacts and the location of housing, employment and industrial areas and really appreciate the amendments that were made in the Transportation Committee. While I'm not a member of that committee, I want to thank Councilmember Herbold and with the support of the chair, Councilmember Peterson, for the work that they did to continue continue to improve the legislation in front of us today. And as Councilmember Horrible noted, recognizing that the draft is put together by sound transit didn't have the full analysis necessary to look at health care providers, child care providers and impact to the surrounding community, and to make sure that as we create our next integrated mass transportation system that we're thinking about, how do we preserve and and help promote the preservation of existing businesses, including child care and health services, by either maintaining their location or ensuring that they are able to relocate to an area nearby without losing the ability to serve the community, because those are the exact types of services that we want around new sound transit stations to make sure that the development that we're creating is truly transit oriented. We want to make sure that there's amenities like child care and health services around housing and other high opportunity options in all neighborhoods that sound transit service. So I'm really excited about the amendments that were made in committee and look forward to continuing the conversation about avoiding or mitigating the impacts of relocation or needs in the area as we think about housing as well as these other social services that we need. So I look forward to the next conversations and I really think that the city is sending a strong message here today about the importance of, yes, creating mass transit, creating our sound transit connected to all communities throughout Seattle. And as we do so, looking at the important things that we need in order to be a thriving, healthy community, and that includes health services, child care, housing and some of the other necessities located next to our new Sound Transit Station. So thanks for all the work that you did to really promote what transit oriented development should look like in the legislation in front of us, and to take into account really unique needs across our city, including including for our youngest kiddos and future generations.
Speaker 0: Well said, Councilmember Mosqueda. Colleagues in other comments. Councilmember Nelson, please welcome.
Speaker 4: Well, first, I want to thank Councilmember Peterson for his leadership and transparency throughout this process. Thank you very much, as well as Calvin Chow from central staff and Sarah Marks on it. Scott, thank you very much.
Speaker 3: For all the work that.
Speaker 4: You've put into this. So I approach this from the perspective of a city wide council member who must consider the needs of all of Seattle. And the reality is that no alignment or station location comes without challenging impacts. But it's critical that we position ourselves as a city well when it comes to future work with this with sound transit staff and as the San Transit Board goes into its own deliberations. So, of course, I'm going to vote in favor of this resolution today, weighing all the pros and cons as the citywide elected, truly believing that this will put our best foot forward in this process. So thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Nelson. Colleagues, I'll share my comments. Now, the amendments that were accepted unanimously by the committee is to note that 14th alignment is unacceptable. Without a pedestrian station entrance west of 15th, we should reopen analysis west of 15 to 20 second to identify cost savings. Now that the high bridge is not an option due to the Coast Guards ruling. 15th Avenue is our preferred alignment and there are cost saving opportunities available to us as compared to what some transit staff have put forward. If we shift to look at using right of way rather than private property or shifting the station a block north or south to use private property there, we need what I say every time I speak to this is that we need to connect our light rail spine to Tacoma and Everett as fast as possible. And I'm committed to seeing that through as the tri county board heads towards them making a decision. It is critical. Decisions are not rushed without full analysis of the options we have as this is 100 year infrastructure. I'm here to assist with any cost saving option in Ballard. I can show you where they are. I live. Breathe that community. It's my community. And it is critical again for an entrance to be west of 15th because the housing and commercial core is west of 15th. The sound transit ridership projections are highest coming from west of 15th. And the reason that we need that station entrance is because 15th Avenue Northwest is the third used most used North-South corridor in the city, only behind S.R. 99. And I-5, asking pedestrians to cross 15th Avenue at grade will impact ridership and is not aligned with our city's Vision Zero commitment. We also heard during committee both Montlake and Broadway received station entrances and pedestrian infrastructure to also avoid similar issues. Lastly, I'll note that the 14th Avenue station option abuts the industrial district. As in, when you exit the station, you are in the industrial district and the land to the northeast is not zoned for maximum density, with neighborhood residential in close proximity. The densest zoning and housing core in Ballard is between 24th and Fifth Avenue Northwest North all the way to 65th. This is why 15 Avenue Northwest is the preferred alignment and we need grade separation, a grade separated connection. If 14th Avenue is going to be considered. Again, as always, I'm committed to seeing this project through to Tacoma and to Everett. And we have to understand that we have to do our part here in the city and sound transit. Absolutely. We're not looking for bells and whistles. We're just looking for the things that serve our communities. Chair. Any closing comments and no, thank you. Thank you. If not, will the clerk please call the role in the adoption of the resolution?
Speaker 1: Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Morales. Yes. Councilmember Mosqueda.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Nelson. I. Councilmember Peterson. Yes. Councilmember Salant. Yes. Council President Pro-Tem Strouse. Yes. Eight in favor, nine opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The resolution is adopted. The chair will sign it with the clerk. Please affix my signature to the resolution on my behalf. Item II items removed from the consent calendar. No items were removed from the consent calendar. Item J Adoption of other resolutions. There are no other resolutions for introduction adoption today. Item K Other Business. Is there any other business to come before the council?
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION relating to Sound Transit; providing recommendations to the Sound Transit Board as to the selection of the Preferred Alternative for the West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions project to be studied in the Final Environmental Impact Statement.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07052022_CB 120325
|
Speaker 1: No objection. The agenda is indeed adopted will be on in our agenda to reconsideration of Council. Council Bill Vetoed by Mayor Harrell. This is reconsideration of Council Bill 120325 for the clerk. Please read item one into the record.
Speaker 2: Agenda Item one Constable 120 325 relating to housing and displacement mitigation. Expanding the information required for submission under the Rental Registration Section Ordinance for rental housing units requiring submission of rental housing related information and amending Chapter 20 2.2.1 for sale. Mr. CODE.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I am calling up the reconsideration of Council Bill 120325 to consider passage of the Bill and the Mayor's veto. On May 31st, 2022, the Seattle City Council passed one to Council Bill 120325. Mayor Harrell subsequently vetoed it on June 10th, 2022. Today will be voted on whether to pass the bill again to override the veto. It takes six votes to pass the bill and override the mayor's veto. Council members received a memo from central staff who received a couple of them last Wednesday outlining the procedure for this vote. Following the comments, I reached the Council bill 1 to 0 325 is now pending before the council. Are there any comments on the bill? Councilor Peterson.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council President, I appreciate the co-sponsorship of this bill with Councilmember Morales. And as you mentioned, a majority of the city council approved council bill 120325 to collect basic rental data. City Hall has been lacking for years. Data we need urgently now on the eve of considering massive land use and zoning changes through a required comprehensive plan. As one of the sponsors of the bill, I outlined several reasons to support the bill originally. We need the data to prevent displacement of vulnerable residents. The data is vital before we make these changes to the comprehensive plan that impacts zoning and housing policies. The current census tract data and rental surveys on vacant units lack the vital details on existing rents at specific locations, and we already considered alternatives to this bill. But those alternatives are inadequate. The data can validate affordable benefits of smaller mom and pop landlords. Also in deference to active landlords who expressed concerns about the concept, the bill already included important accommodations. A research university would receive the raw rental data instead of the city government directly. The requirement would sunset in three years, so it was just a temporary bill needed at a crucial time in our decision making. Opponents of the bill then raised concerns about timing and cost. The bill was amended further, which ended up addressing those concerns. The city, the city's executive departments would be in the driver's seat. Nothing would happen until the executive executes a contract with a research university. After a competitive request for proposals and the RFP could help manage the costs. Specifically, the Council adopted was amended to state that effective three months from the date of their excuse me, effective three months from the date the contract described in the subsection is executed. The information that was requested will be submitted later, twice annually. So the timing issue was solved with that. I also want to point out that in between the bill was vetoed and offered additional supports for the bill. And bottom line is, I urge at least one of the four council members who voted against it to join the majority. So this bill becomes law. The additional supports are that rental registries like this are increasingly common in the United States. Seattle is behind. We are not progressive on this issue. Long standing laws requiring rent roles with rental data information already exist in other cities such as New York City. Moreover, many California cities have implemented these programs over the past few years. A 2019 report examined eight rental housing registry programs, including three that already require the rent amount to be provided. A more recent February 2022 news article highlighted that 16 different cities in California are moving ahead with this, not waiting for the state legislature to act. Costs are dramatically lower than what opponents claimed based on the actual experiences of these other cities. The fact that we're simply adding on to an existing housing registry, Seattle's rental registration and inspection ordinance that already enforces the collection of data. And we would be using a competitive request for proposals. The cost to add the collection of research components at CB 120325 could be as low as $125,000 a year. The two departments that should want this data and want us to have this data. They received budget increases last year and the executives required to have this information in doing the comprehensive plan proposals. So this bill would have enabled them to get the data they need and the university that would be chosen via a competitive RFP would be doing the bulk of the work, the data entry, the sorting and the mapping , the existing affordable housing projects, so that we make well-informed decisions. There was a $2 million estimate. That was over the three year period, and it was based on asking one real estate center how much money would they want to do this? And that is not necessarily the best way to get an affordable result. The competitive IRP process would get that resolved. There was also a $5 million estimate that was mentioned, but that was if we were to set up the brio program from scratch. So that was not a reliable estimate. Also, this bill did not charge landlords the cost to run this system. Landlords do pay for the RPO already. There could have been an option to increase that by $4 a unit that would have yielded plenty of funds to run this program. But we didn't choose to do it that way. But we could have. In other words, cost was really not an appropriate rationale to vote against the bill, in my opinion. So bottom line is there are plenty of reasons to support Council 1 to 0 3 to 5 as the majority of our legislative branch already did. So I urge a yes vote again today. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilor Petersen, before I go to Councilor Morales, who is a co-sponsor, then then it'll be customers to watch. I want to remind the public, when we voted on this on May 31st, the vote was 5 to 4. All right, Councilman Morales. I hear you. Yeah, we go. Sorry about that. It's you, colleagues. And thank you, Councilmember Peterson. I'm proud to have co-sponsored this legislation. And I'm disappointed that the mayor decided to veto a bill that would actually allow us to collect real information on rent trends for the first time ever. As the city continues to become more affordable. We as policymakers need data about our rental market that tell us the rate at which rent is increasing in our city. And we shouldn't be reliant on private, for profit corporations to do that work for us. We know that Seattle isn't affordable, but we don't really know the rate at which rents are skyrocketing right now. We don't. We don't know which units are seeing the biggest increases. We don't know if there is a ceiling to the kind of rent increases that we're seeing right now. My office worked with Councilmember Peterson on this legislation because we believe that it has the potential to provide us at the city with data that we're currently lacking. And it has the potential excuse me.
Speaker 0: I mean.
Speaker 1: It has the potential to put a tremendous amount of power into the hands of tenants, shifting the scale towards something more balanced between landlords and tenants. This is an opportunity that tenants in cities with rent roles like Chicago and New York already have. This could mean for tenants that they finally have the ability to make an informed decision and to make a choice between units when they're searching for a new home, something that landlords have been able to do with background checks on tenants for decades. What this means for tenants is that they'll actually know who's hiding behind LLC that owned the LLC, that owned their building. And that means that they can go directly to the person or persons who are responsible for keeping their unit habitable. If repair requests are not being fulfilled. This also means for tenants that they can have data that once and for all definitively shows the need for us to join the rest of the West Coast and pass rent control at the state and the city level. And finally, this means for tenants that we would finally have concrete data that dispels the illusion that private market trickle down economics is the solution to our affordability crisis. Data that could give us the extra push to invest in high quality, abundant, publicly.
Speaker 0: Owned social housing.
Speaker 1: So for me, this legislation isn't necessarily about land use decisions that may or may not happen in the next two years. It's about nothing short of giving tenants the opportunity to stay in Seattle, something that we know many of them are losing quickly. I urge my colleagues to vote yes to override this shortsighted veto and to give tenants the opportunities that they deserve. If you can spare Morales customers who want. Thank you. Guns in prison worries, as I said when this first came for a vote to the city council. This bill simply requires landlords to disclose the rent they charge so that policymakers can have accurate, objective data.
Speaker 2: Be clear.
Speaker 1: This bill going into effect will not make rental homes more affordable. It will simply collect data. But it is outrageous that the landlord lobby, who claimed to charge affordable rents, have called repeatedly to public comment in the past in opposition, the city having objective data. It would be good to have more data about the rent landlords charge and it is ironic that landlords have simultaneously claimed that they charge low rent and objected to actually disclosing the rent they charge. It is extremely telling that the landlord lobby has joined out in opposition to this bill. Several speakers before and during public comment today said if landlords are not gouging their tenants, why are they so afraid to tell the truth about their rents? And it is frankly scandalous that Mayor Harold chose to use a real veto. Do so brazenly do the bidding of the landlord lobby. More accurate and more complete data will help further confirm what every renter in Seattle already knows that landlords and the predatory real estate markets are gouging renters with totally unconscionable rent hikes. The cost of housing is being set by the greed of speculative banks, private equity funds and rapacious property management corporations rather than what it actually costs to house people. While the real estate barons make billions, working people and the poor are increasingly priced out just to have a roof over their heads or they're being pushed into homelessness
Speaker 2: . We need to strengthen all.
Speaker 1: Aspects of renters rights. Including strong citywide rent control and a big increase in the Amazon tax to file and increase expansion of publicly owned social housing. This bill will only provide more accurate and objective data, so if councilmembers do not support it, it would not stop renters from fighting for rent control. However, any councilmember.
Speaker 2: Who claims to be data driven has.
Speaker 1: No excuse to oppose this bill. I vote yes to make.
Speaker 4: Landlords disclose the rent.
Speaker 2: They charge.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: If you castmembers talent. And finally, we have Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. Just trying to adjust my. There we go.
Speaker 2: I'm taking the opportunity.
Speaker 1: To address the need for this sensible data collection legislation. And I, too, am scratching my head over. Why the powerful tool of.
Speaker 2: A male.
Speaker 1: Veto would be used for a bill that is really again, it's merely a data collection tool that is really helpful to us as policymakers, whether or not it's on the council side of the of the aisle or on the executive side. I want to just uplift how we've used data in the past, data specifically about displacement to guide our decisions. Back in 2015, that was the first major comprehensive plan update that actually included it for the first time ever a displacement risk analysis. This displacement risk analysis was instrumental to council's deliberations on the mandatory housing affordability reasons, and it helped guide us.
Speaker 2: On.
Speaker 1: How to how to use the the ABS zoning tool to add more housing and collect funds to build affordable housing. And it was really, again, a tool that used data that helped drive our decisions. You may recall that.
Speaker 2: On April 5th, the City Council received.
Speaker 1: I think, an a really important bit of guidance from the Seattle Planning Commission related specifically to our next major update.
Speaker 2: And in that memo, they.
Speaker 1: Wrote that they believe the Seattle Planning Commission believes we should make displacement policies focus of the next comprehensive plan to drop aid to the equitable growth patterns that led portion proportionate displacement of bipoc and low income communities and draw up the comprehensive and expected in 2024 needs to include displacement policies as a central focus of the plan
Speaker 2: . The city should.
Speaker 1: Supplement knowledge shared by communities affected by displacement, with improved data tracking of high displacement risk areas and the outcomes of policy actions. I really hope that we can override his veto with a majority +166 councilmembers voting in favor today. And I just want to close out her remarks was saying just a little bit of the call to action from the cities this weekend. They encouraged us by saying, let's catch up with other progressive cities and better understand where all affordable housing is located in Seattle. So we can finally have the detailed data we need to prevent economic displacement as we update our cities policies for a better future. Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, before we go to a vote, Councilmember Peterson, or anything you want to say before I make a few comments?
Speaker 0: Oh.
Speaker 1: You're good. Yeah. Okay, so let me read again the instructions and then we'll go to a vote. The City Council will now vote to reconsider passage of Council Bill 120325. And to either override or sustain the mayoral veto. Jerry Roll Call. Council members will vote I or yes to pass the bill and override the mayor's veto. Or vote no not to pass the bill and sustain the veto. If the vote on the motion does not receive six votes, the bill fails and the veto is sustained. If the vote on the motion is six or more favors in favor, the bill passes, the veto is overridden, and all provisions within the bill go into effect. There any other questions, any other procedural questions on the vote before we go? So as a reminder, council members will either vote I to pass the bill and override the mayor's veto or no to not pass the bill and sustain the veto or the clerk. Please call the roll on the passage of Council Bill 120325 and consideration of the Mayoral Veto. Madam Clerk.
Speaker 2: Council Member. Silent. Yes. Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Herbold? Yes. Councilmember Lewis?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 0: As.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Nelson. No. Councilmember Peterson. That's. Council president worries? No. Five in favor, three opposed.
Speaker 1: So the motion fails. Adam Clark.
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 1: Okay. So I'm sorry. I was waiting for this. Okay, so the motion fails. The bill does not pass, and the veto is sustained. All right. I got that correct. Let's go to committee reports. Item number two, this matter is mine. Will the clerk please read item two and to the record.
Speaker 2: Agenda item two. Clip 4314495. Report of the City Clerk on the Certificate of Sufficiency for initiative number 134 concerning approving approval. Voting for mayor, city attorney and City Councilmember. Primary elections.
|
Council Bill (CB)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to housing and displacement mitigation; expanding the information required for submission under the Rental Registration Inspection Ordinance for rental housing units; requiring submission of rental housing-related information; and amending Chapter 22.214 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07052022_CF 314495
|
Speaker 2: Agenda item two. Clip 4314495. Report of the City Clerk on the Certificate of Sufficiency for initiative number 134 concerning approving approval. Voting for mayor, city attorney and City Councilmember. Primary elections.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Clerk file 314495 is notice that initiative 134 has sufficient signatures to go to the ballot. According to the city charter, the city clerk has 20 days for receipt of notice from King County elections to file the notice with the city council. The city clerk filed her report and the certificate of sufficiency with the council before this clerk file on June 28th. This action started the 45 day clock for council action on the initiatives. In order to provide my colleagues with additional time to consider this initiative. I'm recommending holding this clerk file for another week. This clerk file will appear on every agenda until the City Council determines what action will be taken in response to initiative number 134 134. As a reminder, the city's election code C-11 is for code 2.04300. Prohibits elected officials and city employees from using their office for the promotion or opposition of any ballot measure. According to the code, we should refrain from discussing the merits of the initiative until we are actually voting on legislation to support or oppose the ballot proposition. That will occur at a future meeting and within 45 days of the clerk file of this clerk file being filed with the council. I recommend that Council members refrain from discussing this initiative today and until the Council considers legislation supported or opposing this ballot proposition. I move to postpone clerk file 314495 to July 12. Is there a second?
Speaker 0: Second.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to postpone the Clarke file. Will the Clarke please call the roll on postponing of Clarke file 314495 until July 12th.
Speaker 2: Council member silent.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Strauss. Yes. Councilmember Herbold? Yes. Councilmember Lewis?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Nelson. Yes. Councilmember Peterson. S Council president worries high it in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The motion carries the clerk file is postponed until July 12. This item will appear on every agenda until the City Council determines what action will be taken in response to Initiative 134. Madam Clerk, we go on to item number three.
|
Clerk File (CF)
|
Report of the City Clerk on the Certificate of Sufficiency for Initiative No. 134, concerning approval voting for Mayor, City Attorney, and City Councilmember primary elections.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07052022_CB 120357
|
Speaker 1: Thank you. The motion carries the clerk file is postponed until July 12. This item will appear on every agenda until the City Council determines what action will be taken in response to Initiative 134. Madam Clerk, we go on to item number three.
Speaker 2: Agenda item three Council Bill 120 357 relating to city employment. Authorizing the execution of a memorandum of understanding between the City of Seattle and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Local Union Number 77 to be effective January 1st, 2021 to December 31st, 2022 and write a fine confirming certain prior acts.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Clerk. I move to pass Council Bill 120357. Is there a second?
Speaker 0: I can.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill as sponsor of this bill. I will. I will address it as sponsor of Council Bill 120357. I would like to provide some comments. We have before us a memorandum of Understanding and MCU between the city and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 77 for the Power Marketers Unit at Seattle City Light. The memo You would extend an expired collective bargaining agreement through December 31st, 2022. The memo you makes wage adjustments, changes and changes regarding bereavement leave and the establishment and establishes a joint labor management committee to discuss pay equity, job progression and other personnel issues. The executive estimates that cost to implement this milieu would be about $127,000 above the baseline contract. The executive states that there are sufficient funds held in reserve to cover these costs. Create a bill on an essential staff. Provide an analysis on this contract in a memo which was sent to council members on Wednesday, June 29th. Are there any comments? Okay. Not seeing any. Will the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 2: Councilmember what? Yes. Councilmember Strauss. Yes. Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Morales. As Councilmember Nelson, i. Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Council president was high, eight in favor, nine opposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The bill passes. The chair will sign it. And Madam Clerk, can you please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? HQ Moving on to item number four. This is Councilmember Peterson's legislation. Will the clerk please read item number four to the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment; authorizing the execution of a memorandum of understanding between the City of Seattle and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 77 to be effective January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07052022_CB 120354
|
Speaker 1: Thank you. The bill passes. The chair will sign it. And Madam Clerk, can you please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? HQ Moving on to item number four. This is Councilmember Peterson's legislation. Will the clerk please read item number four to the record?
Speaker 2: Agenda item four Capital 120354 relating to set of public utilities authorizing general manager, such CEO of Seattle Public Utilities to enter into an amended water quality combined financial assistant agreement with the State of Washington Department of Ecology to partially finance costs related to the construction of the ship canal water quality project and ratifying confirming starting prior acts
Speaker 1: . Thank you, Madam Clerk. I move to pass Council Bill 120354. Is there a second?
Speaker 0: Second?
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Peterson. It's believed and seconded. And the floor is yours.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council president. Colleagues, as we know, the ship Canal Water Quality Control Project is a very large capital project under construction. It will reduce polluted stormwater impacting Lake Washington Ship Canal. The project was agreed to in compliance with a Clean Water Act consent decree involving City King County, Washington State Department of Ecology and the U.S. EPA . And this results. This bill results in the financing costs being reduced. So we welcome this bill. It will enable us to take advantage of 59 million and very low interest funds through a federal program. Thanks to the below market interest rate, the loan will save city ratepayers approximately 15 millions because the legislation will save money and there is time sensitivity to take advantage of it. We set this straight to the city council. Our city council central staff has no concerns with it. And I, along with the executive, urge its passage today. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Customer PETERSON Sorry about that. Are there any other comments? And per my script, Casper Peterson, is any closing comments you'd like to make?
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Will the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 2: Council member? Yes. Councilmember Strauss? Yes. Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Let's remember Morales. Councilmember Morales asked. Councilmember Nelson, I. Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Council president worries.
Speaker 1: High.
Speaker 2: Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And Madam Clerk, again, please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Well, that concludes our committee reports. Moving on to our agenda. There were no items removed from the consent calendar, so we'll move on from that. There are no resolutions for any reduction in adoption today, so we'll move on from that other business. So any other business before council president. Councilmember Strauss.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; authorizing the General Manager/CEO of Seattle Public Utilities to enter into an amended Water Quality Combined Financial Assistance Agreement with the State of Washington Department of Ecology to partially finance costs related to the construction of the Ship Canal Water Quality Project; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06282022_CF 314495
|
Speaker 2: Councilmember Peterson has items four, five and six, and Councilmember Nelson has item number seven in Casper. Mosqueda as matters agenda items eight, nine and ten. Madam Clerk, will you please read item one into the record? The Report of the City Council Agenda Item one Clerk File 314495. The report of the City Clerk on the Certificate of Sufficiency for initiative number 134 concerning approval. Voting for Mayor, City Attorney and City Council Member Primary Elections. Thank you. I apologize for that brief moment there. So this item is coming from the council president's office. And I will go ahead and read for the record what I need to say legally so we can move this item forward. Clerk File 314495 is a notice. That initiative 134 has sufficient signatures to go to the ballot, according to the city charter. The city clerk has 20 days from receipt of this notice from King County elections to file the notice with the city council. This starts a 45 day clock for council action on the initiative. In order to provide my colleagues with additional time to consider the initiative. I'm recommending that we hold this notice for one week. As a reminder, the city's election code sale when you spill code 2.04.300 prohibits elected officials and city employees from using their office for the promotion or opposition of any ballot measure. According to the code, we should refrain from discussing the merits of the initiative until we are actually voting to support or oppose the ballot proposition. That will occur at a future meeting. At a future meeting, excuse me, within 45 days of the clerk file within that filing. I'm sorry. 45 days of filing the clerk file 314495. I recommend that council members restrain from refrain from discussing this initiative. Today I move to postpone the clerk file 314495 to July 5th, 2022. Is there a second? Okay. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to postpone the clerk file. The clerk? Says the clerk, PHIL But I think you mean file the clerk file 314495 will appear on every agenda until the City Council determines what action will be taken in response to Initiative Number 134. The Clerk Please call the roll on postponing clerk file 314495 until July 5th.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Peterson? Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Salant. Yes. Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 0: Yes. Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Mosquera. Councilmember Nelson.
Speaker 2: I. Council President, whereas I. Thank you. Seven in favor of men opposed. Thank you. Should have waited for them. The motion carries and the clerk file is postponed to July 5th, 2022. Let's move on to item number two. This will be Councilmember Lewis's legislation. Madam closely, please read item number two into the record. Agenda item two Council Bill 120. Excuse me, three or four to an ordinance authorizing Seattle Parks and Recreation to enter into an agreement with Seattle Repertory School to replace the Montlake playfield and continue an ongoing relationship in the Montlake community consistent with
|
Clerk File (CF)
|
Report of the City Clerk on the Certificate of Sufficiency for Initiative No. 134, concerning approval voting for Mayor, City Attorney, and City Councilmember primary elections.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06282022_CB 120342
|
Speaker 2: This will be Councilmember Lewis's legislation. Madam closely, please read item number two into the record. Agenda item two Council Bill 120. Excuse me, three or four to an ordinance authorizing Seattle Parks and Recreation to enter into an agreement with Seattle Repertory School to replace the Montlake playfield and continue an ongoing relationship in the Montlake community consistent with the non-government agreement and attachment one to the ordinance. Thank you. Let me. Councilmember Lewis, if you could just let me read something into the record and then I'll hand it over to you. The reconsideration of Council Bill 120342 is now before the Council. Council members at the June 24 City Council meeting, we considered Council Bill 120342. The bill did not secure the needed five votes to pass it and council member Alice moved to reconsider the bill. The motion carried in the Council Bill was held until this city council meeting. Until the city council meeting pursuant to the city charter. The Council will first consider the motion to reconsider. If the motion to reconsider is adopted, we will move to the passage of the bill as presented by the Public Assets and Homeless Committee. We now have before us a motion to reconsider the bill. Before I ask for a vote on whether or not the Council should open up this bill for discussion and another vote, are there any comments on the pending motion to reconsider the bill? Okay. Not seen any motion or any comments to reconsider the bill. The City Council will now vote to reconsider passage of Council Bill 120342. Will the clerk please call the roll? Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: It's a member slot.
Speaker 4: So just to understand this is to reconsider the vote, not the bill itself. Right.
Speaker 2: Yes. Am I correct, Madam Clerk? Yes. Yes. Okay. Yes. Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 0: Yes. Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 2: S Councilmember.
Speaker 0: Lewis. Yes. Councilmember mosqueda. Councilmember Nelson.
Speaker 2: I thank the president whereas I seven in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The motion carries in Council Bill 120342 is before the council. Councilmember Lewis as a sponsor of this bill, the floor is yours.
Speaker 1: Thank you, council president suarez and thank you for that procedural overview as well. I'll keep my comments to the substance of the legislation. This legislation was reported out of the Public Assets and Homelessness Committee a couple of weeks ago as a two part departmental requested legislation to continue the arrangement between the Seattle Parks and Recreation Department and Seattle Crab, with the Montlake playfield located at Montlake Park in the Capitol Hill Montlake neighborhood. Just as a little bit of background a little over a decade ago. The precursor arrangement to this was that Seattle Prep would pay to replace a turf playing field at Montlake Playfield Park, and in return, Seattle Parks and Recreation would give exclusive access to that play field for a string of weeks in the spring and a spring of weeks in the fall, string of weeks in the fall for school related sports and activities. Otherwise, the space would be an open and programable public park in accordance with the standard rules and procedures for all other Seattle Public Park facilities. The turf field wore out after a decade of use and where Seattle Parks is proposing to go back and do this agreement again and have Seattle Prep replace the turf field in exchange for the same programmatic access that they've enjoyed over the past decade. The only material change in this deal to the one that was previously negotiated by Parks is that Seattle Prep will provide 50 hours of community based programing as part of the requirement for this arrangement. So it is a better deal for the city and for the public than the previous iteration of the deal. We did have a robust discussion about this legislation in committee and ultimately passed out of committee with four votes in favor and one abstention and. I don't have any other comments on the legislation, but I would encourage passage and that's just the only remarks I have. Council President.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Mr. Lewis, I'm going to open the floor to any of my colleagues that would like to address Councilor Lewis's bill, reconsider the bill itself. Cast member, so on. And then after that, we have Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilor Brendan Morris. As I said last week when we were first discussing this bill, I'll be voting no on this contract. Our parks are treasured by the resources that should be available for all. This contract gives a private school exclusive access to the play field for a substantial part of the day, which unfortunately means that it will be unavailable during those hours by anyone else, such as students from Seattle Public Schools. New Astroturf on the play field is no doubt a real benefit. However, I do not think that outweighs losing public control of the space for so much of the day. So for that reason, I will be voting no.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. Silent. Yes, Herbold. Thanks. I did vote in favor of this and in committee. I know. In the committee vote. I believe Kasper Morales abstained. I'm interested. I wasn't here at full council last week. I'm. I am interested to know what is what has transpired since last week. I believe there are some specific questions asked in the interim. And just I'm interested to know the sort of the substance of of the answers of the questions regarding the public benefit provided by parks, if anybody has that information. Before I move to you, Councilor Lewis, I want to see if there's anyone else, and then I'll move back to you to do concluding remarks. Would you like to respond now to Councilmember Herbert Council member Lewis?
Speaker 1: I can read some of the remarks that we received in response from Parks to Councilmember Morales as questions in the open session here today.
Speaker 2: I Campbell released before that. Can you share that. The date on that because I think we all received that that memo. Correct. Well, public.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Yes. The entire council. Council president, as you indicate, was keyed on policy response to Councilmember Morales. Those questions. That email is dated Friday, June 24th.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 2: And because there was a lot of public discussion at full council last week, I just think it's useful for the public record to hear what those responses were. I think Councilmember Lewis is going to do that. Yes.
Speaker 1: And Councilmember Herbold and council president, I am happy to summarize the response, the responses that we received from Parks. So just indulge me for a moment. I do have it available and in front of me. One of the questions raised by Councilmember Morales had been How many agreements do we have that offer reserved access for private entity entities in exchange for some level of investment in the parks? Seattle Parks and Recreation responded that the following principles are used to assess the viability of the private entity investments, which are namely determining determining project impact to neighboring communities and their uses of the field. Ensuring community field usage hours are maintained and are not reduced for the general public. Our community benefits from a higher quality field with with the investment. So weighing the benefit of the field against any potential lack of programing time consideration of the location of where the investment was going to be made. So, you know, what is the equity of how we're distributing these arrangements, whether Seattle Parks and Recreation is in a position to make their own investment in the site instead of a private partner, the size of the investment and the entity being able to provide public benefits, which as we establish is a bigger emphasis in the renegotiation of the deal. They then provide a list of the current standing arrangements that are similar to Montlake, including Montlake. So in addition to the Montlake arrangement, South Park Play Field with Seattle Academy in our base stadium with Seattle City University Bar as play fields with West Seattle Little League and the Magnuson Cricket Pitch with the Seattle Cricket Club. So five total arrangements across Seattle Parks and Recreation that have this kind of contract. But the and I won't go into the rest of the details. But if colleagues want to review, Parks did provide a significant amount of detail on all of those agreements and additions that they can review for the level of investment and public benefit that is detailed in the memo. The next question from Councilmember Morales was What analysis has been done on Seattle Park facilities to assess local neighborhood access for private school access? And Seattle Parks indicated they're currently conducting outreach to assess what each of the local neighborhoods desire for park play fields. And this is also sort of been a component of the Metropolitan Park District outreach that we're familiar from from that process. They track play field use through our use reports for known play field users. And very high utilizers of playing fields include public schools, private schools, youth organizations, adult rec leagues, Seattle Park, parks and Recreation, official recreation programs, and of course, just individual groups for private events. Seattle Public Schools have first priority scheduling rights through the Joint Use Agreement for all Seattle parks, which is a point that they that they note. But that is that excludes the facilities where there is a unique arrangement with a private partner. But again, that's only in a couple of scenarios Montlake, South South Park and the West Seattle Stadium. The final question, two questions from Councilmember Morales that were answered. How is the public benefit in this particular at the Montlake agreement calculated, and how are we measuring their success in providing a public benefit? And Parks responded that in the original agreement, Seattle Craft was not required to provide an explicit public benefit component. And the new proposal does enumerate, as I've indicated, a requirement of 50 additional public programing hours, which is a new component of the contract, and that is going to be tracked and recorded as part of the agreement upon entering into an agreement. This is the final question, Councilmember. I was asked upon entering into an agreement. What is the how do we essentially assess the the and understand the equitable benefit to the community? So so touching on the equity of these arrangements. And. This is broken into several sub questions. The first one is the community outreach to communities of color to receive scholarships and participate in sporting programs at the site. Parks responded that per the agreement, Seattle Prep will be reaching out to community centers around the city, as well as schools in less advantaged areas with specific offers to participate in this supplemental programing. Generally, registrations run through their website for on campus middle school camps, which is one of the things Seattle Prep is offering. Registration for lacrosse, speed and agility camps run offline to eliminate the barriers to entry or in-person recruitment. All fees for those camps will be waived for low income and disadvantaged youth. These camps are meant to serve as an opportunity to introduce new groups, new sports and spread fitness to underserved communities. The other subquestion in that category what are the statistics regarding applications and number of scholarships and participation? These public benefits will be tracked through an annual report, and the report requires Gallup to track participation numbers, hours of service provided volunteers, hours, number of programs provided, and the costs associated with all the public benefits. So there are articulable metrics in the agreement that are going to be tracked and reported on back to the Council as part of the agreement. Seattle Prep has operated programs in the past for the community at no cost, so there is a track record the organization has for this. So Parks doesn't anticipate compliance to be an issue. Seattle Prep run programs and events through the public benefit requirement will be free to the community, so there is no expectation of Seattle Prep charging for those services. And then the final subquestion was what in the past experience and methods of Seattle Prep in reaching out to youth within within those communities. So what is the track record of Seattle Prep as a partner in doing this work? And the past experiences have been in conjunction with the Montlake Community Center, the Seattle Nativity School, Northwest Child and other nonprofit groups that that are local to the Seattle Prep neighborhood. Seattle Prep has partnered with the Montlake Community Center in the past to provide student led tutoring services for children of low income and marginalized backgrounds. Taylor Prep has worked with Northwest Child to facilitate programs dedicated to supporting people with disabilities with recreational opportunities. So that is the summary of Seattle Parks responses. Again, councilmembers can review that memo that was provided last Friday. And the the attachment of the public benefits template and matrix that is attached to the legislation is a good reference point as well to provide a summary of the details of the contract. So thanks for indulging that that long recitation.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Lewis, is there any other comments? I just want to wrap up, I think, Councilor Lewis, that so formally as Chair Parks, we did completely redo the public benefits piece that you see that's reflected now in these new agreements. So I want to thank customers a lot and Councilmember Morales and will skate up for bringing some of these issues up. And thank you, Councilmember Herbold, for teen up some of these other issues. And thank you, Custer Lewis, for summarizing the memo that we'd all received. We did insert and make sure that Parks is has a robust race and social justice piece, that the public benefits piece is outweighs the private use of public benefits, that we track the progress and the success and the benefits in the use. And more importantly, as you shared, Councilmember Lewis, that we look at outreach not only to the communities but working with community centers in any other public asset that the private entity is using the public space for. So thank you for that. Okay. So not seeing anything else. Casper Lewis, do you want to say before we go to a vote?
Speaker 1: No council president. I'll rest on my previous remarks.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Well, the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 0: Let's remember.
Speaker 2: Peterson.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: Some members want. No. Council member.
Speaker 0: Strauss. Yes. Council member Herbold.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Nelson.
Speaker 2: I council president.
Speaker 0: Was.
Speaker 2: High six in favor. One opposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes. I will sign. The chair will signed it. I'm sorry. The chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Moving on to our agenda to agenda item three. I understand it's Councilmember Herbert's piece of legislation. Madam Clerk, will you please read item three into the record? Agenda item three Council Bill 120351 An ordinance relating to city employment amending sections 4.14.140 and 4.14.150 of the Seattle Municipal Code to expand eligibility for the moving expenses reimbursement benefit for
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE authorizing Seattle Parks and Recreation to enter into an agreement with Seattle Preparatory School to replace the Montlake Playfield and continue an ongoing relationship in the Montlake community consistent with the Non-Government Agreement in Attachment 1 to this ordinance.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06282022_CB 120351
|
Speaker 2: Moving on to our agenda to agenda item three. I understand it's Councilmember Herbert's piece of legislation. Madam Clerk, will you please read item three into the record? Agenda item three Council Bill 120351 An ordinance relating to city employment amending sections 4.14.140 and 4.14.150 of the Seattle Municipal Code to expand eligibility for the moving expenses reimbursement benefit for certain individuals. Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. Thank you so much. This is follow up legislation to implement Ordinance 12 6589 requesting that the Seattle Department of Human Resources update personnel rules to allow the city to pay for relocation expenses for a broader range of salaries, not just the top tiers, as is the previous practice. This would include, for example, police officers and other hard to fill positions that are critical to to performing and delivering city services. The Seattle Department of Human Resources drafted a change to provide the requested flexibility under the council's previous legislation. This bill would make the necessary changes to the municipal code to reflect those changes. As a follow up, to implement the intent of the previous bill. I really appreciate Council President Juarez referring this to to the Council directly and to also direct folks to review the memo from Council Central Staff Ali Pucci about the legislation that she had sent already. Just again, noting existing rules, note that the. The reimbursement of relocation costs is a is applicable when the city is unable to recruit persons in the immediate employment area who possess the unique skills, expertize and or educational qualifications. As noted in the fiscal note. The maximum reimbursable allowance for qualified moving expenses is $25,049, and employees must relocate to a distance that meets the Internal Revenue Services distance test, typically about 50 miles to qualify, I encourage my colleagues support for this bill. Thank you. Yes, Madam Clerk. I mean, I may have jumped the gun on this. I have to page eight. So I think I was supposed to move to pass Council Bill and look for a second and then ask Council member Herbert to speak to it. So do I do that now, Madam Clerk? Yes, you do. Thank you. I moved to pass Council Bill 120351. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. And Councilor Herbert did speak to the bill, so thank you for that, Councilmember Herbert. Are there any other comments regarding Councilmember Herbert's legislation? All right. Not seeing any. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 0: Councilmember Peterson. Yes. Council members want?
Speaker 2: Yes. Council member Strauss.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Council Member Herbold. Yes.
Speaker 0: Council member Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Nelson, I.
Speaker 0: Council president was.
Speaker 2: High. Six in favor, nine opposed. Thank you. The bill passes, the chair will sign it and please affix my signature to the legislation. Moving on to the Transportation and Seattle Public Utilities Committee, it's Councilmember Peterson. It's item number four. Madam, could we please read item number four to the record, the report of the Transportation and Seattle Public Utilities Committee Agenda Item four Appointment 0219 for the appointment of Andrew Leigh as General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of Seattle Public Utilities for attempted December 31st, 2025.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment; amending Sections 4.14.140 and 4.14.150 of the Seattle Municipal Code to expand eligibility for the moving expenses reimbursement benefit for certain individuals; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06282022_CB 120346
|
Speaker 2: Madam Clerk, will you please read item number six into the record? Agenda item six Council go 120346. An ordinance relating to Seattle Public Utilities declaring certain real property rights to be surplus to the needs of Seattle Public Utilities. The committee recommends the bill pass elsewhere.
Speaker 1: PETERSON Thank you. Council President Colleagues, as I mentioned at our council briefing yesterday, council 120346 is a request from Seattle Public Utilities to grant a temporary easement and a smaller permanent subsurface easement to King County for a narrow tract of land on the East Side and Bellevue for the main purpose of constructing and maintaining a sewer line . Our committee unanimously recommended approval. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Are there any comments? Not seeing any customer or Petersons or anything you want to say before we move to a boat.
Speaker 1: No, thank you.
Speaker 0: Oh, sure.
Speaker 1: Well, I do have a speech prepared again, but I think I'll let it go.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thanks. Come on, Councilman Peterson. Let's hear it for.
Speaker 1: A score in seven years.
Speaker 0: Oh. Here we go.
Speaker 2: There we go. All right. Well, the clerk please call the role of the passage of the bill. Councilmember Peterson?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Swan. Yes. Councilmember Strouse. Yes. Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: Nelson. AI Council President. Was I seven in favor?
Speaker 0: Nine opposed.
Speaker 2: Thank you. The bill passes. The chair will sign it. And, Madam Clerk, please affix my signature to the legislation. Moving on the agenda to the Economic Development, Technology and City Light Committee. That's Councilmember Nelson. Madam Clerk, can you please read item seven into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; declaring certain real property rights to be surplus to the needs of Seattle Public Utilities; and authorizing the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of Seattle Public Utilities to grant a subsurface utility easement and temporary construction easement to King County for the purpose of installing, constructing, owning, operating, maintaining, and repairing a trunk sewer line crossing The City of Seattle’s East Side Supply Line right-of-way.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06282022_CB 120340
|
Speaker 2: Agenda Item ten Council Bill 120340 An Ordinance relating to the Department of Finance and Administrative Services. The committee recommends the bill pass. Now, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Councilor. Thank you so much. This legislation authorizes a lease of property near the I-5 and I-90 interchange referred to as the Royal Brougham property by the city of Seattle from the Washington State Department of Transportation. The lease will enable the Seattle Department of Transportation to continue using the property for equipment, storage and parking and applies retroactively to 2017 when it first began using the property for this purpose. All right. Thank you. Caspar Herbal, are there any any comments? Anything else, Councilmember Herbert? Madam Clippy, please call the roll. Anthony Peterson.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Council member Saline.
Speaker 2: S council member.
Speaker 0: Strauss. Yes. Council Member Herbold.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Council member Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Nelson. I kept the president was.
Speaker 2: I seven in favor and unopposed. Q The bill passes, the chair will sign it, and Madam Cook again, please, to fix my signature to the legislation. That concludes our committee reports. So moving to items removed from the consent calendar, there were no items removed from the consent calendar moving to adoption of other resolutions. I understand there are no other resolutions or adoptions today in regards to other business. I want to note for the record, which I apologize for not saying at the outset that Councilor Macheda has indeed been excused from today's council meeting before I adjourn.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Finance and Administrative Services; authorizing the Director of the Department of Finance and Administrative Services or the Director’s designee to negotiate and execute a real property lease with the Washington State Department of Transportation on behalf of the Seattle Department of Transportation; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06212022_CB 120347
|
Speaker 1: The report of the City Council Agenda Item one Council Bill 120347 An ordinance relating to city employment, commonly referred to as the second quarter 2022 employment ordinance.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I moved to pass Council Bill 120347. Is there a second that can. Thank you. It's been moved in second hand to pass the bill as sponsor of this item. I will address it and then open up the Florida comments brief. Bear with me for a minute. The council authorizes certain personnel actions through quarterly and employment ordinances. Today, we are considering the second quarter 2022 employment ordinance. This ordinance came straight to full council and was not referred to committee. Last week, Karina Boyle on our central staff provided a memo of analysis for your consideration. If passed Council Bill 120347 would authorize the Seattle Department of Human Services to, number one return seven positions to the civil service system, and number two, exempt one position from the civil service system. It also amend Seattle Municipal Code Section 4.13.010 to reflect the classification civil service changes to these three positions. There are no direct costs associated with these personnel decisions or actions today. Any comments on this bill? Not seeing or hearing any. Will the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Councilmember Nelson II. Councilmember Peterson. Hi. Councilmember Sawant. Yes. Councilmember Lewis. Yes. Council member Morales. S Council president was high.
Speaker 0: Six in.
Speaker 1: Favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes. The chair will sign it. And Madam Clerk, will you please affix my signature to the legislation? Moving on to item two. I understand that Caspar Harold is not here today. I understand. Customer Morales is a co-sponsor. Will be addressing this. Madam Clerk, can you please read item two into the record.
Speaker 1: Agenda item to cancel the 120348 an ordinance relating to appropriations for the Seattle Municipal Court.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment, commonly referred to as the Second Quarter 2022 Employment Ordinance; returning positions to the civil service system; removing positions from the Civil Service system; and amending Section 4.13.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code; all by a 2/3 vote of the City Council.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06212022_CB 120348
|
Speaker 1: Agenda item to cancel the 120348 an ordinance relating to appropriations for the Seattle Municipal Court.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Caspar Morales So Resource Inc you colleagues. I did mention this bill at briefing last week, but to remind you, Councilmember Herbold and I are co-sponsors. The adopted budget includes a proviso on $88,000 in the settlement Seattle Municipal Courts budget that was intended to fund.
Speaker 1: Subsidies.
Speaker 0: For users eligible for electronic home monitoring. The proviso was intended to restrict spending until the court provided to the Public Safety and Human Services Committee baseline data from 2018 to 2021 to understand the current usage for misdemeanor defendants. The Court recently indicated that they do not have the data, nor does the electronic monitoring service provider, though they will begin to track it starting in 2022. So because the court has exhausted their existing funding for subsidies and cannot spend more without the proviso left, we are moving with that proviso left. Otherwise only those able to pay will be able to access this service. So we are moving this legislation forward. HQ Council member Alice. Are there any questions? I'm sorry. I got to move this first. Then I can ask. Or did I do that? No, I did not. I moved to pass Council Bill 120348. Is there a second? Second? Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Calcium. Calcium already spoke to this, or is there any other comments from our colleagues? Councilmember else or anything else you want to add before I ask for the vote?
Speaker 1: No, I'm good. Okay.
Speaker 0: Will the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Councilmember Nelson, I. Councilmember Peterson. Hi. Councilmember Salant. Yes. Councilmember Lewis. Yes. Councilman Morales? Yes. Council president was.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 1: Six in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes. The chair will sign it. And, Madam Clerk, please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Item number three is also Chester Morales. Madam Clerk, we will please read item number three into the record.
Speaker 1: The Report of the Neighborhoods Education, Civil Rights and Culture Committee Agenda Item three Council Bill 120336 An Ordinance relating to Historic Preservation Imposing controls upon the key to Ravel's House. A landmark designation by the Landmark Preservation Board. The committee recommends the bill pass.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to appropriations for the Seattle Municipal Court; amending a proviso imposed by Ordinance 126490, which adopted the 2022 Budget; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06212022_CB 120336
|
Speaker 1: The Report of the Neighborhoods Education, Civil Rights and Culture Committee Agenda Item three Council Bill 120336 An Ordinance relating to Historic Preservation Imposing controls upon the key to Ravel's House. A landmark designation by the Landmark Preservation Board. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council member Alice. Thank you very much. Colleagues, we did hear in my committee about the Cape Rebels house. It was built in 1902. It's located in the Capitol Hill neighborhood and was home of the prominent Cape Rebels family, Horace Cayton and Suzy Rebels, who were the first owners and editors of the Seattle Republican, which was the city's first black owned newspaper. The home itself is associated with a significant chapter of Seattle and Washington black heritage. The family fought for civil rights and used their paper to advocate for racial equity in the city. And the Landmarks Designation Board has recommended that this House receive that designation. It was unanimously voted in my committee that it do pass. Q I'm trying to do three things at once, and that's probably not a good thing to do while you're trying to cheer me. So are there any other comments for Councilmember Ellis? Okay. Not seen any. Let's go ahead with the vote then. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?
Speaker 1: Councilmember Nelson. I remember Peterson. I don't remember a lot. Yes. Councilmember Lewis. Yes. Councilmember Morales. Yes. Council president.
Speaker 0: Was I six in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The bill passes. The chair will sign it. And then please affix my signature. Thank you. We'll move to item number four, which is also Casper Morales. Madam Clerk, will you please. Item forward to the record.
Speaker 1: Agenda item four Appointment 2 to 5 one. The reappointment of Matt and Pam Luther as member at Landmark's Preservation Board for a term two August 14, 2025. The Committee recommends the Council confirm the appointment.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to historic preservation; imposing controls upon the Cayton-Revels House, a landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board under Chapter 25.12 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and adding it to the Table of Historical Landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06212022_CB 120341
|
Speaker 1: The Report of the Public Assets and Homelessness Committee Agenda Item five Council BR 120341 An ordinance relating to the Seattle Parks and Recreation authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to execute for and on behalf of the city a concession agreement. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. This is a fairly straightforward ordinance. Per parks requirements. They need to come to the Seattle City Council for oversight and ratification of pending concession agreements that they reach. This particular contract is a concession contract for vending machines and park facilities. The vendor being selected is one of two final bids that were selected as part of a competitive RFP. The committee was satisfied and unanimously reported this legislation out for council ratification here today.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Lewis, are there any comments or questions for cast member Lewis? Is there anything you want to add before we go to a vote? Caspar Release. That's a no.
Speaker 5: No, Madam President.
Speaker 0: You don't have to say, Madam President. But I didn't know if you had your speaker on or your volume one. All right. So with that, Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?
Speaker 1: Councilmember Nelson. I know. Councilmember Peterson. Hi. Councilmember Sawant. Yes. Councilmember Lewis. Yes. Councilmember Morales. Yes. Council. President Suarez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Six in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes. The chair will sign it. And please affix my signature to the legislation. Moving on to item number six, which is also council member Lewis and Clark. Will you please read item number six into the record?
Speaker 1: Agenda Item six Council Bill 120342 An ordinance authorizing Seattle Parks and Recreation.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Parks and Recreation; authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to execute, for and on behalf of the City, a Concession Agreement with Compass Group USA, Inc., doing business as Canteen, to provide food and beverage vending machine service in City park facilities identified in the agreement and additional City park facilities and locations approved by the Superintendent.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06212022_CB 120342
|
Speaker 1: Agenda Item six Council Bill 120342 An ordinance authorizing Seattle Parks and Recreation.
Speaker 4: To enter into an.
Speaker 1: Agreement with Seattle Puppetry School to replace the Montlake playfield. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Madam President, this is an item that we had a fairly lengthy discussion on in committee regarding a deal to between Seattle Parks and Seattle Primary Academy to replace a turf field in the Montlake neighborhood of the city. This is an extension of an existing arrangement from the last time the turf field was replaced in collaboration with Seattle Prep. Under the terms of this agreement between Parks and Seattle Prep, as is outlined in a attachment to the legislation, the terms of agreements which in a matrix illustrates the different public benefits and the cost being assumed by Seattle Prep as part of this arrangement that Seattle Prep will assume the full cost of replacing this turf field in exchange for having priority access to the turf field from March 1st through June 15th annually during peak times for their sporting events and at other additional times as fits their schedule of athletic activities. In exchange further for that deal, and this is one of the more different terms from the previous decade of having this arrangement. Seattle Prep will provide a minimum of 50 public service annual public service hours per year, with the goal of helping to fill gaps in community offerings in the Montlake neighborhood and beyond, and facilitate, particularly programing to include the creation of lacrosse programs for middle school age children from lone families. Partnering with Montlake Community Center to provide tutoring services by Seattle Prep Students Assisting Northwest Child, a program dedicated to supporting people with disabilities and providing recreation opportunities for students. We had a fairly lengthy back and forth about the details of this of this deal and also the extent to which this is a more unique arrangement at this location and with this particular partner or whether it portends. Broader policy direction and decision by Seattle Parks and Recreation. I know Councilmember Morales has submitted some questions to Parks. I don't believe we've had a response for some of those inquiries yet, but I support getting a report back on those questions from the department as we go forward in pursuing these kinds of partnerships about the maintenance, replacement and activation of our public spaces. The Committee did ultimately report this bill out unanimously with an abstention from Councilmember Morales. Given that there there is no. Significant increase in concession from the city in this agreement relative to the previous shared use agreement. But there is an increased amount of benefit in Seattle providing 50 public service hours annually, which is the. From what I understand, from talking to parks and from the committee. The only new term relative to the last time the city entered into this agreement. So given that the committee does recommend passage of this and I don't have any other opening comments.
Speaker 0: Because we're lost. Can I ask you a question? When was the when was the other agreement? And I'm starting to remember this one. Was this after two states after 2016?
Speaker 5: I believe that the initial agreement council president was longer ago because this is at the time we are now replacing the turf field from its its 12 years of useful life. I think it was 2011.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: So I believe yeah, but another turf field that we did one of these concession agreements and a good job getting the public benefits piece in there because that's something that we worked on.
Speaker 5: So yes, you may be thinking council president about, I believe, a similar arrangement in the South Park neighborhood. Yes. Was done in the past decade that that is similar but with different parties.
Speaker 0: Right. Thank you. Are there any other comments from my colleagues before I ask Casper relevant. If you a council president and I thank you for the report. Councilmember Lewis, as Councilmember Lewis indicated, I did send some questions. I had I had a lot of questions in committee and sent some follow up questions. My questions are really rooted in the concerns that I hear from my constituents about the lack of access to neighborhood parks and to play fields for neighborhood children and the exclusive nature of the use of these in exchange, the exclusive use.
Speaker 1: Sort of.
Speaker 0: You know, peak after school hours for for students. So I did send some follow up questions to the Parks Department regarding the public benefit for use of our parks by private institutions. I haven't received those responses yet, but I have asked similar questions and have been asking for the last two years about these agreements that we have with private entities. Candidly, with the with the budget shortfall, the upcoming parks funding deliberations. I think it's important that we put a real intentional equity lens on our funding priorities. And I just feel at this point, without sufficient information on how this benefits diverse and low income communities, this is not something that I can support right now . So I will be voting.
Speaker 1: No today.
Speaker 0: If you customers want.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Dr. President. Whereas I will also be voting no on this contract in addition to the comments made by Councilmember Morales. I just wanted to add that our parks are a treasured public resource that should be available for all. This contract gives a private school exclusive use of the play field for a substantial part of the day, which unfortunately means that it will be unavailable during those hours for anyone else, such as students from Seattle Public Schools. New Astroturf on the play field is no doubt a real benefit. However, I do not think that outweighs losing public control of the space for so much of the day. So for that reason, and addition to the reasons already stated, I will.
Speaker 1: Be voting no. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilor Silent. Are there any other comments before I hand it off to Councilmember Lewis, too? Oh, yes, we're in Nelson. No. Okay. Councilmember Lewis, do you have any closing comments before we go to a vote?
Speaker 5: I'll stand by my initial remarks and cueing this up. Council president and we can move on to the vote.
Speaker 0: Okay. I'm going to support this as a former chair of parks and for six years in the MPD and talking to Councilmember Lewis. These these concession agreements are pretty straightforward. And we do require and I know for a fact, in the last six years, particularly the first six months that I chaired, that we bolstered up the huge public benefits piece. And, of course, the race, race and social justice initiative analysis is a big part of that. And there was some push back in the beginning, but eventually Parks and some of our other groups came to realize that. I think you saw this when we did the Woodland Park Zoo contract that we really needed to see what is the public benefit to allowing a private the private sector to use the public benefit? And even if it is a private school, these are still young folks in our city wanting to participate. And sometimes it's basically that's the only park that's there. So I'm going to go ahead and be supporting this because I understand the work that Councilmember Lewis had to do after doing it for six years to move these things forward. So with that, I'll be supporting that. But there any other comments before we move to a vote? All right. Not seeing any madam clip. You please call the role.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Nelson, I. Councilmember Peterson by Councilmember Salant No. Councilmember Lewis. Yes. Councilmember Morales No. Council President or us.
Speaker 0: I foreign favor to oppose you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes. The chair will sign it. And Madam Clinton's.
Speaker 1: Excuse me. Councilmember President. Council president was. I believe we may need five votes for a council bill. It's very possible that one did not pass at this particular point in time.
Speaker 0: Okay, so the. So what? Let's say we had two no's and.
Speaker 1: And some lessons and I have to check the charter. But I believe we need to find council members in favor of a council bill. And then I will also follow up with what to do after this.
Speaker 0: Okay. So what should we do? I'm concerned about putting it on the record that it failed. If we have to come back, if we're not sure on the actual rules. Can we? Is there a way that I can take this with Council Member Lewis's permission and move this over to next week till we have some confirmation on the particular procedural rules? I would rather do that than accept the vote as it is right now, because I did not know that. And I don't know if Council member Lewis did that. Can we do that?
Speaker 1: Yes. I mean, we can bring it back to the next council meeting without any further action.
Speaker 0: Councilor Lewis, is that okay with you? If we can move this over to June 28th?
Speaker 5: No objection from me. Councilmembers.
Speaker 0: Okay. So what we will do then is we will take item number six and till we get some clarification on the clerk's on how many votes we need to pass this or passes or fails, and we'll move this to June 28th, which is a Tuesday, and we'll bring it back then. And then, Madam Clerk, you can advise us and Mr. Casseroles can share with us any additional information about that.
Speaker 1: Yes. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 0: Yes, thank you. All right. So after that, let's move on. On our agenda, items removed from the concert calendar. There were no items removed. The consent calendar, adoption of other resolutions. There are no other resolutions to be adopted under way. Other business. If there's no objection, Councilor referral is excused from today's council meeting. It's forward with that. And then right now we will go to let's see, I am not adjourning yet. We're going to go into executive session.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE authorizing Seattle Parks and Recreation to enter into an agreement with Seattle Preparatory School to replace the Montlake Playfield and continue an ongoing relationship in the Montlake community consistent with the Non-Government Agreement in Attachment 1 to this ordinance.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06142022_CB 120332
|
Speaker 1: The report of the City Council Agenda Item one Council Bill 120332 An ordinance relating to city employment authorizing the execution of the collective bargaining agreement between the City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Management Association. This is active January 1st, 2020 through December 31st, 2023.
Speaker 0: Thank you. A move to pass Council Bill 120332. Is there a second? Okay. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Sponsor of this item. I will address it and then I'll open the floor to comments. Last week, at the request of our Public Safety Committee Chair, Councilmember Herbold, we delayed a vote on the Seattle Police Management Collective Bargaining Agreement by one week. Today, the SPM. The collective bargaining agreement will be considered for a vote. As you may recall, the SPM collective bargaining agreement was referred directly to full council. It was not considered at the committee level. The council received a one hour informational briefing presentation I'm sorry, on Council Bill 120332 by our Council central staff and lead negotiators an open public session on Monday, June six at Council Briefing. This collective bargaining agreement came to the Council at the conclusion of likely lengthy, focused negotiations between the Seattle Police Management Association and the City of Seattle. It's council president. I sponsored it to ensure it's timely consideration in full council and due respect for this lengthy negotiation process. The Council has the option to accept or reject, but not to amend the collective bargaining agreement, which is why per protocol they are they are sent they are sent straight to full council and not sent to committee for review. So basically we did not go to full council or I'm sorry, a committee came to full council because it's collective bargaining agreement. Council Bill 120332 would authorize the mayor to implement a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Management Association, the SPM. The collective bargaining agreement is a four year agreement on wages, benefits, hours and other working conditions covering the period January 1st, 2020 through December 31st, 2023, and affecting approximately 80 regularly appointed city employees. Greg Doss, The council's central staff, outlined key elements of the agreement in a memo provided to council members and was posted online and made obviously made available to the public on Friday, June 3rd. In summary analysis of SPM contract has been presented in writing and in a presentation publicly with the opportunity for council members to ask questions and receive answers. Before we move on, what I'll do is I'd like to hand it off to the chair, the Public Safety and Human Services Councilmember Herbold, if she'd like to provide some comments from her.
Speaker 1: So I really appreciate it and appreciate the delay last week and just a little bit more detail about that process. There are two labor unions that represent Seattle police officers, one in the Seattle Police Management Association and the other being the Seattle Police Officers Guild. Fogg represents officers and sergeants and subpoena represents captains and lieutenants contract. In addition to salary increases, increases includes several advances in accountability arising from each 2017 accountability legislation issues that in 2019 overseeing the consent decree highlighted as a basis for noncompliance regarding discipline and appeals issues identified by the CPC, the three Police Commission in their November 2019 letter, including inclusion of the standard for Evidence in discipline review addressing the 180 day timeline problems. Removing the requirement that intentionality must be proven in dishonesty charges. Allowing OC to play a role in criminal investigations. Retaining personnel files six years after an officer is no longer employed by the city and new issues raised by Accountability Partners OC , OIG and see the beginning of negotiations. APS The most important change covered in this in this particular agreement is in discipline review. Seattle's current arbitration system is broken. It's one of the main reasons a federal judge found the Seattle Police Department out of compliance with the consent decree in 2019 to a ruling an arbitrator regarding. In statement, an officer fired former chief for striking a woman who was handcuffed a currently 93 open appeals according to okay. Some of them involve complaints filed as far back as 2016. This new agreement creates a new discipline review system that marks a sea change in how disciplinary bills will operate. Help slow that backlog from growing even more by ensuring cases aren't being entirely relitigated during arbitration as they currently are. What's called De Novo.
Speaker 0: Review.
Speaker 1: Will also ensure that arbitrators who are generally not experts on saying don't substitute for judgment or the police chiefs undermining accountability, as happened in the Adly Shepherd case and recently with a parking enforcement officer who made a comment about lynching and was reinstated by an arbitrator. New system, as recommended by the CPC and the 2017 Accountability Legislation, establishes a standard for evidence rather than a higher standard of clear and convincing it is used. The new system will also prohibit hearing of new facts related to the Office of Accountability Investigation unless the new facts were not discoverable at time of chief decision and that reasonably expect expected to change that decision. Another important improvement is that the proposed ESTIMÉ contract removes restrictions on the ability of OPA. Assign civilian investigators to certain tasks, allowing the okay to make assignments based on the skills and abilities of the investigator rather than whether or not they are civilian or a uniformed sergeant. Language in the contract limits the number of civilian investigators that can work at OPM. This change to the SPM agreement now might address that limitation in the contract. There are improvements include, as we heard in public comment, subpoenas. The 2017 Accountability Legislation Establish the Authority, the Office of Police Accountability and the Inspector General PMA and Smog Objective. Because there is no process identified. I proposed legislation in a council adopt a process last year. Consequently, the SPM contract is now silent on the top means that subpoena power, as passed by the Council in 2021, is unimpeded by the contract and goes to effect as PMA member's contract also removes the Commission on OPA from coordinating an investigation and states that he will not conduct a criminal investigation, a make communicate with criminal investigators and prosecutors about the status.
Speaker 0: Of.
Speaker 1: A criminal investigation as it relates to the 180 day clock. The contract, this is a pause on 188 a o'clock whenever a criminal investigation is contracted, regardless where the alleged criminal activity occurred, or what agency is conducting the investigation. And very importantly, the contract also means the definition of dishonesty. The intent of the definition is made clear by removing intentionally and injuring the facts that are material to the allegation, immaterial flat facts. And then lastly, I just want to note in response to Agnes governance question in public comment today, I just wanted to note that I don't Colleen responded, and we have an email from him saying that Otto is competent. The sentence in the Bill of Rights section of the agreement reference will not limit new discipline, review.
Speaker 0: Process.
Speaker 1: Or restrict disciplinary actions taken by the chief under the new process. Because again, that that sentence only is only tied to the Bill of Rights and not tied to the new re process. And so with that, that's my my attempt at a quick overview at the important reforms in this contract. And I do join me in supporting this contract with your vote. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilor Herbold, I know that you're wrapping up months of not maybe over a year of negotiations, but I stand corrected if I'm wrong on that. But this has been going on quite a while. Council members to anyone, have any other comments before we move to go to a vote with any would like to say. Councilmember Morales please. Thank you. I will be relatively brief. I do think it's important to say that this negotiated agreement makes some important changes regarding the management of police misconduct proceedings. This agreement doesn't eliminate arbitration, which is something that the city has been working on for a while. And I personally would like to see us get there. But it does place greater restrictions on the arbitration process. It eliminates the ability of officers to bring new evidence or witnesses to a misconduct proceeding. As Councilmember Herbold said, it would have it would require an arbitrator to uphold chief's discipline rather than overturning it. And it lowers the bar for evidence of misconduct, which is a key change for reaching a disciplined decision. I think there are important elements in this agreement, even if it doesn't get us all the way to where I think we need to be. And perhaps most importantly, it sets a precedent for the entire department about discipline, review, officer liability and accountability for officer misconduct. All things that I know we will continue to talk about as we go into the smog contract negotiation. So for that, those reasons, I will be supporting this agreement. Thank you. Are there any other comments? All right. Not seeing any. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: That's a member monogamous council member must get that i. Councilmember Nelson, i. Councilmember Petersen.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Strouse.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council Member Herbold. Yes. Council member Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: And Council President Fortis.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: That is eight present and opposed to excuse me in favor of another post.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes. The chair will sign it. And then can you please affix my signature to the bill? Thank you. Moving on to the Finance and Housing Committee. I see Kessler ROSQUETA has something on the calendar today. Madam Clerk, will you please read item two into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment; authorizing the execution of a collective bargaining agreement between The City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Management Association to be effective January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2023; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06142022_CB 120339
|
Speaker 1: The Report of the Land Use Committee Agenda Item three Council Bill 120339. An ordinance relating to grant funds from non city sources authorizing the Directors of the Office of Planning and Community Development and the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections. To accept a grant and execute related agreements, the committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Jasper Strauss.
Speaker 2: I thank you, Council President and happy to switch back seats if you want and nothing else will. One 2339 As Trinidad accepts grant funding on behalf of both Seattle Department of Construction Inspections and Office of Planning and Community Development for over $250,000 accepted for the State of Washington. From the State of Washington for planning around transit oriented development around 1/30 and 1/30 stations. Nice working getting that 1/30 station in their council president. This grant is part of a $2.5 million legislative allocation in 2021 to help cities facilitate the first ECI of $50,730 7000 $30 grant is being accepted for showing match plan mitigation planning. This funding will be specifically allowing CCI to complete final modeling for the Habitat Evaluation Procedures Program. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Strauss. That's how they roll up the D5 two light rails, little mess around. Okay with that, does anyone have any other comments or remarks for Councilmember Strauss? Okay. So before we close out, is there anything else you want to add, Councilmember Strauss, before we go to a vote?
Speaker 2: No. Just hoping to have light on board one day.
Speaker 0: Yeah, well, rubber lamp. So let's move on. Will the. Well, the clerk plans to rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Mosqueda. Councilmember Nelson, I. Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Strouse.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: And Council President.
Speaker 0: Maurice High.
Speaker 1: Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes. The chair will sign it. And Madam Clerk, will you please affix my signature to the legislation? Moving on to item number four. Councilmember Strauss, it's you again. But anyway. Clerk Will you please read the short title for the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to grant funds from non-City sources; authorizing the Directors of the Office of Planning and Community Development and the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections to accept a grant and execute related agreements; amending Ordinance 126490, which adopted the 2022 Budget; changing appropriations to various departments; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06142022_CB 120322
|
Speaker 1: The report of the Transportation and Seattle Public Utilities Committee, an ordinance relating to Seattle Public Utilities authorizing the general manager CEO of SPU to accept a non-exclusive easement within the schedule shall be waterway. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Casper Peterson.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. U.S. Council Bill 120322 accepts an easement from the State Department of Natural Resources to install a replacement sanitary sewer line within the Salmon Day waterway. The legislation was unanimously recommended by our committee.
Speaker 0: There any comments or concerns for Councilmember Peterson? Not seeing any men. Please call the roll.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Moralez.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Councilman Ramos. Gather i. Councilmember Nelson. I. Councilmember Peterson. Councilmember Strouse.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: And Council President Hart is in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Madam Clerk, will you please affix my signature to the legislation? Moving on to item number six. This is also Councilmember Peterson. Will the clerk please read the short title of item six into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; authorizing the General Manager/CEO of Seattle Public Utilities to accept a non-exclusive easement within the Shilshole Bay Waterway, previously known as the Salmon Bay Waterway of the Lake Washington Ship Canal, from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources for a City-owned sanitary sewer line; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06072022_CB 120332
|
Speaker 2: Before the city council agenda. Item one, Casper 120332 related to city employment, authorizing execution of the collective bargaining agreement between the City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Management Association to be effective January 1st, 2020 through December 31st, 2023, and ratifying confirming short term contracts.
Speaker 0: Thank you, colleagues. I move to postpone consideration of Council Bill 120332 until June 14th. Is there a second? And thank you. It's been moved and seconded to postpone this bill until June 14th and as sponsor of the motion, I will address it and then I will hand it off to Councilmember Herbold and then we'll open it up to the floor. Briefly, briefly. Yesterday in council briefing, we had a one hour presentation on Council Bill 120332 by our council central staff and lead negotiators in an open public session. Council Bill 120332 would authorize the mayor to implement a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Management Association, the SPM. The collective bargaining agreement is a four year agreement on wages, benefits, hours and other working conditions covering the period from January 1st, 2020 to December 31st, 2023. This proposed contract would supersede the former contract, which expired on December 31st, 2019. Let's see. So this contract is proposed. Contract affects approximately 80 regularly appointed city employees. Greg Doss, Counsel Central staff, outlined the key elements yesterday of the agreement in a memo provided to council members and made available to the public on Friday, June 3rd. So as Council President, I sponsored this legislation to ensure it's timely consideration in full council in due respect for the lengthy negotiation process. As I said this, the original contract expired in 2019. That being said, I would like to offer the opportunity for the chair of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee to make some comments regarding this legislation. Customer Herbold, thanks so much. Just a couple of words. I really appreciate the motion to hold and I tend to support it. Though Council did receive a very thorough briefing on the terms of the contract. We only received it 24 hours ago. I really appreciate the thoroughness of the negotiation process and the positive outcomes for our long sought accountability reforms. But I do believe that some additional time for all of us to familiarize, familiarize ourselves with the terms of the contract will be helpful. Thank you. If you remember, they could get some verbal. Are there any other comments before we go as far as open? This would be the time to give any comments regarding the vote on the postponing. All right. Not seen any. Well, the clerk, please call the roll on the adoption to postpone this legislation until Tuesday, June 14th.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 3: Yes. Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Morales. Yes. Councilmember Nelson, I. Councilmember Peterson?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Strauss. Yes. Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Council President Suarez.
Speaker 0: I seven in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The motion carries and the bill is postponed until June 14th. Madam Clerk, to I do. The language of the bill passes and the clerk affixed my signature.
Speaker 2: Not today. Council President.
Speaker 0: Okay. And while she carries on, the bill is postponed. Thank you. Moving on to item number two. This is the neighborhood's education and Civil Rights and Cultural Committee. Madam Clerk, please read the matter into the record.
Speaker 2: Agenda item to Equipment 2188 Appointment of Hamid Mohammed as director office to Immigrant and Refugee Affairs Committee recommended the appointment be confirmed.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment; authorizing the execution of a collective bargaining agreement between The City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Management Association to be effective January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2023; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05312022_CB 120325
|
Speaker 3: Reported the Sustainability and Interest Rates Committee Agenda Ember one Council 120 325 relating to housing and displacement mitigation. Expanding the information required for submission to the Rental Registration Inspection Ordinance for rental housing units required and submission of rental housing related information and amending Chapter 22.2 14 of the Code. The committee recommends that the bill pass with a divided vote, with councilmembers Lewis and Allison Faber and Councilmembers Nelson and Suarez opposed.
Speaker 1: Before we move on, I need to recognize that Councilmember Lewis has joined us with that council members to want.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Going to prison warriors. Councilmember Peterson is the prime sponsor of this legislation. I will turn the floor over to him to use it. I do have some comments, but I will wait until he has had a chance to introduce his bill.
Speaker 1: Let's hear. So what do you want to speak after Councilmember Peterson and then we'll go into. Okay. Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead. Customer Peterson.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council President. Thank you. Chair Salon's Council President. May I move the bill?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay, colleagues, I'd like to move passage of Council Bill 120325 on our agenda.
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 0: Thank you, chelsea. President suarez. I'll go ahead and speak to announce that. Thank you again. Thank you. President Juarez. Thank you. Salon two colleagues. Council Bill 120325 will efficiently fill a longstanding gap in data collection and analysis for Seattle's rental housing inventory, which will generate several benefits, including key data needed to measure and prevent economic displacement of existing residents from a dynamic and growing city. Seattle's Rental, Housing, Registration and Inspection Ordinance, our i o adopted several years ago, already requires landlords to submit a list of the rental units, and this bill would simply have property owners include that list along with rental rates, occupancy status and square footage of each unit to a research university to compile and analyze this important data. No personal information of the tenants would be provided. For the past several years, our city government has lacked the level of detail needed to understand many details about Seattle's housing inventory, including the extent of affordable housing that's not subsidized but still housed below market rents. Usually because that housing stock is older, what some refer to as naturally occurring affordable housing. This legislation also follows through on our statement of legislative intent of zero zero for a001 that Council adopted in November 2020. I understand that rental housing providers have had to absorb many changes and requirements over the past few years. Yet for us, time is running out for the simple, yet vital data before we attempt to update the city's comprehensive plan that will serve as a foundation for future housing and land use policies. The July 2019 Report prepared by the city's Office of Prepared for the City's Office of Planning and Community Development States by the Urban Displacement Project. University of California titled Heightened Displacement Risk Indicators for the City of Seattle states that a more granular and localized data set is needed to best meet the city's racial equity goals. The Seattle market rate, housing needs and supply analysis prepared for the city in 2021, stated that displacement can result from demolition of rental housing for redevelopment . As I mentioned before, we adopted a statement of legislative intent in 2018th November 2020 that asked the executive to come back with a plan to address this data gap. Unfortunately, the plan was not effective, merely suggesting that we hire a different private survey firm, which Dupré and Scott went out of business in 2018, demonstrating that we probably should not be relying on a private sector firm to collect data for a large city like Seattle that has dynamic changes going on with its policies. So it's time for us to take additional steps, such as requiring the data we need to mitigate and prevent displacement. So the IRR, the IO database already exists, but received an analysis of the rental housing data will require the contracted research university to set up spreadsheets or a database to enter and sort the rental rates and other information. I'm happy to address questions about cost. I can touch on that briefly here, but I believe the figures in the fiscal note are very high estimates and they lack the cost effective rigor and reality of a competitive request for proposals process that will occur. Also exceeding the budgets of PCD and CCI increased substantially from 2021 to 2022. During as part of the new bill that was introduced a few weeks ago, we did insert a sunset clause. So for landlords concerned about the ongoing burden of providing listing information that they would normally have for their own record keeping and tracking of rental revenues, this bill contains a sunset clause to end this process by December 2025. In other words, for those concerned about the bill, it's already been modified substantially by limiting the amount of time it's in effect. While the first round of data may not be available for the executive departments to complete their initial draft of comprehensive planning materials . The data will be available for for us, for city council members before any final decisions are made on the comp plan. So happy to answer questions or turn it over to others.
Speaker 1: Before I turn over to Councilor Solon, does anyone have any questions or comments for Councilmember Peterson before we let councilmembers address it and then we'll move to Councilmember Ellis in a moment. Okay. Not seeing any customers. So what do you want to address this? And then I believe Caspar Morales has a few items for us.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I support this bill and I thank Councilmember Peterson for bringing it forward. It will be good to have more data about the rent landlord's charge. This bill simply requires landlords to disclose the rent that they charge so that policymakers can have accurate, objective data. So it is pretty ironic that in public comment, landlords are simultaneously claiming both today and the committee they claim ultimately claim that they charge low rent and also objected to actually disclosing the rent they charge. I'm not I don't buy the stated reasons by these landlords that they are opposed to collecting the data because it will be some sort of onerous burden. It's not clear at all why it would be a burden to simply report the rent that you're already charging. You're already doing the paperwork. And I think it's it's really telling that the landlord lobby has turned out in opposition to this very straightforward and a bill that simply is about data collection. It is not a commentary on rent in any way. It's certainly not anything like rent control. I think the reason is clear. More accurate and more complete data will help further confirm what every renter in Seattle and every housing advocate in Seattle already knows big landlords. And the predatory real estate markets are gouging renters with totally unconscionable rent hikes. The cost of housing is being set by the greed of speculative banks, private equity funds and rapacious property management corporations rather than what it actually costs to house people. So while the real estate barons make billions, working people and the poor are increasingly price gouged just to have a roof over their heads and both are getting pushed into homelessness, we need to strengthen all the aspects of renters rights. We also need strong citywide rent control and a big increase in taxes on the rich. Like the Amazon backs that our movement won in 2020 to fund and increase expansion of publicly owned social housing. This bill will simply stipulate that landlords have to provide information to the city about the rents that they are charging. So I will vote yes on this legislation and I hope all council members also vote yes.
Speaker 1: Thank you. First one, does anyone have any questions for Casper Salant before we move on to Councilman Morales? Okay. Not seeing any. Councilmember Ellis. Good afternoon, colleagues. Thank you very much, Council President. I do have a couple of amendments, so I would like to first move Amendment eight to House Bill 120325. These were distributed on Friday the second. I will grant you a second. Councilman Morales, thank you very much. This amendment, colleagues, just adds a recital to state that the council intent with this is that this information would be public. As we know, anything we do is public. And the data itself, as many have said, is already publicly available. I just want to cover our bases that stating that this correlation of publicly available information and its use by the city will ultimately be public, either through public disclosure or via a data source like the Seattle.
Speaker 0: Services.
Speaker 1: Portal. So that is what we are trying to do with this. Thank you. 30 Comments for Councilor Morales regarding her Amendment. Not seeing any. Will the clerk please call the roll on Amendment eight? Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Lewis. Yes. Thank you. Councilmember Morales. That's. Councilmember Mosquera I. Councilmember Nelson. No. Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 0: Oh.
Speaker 1: Council members want? Yes. Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council president, whereas. No. Six in favor. Three opposed. That was six in favor, three opposed. The motion carries an amendment, eight is adopted. Let's move on. Councilmember Ellis, I believe you have another amendment for us. Please. I move to amend Council Bill 1 to 0 3 to 5 as presented on Amendment eight, which was also distributed on Friday second. He's been moved and seconded. Go ahead, customer. Q So this amendment reflects some technical changes that we did receive a request for Stsci, and it would do a couple of things. The first is that it would set the start date for the legislation from the contract signing so that Stsci has some time to kind of ramp up. And it would also provide landlords some time to prepare for compliance of the legislation. And then it also sets sunset for all parts of this bill so that there's no ambiguity around enforcement of certain provisions versus others. And that is what we have with this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Morales. Are there any questions or comments? A customer, Peterson.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council President I just want to thank the collaboration with council Morales and so odd and this this this amendment does two different things. I definitely support refining it so that the sunset clause is clearly in all the sections. I'm not you know, it will definitely make for a cleaner bill. I am concerned a little bit with giving the department all that time because the first date when the rental information is due is in October, and we really want to get the information as soon as possible for the comprehensive plan. I'll still support the bill if this pass, if this amendment passes, but be voting no on this amendment. Just wanted to explain why, because I'm not sure there's the teeth exists to make sure that that is expeditiously contracted with the research university. Okay.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Chester Peterson, is there anyone else before we move to a vote on the amendment, Kessler mosqueda.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. I appreciate that this amendment is being brought forward so that we could potentially work with the departments on some of the concerns that they have. I will be supporting this amendment. I still have some concerns on the underlying bill, so I'll make sure to chat about those after the vote. But I will be supporting this amendment today.
Speaker 1: Thank you, sir. Anybody else? Okay. Not. Oh, Caspar Herbold. I'm sorry. Thanks. I just want to flag Peterson, I think addressed it in his comments, but just want to uplift a little bit more detail. You know, in 2015, this was the first major comp plan that included what was called a displacement risk analysis. And we have, since that time used a displacement risk analysis for many of our land use decisions. The displacement risk analysis was instrumental to council's deliberations on the mandatory housing affordability reasons to try to minimize the likelihood of that those those reasons would sort of accelerate displacement. On April 5th, we all received a memo from the Planning Commission on issue specific topics related to our next major comp plan update. And they wrote to us to say that we should make anti displacement policies a focus of the comprehensive plan and and we should do so to disrupt decades of inequitable growth patterns that led to the disproportionate displacement of bipoc and low income communities. And that the major update to the comprehensive plan expected in 2024 needs to include not only anti displacement policies as a central focus of the plan, but we should supplement knowledge shared by communities affected by displacement, with improved data tracking of high displacement risk areas and the outcomes of policy actions. And so I'm just lifting that up to say if we are going to be making a change to the date when this information is due, we we might be depriving ourselves of of useful data that will help us guide us in making some of the decisions around the major update. So I am, for that reason, not inclined to support this amendment. Making calls for her. I have a question because I was looking at I just want to I'm going to address it to you because you brought up the anti displacement risk analysis. That was the that was like the heat map that we got that would say high opportunity or high displacement. Low. Okay, great. I just want to make sure we're on the same page. It was high up to the low access, high displacement. Okay. Got it. They just didn't make it. And so when we did those amendments to FHA, I remember us having to use those maps. Okay, good. Is there anyone else that would like to comment before we go to a vote on Amendment B? All right. Well, I'm sorry. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Yeah, I just want to respond. I appreciate the comments. I don't think anybody is as interested in anti displacement work as I am, given the district that I represent. So I certainly appreciate the comments. This is really about trying to make sure that SDI has the capacity to do the work that we're asking them to do. We know, I'm sure many of us hear about how sort of overtaxed they are and how the challenge that the department has with meeting some of the things that we're asking them to do. So this isn't in any way an attempt to delay us getting access to really important information. It's just a real chance for us to make sure that the department is prepared to do what we're asking them to do. So I urge your support, colleagues. Thank you. Thank you. And because we were also I think Councilmember Herbold wasn't suggesting that you were trying to. I think we're just making the point. So thank you. I'm going to thank everybody because that's what we do here. Okay. So with that, Madam Clerk, can we please call the roll on Councilmember Morales's amendment? Amendment B, Councilmember Herbold?
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Morales. Councilmember Mosquera i. Councilmember Nelson, you know. Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 0: So.
Speaker 1: Council members want? Yes. Council member Strauss.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council President. Whereas No. Six in favor. Three opposed. Six in favor. Three Oppose motion carries. Oh, I thought it was five for.
Speaker 3: That's correct. Council president. It's five in favor.
Speaker 1: Four opposed. Oh, it's five. Four. I'm sorry. What? Okay. I thought you said six three. Those last time. Okay. So the the motion carries. Correct. Correct. Okay. So the motion carries an amendment. B is adopted in the amended bill. We will move forward to now the amended bill that's in front of us. And so, Councilmember Peterson, our customers want which one of you will be discussing? Have any closing remarks before we go to a vote on that? Or and then after that, my colleagues can also raise their hand if they want to speak to it.
Speaker 0: I don't have any closing remarks.
Speaker 2: I don't either.
Speaker 1: Okay. Council members, let's see. Let's start with Councilmember Nelson, then Councilmember Morales. Well, I support.
Speaker 3: The stated policy goals.
Speaker 1: Of preserving affordable.
Speaker 3: Housing and also.
Speaker 1: Prioritizing displacement prevention as we deliberate on the plan. But I don't support.
Speaker 3: Singling out.
Speaker 1: A group of business owners to generate the data that will be using to make those decisions. And that's what this legislation does to housing providers. So I'll be voting no. Thank you. Casper Morales. Q I just want to ask I've been working with Councilmember Peterson with this on this legislation for some time. So I'd like to ask to be added as a co-sponsor. And want to encourage. Support you very much.
Speaker 0: You.
Speaker 1: Thank you, sir. Any other comments? Castro mosquito.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. I'm excited about the conversation, about getting ready for the plan. So I'll focus first on where I think that there's a shared common ground, and that's a lot of excitement about the opportunity to address the housing needs in our city, both to develop new affordable housing units and to make sure that we're looking at displacement. I think it's been well articulated already in this meeting and in previous meetings that the plan in front of us of the community engagement this year, the policy development next year and then the drafting of the policy in 2024 is a real it's a huge opportunity to address the growing needs in our community and to also make sure that we're preventing displacement. I think that there is a number of ways that we concurrently get the data that was being sought here. And I really hope that we turn towards some of the data that the director of the University of Washington Center for Real Estate Research has offered to us to offer to help out help a framework and community engagement strategies to work on getting some of the information that we might need on rental data collection and look forward to potentially working with them. I also think that there is a huge opportunity for us to dig into the data that's currently being provided by the city and work with these external partners to really pull out from it additional information that might be needed. My concern is the price tags still associated with this. And thank you, Councilmember Peterson, for speaking to the potential opportunity to drive down some of those costs. And Councilmember Morales, your amendment is trying to extend out the the timeframe I think may help with some of the costs. But given that the departments have indicated via the central staff memo and the cost estimates in the fiscal note, an estimated range of 2 million to $5 million in a year where we have many competing budget priorities and a budget gap, as we've discussed, that we're going to be looking to close not just this year but in the out years. I want to make sure that we have a process to address the department's capacity concerns, to implement a program with our existing staff, including Staffing for Compliance, Review and enforcement, customer support and communications and I.T. upgrades to track the information that's being submitted. I'm also interested in working to see what we can do to support the departments because they've stated a large amount of uncertainty for the amount of funding that will be needed and a hindrance in attracting qualified entry to contracts with entities for the data collection and opacity has also identified that there's issues with the bills specification for the information property owners would provide and suggested various amendments that I don't see in the legislation in front of us. Again, not being on the committee. I appreciate the hard work that went into this, but at this point today, especially focused on the fiscal note and the other available data and the external partners who I think can help us get some of the data that the legislative intent really speaks to. I'm going to be voting no on this today, and I look forward to working with folks on that common ground that I started with.
Speaker 1: Thank you, sir. Anyone else? So I'm going to share that I will not be supporting this bill today. And I had a really good opportunity to talk to Councilmember Peterson about what some of my concerns were and obviously value the goals of looking at displacement. Councilor Herbert, thank you for bringing up what we were talking about in 252 to 24 with the comp plan and the anti displacement and what tools we've already been using. I guess for me there's a lot of things. I think some of this I spoke to Joint Committee on May 20th. I am concerned about the data. I'm concerned about the third party possession. And so I'm concerned that we have new data points. I'm concerned what customer data brought up about the budget implications and also having a firm number about what the cost would be. And I you know, someone threw out 2 million. We don't that's probably way at the high end as Councilmember Peterson shared with us earlier. But I really am concerned about the city having additional in a burdensome new possession and production responsibilities of raw rent data pursuant to the Public Disclosure Act. I don't know how much more we can place on PCD and CCI twice a year to bring forward this kind of raw data, because at the end of the day, the city will be responsible for the data, for the possession, for maintaining the data, for releasing the data. There are no exceptions, obviously, again, under the Public Disclosure Act. So at this juncture and this form, I'm going to have to unfortunately not be able to be supportive today. So with that, not seen any more. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the passage of the amended bill? Councilmember Herbold? Yes. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And remember Morales as. Council members must get to know. Councilmember Nelson. They. Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Councilmember. Silent? Yes. Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Morris No. Five in favor for post write the bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please fix my signature to the amended legislation on my behalf? Right. Well, we Don, we will go to the Public Safety and Human Services Committee of the mighty Councilmember Herbal. Madam Clerk, can you please read item number two to the record?
Speaker 3: Well, to the report of the Public Safety and Human Services agenda item to council, but one to 0 to 94 relating to app based worker labor standards, establishing a compensation scheme for app based workers with the minimum requirements and related standards for transparency and flexibility.
|
Council Bill (CB)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to housing and displacement mitigation; expanding the information required for submission under the Rental Registration Inspection Ordinance for rental housing units; requiring submission of rental housing-related information; and amending Chapter 22.214 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05242022_CB 120324
|
Speaker 2: The Report of the City Council Agenda Item one Council Bill 120324 An ordinance amending ordinance 126490 which adopted the 2022 budget, changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels and from various funds in the 2022 budget.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I move to pass Council Bill 120324. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. As a sponsor, I will address the bill first and then open it up to comics. I share some of this information with you all yesterday during our briefing, so let me share it again for the record. In late 2021, in early 2022, the Seattle City Council adopted six separate ordinances relating to the compensation of city personnel, including cost of living adjustments and adding paid holidays for Juneteenth.
Speaker 2: Indigenous Peoples Day.
Speaker 0: Funds to cover those costs associated with these bills were being held in reserves in the general fund and in some department funds until the exact appropriation amounts to each department had been determined. The legislation appropriates those funds to city departments to fulfill these commitments. It did not go to committee, but was rather sent straight to us. Full City Council. Credible has served as our staff analysis on this bill and sent a memo to each council member last week. Are there any comments before we go to a vote? I'm not seeing any, madam. Oh, ahead. I'm sorry. I did not see you. Go ahead, Councilmember. That's okay. All right. I've kept etymology still. I want to thank you for this, first of all, for bringing all of these different pieces together. I'm really honored to have sponsored Bill 26 505, which created the citywide holiday that commemorates Juneteenth, which we are including here. As we all know, that's an opportunity. A holiday is an opportunity not just to celebrate, but also to speak out about the work that society still has to do. So I'm just really excited that our city workers will now have this date to mark this important commemoration and all that it stands for. And I'm looking forward to sharing that day with them. Thank you. And also free parking on those two days and also free parking. And I really want to thank my chief of staff, Randall and Carina Bull and the executive, because they're the ones that pull all this stuff together for us. And I do the easy part. So thank you. Thank you for that. So it's been moved and seconded and we've had comments. So, Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll number? Strauss.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Morales. Councilmember Mosquera. I remember Nelson. I. Councilmember Peterson. Hi. Councilmember Sawant. Yes. Council President. Was I not in favor and unopposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes. The chair will sign it. Ma'am, please affix my signature to the legislation. We'll be on to item number two. This is Councilmember Nelson's issue. So will the clerk please read item number two to the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 126490, which adopted the 2022 Budget; changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various funds in the 2022 Budget; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05242022_CB 120327
|
Speaker 2: Item two Council b120327 An ordinance relating to the City Lights and Seattle Public Utilities departments temporarily removing the charge of interest on delinquent utility consumption and utilization accounts.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I moved to pass Council Bill 120327. Is there a second second? Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Casper Nelson floor is yours.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Passage of this bill would continue the suspension of interest charges on delinquent utility bill balances through June 20th, 2023 for residential customers, nonprofit customers and commercial customers with annual receipts of less than $5 million. The initial legislation to suspend interest charges, which was ordinance 126058, expired in August 2020. And since then, the council has passed three extensions of the policy and the most with the most recent expiring on January 1st, 2022. So this would essentially extend this this support through June 20th, 2023.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Are there any questions for Council Member Councilmember Nelson before we move to the vote? Not seeing any. Madam, could we please call the roll on the passage of the bill? Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Morales. This. Councilmember Musgrave.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Nelson. I. Councilmember Peterson. All right. Councilmember Salant. Yes. Council President. Whereas I stand in favor and unopposed. So the the bill passes and the chair will sign it. And, Madam Clerk, please affix my signature to the legislation. Let's go to item number three, and that is Councilmember Nelson again. Madam Clerk, will you please read item number three to the record?
|
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; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05242022_CB 120328
|
Speaker 2: Agenda item three Council Bill 120328 An ordinance relating to the City Department amending terms and conditions pertaining to the Emergency Bill Assistance Program and temporarily expanding access to assistance to certain eligible households for a limited time in response to the coronavirus disease. 2019 COVID Emergency.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I moved past Council Bill 120328. Is there a second? Second? Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Councilmember Nelson, it's yours. Floor is yours.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 0: Passage of this bill would extend the.
Speaker 2: Availability of expanded emergency assistance to low income to income qualifying households without minor children until December 31st, 2023, and prior to the passage of the originally originating legislation for this assistance, which was ordinance 126317. Qualifying households with minor children were eligible for two emergency credits to their utility counts per calendar year, while qualifying households without minor children were eligible for one credit per calendar year. The policy that would be extended in this bill allows two credits to totaling $1,000 to households without minor children as well. The Council has extended this policy once previously, making the expanded assistance available until 20 December 31st, 2022, and this would extend that for one more year.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilor Nelson, are there any comments or questions for Councilmember Nelson? All right. See none. Will the clerk please call the roll on passage of the bill? Member Strauss. Yes. Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Morales. Councilmember Mosqueda i. Councilmember Nelson I. Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Salant Yes. Council President. Whereas I knight in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The bill passes. The chair will sign it. And then I'm pleased to fix my signature to the legislation. Moving on to item number four, I see it's Councilmember Peterson. Well, the clerk, please read the title of item number four to the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; amending terms and conditions pertaining to the emergency bill assistance program and temporarily expanding access to assistance to certain eligible households for a limited time in response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (“COVID-19”) emergency; and amending Section 21.49.042 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05242022_CB 120329
|
Speaker 2: Agenda item four Council Bill 120329 An ordinance relating to Seattle Public Utilities Emergency Assistance Program temporarily extending increased assistance related to COVID induced customer delinquencies and amending Section 21.7 6.065 of the Seattle Municipal Court.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I move to pass Council Bill 120329. Is there a second? Second, Councilor Peterson. And this is your bill. The floor is yours.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council president, colleagues, all three utility bills, utility relief bills here co-sponsoring Councilmember Nelson. This one happens to deal with Seattle Public Utilities specifically. It does the same thing for our emergency assistance program as the city bill we just adopted a moment ago. As with its companion bill, this council bill 120329 simply extends an existing utility relief policy. Extending this release through 2023 will become even more important for customers of Seattle Public Utilities, because the King County Executive and King County Council members are currently considering a substantial increase in wastewater treatment fees. King County passes their wastewater treatment fees, which comprise nearly 50% of households, as few bills directly to our Seattle customers. So the more relief we can provide to lower income at SPU customers, the better. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilor Peterson. And I should have noted that I actually had it noted here in the margins that these are the items two, three and four are Councilmember Peterson and Councilmember Nelson. So thank you. Are there any comments for Councilmember Peterson? A cast member must get up.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. I just want to take this opportunity to thank Councilmember Peterson for the joint work that we are looking into with the public utilities folks about how to make sure that more of the people who are qualifying for the utility discount program get automatically enrolled. And that that's something that I had looked into in 2018 and 2019. And I think with the continued efforts to extend additional support, but also the concern on the horizon that many of these supportive programs are going to sunset, having automatic enrollment and things like utility, discount program and other strategies to support working families. It's going to be really critical. So I really appreciate you taking the reins on that, Councilmember Peterson, and your quick action to respond to some of those ideas and look forward to continuing to engage with you on some longer term policy solutions.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Casper.
Speaker 0: Hey. We all done.
Speaker 1: You council president asked. Okay, great.
Speaker 0: There you go, Mr. Peterson. No, thank you. So thank you, everybody. So let's move on. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill? Councilmember Strauss? Yes. Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Morales. As. Council member mosqueda.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Nelson. I. Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 0: Council members want. Yes. Council president was not in favor and opposed. The chair will sign it. And, Madam Clerk, please affix my signature to this legislation. So, going to finance and housing counselor ROSQUETA has items five, six and seven for us. And I understand that you're going to read five and six into the record. And Kessler ROSQUETA will address five and six together, but we'll vote on them separately. So, Madam Clerk, please read five and six into the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities’ Emergency Assistance Program; temporarily extending increased assistance related to COVID-induced customer delinquencies; and amending Section 21.76.065 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05242022_CB 120316
|
Speaker 0: And I understand that you're going to read five and six into the record. And Kessler ROSQUETA will address five and six together, but we'll vote on them separately. So, Madam Clerk, please read five and six into the record.
Speaker 2: The report of the Finance and Housing Committee Agenda Items five and six Council Bill 120316. An ordinance amending Ordinance 126490 which adopted the 2022 budget, including the 2022 through 2027 Capital Improvement Program and a Council bill 120317 An ordinance amending ordinance 126237 which adopted the 2021 budget, including the 2121 2126 Capital Improvement Program. The committee recommends both these bills pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Customer Customs Data. These are both yours and you are recognized.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, Madam Deputy Clerk. Thank you, colleagues, for your support and the Finance and Housing Committee meeting. For these two items, they both passed out of the Finance and Housing Committee unanimously. These two sets of bills complement our annual efforts to try to ensure that we have transparency and accountability for our 12 month calendar year budget. Every year we have been considering a carry forward ordinance which brings forward funding from the previous year to the current fiscal year calendar year, to make sure that any authorized spending that has not yet been spent in allow is allowed to be spent on those authorized uses. It also has funding included in the next sections ordinance, which we have been considering on an annual basis. If you have had the chance to read the the excellent memo from central staff, thanks again to tell Meisel and new chief from Central Staff who presented in our May 4th meeting and again in mid-month in May, you would have had a chance to see how the exceptions ordinance should be, that it should be exceptional. We should not be in a regular and routine practice of regularly approving spending that was not authorized in the previous year that then was spent, and we are making an exception for that spending. That said, this has been a regular practice in the past. We have made some corrections for it, specifically in the areas of Seattle Police Department over the last few years. And we are undertaking a robust effort within the Finance and Housing Committee meeting to move away from exceptions, ordinances moving forward. And in large part, I want to thank central staff for their intense conversations and really collaborative discussions with our new City Budget Office director Julie Dingley and her team jointly between the legislative branch, the executive branch and working really closely with central staff. I think we're on a good path forward to finding some solutions so that we're not routinely considering exceptions ordinances. That said, this year is no exception to the rule. So we do have in front of us the carry forward ordinance and the exceptions ordinance items. Number five and six again passed unanimously out of committee and lots of good discussion and analysis from central staff which helped us break down what those expenses were. And the dollars again from the carry forward ordinance are being used for items that have already been authorized by this council. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam President. And I'll conclude with that. Hope to have your support today.
Speaker 0: Absolutely. Councilor CASTMembers, are there any questions for Councilmember Skinner for items five and six? I've seen any and thank you council members data for giving us the update on items five and six, if there are any. Now let's go to the first vote on item number five. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the agenda? Item five Council Bill 120316. That's the number of Strauss.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Lewis. Yes. Councilmember Morales. That's. Councilmember Mosqueda.
Speaker 2: II. Councilmember Nelson, i.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Council member silent. Yes. Council President Ortiz. I lean in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The bill passes. The chair will sign it. And Madam Clerk, please affix my signature. To the legislation. And let's move to item number six. Will the clerk please call the roll item number six? Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Council member Lewis. Yes. Councilmember Morales. Yes. Councilmember Mosqueda.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Nelson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Salant Yes. Council President. Whereas I'm not in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it and please affix my signature, Madam Clerk, to the legislation. Therefore, moving to item seven, Casper Mosquito, this is you as well. And will the clerk please read item seven and to the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 126490, which adopted the 2022 Budget, including the 2022-2027 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_05242022_CB 120318
|
Speaker 2: Agenda Item seven Council Bill 120318. An ordinance relating to appropriations for the Executive Department amending ordinance 126490, which adopted the 2022 budget. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I'm going to find the number here. I move for Council Bill 120318 0 seconds seconds. Thank you. There's been. It's been moved and seconded. And customs data. This is yours. And so you were recognized.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much, Madam President. And thanks again to the members of the Finance and Housing Committee. Again, this is a piece of legislation in front of us that unanimously passed out of the Finance and housing committee meeting. Just very briefly, as folks may remember, our codified spend plan for Jumpstart progressive revenue authorized up to 5% for admin, 5% of the fees that are being recouped to be used for administration to make sure that the intended use is well-staffed and that the dollars, resources and programs are getting out the door within this piece of legislation in front of us. This is the authorizing legislation for the Office of Housing to use a portion of that administrative amount to create the staffing needed for what is the largest portion of jumpstart spending. And that is making sure that we're building affordable housing, both rental units and new home owner first time homeowner options. So in this piece of legislation, we are proposing to draw 2.3% of the administrative funds, not the full 5%. The remaining amounts would go to the rental and homeownership programs within the Office of Housing. And I'm really excited about this piece of legislation because it does create a needed staff capacity to help to deploy the affordable housing dollars as we continue to work to scale up our investments in creating affordable housing, supporting existing homeowners, and creating new first time home owners. Thanks very much to the folks at the Office of Housing, the new interim director, Michael Winkler Chinn, and her incredible staff for the work that they've been able to do thus far and the work that they are committed to doing with this funding. They will be adding staff to perform a range of services and activities that go into investing and promoting the development and acquisition of affordable housing. This is all specified in the detailed spend plan that again we codified into statute, but this makes sure that we're building affordable housing and acquiring multifamily structures that may be on this market to pull those off of the private market and quickly turn those into affordable housing options that will benefit to the health of our community population and the health of our local economy. Just by way of reminder, the Jumpstart payroll tax added $97 million for affordable housing and 2022. This doubled the amount of housing, the amount of funding that was going into housing in last year's budget compared to previous budgets. And as a reminder, 62% of all of the funding that comes in from Jumpstart does go to affordable housing. Within that 62%, the vast majority, 82% of it goes to rental housing, to rental housing services, or making sure that we're housing folks below 30% of the area. Median income and permanent supportive housing and affordable housing. 13% goes to community focused acquisition, development and capacity building, and 5% is being prioritized for increased investment into home ownership. This legislation authorizes new position authority at the Office of Housing and to make sure that the codified spend plan is our duty to everything we can to bring the Seattle to Council Member. Okay, thank you so much. And let's see that. That said, I think that summarizes what we always talk about in committee and the good work that's gone in to stewarding these dollars towards more investments in affordable housing. Again, more than half of what was actually authorized for staffing and administration, more than half of that amount is going right back into building affordable housing units. So really thanks to the Office of Housing for their great stewardship of these funds. Thank you, Council President.
Speaker 0: If you come from Washington. Are there any comments for council member or questions for customer mosquito?
Speaker 2: I would be remiss, Madam President, if I didn't think Erin house for her work with address on central stuff as well to go over the initial proposal and work with office housing to really fine tune it. So thanks so much to Aaron and to Tracy.
Speaker 0: Yeah, Aaron and Tracy work really hard, so thank you for recognizing them. I don't think the public realizes how hard central staff works to get all the stuff done and get it done right. So thank you for recognizing them. Okay. So not seeing any more comments or questions for the vote. Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Members Strouse.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Morales. Yes. Councilmember Mustapha.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Nelson II Councilmember Peterson Hi. Councilmember Salant Yes. Council President or is I nine in favor and unopposed? Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And Madam Chloe, police affix my signature. The legislation will be known on the agenda to public safety and human services. There are two items on there and it's Council Member Herbert's legislation or resolution. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to get that confused. A man clearly please read. I forgot. We're doing 9/1. Okay, let me back up here. Item number nine, we are doing first. And Madam Clerk, will you please read item number nine into the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to appropriations for the Executive Department; amending Ordinance 126490, which adopted the 2022 Budget; changing appropriations and creating new positions in the Office of Housing; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05242022_CB 120320
|
Speaker 2: Agenda Item eight Council Bill 120320 An ordinance relating to appropriations for the Seattle Police Department, amending a proviso imposed by Ordinance 126490, which adopted the 2022 budget and ratifying confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. Thing to work on the 2022 budget, the council requested a report from the executive on a citywide hiring incentive program analyzing the vacancy issues across front line workers. Vacancy issues that are creating a service issue with the public or inhibiting the movement from fulfilling a core function. Report we received indicated that for a number of positions that department struggled to fill the positions that are important to city business, not just including police officers, but also carpenters, truck drivers, the civil engineers and firemen dispatchers. Consequently, this bill requests the Department of Human Resources amend its personnel rules so that we can give appointing authorities of multiple departments greater flexibility to pay for the moving expenses for people who are coming to work in these hard to fill and important positions as include police hires. But it also isn't to address the limitations in our existing roles across several departments. Current personnel rules limit this flexibility only our pay bands such as department directors. So if we're doing national recruiting to fill positions in departments all over the city, I think it's important that we look at paying costs associated with folks moving here, do public service on behalf of City of Seattle so that the bill is also to release the proviso on spending for the Seattle Police Department. Frankly, some people were testifying to not supporting hiring incentives for officers. But I just want to clarify again, this proposal allows for offering payment of moving costs for new hires again to fill hard to hire positions in several departments, not only the Seattle Police Department. The release of the funding is not needed for the other departments because unlike the Seattle Police Department, they can use funds from position vacancies. Once the Human Resources Department changes the rules, allowing hiring authorities to pay the relocation expenses of recruits. This is not a case for the Seattle Police Department, and it's not the case only because of the existing proviso. That's why the legislation releases $650,000 of existing city funds for SPD for this use. It is not new funding for CPD and it is only to allow SPD to do what we are trying to allow other departments to do as well. There are already funds in the budget to support salaries associated with speedy hiring and to hire 125 officers, also funded in the 2022 budget modified to 98 new hires. Releasing this funding would work to assist with that. Now, with this hiring and with I think again, it makes sense given the earlier action support hiring plan was amended in committee to add funding for a campaign to help.
Speaker 0: Attract and to fill.
Speaker 2: These officer positions and to pay for a national search committee to permanently fill the chief of police position. And lastly, because I've heard a lot of folks talk about our efforts to develop alternatives to police response to 911 calls. I want to also lift up the fact that in our May 10th committee meeting, the Public Safety and Human Services Committee, we heard in a tweet from the executive on the continuation of the 9110 analysis and with National Institute for Criminal Justice with analyze call type, we analysis what we call the junior analysis last year. Now the executive is pulling together a interdepartmental team that includes the council to make sure that the analysis on the report, which only looked at how calls were initially classified to examine the calls are resolved as well. And that will allow us to classify calls by risk level in order to assist with which with determining which nine on one call and respond to. I others not police officers in which will still require a sworn officer. So it's not just about the new report. It's about this next level of analysis that we're doing. And I'm really convinced that the executive is committed to doing this work and that this work is going to continue throughout throughout the year. The next step, because 91 dispatchers will be trained on new steps for sending mail, one calls to others besides police and fire. Seattle Communications Center has completed its request for proposals, and they're working on identifying offenders for this for this new dispatch protocol that is that is necessary as we develop a continuum of 911 response . So we're looking to have the next eight on the development of the 901 alternatives at the Unit eight committee meeting. That work is continuing. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Herbert, and thank you for explaining the work that you've been doing for a long time. So is there any more comments or concerns that we want to address to Customer Herbal before we move to a vote? Okay. I am going to be supporting this and I'll just be very brief. I know that Councilor Herbert has is the chair of the Public Safety Commission in Council Member Nelson. I know the media has been portrayed in this way, which isn't always accurate. I don't think that council member Nelson Herbert had to be encouraged or there was some kind of brokering. I think council member Herbold, because of Nelson, were incredibly staid in their comments, in their positions, but also committed to working collaboratively, building consensus, working with the executive. And I think that gets overlooked sometimes. And so and I want to give a particular thank you to Councilor Herbert because she's been on council as long as me and she's been on the public safety issue and she serves on the PC as I do. And so kind of going back to what Councilor Petersen was saying, this really is a more holistic approach. And I appreciate all of your comments and all of your concerns, but I think at the end of the day, what we saw come out with the resolution and then this this legislation is, I think, what people want government to do. I think that's what we're elected to do, and that is to to move forward, to work together, agree where we disagree and find consensus and what is the best for our great city. So I'll get off my soapbox. And with that, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the President? I'm sorry. Customers get it.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Madam President, I also realize that I spoke quite a bit on that last bill and happy to wait my turn if someone else would like to go before me.
Speaker 0: You know, why don't you just go ahead and then I apologize. Comes from where else? And then I forgot for herbal tea, if you want. Since this is yours, I'll let you have the last word. I apologize for that. I keep forgetting that. Go ahead. Customs data.
Speaker 2: And talking. Thank you so much. And let me preface this by saying, you know how much I appreciate again, Councilmember Herbold and her leadership on public safety. I consider her a thought partner, not only in how we address public safety, but how we continue to invest in alternative responses. And I know I know she cares very much about the policy details, much, much to the knowledge of every person who watches committee meetings. So I know these details very much matter to her. And and I again, I'll just underscore where I'm coming from on this piece of legislation. This comes down to, for me, a question of whether or not these funds could be available at the end of the year if a proviso were kept into place. Many, many folks in our community and again, thanks in large part to Councilmember Herbold, who has championed these budget additions in the last year related to food security, social services, the shadow pandemic, mental health services. We have a known need in our community for our continual investments and we have an evolving budget situation. And until we have greater certainty on the number of dollars available at the end of the year, I just cannot support releasing a proviso that is currently in place for the Seattle Police Department. I do appreciate that this was broader than speedy in terms of the of the moving fees, but in terms of the proviso that's being lifted, that's specific to Seattle Police Department dollars, where it is a known quantity. And I and I don't support the effort to either use it for a moving fee or for a recruitment effort to get more folks to apply for the chief position or a recruitment person to try to incentivize more folks to apply for city officer positions in the face of the crisis that we're facing in the budget. And I know many of us are committed to continuing to look at additional progressive revenue, but until we have those questions answered, I want to make sure that we are looking at the recommendations from the recruitment and retention workgroup and more holistically looking at the end of this year about where we can make investments next year and the fall and in the following years to what we know frontline workers want. And that includes making sure that we're looking at existing strategies to promote from within, especially a diverse work workforce, to make sure that we have a better pipeline for internships and for apprenticeship apprenticeship opportunities that we're looking at underpay for many positions and we have in the past partnered on HST and and human service wages and we know that there's going to be an increased need for making sure that we're recruiting folks across our department for multiple positions. And I think that it's not just recruitment, right? It's retention strategies as well. So I would much more prefer to be looking at retention strategies for recruitment strategies end of the year holistically when we know either what the budget gap is or what available dollars we may have. And those variable dollars do shrink if we lift this proviso today. I'm actually not opposed to hiring incentives. Excuse me, I'm not opposed to moving fees being paid for in general. And I think that that could be part of the overall approach that we are looking at supporting and in doing so, in partnership with the Coalition for City Unions, who have been long calling for investments like that through the Labor Standards Relation Committee, I'm forgetting the actual name of it, but the body that was created to bring together management and labor to talk about strategies to do just that, invest in retention and recruitment. I also want to lift up some of the things that we talked about in committee that is underscoring sort of the need, I believe, for a pause for us to look more generally at retention and recruitment strategies. Nationally, we are seeing a downward trend in police departments, staffing levels. Cities like Atlanta, Phenix, Philly have all seen hundreds of officers leave the force. Philadelphia is down 440 officers. Atlanta down 400 to 500 officers in the last three years. New York saw 5300 officers leave since 2020, Louisville lost 233 officers. Portland is the police force is now under 1100 officers from where they started. So thanks to you very much, Surya Basu on my staff who has done incredible research and has pulled this information from Forbes article in late April, this is the trend across our country. I think that more broadly, instead of investing in just a hiring bonus strategy or a PR firm to do outreach for a police chief or for a recruit. To try to get more people to apply to a position where we are seeing national trends and downward staffing. I would much more prefer to be having a conversation at the end of the year about where precious and limited resources can go. And to not list a proviso now so that we have more resources especially and resources available for upstream investments that don't require an officer and a badge to show up. And lastly, Madam President, in our many meetings that we've had, we've talked about how some of the strategies, almost all of the strategies that we have invested in and community resources are a retention strategy for officers. We just need to continue to get those dollars out the door that are currently sitting there and work in partnership with those community partners so that there's more mental health service providers and community responders available that can help with retention strategies. And I think we need to see that as one way that we're investing in retention and hope to do more to support retention strategies by making sure that there are trained and skilled community responses that we've begun to invest in in the end of the year. So again, lifting a proviso at this point for specifically SBT and not knowing what the underspend is in other departments, other departments who will be offering moving fees as well as the Coalition for Setting Units noted, creates an inequity. There is not unknown. There is not a known answer to whether or not there is going to be the same hiring bonus excuse me, the same moving fee offered to individuals across departments and they raise concerns about equity and parity across departments. I raise that question during committee. I have not seen a response yet, so to date I'm still concerned about that. Again, I'll be voting no on this piece of legislation in front of us, though I appreciate the sponsors hard work to try to broaden out more holistically how we are looking at retention to our city family generally and look forward to continuing those discussions with the Coalition for City Unions and Community as we think about the 2023 2024 budget.
Speaker 0: Morales. But you Council President. I will also be voting no on this. I do appreciate the hard work of the Chair of Public Safety Human Services. Councilmember Herbold and Councilman Councilmember Nelson. But I will be voting no. I feel like this bill tries to solve an issue without basis in the kind of well-founded information that was commissioned . The council issue is that we can't seem to retain officers. And as Councilmember Muscadet just said, this isn't a problem that's unique to Seattle, an experience that's happening across the country. And in fact, the department's own response to the statement of legislative intent or this council bill, council budget action was inconclusive on whether a hiring bonus had any impact on hiring numbers. And further, the impact of the hiring bonus, as has already been said, could cause deeper cultural problems in a department that is struggling with culture change. We know that employees are internally, either those who have been promoted internally or already in the job can also feel undervalued and underappreciated when their financial package that match what new police hires are receiving. We have to continue to make a fiscal and policy choices. We are still grappling with the impacts of COVID, and to offer this kind of bonus to one department really sends the wrong message to the rest of our city staff and doesn't really address the community's long term desire for accountability and culture change in the police department. There is need for culture change within the department. Lack of officers is a retention and management issue. The Recruitment and Retention Workshop found that sergeants are promoted based on test results with no real consideration given to whether they can actually manage people. OPA found a culture of insubordination when the State Department of Labor and Industries was unable to complete investigations around the masking issue. They were literally turned away at the door. And the Seattle Times reported on May 5th that officers routinely disobeyed direct orders from chieftains to wear masks and to observe social distancing protocols. So there is definitely a culture problem, and hiring bonuses is not going to solve that. It's not going to solve the management issue either. And there are the fiscal constraints that we're under and the fact that we hear regularly that we need data and evidence to support our funding decisions. I've seen no evidence that hiring bonuses will do anything to address our retention issues or to actually increase our hiring ability. And finally, there's the issue of public safety. If we really want my husband's phone, if we really want to increase public safety, there are better ways that we could spend four and a half million dollars could create at least one safe consumption site, which not only provides someone a place to dispose of needles that isn't on the streets. Something that we hear about often also pairs that with medical services that help people address addiction. We could build two tiny house villages. We could find a 14 permanent supportive housing units. We could cover the cost of groceries for 116 families of four living at 30% ami for a whole year. We could cover $30,000 in startup costs for 150 low income residents looking to start a small business. We could cover a year's worth of back rent for Seattle's for about 170 struggling renters. The point is that there are any number of ways to increase long term community safety for our neighbors. One time hiring bonuses, isn't it? So we've got every other department being asked to make 6% cuts. We're not sure why one department would have different expectations of what is expected from their department. And so, again, while I appreciate the hard work of sponsors and the executive, I'll be voting no on this bill. You know. So, Kessler Herbert, you want to close this out before we go to a vote?
Speaker 2: I wasn't going to say anything further. Oh, I saw.
Speaker 1: Your hand up.
Speaker 2: I've changed my mind. I apologize. I think the underlying budget concerns is expressed by both councilmembers Mosqueda and Morales. But I feel like I really have to correct the record by some of the last comments I heard. This is not. An ordinance that funds hiring bonuses for speed. This is an ordinance that directs. The Human Services Department to adjust its rules and that in a way that will allow multiple departments to offer to compensate. New employees for the relocation costs associated with their move to our city to work to serve the public. It was designed this way specifically in recognition of what we heard from the Human Resources Department as it relates specifically to the issues of morale are created for morale, issues that are created when you offer a traditional hiring bonus for one kind of employee but not another. This is intended to recognize that anybody who comes to work in our city to fill a position where we're having a difficult time hiring for that position, and that position is a highly needed position that we should we should compensate them for their relocation costs. This is not a traditional hiring bonus. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay with that, we are going to go to a vote. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the passage of the bill? Councilmember Strauss. Yes. Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Morales No. Councilmember Mosquera now notes, remember, Nelson, I. Councilmember Peterson. I council members want. No. Council. President Suarez. Yes. Six in favor. Three opposed. Thank you. The bill passes. The chair will sign it. Madam Clerk. Lisa, fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Thank you. So we've done items eight and nine in reverse. And so now we're going to go to our favorite committee, transportation of sale of public utilities. I understand Councilor Peterson has items ten, 11, 12 and 13. So, Madam Clerk, will you please read item ten short title into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to appropriations for the Seattle Police Department; amending a proviso imposed by Ordinance 126490, which adopted the 2022 Budget; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05242022_CB 120300
|
Speaker 2: A report of the Transportation and Seattle Public Utilities Committee agenda Item ten Council Bill 120300 An ordinance granting permission to 2001 six LLC to continue operating and maintaining a utility tunnel under the alley between Fifth Avenue and Sixth Avenue, north of Virginia Street. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Elsewhere.
Speaker 1: Peterson Thank you. Council President Colleagues. Council 1 to 0 300 renews a permit for a utility tunnel downtown. This bill was passed unanimously by our committee. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Think you. Are there any comments for Councilmember Peterson? Not seen it. Oh, get service. Get it. Wants to thank you. So I'll just do it for her. Will the clerk please call? Wait. Is there anything else you want to say, Counselor Peterson, before we go to work? Okay, great. Well, the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill. Councilmember Strouse.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Morales as. Councilmember Mosqueda.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Nelson I. Councilmember Petersen. Yes. Councilmember Silence. Yes. Council President Was I right in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The bill passes. The chair will sign it. Madam Clerk, please affix my signature to the legislation. We'll be on to item 11. Will you please read item 11 into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE, granting permission to 2001 Sixth L.L.C. to continue operating and maintaining a utility tunnel under the alley between 5th Avenue and 6th Avenue, north of Virginia Street; repealing Section 8 of Ordinance 119437; and providing acceptance of the permit and conditions.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05242022_CB 120301
|
Speaker 2: Agenda Item 11 Council Bill 120301 An ordinance granting King County permission to continue maintaining and operating two pedestrian tunnels under and across Ninth Avenue between Alder Street and Jefferson Street. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Kasper Peterson.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President Colleagues. Council 120301 renewing a permit for two pedestrian tunnels for her hospital. This bill was recommended unanimously by our committee. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Are there any comments to oppose this tunnel? I've seen any. All right. You're an anything counselor, Peterson. Nope. Okay. Madam Clerk, you please call the role on the passage of the bill. Remember Strauss?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Morales asked. Councilmember Mosquera.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Nelson, I. Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Salant. Yes. Council President. Whereas I'm not in favor and unopposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And will you please affix my signature to the legislation? Let's go to item number 12, which is also Councilmember Peterson. Will the clerk please read item number 12 into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE granting King County permission to continue maintaining and operating two pedestrian tunnels under and across 9th Avenue, between Alder Street and Jefferson Street; repealing Section 8 of Ordinance 123842; and providing for acceptance of the permit and conditions.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05242022_CB 120302
|
Speaker 2: Agenda item 12 Council Bill 120302 An ordinance granting Swedish health services permission to continue maintaining and operating an existing pedestrian skybridge over and under, over and across Cherry Street, west of Broadway and east of Miner Avenue. The committee recommends the bill pass for Peterson.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President Castro, 1 to 0 three or to renew a permit for an existing SkyBridge at Swedish Hospital. The bill was recommended unanimously by our committee. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So we went from a tunnel to a SkyBridge. So any comments or questions for Casper Peterson? Pierce. Did you want to say anything else?
Speaker 1: I have the speech prepared, but I am going to forgo it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Not seeing any other comments with a clear please call the role of the passage of the bill. Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Morales. Yes. Councilmember Mosquera.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Nelson. AI. Councilmember Peterson. Hi. Councilmember Salant. Yes. Council President. Whereas I signed in favor and unopposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it and please fix my signature to the legislation. So moving on to item number 13. Customer Peterson, before you. I'm sorry, Madam Clerk, you want to read that into the record and then we'll hand it over to Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 2: Agenda item 13 Resolution 32053a resolution granting conceptual approval to construct, maintain and operate private communication conduit under and across the Channel Avenue, northeast north of Northeast North Lake Way. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE granting Swedish Health Services permission to continue maintaining and operating an existing pedestrian skybridge over and across Cherry Street, west of Broadway and east of Minor Avenue; repealing Section 9 of Ordinance 123048; and providing for the acceptance of the permit and conditions.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05242022_Res 32053
|
Speaker 2: Agenda item 13 Resolution 32053a resolution granting conceptual approval to construct, maintain and operate private communication conduit under and across the Channel Avenue, northeast north of Northeast North Lake Way. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 1: Mr. Petersen, Council President, Colleagues Resolution 32053 grants conceptual approval to allow Dunn Lumber to install a communication pipe under Latonia Avenue Northeast to connect its existing building in Wallingford to the new building, its construction across the street. This resolution was recommended unanimously by our committee. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Are there any questions for Councilmember Peterson? I've seen any calls for Peterson or any closing comments before we go to a vote. Okay. Will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the resolution? Else member Strauss.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Morales. As. Councilmember Mosquera. I remember Nelson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Council members want. Yes. Council President. Whereas I line in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The resolution passes and the chair will sign it. And Madam Clerk, will you please affix my signature to the resolution? So now we're going to go to the sustainability and renters rights as item number 14. I see it's council members the wants. Madam Clerk, will you please read council bill 120330 and to the record.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION granting conceptual approval to construct, maintain, and operate private communication conduit under and across Latona Avenue Northeast, north of Northeast Northlake Way; as proposed by Dunn Lumber Company, as part of the construction of a new lumber warehouse in the Wallingford neighborhood.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05172022_CB 120307
|
Speaker 3: The report on the Economic Development Technology and City Light Committee Council Bill Agenda Item one Council Bill 120307 An ordinance relating to surveillance technology implementation authorizing approval of uses and accepting the 2021 Surveillance Impact Report and 2021 Executive Overview for the Seattle Police Department's use of audio recording systems. The committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Councilmember Nelson.
Speaker 2: Yes. So the 2017 surveillance ordinance requires city departments to obtain advance council approval for the acquisition of surveillance technologies and to request retroactive approval if those technologies have already been in use when that bill was passed. So these bills refer to the letter and they are two technologies that make up a group for a and I will just introduce how they've been dealt with in my committee and then then also address each one in turn. So Council Bill 120307 would approve the Seattle Police Department's continued use of audio recording systems and accept the Surveillance Impact Report and an executive overview for that technology. At our April 27 committee meeting, we had a joint presentation from the Seattle information from the Department of Seattle Information Technology and the Seattle Police Department. And they went over what these audio recordings were used for. And and we also had a presentation from central staff on, on some of the policy concerns or issues that were brought up in the public process. And at our last committee meeting on May 11th, we discussed amendments and amended the Council Bill 120307 and passed it out of committee unanimously. So I will open it up for questions on this bill and how about it? And then we can move on to questions about the next bill. Technology.
Speaker 0: I actually will open it up for questions.
Speaker 2: Okay. Sorry.
Speaker 0: So thank you. Councilmember Nelson, are there any questions that any of my colleagues have I city also verbal?
Speaker 2: I just want to flag the amendments to the legislation, mostly based on recommendations of the working group, though I will acknowledge that there were some tabled amendments that I was interested in pursuing, but because of some of the issues in my office, we were unable to move forward on those. But I do want to thank Council member Nelson for making time in her committee for the discussion of these four amendments. And I appreciate the support of those committee members who were able to vote for them. One was requesting a report to the clerk from SPD describing how Speedy ensures the authenticity of recordings and accurate identifications of individuals in audio recordings and through the use of covert audio recording systems. Speedy had said that they were already working on that and had no objections. Another amendment was part of what we referred to as about the suspender approach as it related to bio metric technology. We all recognize that the addition of new, new surveillance technology.
Speaker 0: Would.
Speaker 2: Require a new sir and council action. But this basically just sort of doubles down on that expectation and says that we require speed to revise or conduct a new server before moving forward. If it was intended to do so. As it relates to using biometric technology. The Third Amendment does not go as far. I think as as we heard in public comments, the workgroup would like but require that a speedy identify the manufacturers and vendors of the audio recording systems. And lastly replicating an amendment that Councilmember Peterson made a sort of a staple in his committee in as it relates to these sort of surveillance technologies. There is an amendment that requires SPG to report on the equity assessment or on the metrics that they're using and to include it in their annual equity assessment. The identification of the equity metrics. You.
Speaker 0: Eddie Customer Herbold Are there any other comments? Okay. Not seen any. Well, the clerk please call the role on the passage of the Bill Strauss.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Morales. Councilmember Morales. She's. Councilmember Nelson, I. Councilmember Peterson i. Council president. Whereas I. Can we look back to Councilman Morales one more time? I see she's on the screen. Sure. And Councilmember Morales. Okay. So six in favor and unopposed. Okay, great. Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And Madam Clerk, be, please affix my signature. Let's move on to item number two. Councilmember Nelson, it's you again.
Speaker 3: On the record.
Speaker 0: Yep. Yep. I'm sorry about.
Speaker 1: That.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to surveillance technology implementation; authorizing approval of uses and accepting the 2021 surveillance impact report and 2021 executive overview for the Seattle Police Department’s use of Audio Recording Systems.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05172022_Res 32051
|
Speaker 0: Council Member Petersen I Council President whereas I seven in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Madam Clerk, please affix my signature to the passage of the bill. And moving on to item number three, Madam Clerk, we please item three into the record.
Speaker 3: Report of the Governance, Native Communities and Tribal Governments Committee Agenda Item three Resolution 32051a resolution revising certain general rules and procedures of the Seattle City Council, amending rules three and five and Attachment one, a resolution 3 to 0 two nine. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. As a sponsor of this resolution, I will speak to it. I did speak to it yesterday as well on what some of the reasons of how we got how we got here. And then when I'm done, I'll open it up for comments. On April 28, the Governance, Native Communities and Tribal Governments Committee recommended Resolution 32051 unanimously. I spoke to this briefly in committee and of course yesterday the resolution amends the council rules to do the following. Number one, make some technical clarifications. Number two, adds guidance to the use of the consent calendar. This amendment would allow the consent calendar to include administrative items where there is no debate. It also allows for any item on the consent calendar to be removed by any particular council member that would like it removed for any further discussion. Third, it clarifies the rule regarding abstentions. This change would relieve the Council president from making the determination on which resolutions to allow for abstentions. Indeed, it would fall upon the individual council member to determine if something is directly related or material in either vote or abstain as as deemed fit. So with that, as I did share and I, I believe Ali may be available, but I'm pretty sure you all had your questions answered. Ali did great analysis for us in a memo. And I want to thank Councilmember Peterson working with me on this and some of you other folks that weighed in kind of offline about what some of the issues were. As you know, we've been discussing this since January, actually December, January, and now we finally got it across the finish line. So with that, are there any questions or concerns or anything that I can answer for any of my colleagues? Okay. Not seeing any. That was easy. Will the clerk please call the role on the passage of the resolution? Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold. That's Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Morales. Yes. Councilmember Nelson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Council President. Was I seven in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The resolution is adopted. The chair will sign it. And Madam Clerk, please. And fix my signature to the legislation or the resolution of my behalf. Moving on onto our agenda. Let's say we have adoption of other resolutions. I don't see any. And other business. Is there any other business that we need to be brought before council today? Okay. Not seeing any problem. Oh, sorry.
Speaker 1: I think you talked President Bush wanting to hit the road in a happy setting, as we were mentioning before we got started today. The ambassador from Norway is joining us here today and read remarks from both the king of Norway and the prime minister of Norway. Norwegian Constitution Day, which is the 7th of May, the 10th of mine. Norway's constitution is the second oldest constitution in the world, only blasted by the United States of America in this time in our world's history about where we're dealing with issues of freedom, democracy and, quite frankly, war. Today is a special day to celebrate democracy both here in United States and in Norway and especially here in Balad. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I did not know you going to put Balad on the world map, but thank you for doing that. Councilmember Strauss. Yes, ma'am. It's the second oldest written constitution. Some societies knew how to behave without a piece of paper.
Speaker 1: That's what I thought of you in that very spot earlier today. I will say it is the name now for 100 years of. Leave it at that.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Strauss. Give our best to the king. Yes, ma'am. Okay. So is there anything else for my count, for my colleagues before I go ahead and adjourn? Okay. Not seen any. Let's see. That concludes our business for today. And I will see you all next Tuesday, May 24th, for council meeting, not briefing. That will be Monday, as you all know. So with that, we stand adjourned. Thank you.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION revising certain General Rules and Procedures of the Seattle City Council; amending Rules III and V in Attachment 1 of Resolution 32029.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05102022_Res 32054
|
Speaker 3: Agenda Item three. Resolution 32054. A resolution in support of abortion rights and other reproductive rights in opposition to the U.S. Supreme Court. Draft Majority Opinion in Dobbs versus Jackson Women's Health Organization and urging state and federal elected officials to codify abortion rights and other reproductive rights.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. I move to adopt resolution 32054. Is there a second second? It has been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution. Council members want a sponsor of the resolution. You are recognized to address the item.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President Pro Tem Lewis. This is a resolution to support the rank and file movement to defend Roe v Wade, the right to bodily autonomy for women and LGBTQ people, the right to reproductive health care, and in specific, the right to seek abortion. On May 3rd, I joined thousands of protesters in Seattle and many thousands others around the country marching in opposition to the draft Supreme Court decision that would, if it is allowed to go through, overturn Roe v Wade and obliterating historic human rights that were won almost 50 years ago when a mass movement led by ordinary people in the sixties and seventies fought, fought and won Roe v Wade. We are facing the single biggest attack on women, pregnant people and reproductive rights in our lifetimes. And this right wing Supreme Court has also given every indication that if they succeed, if we don't fight to stop this in eliminating Roe v Wade, they plan to carry out draconian and draconian attacks also on LGBTQ rights. Next. As many of the speakers in public comment noted, the Supreme Court is intent on making this attack despite the fact that a majority of Americans support abortion rights and have supported for decades and over 70% oppose dismantling Roe v Wade. To defend against these attacks, we need to build mass grassroots movements that bring in more and more of the working class. And to win, we need to draw on some lessons of history. How was Roe v Wade one in the first place? It was. And let's be clear about this. It was never due to some benevolence or wisdom of the justice system. Nor was it won by Democratic Party aligned organizations that at that time refused to engage in the mass direct action that was needed. Like all victories for the working class under capitalism, Roe v Wade was wrenched from the hands of the powerful by a mass movement led by the rank and file, by rank and file workers, by rank and file women, and by rank and file militant leaders in the union movement and in the social movements who, unlike the cautiousness used by many of the prominent organizations, indeed understood that we needed marches on the streets, we needed protest actions, we need workplace actions like work stoppages, and we needed a nonviolent civil disobedience. The Supreme Court at the time was majority Republican appointed. Just like today. Majority sexist. Majority racist. Majority bigoted. Majority right wing, just like today. And yet not only the majority of the court, but a majority of the Republican appointed judges at the time voted in favor of Roe v Wade in a 7 to 2 decision. And that was because of the power of mass movement led by working people. In fact, one of the two judges who voted against Roe was a Democratic Party appointee. Abortion rights were won because of the massive combined pressure of the women's movement, civil rights movement, antiwar movement, labor movement, and militant strike action by union workers. Literally millions were out on the streets in the US. The ruling class and the courts feared even greater social upheaval, an even greater threat to the stability of their system of capitalism. And that's why they were forced to concede on victories like Roe v Wade. For all the women's rights and LGBTQ rights activists watching for all the union members and nonunion workers watching, that is exactly the kind of fear our movement needs to instill right now in the ruling class. It goes without building the fever pitch of mass movement. We will not be able to stop attacks like this when abortion rights, LGBTQ rights, worker's rights and the assault of the ruling class on the planet. I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican and have little confidence that the big business politicians that dominate those parties will do what is necessary to defend Roe v Wade and reproductive health care, let alone passing single payer universal health care to make access to all forms of health care free and available to all, including doxing Wall Street. However, we need to be clear that controlling the House, Senate and White House, the Democratic Party establishment could do this if they had the political will to do so. They could eliminate the filibuster, just like Trump Republicans did in order to appoint right wing justices. They could pass a law codifying Roe v Wade nationwide. They could pass single payer health care paid for by taxing billionaires. They could expand the size of the Supreme Court for and appoint justices who would support the right to bodily autonomy . And they could and should call mass movements to support these actions. They could do all of these things if they had the will to do so. The reality is that that is not the real program of the establishment Democratic Party, which means progressive Democrats need to decide if they will use their progressive credentials to make excuses for big business establishment that control their party, or they will use every resource at their disposal to build the largest possible mass movement to push all elected officials, Democratic and Republican, and also bring court judges, judges to back off. These attacks on women and LGBTQ people. This resolution asserts the City Council's opposition to overturning Roe v Wade, which I know those of those will support on the city council for that. But most importantly, it supports building the grassroots movement that we need. This Friday, students are calling demonstrations, and this Saturday is a national day of action to defend abortion rights called by Planned Parenthood. This resolution encourages Seattleites to participate in those protests, and this resolution urges progressive Democrats to use their resources to build this movement. Finally, this resolution commits to funding abortion access. I understand Councilmember Herbold was removing a proposed amendment with clarifying language recommended by the ACLU. Planned Parenthood, Pro-Choice Washington, a Northwest Abortion Access Fund and legal voice. I just want to clarify. I consider this amendment a friendly one and will be voting in favor of it. And I urge council members to support this resolution and urge anyone watching this to join me at the demonstrations this Friday and Saturday. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember So a lot. Are there any other comments?
Speaker 3: Councilmember Gribble Yeah, so much. I moved the men resolution three to 054 as presented on Amendment One, which was recently distributed.
Speaker 2: That.
Speaker 0: Has been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment One. Councilmember Herbold, a sponsor. You are recognized to discuss your amendment.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much. I really appreciate the opportunity to bring this amendment and councilmember silence welcoming its inclusion. It was circulated to all offices just before noon today and was reviewed by law. I want to thank Roxana Gomez and Leah Rothman from ACLU, LA and Quigley I know from Pro-Choice Washington for they actually convened a group of health care providers and advocates, and they did so at very short notice to review the proposed resolution and offer their feedback. I understand that Councilmember Morales, who serves as co-chair representing the City Council on the Board of Health, also did outreach to some of the organizations that convened to provide their feedback. So I really appreciate the coordination and parallel lines of thought there. The amendment here is the result of that work and represents recommendations from ACLU. Washington, Pro-Choice, Washington. Northwest Abortion Access Fund, Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates and Legal Voice. I really wanted to make sure that these advocates and experts long on the front line of reproductive justice had the opportunity to review this resolution related to abortion rights at this really critical moment. And just real quickly, highlighting what's in the amendment. It changes the gendered language in the bill. It adds a recital about how still 1851, which the state legislature passed this year and preserves a pregnant individual's ability to access abortion care. And it requests that any funds that the council may choose to appropriate in the future would be allocated to organizations that deliver programs and services in support of abortion care and access, such as the Northwest Abortion Access Fund and Independent Abortion Clinics. I want to get everybody involved here in developing this amendment for the quick work, especially during a moment when all hands are needed to prepare for the upcoming crisis in reproductive health care access. And a special thank you to Yolanda Ho on council's central staff and Christina Katsu, both from my office for their quick work in turning around this amendment.
Speaker 0: And. Q Councilmember Herbold, are there any comments on the proposed Amendment one? Seeing no comments with a clear please call the role on the adoption of Amendment One.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council Member. Silent.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council Member Strauss.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council Member Herbold.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council Member Morales.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council Member. Macheda. I Councilmember Nelson. I Council President Pro Tem Lewis.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Eight in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The motion carries. Amendment One is adopted and the amended resolution as before the Council. Are there additional comments on the amended resolution that House Member Carol.
Speaker 3: Appreciate that. I just want to add a few things because I did actually have the opportunity to add some language prior to to the amendment and want to lift some of that up as well. When council members want notified the rest of us on Wednesday that she would be sponsoring this resolution as chair with oversight of Public Health and Human Services, and someone like many of us I know, have very strong feelings on this issue. I did request to work with Councilmember Solent on the drafting of the resolution. I did receive a draft on Friday, and at that point, rather than offering language before a draft was distributed, I took the opportunity with Christina's help to add some additional language to the resolution as well, and I thank the want for being willing to include it. I want to highlight again the language included lifts up sister songs concept of reproductive justice, acknowledging that there can be no choice without access to comprehensive reproductive health care. It includes a series of recitals that acknowledge limitations to access, even here in Washington state, and that is caused by almost 50% of our hospital beds being in religiously affiliated hospitals, which refuse to provide the full range of health care that patients require. It signals an intention to consider action that would ensure that patients are informed of reproductive health care available and not available to them at their health care facility. And it states specific choice for the keep our our care act that prevents health care system consolidations from moving forward if they negatively impact communities access to quality health care , including reproductive end of life and gender affirming care. Again, thank you for your willingness to incorporate all of this added language into your resolution. A This is an issue. I know it's been a very difficult week for folks. This is deeply personal and impactful to so many lives, and I believe the council does have a role to play in the crisis to come. I have made some starting inquiries with public health, whether city dollars currently support either abortion providers or whether or not funds are used to support clinics that make referrals that facilitate comprehensive women's health care, including all reproductive options. This work is only beginning to come clear. And, you know, if the Supreme Court does issue a majority opinion consistent with the draft that we've seen, the shift in abortion rights will be among the most significant the court has ever issued, in that it would deprive half of the nation of a fundamental constitutional right, long held by millions of pregnant people for nearly 50 years. We know that 20 states have laws restricting or banning abortion. Some are trigger laws that will go into effect as soon as the Supreme Court ruling. Some are oh, roe abortion bans that haven't been enforced or sorry, pre Roe abortion bans that haven't been enforced. And other laws express a clear intent of states to crack down on abortion permitted by the Supreme Court. States that continue to allow abortion will likely see a large influx of patients seeking care and parenthood, who had reported that clinics in states near Texas reported a nearly 800% increase in abortion patients from Texas as compared to the same period in the prior year. Pregnant people of color will bear the brunt of further abortion restrictions, with higher poverty rates and more difficulties traveling out of state for an abortion and limits on abortion, access can lead to negative long term health care effects and significant economic hardships that last for years, including single parenthood and higher risk of developing serious health problems. I really look forward to working with all of you and all of our community stakeholders and women's movements to ensure that access to comprehensive women's health care, including access to abortion, is a reality on the ground as well as by policy in our city. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. Are there any other comments on the resolution as amended? Councilmember Nelson.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilmember Stewart, for bringing this forward. I do think it's very important that Seattle City Council speak out and voice our strong opposition to what we think is coming down the pike here. And, well, there are some things in the in the resolution that gave me pause. I this is completely about city business and what how this will impact our our constituents, despite the fact that that access to abortion is is is is codified in in Washington state. I was talking to Courtney Norman, who is the director of the of Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, and she noted that with the influx of women, of people from other states seeking abortions, that will have a ripple effect in Washington, among Washington clinics. And. And it very well could point to the need to expand our our services that we offer at whatever clinics get our funding. And she also noted that Portland did contribute to the abortion access fund. That is something else that we might consider in the future. But the point is that this that what's happening at the national level will will impact everyone, because this is going to cause this is going to.
Speaker 1: Cause.
Speaker 3: People in states that can no longer get abortions to seek alternatives and in Washington should be a welcoming state to meet that need. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Nelson, are there any other comments on the resolution?
Speaker 2: I want to make closing remarks, but I was waiting for you to call them.
Speaker 0: Yes, of course, Councilmember. So I'll just briefly say really appreciate, as I said in briefing yesterday, the timeliness of the resolution councilmembers want, and you're bringing it forward. It's critical not only for us to go on the record in the strongest possible terms against the massive backsliding of abortion rights that would be represented by this potential court decision. But the implications of that decision has four other essential fundamental rights that the Court has recognized over the years that have been derived from the same privacy protections that Roe relied on, namely in Griswold, Connecticut and other important cases. But it's also critical to bring this forward for many elements of this resolution that call for our region and our city to prepare as a place that is going to be a critical hub of people being able to receive access to abortion in a in an affordable and accessible way that they won't be able to do in close by jurisdictions, particularly the state of Idaho. And that that is going to involve some resource discussions and decisions that we're going to need to make as local governments to safeguard that right and safeguard access to comprehensive health care, including the right and ability to access safe abortion procedures. So I think this is a very timely resolution and responsive appreciate the amendments Councilmember Herbold brought forward and Councilmember Swan for introducing it. So with that councilmember slot, I think that it is to you to oh, sorry, September Morales, please.
Speaker 4: My apologies. I was late on the draw there. I also want to thank Councilmember Swan and Councilmember Herbold. We did work in my office just to make sure that we were hearing from the actual abortion care providers and advocates. And everybody agrees that this is incredibly important for us to do as a city. I think we all know what this is really about. I spoke briefly at briefing yesterday, but as as we all know, this is not about abortion per se. This is about controlling women's bodies and controlling their ability to make their own decisions about their their bodies, their family, their community. So it's important that we are providing this public statement about our what we will do as a city to protect people who need this care. So I look forward to working with my colleagues to identify specifically what we are able to do as a city and to work with King County public health and with the state to make sure that we're providing as much protection as we can for people. So thank you for everyone being on board with providing this care.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Morales. Councilmember Swan, close us out on this resolution.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much, Council President Adam Lewis. I really appreciate the comments by all council members who just spoke in support of abortion rights and upholding Roe v Wade and in support of the resolution. I am also thanking all Council members in advance of the vote, in anticipation that council members will all council members will be voting yes. And I completely agree with the point that were made that we should do everything in our power as a city and as city council members to expand funding for services and show our solidarity material and actual concretely with people in other states who will need these services. And that is precisely why the resolution from office says that explicitly in the language. And that's another reason why it's good that the resolution passes today. And I hope that other city councils, you know, city councils in other cities, in other and not only in Washington did, but other states also follow this example and do this. As a socialist, though, I also feel like my duty is to go beyond that and also talk about why the why, why we are facing this attack in the first place. Just to reiterate the points that I made and speakers some of the speakers in public comment made that we are here in the first place because we have not seen the Democratic Party establishment fight in the way that needs to fight. The Democratic Party has had 50 years to have codified Roe v Wade. They could have done it in any of the periods that they had the majority in Congress. And so that's why this resolution also talks about why it is important that they push to go to fight. But I would also be very clear that I don't believe that at this moment there is enough pressure on congressional Democrats to do this. That is why this resolution is a very small but important step, in my view, to do this. Ultimately, it will be important for mass protest to turn out this week and in the coming weeks and also to be sober that just having mass protest by themselves will not be able to budge the Supreme Court from what they have decided, because this is a very determined kind of right wing that is pushing for this. That is why, in addition to mass protest, we need mass workplace action. We need militant workplace action, and we need nonviolent civil disobedience actions as well. And all of those actions should also begin a conversation about the need for what kind of political party working people need. And in my view of working people need a new party that will fight against this kind of oppression like sexism, homophobia and transphobia and attacks on people of color, especially racism against the black community. And we need a party that will actually stand with rank and file workers, both union and nonunion, in order to put forward not only the labor struggle inside the workplace, but for the labor movement to stand up in solidarity against these kinds of attacks. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council members want with that. Let's go ahead and call the roll on passage of the resolution.
Speaker 1: Excuse me. Council President Pro-Tem. Councilmember Muscat, I may have a word.
Speaker 0: Oh, I'm sorry. Council member Miss Skinner.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. And sorry to be late on comments as well. I do want to emphasize my support for this. You know, in in the 12 or so hours, less than 24 hours after the announcement came out, many people were asking, what does this mean for Seattle, who's been on the record supporting Seattle, being a welcoming city for many issues, but especially on health care access. Many of us made comments in the wake of the 2017 election as well, with many concerns about how the federal election, the presidential election, was going to affect women's access and people's access to reproductive justice. And I think that the comments that we're making here today via this via this resolution, really continue to emphasize the longstanding commitment that Seattle has had to protecting folks ability to access reproductive justice. Health care is reproductive health care and appreciate the amendments that were put forward as well. I think also by today's action, folks are signaling support for continuing the discussion and beyond discussion, the commitments in the budget for the upcoming year to make sure that we continue to provide the resources. I wasn't able to comment on whether or not the Council would be able to have a unified perspective on that going into the budget deliberations. But I think that this resolution codifies that interest and I hope that that will send a united message to the executive as well as the budget is being considered for the upcoming 2023 2024 deliberations. Obviously, we want to make sure that as we consider protections, they have resources to make sure that folks have access to safe abortions, protect people who need to have freedom from harassment and assault or disruptions at those abortion clinics, and make sure that we are providing specific support for people who will be traveling in and out of our city if it comes to that. I look forward to working with our colleagues here and other localities across the country as we continue to fight back by providing resources and protection along with the necessary health care as part of the national response. And appreciate that this is a joint call for not only resources and direct action, but for congressional members to take action along with the federal delegation and president to codify in statute Roe v Wade. So looking forward to how we can continue this discussion via resources in the upcoming budget. Thanks, colleagues.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Mascara. And with those remarks, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the resolution as amended?
Speaker 1: Council member.
Speaker 0: Peterson s.
Speaker 1: Council member. So on.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council member Strauss.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council member Herbold.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council Member Morales. S. Council member. Mr.. I. Council Nelson. I. Council President Pro Tem Lewis.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Eight in favor. None opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The resolution is adopted as amended, and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Council colleagues moving on to other business before doing a general call for other business from council members, I did just want to take a brief moment to recognize that during council session we did receive an email from City Clerk Monica Simmons, recognizing our city archivist and friend Teller being recognized by the National Association of Government Archives and Records Administrators with the Reading Award, which stands for Racism, Equity, Accessibility, Diversity and Inclusion Award. Recognizing Archivist Friend he has worked for until his work. In increasing the access of the Seattle City Seattle Archives and leading with equity and inclusion. I'm sure we're going to have more time to formally recognize our city archivist and celebrate her receiving this award in the coming days. But I did want to take the opportunity under new business to publicly recognize this honor for, for and for the city. With that, is there any other business from council members? Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President Pro Tem. I would like to request to be excused Monday and Tuesday, June 27, 27 and 28.
Speaker 0: Is there any objection to Councilmember Morales being excused on those dates? Seeing no objection. Councilman Morales. Councilmember Strauss. Do you have an objection to Councilmember Morales? Excuse me? No, sir, I don't. I have. So you're hearing that Councilman Morales is excused on those dates. Councilmember Strauss, what days do you want to be excused for? June 12th and 13. Is there any objection to Councilman being Councilmember Strauss being excused for June 12 and 13?
Speaker 3: Excuse me, Councilperson Patton. It's June. Are you referring to the city council meeting on June 14th?
Speaker 0: On. My apologies, Counselor Strauss. I may have just misheard you on. On your dates. Thank you for the clarification both at June 13th for council briefing. June 14th for full council. Okay. Is there any objection to the Councilmember Strauss being excused on those dates? Hearing no objection. Councilmember Strauss will be excused on those dates. Any other conscripts want.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I move to be excused from the city council meetings on June 7th and June 14th.
Speaker 0: Is there any objection to Councilmember Swan being excused on those days, hearing? No objection. Councilmember Swan is hereby excused on those days where that quorum will be tight on the 14th. Any other motions before the council or. Business for the good of the order. All right. Seeing none. Colleagues, that does conclude the items of business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on May 17, 2022 at 2 p.m.. I hope you all have a wonderful afternoon. We are adjourned.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION in support of abortion rights and other reproductive rights, in opposition to the U.S. Supreme Court draft majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization; and urging state and federal elected officials to codify abortion rights and other reproductive rights.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_05032022_CB 120310
|
Speaker 4: Agenda Item two Council Bill 1 to 0 310 Relating to Historic Preservation, imposing controls upon the Center for Wooden Boats, a landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board. The committee recommends that the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Court. Councilman Morales, as chair of the committee, you are recognized in order to provide the committee report.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. So, as the clerk mentioned, this legislation acknowledges the designation of the Center for Wooden Boats as a historic landmark by the Landmarks Preservation Board. I'm sure we've all been down there. I was down there just several weeks ago enjoying the center for Wooden Boats. This legislation imposes controls and grants incentives to the center, which began in the early eighties. The property is located in South Lake Union neighborhood and an agreement has been signed by the owner and approved by the Landmarks Preservation Board, indicating the controls and incentives. So the committee recommends approval of this legislation.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Morales. Are there any comments on the legislation? Hearing no comments. Will the clerk please call the role of the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Councilmember Nelson. I council member Petersen. I. Councilmember Strauss. Yes. Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Morales. Yes. I council president Pro Tem Lewis.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please a fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Item three from the same committee. Will the clerk please read the short title of item three and of the.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to historic preservation; imposing controls upon The Center for Wooden Boats, 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_05032022_CB 120311
|
Speaker 4: Agenda item three Council 1 to 0 311 Relating to historic preservation, imposing controls upon the Wagner floating home, a landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam. Councilor Morales, as chair of the committee, you are recognized.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: The Wagner floating home was built in around 1910, was originally located in Lake Washington near Madison Park, but was moved to Lake Union around 1938 and presently sits around the East Queen neighborhood. The controls and incentives agreement for this property applies to the exterior of the floating home and the floating foundation and platform, but not to intend maintenance or repairs of the designated features. Did want to make sure that the owner who actually lives in the home is able to make any repairs that are necessary. But the idea here is to preserve the foundation because it is historic. It is logs that are used rather than a more modern technology to keep the house afloat. And the committee recommends passage.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Morales, are there any other comments on the legislation? Seeing none with a clip. Please call the role on the passage film.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Nelson.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Peterson. Hi. Councilmember Strauss. Yes. Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Morales. Yes. Councilmember Mosquera I Council. President Pro Tem Lewis.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Seven in favor and unopposed.
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? Okay. Adoption of other resolutions. There are no resolutions for introduction of adoption on today's Council agenda. Last item other business. I did want to take a bit of a digression under other business to give Council colleagues space to make public comments and in recognition of the unprecedented news that has been shaping, what has the potential to dramatically reshape the country in a bad way? That broke yesterday evening. Well, after council briefing. I want to. Start. Oh, hold on just one moment. Madam Clerk did we have? On the agenda, an appointment for Joel Merkel to the public safety.
Speaker 4: With the council president pro tem Lewis. He was considered under the consent calendar.
Speaker 0: Oh, yes. Okay. Right. That's what I thought. Thanks. Sorry, I was just. Someone just reached out asking if.
Speaker 3: That was.
Speaker 0: Me. My apologies. This does happen occasionally. I'm sorry. I wanted to make sure we addressed that. Joel Merkel, if you're watching, we didn't forget about you. You were in the consent agenda. And we are honored to have you here at the city, to be to be part of the work, along with everyone else who is on the consent agenda. So thank you. See, that's some diligent committee chairing there to make sure all of your stuff got through on the on the final agenda. I'm sure going back to it, though, I did want to take a moment for good of the order to give an opportunity for public comment, given the recent mass of the news of the of the impending decision of the court to over overrule the Roe and Casey stare decisis opinions. And I just want to take a moment at the top just to recognize the historic tragedy of the of that impending decision by the United States Supreme Court. Having read the draft decision that's been circulated, it's a decision eroding decades of social progress. And this country has horrifying implications for impacting the privacy, civil rights and health care of millions of Americans. It's a decision entirely dismissive of the fundamental spirit of constitutional guarantees of privacy and personal autonomy that appear in several parts of our Constitution and indeed has frightening implications beyond this decision for future court actions to further erode personal liberties and rights recognized by the Warren and Burger Courts in particular. It is, in short, an edict that would be expected from a theocratic state and not the judiciary of a free and independent republic. And I did want to just express today, in open session, my strong feelings and in opposition to that decision, my commitment going forward to support state and federal leaders, as Councilmember Strauss indicated earlier, and indeed what we can do as local officials to make sure that rights and guarantees of privacy, of reproductive autonomy, of the right to do to make your own health care decisions without the government intervention is something that we strongly support. I salute the community members, including our own senior deputy mayor, Keisha Harrell, who gathered right as this council meeting was beginning in District seven and Carrie Park to express their strong opposition to this decision. And I understand some council officers are considering potential resolutions for the council to formally comment on this topic. And I look forward over the course of the next week to talk to council colleagues and duly consider those resolutions. So with that, I'm happy to open it up and allow opportunity for other good order comments from council members. Seeing no additional good to the order comments. Colleagues, this does conclude the items of business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on May 10th at 2 p.m.. I hope you all have a wonderful afternoon and the council is chance.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to historic preservation; imposing controls upon the Wagner Floating Home, a landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board under Chapter 25.12 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and adding it to the Table of Historical Landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_04262022_CB 120305
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. And, Madam Clerk, please affix my signature to the resolution. Let's move to item number two. This is out of the Sustainability and Renters Rights Committee, a committee that customers want chairs, but customer staff will be presenting on her behalf today. So, Madam Clerk, can you please read item two and to the record?
Speaker 3: Agenda Item two Council Bill 120305 Modifying Ordinance 1260 81 Concerning repayment plans for rental arrears occurred during or within six months after the termination of the Civil Emergency declared on March 3rd, 2020. The committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 4: I thank you, council president and thank you for I know that the chair of the committee is not present with us today, and I appreciate the fact that we're able to bring my bill before us today. I also appreciate that. So, again.
Speaker 0: I just said anytime, buddy.
Speaker 4: Oh, thank you. Thank you. Oh, I love this. Anyhow, I really also appreciate the public commenters today who called in, which is why I, along with Councilmember Lewis, created small landlord workgroup. And I know that there are some snags in getting that set up. And I can tell you that we both met about it this week to get it moving faster. And we both set up the rental market, rental housing market study. We funded that so that we could have that information for the first time since 2018 when that started, so that we can back up and so that we can have the data that is with us today. It's important for us to have this data so that we can back up the stories of the mom and pop landlords who are selling their properties with the data before us so that we can make decisions with all the information. The bill before us today helps us ensure that landlords are made whole and tenants have a reasonable time to repay their debt. The tenant does remain responsible for repaying any and all debt that they've incurred. This bill is a technical correction to the legislation we passed in 2020, which was passed two months after the pandemic began. In May of 2020, the Council adopted ordinance 126081, which required that tenants with unpaid rent from the pandemic be offered repayment plans that lasted 3 to 6 months, depending upon the amount of rent owed. Today is April 26, 2022. If this was 2020, the pandemic would have started last month and we would have passed the underlying the original bill next month. At that time, we believe that the pandemic would only last two weeks and then two months, and we definitely did not foresee it lasting two years or more. We did know then when everything was shut and many people's line of work suddenly froze, that people needed time to address the debt incurred during that that closed down the following legislative session. The first legislation was legislative session in Olympia. Once the pandemic began, the state passed a similar repayment legislation. If we were in 2021, this bill would have passed. Nine days ago. The Legislature had the benefit of having a year longer to understand that the pandemic was going to last longer than two weeks or two months. The reason I refer to this modest bill as a technical correction is because the legislation before you today is a mirror of our state's legislation. There are some very small differences that come from the original bill and require and this bill requires a reasonable repayment plan for debt incurred during the COVID 19 state of emergency. Colleagues, I know I brought this up at council briefing before yesterday, and again, I'm happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: But are there any questions for Council Member Strauss? Right. Not seeing any. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the passage? I'm sorry, Councilmember Nelson. And here you. Right?
Speaker 1: Yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 6: So I have to say thank you very much for bringing this forward, because I do believe that clarity in repayment plans is necessary. And I will admit that I missed the conversation in the in the Sustainability and Interest Rates Committee, and that's on me. However, that this legislation was was heard in committee only a couple of days after introduction, and we only had one meeting to discuss and vote. But regardless, what's important to me is that landlords had the ability to weigh in on this before we discussed it, and I'm told that was not the case. But basically this bill is characterized as a technical fix to bring us into alignment with state statute. And, you know, digging into this, since then, I've learned that it's it's it's not quite in perfect alignment and it would likely lengthen the time, the arrears specified in the in the repayment plans longer than the within the state statute provides for. So I'll just read some comments from central staff when I asked about this. This bill is tied to the end of the civil state, civil emerged cities, civil emergency, not the state's public health emergency and extends for six months after the end of the city's civil emergency, where the state statute does not extend past the end of the state public health emergency. The state ended its eviction moratorium on June 30th, 2021. So this has gone on much longer than that, and this would cover arrears that are incurred after six months, during the six month period after the end of the civil emergency or after the end of the eviction moratorium. There is much more detail in here. But the bottom line is that I am concerned about losing rental housing stock, particularly that of small landlords who have less resources to to weather the eviction moratorium and unpaid rent that is ongoing. And so they we require them to keep their properties in in good condition for their renters. And I'm just concerned about prolonging the time that that these small landlords will have to get that money to to maintain their properties and add additional uncertainty about when that might happen. So I, I again, apologize for bringing up these concerns at the last minute, but I will have to vote no on this on this piece of legislation.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Customer NELSON Thank you for sharing your policy reasons for your vote today. Is there anyone else? Okay. Not seeing anyone else for the please call the role.
Speaker 2: Council member Mr. High Council member NELSON.
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 2: Council Member. Petersen.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 2: Council member Strauss.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 2: Council member Herbold. Yes. Council member Lewis.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 2: Council member Morales.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Council President Suarez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Seven in favor. One opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes. The chair will sign it. And, Madam Clerk, please affix my signature to the passage of the bill. To the bill. Moving on to item number three, we have Councilmember Peterson from the Transportation and Seattle Public Utilities Committee.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE modifying Ordinance 126081 concerning repayment plans for rental arrears accrued during or within six months after the termination of the civil emergency declared on March 3, 2020.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_04262022_CB 120303
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes. The chair will sign it. And, Madam Clerk, please affix my signature to the passage of the bill. To the bill. Moving on to item number three, we have Councilmember Peterson from the Transportation and Seattle Public Utilities Committee. Will the clerk please read the short title from item three into the record?
Speaker 3: Agenda Item three Council Bill 120303 relating to grant funds from the United States Department of Transportation and other non city sources. The committee recommends the bill pass by Peterson.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Council President Colleagues. Council No. 120303 is authorizing the Seattle Department of Transportation to accept grant funds from non city sources for two projects multimodal improvements to East Marginal Way and sidewalk improvements along Fourth Avenue south near I-90. It was recommended unanimously by our committee. Thank you.
Speaker 0: So I like short and sweet. Thank you, Councilmember Peterson. Are there any comments or questions for Councilmember Peterson regarding this bill? Councilman Mosquito. And then Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 3: You very much. I just wanted to thank the chair of transportation. Thank you very much, Councilmember Peterson, for all of your work. Obviously, this is something that we would like to see as routine legislation. But in these times especially, you've stepped up to identify other sources of possible revenue and working in partnership to find federal dollars for key city projects through. That is something I've been really excited to be working with you on. So thank you for this effort and for the other efforts that you're doing to try to identify more revenue sources for critical infrastructure projects.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Casper Mosquito Council member Herbold.
Speaker 1: It's so much. In addition to thanking the chair for bringing this legislation forward, I want to thank Scott for answering the questions that I had in committee about the status of this project, which is so exciting. It's advancing from 90% to 100% design, with construction planned to get underway by the fourth quarter of this year. This is a really high priority project for folks in District one who are seeking bike access between West Seattle, downtown and SODO. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Humboldt. Is there anybody else has any questions for Councilmember Peterson? Not seeing any with the clerk. Please call the roll.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Macheda.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Nelson, I. Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Strauss. Yes. Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Council President Suarez. I eight in favor. None opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes. The chair will sign it. And, Madam Clerk, please affix my signature to the bill. Let's move on to item number four, which is Councilmember Peterson again. Madam Clerk, will you please read the short title of item number four to the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to grant funds from the United States Department of Transportation and other 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 126490, which adopted the 2022 Budget, including the 2022-2027 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations for the Seattle Department of Transportation; and revising allocations and spending plans for certain projects in the 2022-2027 CIP.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_04122022_CB 120281
|
Speaker 2: A report of the Transportation and Seattle Public Utilities Committee agenda item to cancel the 120281 an ordinance granting Vsop one LLC permission to construct, maintain and operate a private parking area. The committee recommends.
Speaker 1: The bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. As as chair of that committee, the Transportation Public Utilities Committee, I'll go ahead and provide a brief report on this item. Colleagues, this project is at the second and final stage for approving a 15 year term permit to enable a public plaza, improved walkway and related parking improvements in the Eastlake neighborhood and District four. The proposal enhances the use of space for the public and helps even helps protect a large conifer tree. This committee or the committee? Its transportation? Public utilities. Adopted previously Resolution 31988, granting conceptual approval for this project and today's Council 120281 is essentially recognizing that state and central staff have confirmed the applicant has met and will meet the public benefit and other conditions we adopted a year ago and we received a briefing on this at our previous committee meetings. And I really want to recognize the collaboration among our Department of Transportation, the East community, and the private property owners for moving forward and making these improvements that everyone will be able to enjoy. Our committee unanimously recommended approval of this bill and we ask for your vote today. Are there any comments? Great. Will the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Morales. Yes, Councilmember Mosquera. I. Councilmember Salon? Yes. Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Council President Pro Tem Peterson.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Six 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? Will the clerk please read item three into the record?
Speaker 2: Agenda Item three Council Bill 120282 An ordinance vacating a portion of the alley and block six A.A. Denny Second Edition. The committee recommends the bill pass.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE granting BSOP 1, LLC, permission to construct, maintain, and operate a private parking area on East Howe Street, east of Fairview Avenue East, for a 15-year term, renewable for one successive 15-year term; specifying the conditions under which this permit is granted; and providing for the acceptance of the permit and conditions.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_04122022_CB 120282
|
Speaker 2: Agenda Item three Council Bill 120282 An ordinance vacating a portion of the alley and block six A.A. Denny Second Edition. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. As chair of that committee, I'll provide any report on this item. As with the previous item on our agenda. This project is at the second and final stage for approval. This item is an allegation conceptually approved back in 2016 with Council Bill 12032. We are essentially recognizing that statute and our own central staff have confirmed the applicant has met and will meet the public benefit and other conditions previously adopted by the city. Our committee unanimously recommended approval of this bill. Colleagues, are there any comments? Okay. Will the clerk please call a role on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Now, remember Lewis? Yes. Councilmember Morales. Yes. Councilmember Mosquera. I. Councilmember Sawant. Yes. Council member Herbold. Yes. Council President Pro Tem Petersen.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Six in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will a clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Look, clerk, please read item four into the records.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE vacating a portion of the alley in Block 6, A.A. Denny’s Second Addition, in the block bounded by University Street, 1st Avenue, Seneca Street, and 2nd Avenue, in Downtown, and accepting a Property Use and Development Agreement, on the petition of HS 2U Owner, LLC (Clerk File 314320).
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_03292022_CB 120286
|
Speaker 0: Thank you. This is mine. So I will go ahead and first move. I will move to pass Council Bill 120286. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill as a sponsor of this bill. I will address this item. Council Bill 120286 is legislation that would authorize several actions related to our two new city holidays. As a reminder, December and December 2021, the city enacted two ordinances relating to two new holidays ordinance 126505 Establish Juneteenth as a legal holiday for non represented city employees and a parking holiday for the public. Ordinance number 126516 Establish Juneteenth An Indigenous People's Day as legal holidays for city employees represented by the Coalition of City Unions. Although the city has already established Indigenous People's Day as a day of observance, observance and legal holiday for city employees represented by the Coalition, legislation is required to expand this holiday to non represented city employees and establish a parking holiday. The proposed legislation would authorize the following actions. Number one, establish Indigenous People's Day as a legal holiday for city employees on the second Monday of October. Number two, establish indigenous people's day as a parking holiday. Number three, approve a memorandum of understanding with three unions to establish Juneteenth, an indigenous peoples day as a new paid holiday. And four make technical updates to facilitate observance of Indigenous Peoples Day. Direct costs would include additional pay for minimum staffing requirements and the loss of on street parking revenue for the parking holiday for each car for up to about 132,000 for each parking holiday. Completing the establishment of Indigenous People's Day as a new holiday will demonstrate the city's commitment to honoring the culture and contributions of indigenous people. The establishment of both Juneteenth and the Indigenous Peoples Day will also signal a commitment towards achieving racial equity, working towards an anti-racist future, and ending the historical and continued harms towards black Americans and indigenous peoples in this region and the United States. For next steps after Council approves the bill today, the executive will transmit and the executive will later transmit separate budget legislation to appropriate funding to cover the direct costs. Those are the costs that are just shared with you. Is there any comments on the bill? I would just like to thank Councilman Morales for bringing the Juneteenth to us. I believe it was in her committee and we passed the legislation. So thank you, Castro. Morales So it looks like both holidays will have free parking, so let's be thankful for that. So anyhow, thank you. Not seen any more comments or hands raised. Well, clerk, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Council member Strauss. Yes. Council member Herbold. Yes. Council member Morales.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council member. Must gather. I Council Member Nelsen I Council Member Petersen High Council President Juarez.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 1: Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Madam Clerk, will you please affix my signature to the bill? Ah, to the legislation. Thank you. Moving on to our second item from the Economic Development Technology and Select Committee. Madam, click, will you please read item two and to the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment; establishing Indigenous Peoples’ Day as a legal holiday for certain City employees and a legal parking holiday; authorizing memoranda of understanding between the City and certain City unions to add Indigenous Peoples’ Day and Juneteenth as a paid holiday; amending Sections 3.06.015, 3.16.131, 3.102.010, 4.20.190, 11.14.277, and 14.12.030 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_03292022_CB 120273
|
Speaker 0: Madam, click, will you please read item two and to the record.
Speaker 5: You're part of the Economic Development, Technology and City Committee agenda item two Council Bill one 2273 related to the Seattle Tourism Improvement Area, modifying the assessment rate and amending ordinance 123 714. The committee recommends that the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Nelson. It's all you.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much, President. So just a brief background for folks that haven't been following this this bill effectuate so rate change from $2 a night to $4 a night for the Seattle Tourism Improvement Area. And the improvement area was formed in in 2011 to promote leisure tourism to Seattle. The rate has has remained the same for the past several years while since the very beginning. And this bill was heard first in the committee on March 9th. We discussed the bill further and had a public hearing and voted it out unanimously last week on March 23rd. So I just want to give a little bit of background and just say that, you know, everybody knows that the pandemic has hit Seattle hard, but it has particularly hurt the tourism industry. This bill doesn't just benefit the hotels. This bill will benefit all of the businesses downtown and across the city that benefit from tourism in Seattle. The Seattle tourism improvement area is in the downtown core and the waterfront. It comprises about 60 hotels. But visit Seattle, which manages the revenue generated by this fee, promotes all of Seattle. So I'm just going to cut to the chase and say that that passage of this bill is crucial to our economic recovery and to an equitable economic recovery. Because Visit Seattle takes this money and promotes every district of the city. That means that all of the retail shops and bars and restaurants, museums, entertainment venues, etc., in every neighborhood end up benefiting from this promotion. And that's why I say that it's important to our economic recovery. And as well, the taxes generated from those enterprises end up going into our general fund and funding these services that we depend on. So not all cities have there have their fee structures in the same way. Ours is a flat fee and we're in competition with cities across the country. And our our neighbor Portland has a 2% fee on an occupancy in their in their hotels. That means when a guest goes there, 2% of their bill goes to this, their tourism improvement and promotion area. Ours is a flat fee. It doesn't go up as room rates increase. And so that is why it is so crucial that we that we pass this and bring back some more life downtown and generate business and in support of our businesses across the city. So this has been a long time in the making. I am proud to be sitting in this position right now to see this effort come to fruition, especially as the visit Seattle's director Tom Norwalk is retiring. And I just want to say thank you so much, Tom, for your service, for everything that you've done, not just for downtown, but for Seattle. So I, I will ask my colleagues to please pass this bill.
Speaker 0: Kessler. Nelson, do any of my colleagues have any questions or comments for Councilmember Nelson? Not seeing or hearing none. Well, the clerk, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Some members. Strauss. Yes, Councilmember Herbold. Councilmember Morales. This Council member must gather by Council member Nelson.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Council member Peter son in Council President Juarez High seven favorite and opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And Madam Clerk, can you please affix my signature to the legislation? Great. Thank you, Councilor Nelson. Let's move on to item number three from Land Use Committee. Madam Clerk, will you please read the short title and then we'll hand it over to Councilmember Strauss.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Tourism Improvement Area; modifying the assessment rate; and amending Ordinance 123714.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_03292022_CB 120280
|
Speaker 5: Agenda item five, Resolution three, 2048 approving and ratifying the decision of the Metropolitan King County Council to adopt a revised set of countywide planning policies. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 0: Sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Strauss. I mean, council members. Yes.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council president. Colleagues, this resolution ratifies countywide planning policies which were recently adopted by the King County Council. The countywide planning policies were adopted by the County Growth Management Planning Council with councilmembers wise and myself representing the city during that process. Councilmember Morales and I, along with the mayor, are currently representing the city, the city of Seattle at GMP. The countywide planning policies can be ratified by either taking no action or by taking action through Resolute Resolution. Seattle has done both in the past, and we chose to do a resolution this year to provide an opportunity to brief the Land Use Committee on new policies. The County Wide Planning Policies guide how the county will grow and shapes local jurisdictions. Comprehensive Plans. The 2021 county wide planning policies include updates to 2019 to 2040 for housing and employment targets for jurisdictions in King County, changes to the Center to Social Equity and Health in the policies and changes to integrate regional and statewide policies, including Puget Sound Regional Council's Regional Growth Strategies say that ten times fast known as Vision 2050 Plan. These regional policies and countywide planning policies will now inform the One Seattle Comprehensive Plan update that is launching right now and is concluding in 2024. There were some questions at committee about how numbers of growth, job, employment and housing were needed. And I would say that overall they were too low. I know that we're going to have more growth than than what is in here. So I think that's something that we need to take into consideration. As for right now, this resolution does the job that is needed and I urging both. Council president. You are still on mute.
Speaker 0: Okay. Sorry about that. Are there any comments for Councilmember Strauss? All right. Not seeing any what the police called the role.
Speaker 1: Remember Strauss?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: That's a number herbals. Yes. Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 0: Asks.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Moschella, i. Councilmember Nelson, i. Councilmember Peterson. Yes. And Council President Juarez. I. Seven a favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The resolution is adopted. The chair will sign it. And, Madam Clerk, please affix my signature to the resolution. Okay. So let's move on to item number six from the Public Safety and Human Services Committee. This will be councilmember verbal. But Madam Clerk, will you please read item number six and to the record.
Speaker 5: The report of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee. Agenda Item six Council Bill one 2280 Relating to the 2022 budget amending Ordinance 126 490, which adopted the 2022 budget change in appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, adding provisos and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends Bill pass as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Casper Herbold Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: So, as explained in.
Speaker 0: Council briefing yesterday afternoon, this bill is brought forward as.
Speaker 1: A holdover from.
Speaker 0: The budget process, the 2022 budget process. You may recall that in that budget.
Speaker 1: Process, the Council.
Speaker 0: Accepted 3.8 million in.
Speaker 1: Funding.
Speaker 0: From the US Department of.
Speaker 1: Homeland Security, the Urban.
Speaker 0: Areas Security Initiative, otherwise known as a legacy.
Speaker 1: Of.
Speaker 0: The funds of the 3.8 million that.
Speaker 3: We that we.
Speaker 0: Accepted in the budget process, we only appropriated 750,000 of those dollars, and those were funds for the fire.
Speaker 3: Department. The Budget Committee opted to delay.
Speaker 0: Appropriation of the balance, which was the Seattle Police Department's $2.3 million.
Speaker 1: Until members of the Public Safety and Human.
Speaker 3: Services Committee could.
Speaker 0: Conduct.
Speaker 3: Additional.
Speaker 0: Briefing and analysis on the recipients of that $2.3.
Speaker 3: Million in funding.
Speaker 0: So this legislation.
Speaker 1: Includes the OAC grants and allows the PD management of those grants because those funds.
Speaker 0: Go to several different local jurisdictions.
Speaker 1: As the staff memo notes, project funding.
Speaker 0: Decisions are made through a collaborative process involving multiple safety emergency.
Speaker 1: Response.
Speaker 0: Agencies. Four out how much.
Speaker 1: King and Pierce counties and just background.
Speaker 0: Eddie had a first briefing.
Speaker 1: On.
Speaker 0: The the recipients of these grant sources on.
Speaker 1: March eight. A speedy.
Speaker 0: Find us with an explanation of each of eight front jects being funded with.
Speaker 1: With the funds. And then we had a second berthing on March 22nd with committee adopted.
Speaker 3: An amendment.
Speaker 0: Noting that any equipment purchased with these funds is subject to get all the 1418 otherwise known as the city's surveilling lot. Hey. Is that it? Hey. Okay. Is there do. Are there any comments for council member Herbert before we go to a vote? All right. Not seeing any. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll.
Speaker 1: After member Strauss? Yes. Councilmember Herbold? Yes. Councilmember Morales. Yes. Councilmember must get up. I. Councilmember Nelson, i. Councilmember Pierson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: And Council President Juarez i. Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And then, please, to fix my signature to the bill. Thank you. Moving on to items number seven and eight. This is Casper Morales. Madam Clerk, will you please read item seven at eight into the record?
Speaker 5: Gender item seven and eight, appointment 2111 and appointment 2146. The appointment and reappointment of Steve Horvath as member of Community Involvement Commission for a term to May 31st, 2022, and a term to May 31st 2024.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Let's memorialize you. I move. Postponement of these two appointments. 21, 11 and 2146 until May 10th. Great. Is there a second? I. Thank you, Casper Mosquito. It's been moved and seconded to postpone the appointments. Two, one, one, one and 2146 to May 10th, 2022. Any questions of comments to Councilmember Morales on the postponement? Seen none. Madam Cleary, please call the roll.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Strauss. Yes. Councilmember Herbold. S Councilmember Morales. Yes. Council member must gather by Council member nelson i. Council member Petersen.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: And Council President Juarez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Seven a favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The motion carries. And the appointments are indeed postponed until May 10th, 2022. Thank you. Councilmember Morales going on to item number nine. This is also Casper Morales. Will the clerk please to read item number nine to the record?
Speaker 5: Agenda item nine Appointment 2112 The appointment of Judy Cohn as Member Community Involvement Commission for a term to May 31st, 2022.
Speaker 0: Jasmin Morales Thank you. I move that we amend appointment 2112 by substituting version two for version one of the appointment packet. And that was distributed earlier today. Yes. Thank you. Councilmember Ellis, is there a second? Thank you. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to amend the appointment by substituting excuse me, the appointment packet for version two. And we have a second and there's no comments to the substitute. So with that, will the clerk please call the roll?
Speaker 1: Councilmember Strauss. Yes. Councilmember Purples. Council member Morales. Yes. Council member. Must gather by Council member Nelson. I council member Nelson. Excuse me. Petersen, I am Council President Juarez. i7a favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The motion carries and the appointment is amended. Are there any other further comments on the amended appointment? All right. Not seeing any. Will the clerk please call the role on the confirmation of the amended appointment?
Speaker 1: Councilmember Strauss? Yes. Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council member must gather by council member Nelson I. Council member Peterson. High and Council President Fortis.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 1: Seven in favor and an opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The motion carries and the amended appointment is confirmed. Thank you, Councilman Morales. So with that. Are there any other resolutions or adoption notices? Are there other resolutions for instructions? Adoption? Nope. I don't see anything else up there. All right. So moving on to other business, is there any other business to come before the council today? Customer Mesquita, I was wondering where you were.
Speaker 1: Oh, it's been a while. It's been a while. Madam President, colleagues, I would like to ask to be excused from the council briefing since we're talking about May. I thought I'd get that in there on May 2nd and May nine, excuse me, May 2nd and May 16th for council briefings. I'd like to excuse and would request as well for full council to be excused on May 16.
Speaker 0: Okay. So, Councilor Morales. Ah, I'm sorry, sir. Mesquita would like to be excused. As you heard the dates May 2nd, May 16th and May 16th for the council meeting. So any objections? Not seen any. I guess you're excused. So I'm telling you, I think because we were. Nelson has your hand up for something. So because we're in Nelson.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. I'm still in April. Here I council president. I request to be excused on for the briefing on April 11th and for full council on April 12th.
Speaker 0: All right. So we also have Councilmember Nelson asking to be excused on April 11th and April 12th. So any objection? Not seen any. You are indeed excused. See, Mr. Strauss now has his hand up. All right.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Counsel President requesting to be excused from council briefing on April 11th.
Speaker 0: All right, so Councilmember Strauss would like to be excused on April 11th. There's any objection? Not seen any that Mr. Accounts. I do. I always want to call you Mr. Councilmember Strauss is excused on that date. Is there any other further business to come before council? Okay. I'm sorry. I'm just starting to get the giggles. It's been a long day. All right, you guys. Thank you. I'll see you all next week. Bye. We're adjourned.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the 2022 Budget; amending Ordinance 126490, which adopted the 2022 Budget; changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels; adding provisos; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_03222022_CB 120271
|
Speaker 5: If part of the Transportation Seattle Public Utilities Committee. Agenda Item one Council Bill one 2271 related to John Lewis Memorial Bridge, constructed under the Seattle Department of Transportation's North Gate Bridge and Cycle Track Project, excepting the North Gate Easement Agreement granted by the State of Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges on behalf of North Seattle College, dated February 28, 2019. The Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Clerk. So was I supposed to say read the short title or did you read the whole thing?
Speaker 5: I read the short title.
Speaker 1: Good. Thank you, Mr. Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council President, colleagues. Council Bill 120271 finalizes the various easements and agreements between our Seattle Department of Transportation and the Washington State Department of Transportation, North Seattle College, and Sound Transit for the maintenance of the John Lewis Memorial Bridge. As we know, that new bridge enables bikes and pedestrians to safely cross over I-5 to connect with the North Gate Transit Hub Industrial Site. Our committee unanimously recommended approval of this council bill. Thank you.
Speaker 1: So is there anything anyone would like to say in regards to Council Bill 1202712. Councilmember Peterson. Well, I have a few things to say just briefly without going into too much detail. I just an update. I know I don't sit in your committee, Casper Peterson, but this has been a long time coming, getting this done, I think since like 2016. And right now we're right in the end, the tail end of getting four major signs put up on the bridge for the John Lewis Bridge. And they will be interpretive with phenomenal quotes of Congressman Lewis. And we're working with Washed Out to get a actual sign on the road where people can look up and see the brown historical sign that says John Lewis Bridge so that it's official title. I want to thank Parks and also Northfield College and washed out because they've been working with this with this with us on this for a long time and sound transit so we could have the bridge we could name the bridge, but more importantly, that we could have something in to recognize. Congressman Lewis. And, you know, it really was a testament of parks coming through to take over that land and make sure they maintain the wetlands and the marshlands and redirect redesigning the project and the bridge. So they had a better ark to it and more. And why more what what more widen. So we could have strollers and runners and bikes and baby strollers or more people walking. Not just bikes, nothing against bikes, but everybody's bridge. So that's what we wanted it to be. So I'm glad this is finally done. So thank you. Anyone else. Hey. So. Will the clerk please call the role of the passage of the bill?
Speaker 2: Let's remember Peterson.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Salon?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Strauss. Yes. Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Moschella. I. Councilmember Nelson. I know Council President Flores. I age in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation or the ordinance on my behalf? Thank you. Moving on to the what else we have here. Adoption of other resolutions. There are no other resolutions for introduction or adoption today. Other business. Is there any other business to be to come before Seattle City Council today, councilmember strauss.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the John Lewis Memorial Bridge constructed under the Seattle Department of Transportation’s Northgate Bridge and Cycle Track Project; accepting the Northgate Easement Agreement granted by the State of Washington, State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, on behalf of North Seattle College, dated February 28, 2019; accepting a Pedestrian Bridge Easement Agreement granted by the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, a regional transit authority, dated April 22, 2021; accepting the Trail Lease granted by the Washington State Department of Transportation, dated September 29, 2021; placing the real property interests conveyed by such easements and lease under the jurisdiction of the Seattle Department of Transportation; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. (This ordinance concerns portions of property in the west half of the Northwest quarter of Section 32, Township 26 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian and the east half of the Northeast quarter of Section 31, Township 26 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian.)
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_03152022_CB 120278
|
Speaker 0: The Report of the Economic Development, Technology and City Light Committee Agenda Item one Council Bill one 2278 relating to the City Department authorizing the mayor and the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of City Light to execute a memorandum of agreement between the City of Seattle, the first Indian tribe and the National Park Service. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Customer Nelson. Yes. So as the title so aptly conveys this, this legislation does concern the transfer of about 300 pre-contract artifacts that were found during the 2013 restoration project of the the new Hallam Gorge in. And that is property that is owned by City Light. And so this this legislation transfers the ownership and curation to the upper Skagit tribe, where it was determined through ethnographic research that the upper scheduled tribe had a permanent settlement during the time that these artifacts date from. And so these artifacts would are right now at the the National Park Visitor Center there, and they would remain there or they could be moved. That is up to the tribe. And this simply executes an agreement that transfers the ownership from the city to the tribe. Thank you. Councilmember Nelson, are there any questions that anyone would have to Councilmember Nelson regarding this item? Okay. Not seen any. Well, the clerk please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Let's remember, Nelson, I. Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Silent.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Strouse.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Member Lewis.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Morales Yes. And Council President Juarez. I h in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes. The chair will sign it went to court, please. The fix my signature to the legislation. Madam Clerk, can you please read item two into the record? A part of the Land Use Committee Agenda Item two Council Bill one 2266 relating to land use and zoning amending sections 23.47 8.0 12 and
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; authorizing the Mayor and the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of City Light to execute a memorandum of agreement between The City of Seattle, the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, and the National Park Service for the transfer and curation of certain precontact archeological artifacts recovered during the 2013 Newhalem Gorge Inn Restoration Project; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_03152022_CB 120266
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes. The chair will sign it went to court, please. The fix my signature to the legislation. Madam Clerk, can you please read item two into the record? A part of the Land Use Committee Agenda Item two Council Bill one 2266 relating to land use and zoning amending sections 23.47 8.0 12 and 23.47 8.0 13 of the Seattle Municipal Code to allow for transfer of development potential or transfer of development rights in the NC three 223 P 200 zones. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Councilmember Strauss, you're the chair of this committee.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council president is linda mentioned? Council Bill 120266 relates to land use and zoning in the NC three 293 P 200 Zone's transfer of development rights to R or transfer of development potential TDP are programs that allow properties in R eligible areas to sell their unused development rights to another site, allowing that site to build a larger floor area than would otherwise be permitted. TR is often used by landmark buildings to finance, maintenance and other costs because as a landmark they can't necessarily grow their building and they need more dollar additional dollars to keep their historic building in place. TR is only applied in certain areas, in certain zones, primarily in urban centers like University District and downtown. TDR is allowed in First Hill, but not currently allowed in the neighborhood commercial three and 203 to 200 zones. This legislation would allow for TDR to occur in NC three 293 P 200 zones during committee. Central staff member Lish and showed a map that described these words better than any words can describe because what you see are most zones allowing for this and then a very narrow sliver not allowing. And so this legislation would allow for TDR in that little sliver on First Hill. The legislation does include restriction restrictions, including that the site receiving the TDR must be on the same block as the site selling the TDR. The development receiving the TDR has a height limit of 350 feet and the total floor area deemed through TDR to not be more than 110,526 square feet. There is only one landmark site in the NC three 200 zone that currently would be eligible to sell TDR legislation under this legislation. And that's the Sorento hotel. And there are other landmarked eligible sites in this zone that could become eligible to sell TDR if they are landmarked in the future. Council President colleagues. That is the committee report.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Strauss, are there any comments or concerns or questions that we want to ask? Councilmember Strauss. Okay. Not seen any more. The clerk, please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Remember Nelson? I can't remember Peterson. I count some risk a lot.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Strauss Strouse?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Herbold? Yes. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Morales. Yes.
Speaker 1: And Council President Juarez.
Speaker 0: II.
Speaker 1: H in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes. The chair will sign it. And will the clerk police affix my signature to the legislation. Our last item is from the Public Safety and Human Services Committee. Madam Clerk, will you please read it to the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending Sections 23.47A.012 and 23.47A.013 of the Seattle Municipal Code to allow for transfer of development potential or transfer of development rights in the NC3-200 and the NC3P-200 zones.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_03012022_CB 120270
|
Speaker 1: We have seven items in front of us today. Will the clerk please read the first one into the record? Agenda Item one Council Bill one 2270 relating to taxation delaying the effective date of the heating oil tax on heating oil service providers under Chapter 5.47 of the Sound Fiscal Code and delaying the date of the Office of Sustainability and Environment First Annual Heating Oil Tax Status Report. Apologize for that on camera. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I moved to pass Council Bill 1201278. Thank you. So, second. Thank you. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Councilmember Morales. It's all your. I'll you. All you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Council President, colleagues, we received a very helpful memo from our central staff member, Yolanda Ho. But just in summary, we have twice now delayed the heating oil tax. So I want to we have at least one new colleague. So just want to give a little bit of background. And we did have a heating oil tax proposed. We delayed it twice. The idea here is that revenue from this heating oil tax would be used to support transition to heat pumps away from from oil, particularly supporting low income families and making that transition revenue would also provide important job training programs for workers who would be adversely impacted by a shift away from fossil fuels and would also provide public education on reducing reliance on fossil fuels. I do want to thank the staff at the Office for Sustainability and Environment. They've been doing a lot of hard work on these programs and on trying to help understand the best way for the city to move forward. And I don't want I want to make sure folks understand that I'm very supportive of the programs themselves. But I have heard from families in my district, at least, who are very concerned about the expense of a heating oil conversion, worried that it would be cost prohibitive for them even with the support that would be offered by this program. I know that the Office of Sustainability and Environment folks see this as a tax on oil dealers and on just the notion of dirty oil. But the reality is that this would very likely get passed on to families. And so the proposed delay would put a pause on some of the activities mentioned. But we do have a jumpstart fund funds. The Jumpstart spending plan allocates 9% of tax proceeds for investments to advance Green New Deal initiatives. The Green New Deal Advisory Board was recently seated and is beginning its work. So when I spoke with O.C. and with the board advisor, the staff specifically, as we indicated, that the board, you know, this could be something that they include in their discussion and in their recommendations for the 2023 budget process. So again, I want to be clear, I'm not objecting to the program itself. I think it's important that we move Seattleites away from a reliance on fossil fuel to more efficient, sustainable heating and cooling. But I am asking for a pause on implementation of this tax because it is a regressive tax and we need an opportunity to find a different revenue source. So I'm happy to take questions if there are any questions. But but I do think that we need to make sure we have state and local systems set up to help those who can't afford this conversion and can't afford to pay the tax. And we aren't quite there yet. So I'm hoping for basically maintaining status quo while we give the Green New Deal Oversight Board an opportunity to study this and bring some recommendations to us.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Casper Morales. Are there any questions for Councilmember Morales? All right. Not seeing any. Will the clerk please call the roll?
Speaker 2: Also member Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember must get off I. Councilmember Nelson.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Pierson.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Strouse.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Herbold. Yes. And Council President Suarez. I eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The motion carries, the bill passes and the chair will sign. It will Leclerc, please. To fix my signature to the legislation. So let's move on to item number two. Councilmember Herbold but in a minute. Clerk Can you please read that into the record? Agenda item to the Council Bill one 2272 Relating to staffing shortages in the Community Safety Communication Center and the Seattle Police Department retroactively authorizing a one month Irene bonus incentive program for Harry 911 dispatchers and police officers and ratifying confirming certain prior acts.
|
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_03012022_CB 120272
|
Speaker 1: Agenda item to the Council Bill one 2272 Relating to staffing shortages in the Community Safety Communication Center and the Seattle Police Department retroactively authorizing a one month Irene bonus incentive program for Harry 911 dispatchers and police officers and ratifying confirming certain prior acts. Thank you. I move to pass council bill 120272. Is there a second second? It's been moved and seconded and let's move forward. Casper Herbert, this is yours. It's all you.
Speaker 4: He said it's council bill 1202 72 provides retroactive approval for $220,000 in bonuses for five police officers in 14 901 dispatchers who are hired during the month of January 20, 22. Last October, former mayor issued an emergency order to provide for hiring bonuses for officers and dispatchers. Council allowed that emergency order to go forward, but voted to modify the emergency order to limit on his program the end of 2021. No funding was included in the 2022 budget. There were proposals for for funding a bonus program, including one that I co-sponsored. Council adopted a request for a report. Mark would be due on March 1st on a potential citywide bonus program and voted and the emergency order again at the end of 2021. Spoke to the mayor's office about yesterday and we are carefully examining this issue and have let us know that we can expect receive a report on a city wide program in mid-March. To the saga of the n uary extension. Contrary to the council's action. I just want to note that for the for the public record that the departments continued the bonuses after receiving a directive from the former mayor on December 30th, 6 p.m., claiming that the council's action limit executive order was not accurate . And the U.S. Attorney's Office has noted that they provided no such advice and we may not know what more can mean. We wrote based on consultations with legal counsel, it has been concluded the city council's action to limit the emergency order were not effective. I discovered in late January that is incentive was still being offered.
Speaker 1: I really sincerely appreciate that.
Speaker 4: Seattle Police Department, with Diaz's direction, provided Mayor Durk and Senator direct of us exactly as soon as I inquired about the situation of the bonuses. And I thank the Herald administration immediately in both departments to cease offering the bonuses as soon as they found out about this. We are committed to working together to ensure the officers and partners for the bonus are provided with it and this legislation is the result. I'm very grateful the administration is taking a collaborative approach to governing is a relief. Have a mayor and an administration that recognizes council support as we work to resolve together.
Speaker 1: If you cancel a rehearsal, are there any comments or concerns before? If I do need to suspend the rules, which I don't see that happening yet, are there any comments or questions or concerns for cast member her? Okay. I see none. So with that, I no need to suspend the rules. Will the clerk please call the role of the passage of the bill?
Speaker 2: That's my brother.
Speaker 3: Is there still a debate happening here?
Speaker 1: Yeah. You came in a little late. Do you want to speak? You can.
Speaker 3: I just wasn't quite sure if we were asking questions of central stuff first.
Speaker 1: Well, I was I got a move to suspend the rules to do that, but I didn't see anyone raise their hand. Okay, now we got to. Okay. So do you have questions for Councilmember Herbold or do you have questions for Ali Petrucci.
Speaker 3: And some questions for Central satisfy me.
Speaker 1: Okay. So let me move to suspend the rules so we can allow Ms.. Pinochet to respond. If there's no objection, the council rules will be suspended to allow the new acting director for central staff to address any questions or concerns council any council member may have. All right. See? No objections. The rules are suspended. Go ahead, Casper Mosqueda.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. And I did see Councilmember Morales's hand up first before me. I'm happy to wait my turn as well. Okay. Thank you very much, Councilmember Herbold, for the summary of this legislation either. The important thing here, I think, to underscore is that this legislation is not something that was council driven. This is the council trying to be responsive to a situation that's been forced upon this council yet again by the previous mayor. The mayor, former Mayor Durkan, who adopted an emergency order on October 29 of last year, offered dance and bonuses as counts, as Councilmember Herbal noted. But I think what's important to note is that it's very clear that council had expressed that we would be voting to modify that ordinance on November 22nd. In addition to that, I want to just ask Ali Punchy a question about the specific provisos that were placed not on the Community Safety Communications Center, but on the Seattle Police Department. Ali, can you please from excuse me, Deputy Director Fiduciary, could you please remind me about how the letter that was sent on December 31st by the mayor violates what the council had put in place regarding provisos on Seattle Police Department spending.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Good afternoon. Council President whereas chair mosquito council members and the I don't have the letter in front of me, but in general, when the Council adopted the 2022 budget, they also adopted a resolution modifying the emergency order that former Mayor Durkan had issued authorizing the hiring incentives. The modification to that emergency order only provided authorization to provide hiring incentives to speed officers, as well as DCC dispatchers through the end of 2021. And the assumption was that they would use 2021 salary savings to cover those costs. It did not provide any authorization to offer hiring incentives beyond that date. In addition, the budget adoption ordinance imposed a proviso on Spd's 2022 budget prohibiting the use or the spending of any salary savings that they might achieve in 2022 on any for any purpose without authorization from the Council. So what that means is there was a budget provided for the assumed staffing plan for SPD for 2022. Any sort of delay in hiring or not filling positions results in some salary savings. SPD does not have authorization to spend any of those salary savings unless specific authority is provided by the Council. So that means when Mayor Former Mayor Durkan issued a letter to the Seattle Police Department and the Community Safety and Communication Center, directing them to continue giving the hiring incentives, it was both in violation of the emergency order that the Council had modified, as well as the proviso, because there was no budget authority for SPD to provide those the payments of hiring incentives in it. So so in this bill, what it does is it says that it provides retroactive authority only for those offers made in January of 2022 and allows provides the authority to spend $50,000 of spd's salary savings to make those payments. The CSC does not need that same authority because the Council did not restrict the use of salary savings as long as they are generally using the funds consistent with the intent of the budget summary level that those funds were appropriated to the CSU. So you can just make the payments for speedy needed authority from the council.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Energy customers are Moscow. Did you have any follow up before I go to Cast Member Morales?
Speaker 3: Well, I did have one follow up, if I might, Madam President. You know, when I looked at this legislation and again, I want to I want to note the unfortunate situation that we're in. I don't think it's fair to the employees who've been offered employment or a hiring bonus. And it's not fair to this council who was very clear about our intent, both related to policy and the specific provisions placed on the provisos within Seattle Police Department. And I'm thankful to those who've accepted employment offers and want to serve as public servants to the city of Seattle. But wanted to be clear that we had provisions in place expressly trying to have a policy conversation around hiring bonuses for this year that Councilmember Herbold had noted and also on budgetary, had intentionally had a proviso that was in scope intending to really keep an eye on Spd's funding. So as we look at Seattle Police Department specifically in recognizing that's only about $50,000 of the total amount here. I did ask central staff it was possible to amend the legislation to recoup the specific amount that is being offered for individuals to a city. From the author of that letter, being the former mayor is correct that the existing title does not allow for me to make that type of amendment this and this ordinance here today.
Speaker 1: So did you have a question of Miss Bonacci, or are those your general comments in regards.
Speaker 3: Know that that last sentence was a question? Deputy Director If an issue, is that correct, that I cannot amend today's legislation given the current title?
Speaker 5: That is correct. The title doesn't account for that scenario, and we would need to do additional work to understand if that is legislatively possible to do.
Speaker 3: That's my questions, Councilperson.
Speaker 1: Okay, good. Thank you. Councilman Morales.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Council president, I. I think. Councilmember points covered what I wanted to ask and just want to state that I look forward to working with the mayor who understands and respects the separation of powers and brings some management experience to the executive branch. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay. So now that we have suspended the rules, allowed council members to ask questions of the acting director, Ali Panaji, are there any other general comments before I call? Ask the clerk to call the roll or the vote. Oh, healthcare mosquito.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Again, I want to thank the chair of finance as his vice chair of finance, chair public safety for the work that she's doing here. And the senior deputy mayor, along with the Herald administration for quickly calling attention and a stop to this practice, echoed Councilmember Morales's sentiment of the importance of equally important but separate branches of government working together on these issues moving forward. I will continue calling to see what we can do to look for other ways to recoup the expenses specific to SVT. But in this legislation, it doesn't sound like it's possible to do that. I do think it's in on the factors that led us to this decision today are really unacceptable and look forward to addressing those with your colleagues and the current mayor in a different venue. Not supportive of how we got here, but due to the position that we're in, I will be supporting this in this moment, but we'll be looking forward to having greater reconciliation on both the finances and the policy that led us here after today.
Speaker 1: Member Herbold, is there anything else you want to add before we go to the vote? Over to you. Okay. Thank you. So will the clerk please call rule on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 2: Councilmember Lewis?
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Morales. As Councilmember Mosqueda Councilmember Nelson.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Strouse.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Herbold. Yes. And Council President Suarez. I n favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The motion carries. The bill passes. The chair will sign it. And will the clerk please affix my signature to the bill? Let's move on to item number three for Councilmember Nelson. Madam Clerk, will you please read item number three into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to staffing shortages in the Community Safety Communications Center and the Seattle Police Department; retroactively authorizing a one-month hiring bonus incentive program for hiring 911 dispatchers and police officers; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_03012022_CF 314441
|
Speaker 1: So, Madam Clerk, will you please read item into the record? Report of the Land Use Committee agenda item for a quick file. 314441 application of Wallace Properties Park at Northgate LLC for a contract result of a site located at 10735 Roosevelt, way northeast. The committee recommends that the court file be granted as conditions. Ben Clark My understanding is that I just hand it over to Councilmember Strauss. I don't move it. There's nothing to move the clock file. I believe so. Amelia, can you confirm, please?
Speaker 2: That's correct. Council President Flores. Council members also provide the committee report on the recommendations of the committee.
Speaker 1: Okay, great. Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Capps President Clerk File 31441. As you mention, is the application for a contract breakdown of 10735 was about waive work fees from our 3m2pmr. With that one suffix. This is an application for a contract free zone of two parcels located at 10735 and 10713 Roosevelt way northeast of the 55 the North Cape Urban Center from low rise three with a mandatory housing affordability designation to mid-rise with a higher two one mandatory housing affordability designation. The two parcels are adjacent to the natural area on Thornton Creek, which includes an environmentally critical multiple environmentally critical areas. The sites are about 5.5 acres in total. Unlike most contract rezoning applications we see, this application does not include a concurrent master use permit application. We did see this once before in the last few months with another location of 3050 Northeast Fire Recall correctly. This means that future development of the site will still require a master use permit application and all of the associated reviews at best. There was one appeal filed to the CPD decision for its application, which was dismissed by the hearing examiner. The hearing examiner recommended approval of the application with several conditions which are contained in the court file. One condition was that the developer assigned an environmentally critical area covenant restricting the future development within the riparian management area on site. As you heard me mentioned yesterday, I would only bring this contract zone forward if that agreement had been finalized. And Kettl Freeman of Council Central Staff has confirmed we received the signed and finalized agreement, which should be which is reflected in the register and is sent out to all legislative to all council members earlier today. Additional conditions recommended by the hearing examiner include that the future development will comply with the MHRA with MHRA by building affordable units on site, and that future development on the north site will provide a pedestrian connection, a public pedestrian connection between Roosevelt Way and Eighth Avenue. Thank you. Council president, that is the committee report on the Clarke file. Up next will be the council bill that is associated and that is the item which I believe you have to be.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you for that, Councilmember Strauss. Before we get to item number five, so with item number four in the clock file, are there any comments for Councilmember Strauss? All right. Not seeing any. Will the clerk please call the rule on granting the clerk file as conditions are as explained by Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 2: Council member, Lewis.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Morales?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember must give up.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Nelson.
Speaker 4: AI.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Herbold. Yes. And Council President Juarez.
Speaker 1: High.
Speaker 2: Eight. In favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The clerk file is granted as condition, and the chair will sign the findings, conclusions and the decision of the city council. Will the clerk please a signature to the findings, conclusions and decision of the City Council on my behalf. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Moving to item number five, it's Councilmember Strauss again, madam. Please read item five into the record. Agenda item five Council Bill one 2275 Relating to land use and zoning amending Chapter 23.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
Clerk File (CF)
|
Application of Wallace Properties - Park at Northgate, LLC for a contract rezone of a site located at 10735 Roosevelt Way NE from Lowrise 3 with an M Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) suffix (LR3 (M)) to Midrise with an M1 MHA suffix (MR (M1)) (Project No. 3033517; Type IV).
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_03012022_CB 120275
|
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Moving to item number five, it's Councilmember Strauss again, madam. Please read item five into the record. Agenda item five Council Bill one 2275 Relating to land use and zoning amending Chapter 23.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code. At Page 16 of the official land use map to rezone two parcels, the committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you, Councilmember Strauss. Chair of the committee. You are recognized.
Speaker 0: Go ahead. Thank you. Counsel Present Colleagues Council Bill 120275. Is the Associated Counsel bill with the clerk file we just discussed? So this is the correspondent counts bill for the contract reason we just approved it. Effectuate the rezone of these two parcels as you as usually occurs when we approve contract reasons, we will have to amend the Council Bill to have executed property use and development agreement, in part to ensure that the record does reflect the protections, the covenants for the environmentally critical areas. With that, I move to amend Council Bill 120275 Exhibit B by substituting the UM executed property use and development agreement with the executed properties and development agreement.
Speaker 1: Second. Can I do that?
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Okay. So council member Strauss moved it. Council President Seconded. Are there any comments on the substitute? Okay. I'm not seen any. So we will move forward. Will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the substitute to Exhibit B?
Speaker 2: Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Morales?
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember must gather. I Councilmember Nelson.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Council member paterson.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 2: Council member Strauss.
Speaker 0: S.
Speaker 2: Council member herbals and Council President Plus.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: H in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: So the motion carries in the substitute is adopted and the amended bill is now before council. Are there any further comments on the amended bill? All right. I do not see any. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the amended bill?
Speaker 2: Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember what else?
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Mosqueda. Councilmember Nelson, I. Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Strouse.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Herbold. Yes. And Council President Juarez. I h in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The bill passes as amended, and the chair will sign it. And will the clerk please to fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Thank you. So we have adoption of other resolutions on our agenda, and item number six is mine. So, madam, could we please read number six into the record? Agenda Item six Resolution three 2045. Adopting statements of legislative intent for the 2022 adopted budget and 2023 2027.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending Chapter 23.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code at page 16 of the Official Land Use Map to rezone two parcels located at 10735 Roosevelt Way NE from Lowrise 3 with an M Mandatory Housing Affordability Suffix (LR3 (M)) to Midrise with an M1 Mandatory Housing Affordability Suffix (MR (M1)); and accepting a Property Use and Development Agreement as a condition of rezone approval. (Application of Wallace Properties - Park at Northgate, LLC, C.F. 314441, SDCI Project 3033517-LU)
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_02222022_CB 120267
|
Speaker 1: And items five and six constable went to 0 to 67 in relation to the city's response to the COVID 19 crisis. Amending Ordinance 126 490, which adopted the 2022 budget. Council 120268 Accepting the gift of Google Ad Grant Credit. Committee recommends both bills passed. Thank you, Madam President. Thanks also for allowing me to address these bills together. As you'll recall, last year we passed the Seattle rescue plans one, two and three throughout the year. And we heard in January of this year a report in my committee on the Seattle Rescue Plan one Funding and Implementation Strategies . What is in front of us today in this set of two bills is Seattle rescue plan for this contains almost $2 million in funding for and excuse me $2 million in both funding and an in-kind acceptance, as well as some other technical changes to money already allocated. And those details were run in detail through the committee by the City Budget Office and Deputy Director Alex Nucci. The technical changes that we're making make up makes the ARPA funding easier to track and report. There are no changes to allocation from one time to ongoing funding or vice versa. Happy to provide additional details if necessary, but thanks very much. Central staff for their robust work on this again, Seattle rescue plan. Number four and look forward to continuing to track the legislative session and any future actions from Congress so we can continue to provide needed assistance to those in Seattle.
Speaker 0: So Catherine Mosquito, are you going to. That was item five.
Speaker 1: Madam President, I'm hoping that that addressed both bills together. Council 120267 Item number five and Council Bill 120268. Accepting that if the funds.
Speaker 0: Go out the Google. Okay, Google now. Okay. So are there any comments from council member mosquito regarding items five or six? Not seen any. We will vote on each item separately. Will the clerk please call the roll on passage of item five Council Bill 120267.
Speaker 1: Council Member Herbold. Yes. Council Member Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: S Council Member Mosquito Council Member Nelson i council member Petersen.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Council member. So what? Yes. Council member strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council President Suarez. I h in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? So are there any questions regarding item six before we go to a vote on that? See none. Well, the clerk please call the roll on passage of item number six Council Bill 120268.
Speaker 1: Council member Herbal. Yes. Council member Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council member Macheda. High Council member Nelson. Councilmember Nelson. Okay. Councilmember Peterson, I. Thank you. Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Swan.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council President Juarez high eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? So now we're going to go to neighborhoods education, civil rights and Culture Committee, which is Councilmember Morales, which are item seven and eight. Madam Clerk, will you please read item seven and eight into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE related to the City’s response to the COVID-19 crisis; amending Ordinance 126490, which adopted the 2022 Budget; accepting funding from non-City sources; changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various funds in the 2022 Budget; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_02222022_CB 120256
|
Speaker 1: Reporter The Transportation and utilities committee. Excuse me. Transportation. Seattle Public Utilities Committee. Agenda Item 12 Council Vote 120 256 Relating to street and sidewalk use amending ordinance 126 474 and the street use permit fee schedule. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Strauss. So are you.
Speaker 2: Good afternoon, Council president colleagues, bringing forward to you a bill I have brought to you before, which is extending the sidewalk and outdoor dining permits. So we're extending the free outdoor dining permits. And my apologies. I thought we were into Zoom for all of these years and I didn't get my video. Good to see you. Council president. Good to see colleagues here. I am speaking into a black box moving forward. As I brought this legislation to you in the past, I bring it to you again today. I may bring it to you once more before we finalize these these outdoor dining permits, because it is important to give businesses , residents and all of Seattle, all Seattleites, the opportunity to weigh in and create the right sized regulations for our outdoor dining. Outdoor dining has been something that some have been interested in for many years in Seattle. And I can tell you during the pandemic, it has been widely accepted and celebrated. And now that means that we need to change how our guidelines, permits and parameters are set so we can best set up our businesses. In the past, we've charged fees that were associated with parking costs for that parking stall. And that's just a it's a blunt tool that's not right size. So I'm looking forward to getting our final regulations from START. And this legislation will extend free permits so that business owners have the consistency that they need to know how to plan for the year. And so these cafes, street outdoor dining permits will be extended until January 31st, 2023. Last year we passed legislation introduced to extend the permits until May 30th, 2022. These long extensions are intended to allow City Council time to work with stakeholders and adults through this program while providing restaurants the predictability, stability they need to retain and improve their outdoor structures. So with this extension, it's one part in the pathway to permanence that I've laid out for cafe streets and outdoor dining. And again, my intention, if we aren't able to create those permanent regulations by the end of this extension, we'll do this one more time. I do like to do the time duration segments rather than just extending them for a very long time. So here we are today. I urge a yes vote at this very popular outdoor dining bill.
Speaker 5: Thank you, guys.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Strauss, are there any questions or concerns that we want to ask of Councilmember Strauss? Seeing a hearing done with the court called the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Macheda I. Councilmember Nelson. I. Councilmember Petersen. Councilmember. So. Yes. Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council. President Suarez. I ain't in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: Moving on to item number 13. Will the clerk please read item number 13 into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to street and sidewalk use; amending Ordinance 126474 and the Street Use Permit Fee Schedule authorized by Section 15.04.074 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and amending Section 2 and Section 3 of Ordinance 126339.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_02152022_CB 120253
|
Speaker 0: Wait. Hold up, buddy. Well, the clerk, please. The item into the record, and then you can have the floor. Mr. Strauss, media reports reported the Land Use Committee. Item one Council. Bill one 2253 relating to flood plains. Second extension of interim regulations established by Ordinance 126 113 for an additional six months to allow individuals to rely on updated national flood insurance rate maps to obtain flood insurance through the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Program and amending Section 25.0 6.110 of the single municipal code. The committee recommends that the Council bill pass. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Councilmember Strauss, you are the chair of the committee. It's all you.
Speaker 2: Thank Council President Suarez. Thank you, colleagues. Council Bill 120 253. As the clerk mentioned, relates to flood plains. This is the second extension of interim regulations which will last for six months. By way of background, in July of 2020. We adopted interim floodplain regulations that reflect FEMA's updated flood insurance rate maps for King County. These updated regulations are necessary to remain and compliant for us to remain in compliance with FEMA policies and with the National Flood Insurance Program. Last year, we did extend these interim regulations for an additional year to allow STSCI to create permanent regulations. Those permanent regulations have now been drafted but are currently being challenged with the appeal from the Court of Seattle. And we are working to address those concerns and mediate that that appeal. This letter, which is going through the hearing examiner and there's a formal process for this to be resolved. This legislation will extend the interim regulations for an additional six months to allow us to remain in compliance with the national flood insurance programs. While the court's appeal is being resolved again through the hearing examiner. It also provides one technical correction to a drafting error in the previous interim regulations. Thank you, Council President. Thank you, colleagues. That is the committee report.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Strauss, was there any comments regarding this ordinance? All right. Not seen any. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Councilmember Strouse.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Herbold That's. Councilmember Lewis, yes. Councilmember Morales Yes. Councilmember Mosqueda, I. Councilmember Nelson. Hi. Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Councilmember one. Yes. Council President Juarez. I am in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Leclerc, please affixed my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Moving on into the agenda, into item number two, will the clerk please read item number two and to the record adoption of other resolutions? Item two, Resolution three, 2042. A resolution calling for a special election to fill a vacancy in the city, employee elected position on the Civil Service Commission and directing the city clerk to administer the election. Thank you, Madam Clerk.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to floodplains; second extension of interim regulations established by Ordinance 126113 for an additional six months, to allow individuals to rely on updated National Flood Insurance Rate Maps to obtain flood insurance through the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Flood Insurance Program; and amending Section 25.06.110 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_02012022_CB 120259
|
Speaker 4: Economic Development Technology Institute Committee Agenda Item two Constable 120 259 relating to the satellite department authorizing directing the general manager and chief executive officer of satellite to execute an ensure local agreement with the Kalispell tribe.
Speaker 3: Of Indians. The committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Nelson, it looks like this is coming out of your committee. You want to walk us through this?
Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. This legislation renews an interlocal agreement between the city of Seattle and the Kalispell tribe and is the funding mechanism for ongoing development of a skilled workforce and cultural diversity in the communities surrounding the boundary. Hydroelectric Project First Entered into in 2016. This Interlocal agreement commits the city of Seattle to $215,000 over the course of five years and during the lat. So that's the nuts and bolts of it. And just to give you a sense of what this funding does, and we do partner with other entities to support the training center. But during the last five years, the Kalispell Career Training Center had 28 people pass through the apprenticeship program with 15 of those individuals working full time. The one year check in and some of the graduates have gone into full certification in journey level trades such as plumbing, carpentry, residential electricity, welding and fabrication and others. So this will go on for five more years. And the committee unanimously recommended that the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Are there any questions for Councilmember Nelson regarding this? Okay. Not seen any. Well, the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Peterson?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Sergeant. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Sara Nelson. I council president Morris. I favored unopposed.
Speaker 0: IQ. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Madam Clerk, please affix my signature to this legislation on my behalf. Move it into item three. Will the clerk please read the item into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; authorizing and directing the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of City Light to execute an Interlocal Agreement with the Kalispel Tribe of Indians.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_02012022_CB 120260
|
Speaker 4: Agenda item three Constable one to 0 to 60 related to the city department authorizing the department to accept a sole owner of fiber, cable and associated facilities previously shared with the University of Washington in ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Nelson.
Speaker 4: All right. Well, this legislation gives the city give city light the authority to accept full ownership of a 9.9 mile section of over cable that it currently shares with the University of Washington. You just doesn't need that capacity anymore, and the city could use it. The cable runs from the intersection of Northeast 245th Street and 37th Avenue, Northeast in Seattle, to the intersection of 228th Street, Southeast and 29th Drive Southeast in Bothell. And so I just want to let you know that no money is changing hands here. The city of Seattle is not buying back this capacity because we don't lease out this shared use. And taking exclusive use of this of the section does not encumber the city with any significant future expenses because the cable was was recently upgraded or replaced in 2019 and the committee recommended that the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Nelson, are there any questions for Councilmember Nelson? Okay. See, not will the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 2: Peterson Yes.
Speaker 1: So on, yes. Strauss Yes. Herbold Yes. Lewis. Yes. Morales. A mosquito i nelson.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Council president. Whereas I. Nine in favor and unopposed. Thank you.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Let's go to item number four and Councilmember Nelson. I'm sorry. Will the clerk please read item? Forward to the record. And then Councilmember Nelson.
Speaker 4: Agenda item four Resolution.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; authorizing the Department to accept as sole owner of fiber cable and associated facilities previously shared with the University of Washington; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_01252022_CB 120119
|
Speaker 2: Agenda Item one Constable 120119 relating to employment in Seattle and many sections 100.025 and Section five of Ordinance one two 6 to 74. And to establish a new date for ending hazard pay requirements and automatically repealing the ordinance.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. I'm calling up the reconsideration of passage of Council Bill 120119 to consider passage of the Bill and the Mayor's veto. The reconsideration of Council Bill 120119 is now pending before the Council. Before I go to my colleagues for some comments, I want to add I want to add a few. I want to kind of contextualize where we're at with this particular ordinance and what we're doing here today. And then I'll go to my colleagues for some comments. First of all, thank you, Corina Bull, for pulling this together for me and our own surveys. Who put this together for me this morning? So I just want to put how this how we got here today. So for reference, this is a quick hazard pay timeline. So on January 5th, 20/25, 2021, exactly one year ago today, council passed emergency ordinance establishing hazard pay for grocery employees and the vote was 8 to 0. Everyone voted yes and I did not vote because I was not here. So anyway, then on February 3rd, hazard pay for grocery for grocery ordinance for the grocery ordinance went into effect. And then from there, we started with Council Bill 120119, which is what's before us today. And those were the amendments to the hazard pay for the grocery employees. That is, that this would be the bill to end hazard pay requirements upon the effective date of the ordinance. And again, that's what's before us today. So on July 9th, 2021, out of Councilmember Mosquito's Committee, Finance and housing, the bill was voted out of committee vote 2420. And in favor of that vote were Council member Chairman's Data Council President Gonzalez. Councilmember Lewis. And I believe Councilmember Herbold abstained. Then on July 27th and August 9th and September 13th, this Council held the bill on those three dates. On July 27th, Council voted to hold passage of the bill 7 to 0. Not present was Councilmember Morales and mosqueda on August 9th. This council again voted to hold passage of the bill. It was 8 to 0. The only person not present that day was Council President Gonzalez. Then on September 13th, Council voted again to hold passage of the bill. It was a 9 to 0 vote. So everybody voted yes on September 13th to hold passage of this particular bill. This bill then were to the full council again on Monday, December 13th, 2021, and the vote was 8 to 0 to end hazard pay. Everyone was present except for council members to want. So that's why the vote was 8 to 0. So on December 27th, 2021, Mayor Durkan got this piece of legislation and she vetoed it and returned the bill back to council. So here we are today, exactly one year to the day, January 25th, 2022. So Council will have an opportunity to reconsider passage of the bill. So I am going to at this time turn it over to any of my colleagues that may have some comments to say. And then I'm going to give some instruction about how we're going to vote on this. So with that, I'm going to open up the floor. Colleagues. Councilmember Herbold. I see your hand is up.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. Madam President, your sharing of the history of Council's decision to not act on the suspension of hazard pay on several occasions over the last last several months. And appreciate that that. That those actions that the council has taken in the past to do not vote on this legislation reflected the uncertainty that many council members had around the timing. When I did vote on the hazard pay, the ending of the hazard pay, the legislation, I did say publicly at that time that I recognize that we may need to revisit it because of the uncertainty. And this was this vote was more than just a little bit more than a week before the surge. So I'm concerned. Hasn't happened yet. Many of us, myself included, said when we voted on the the termination of hazard pay, that that we may need to revisit it and that we recognize that public health is the number one priority as we continue to get it. Advice from public health officials. We must react quickly to protect the health and safety of our constituents. I issued a statement after the mayor's veto of the council's bill saying that I supported it and I'm glad to be here today to affirm my my support of continued hazard pay for these frontline workers at essential businesses. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilor Herbold, is anyone else that would like to comment? Councilmember Nelson. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. President Suarez. I'm going to vote in favor of the substitute because I think you did the right thing in December in sunsetting the $4 an hour hazard pay increase, which you passed as emergency legislation before the vaccine was widely available. And now 87.5% of residents over 16 are vaccinated in five, five years and 83% are vaccinated. So, you know, there Durkan vetoed Council Bill 120119, which repeals hazard pay shortly after, maybe just days after Obama came on the scene and before we knew anything about its transmissibility or its virulence. And now, according to public health officials, seems to be going in the right direction. It's anticipated that it'll peak in February and locally. The Seattle King County Public Health Dashboard shows today that the number of new cases in Seattle is down 49% from last week. So the point is that conditions have changed. And since your original legislation know Washington in it's official I mean it's it's reopened officially and in June schools are back open for in-person learning. Just today, UW announced that it will go back to in-person and our own libraries are reopened and our librarians aren't getting hazard pay. So here's why this matters. I have spoken with PCC and the independent grocers, and they're really struggling with this with this significant pay increase. I'm concerned about their viability because if they close those jobs go away and the neighborhood loses that asset. And, you know, there was one example, the grocery outlet in District two that did close. So that is why I'm concerned. And we're not talking about Kroger here. We're talking about large the family owns some, many of them family owned. And if they don't raise their if they don't close, they might have to raise their their prices. And we already know what's happening with prices and with all the supply chain problems. They're already going up and working families are hurting. So that is the crux of the matter for me. If we vote no on this legislation, in other words, sustain the mayors, veto this hazard pay increase, will increase indefinitely until the mayor calls an end to the civil emergency. And right now, most of the other jurisdictions have already sunset or repealed their hazard pay. I think that maybe you're in Edmonds are two exceptions, but the vast majority, pretty much all of them have ended this. And the United Food Workers of America Local 21 didn't signal its green light for the repealing of hazard pay, and I believe that they were already negotiating a contract. So that work is ongoing right now. And it was said in committee in December that this legislation was not intended to be a permanent wage replacement. And so let's let wages be dealt with in contract negotiations. So if we pass this proposed substitute, the $4 an hour wage will be in effect for another month to 30 days. We're likely to have more information about it at that point. And I believe that this thing is going to keep changing all the time. We don't know now there's a new unaccompanied. But the point is we have to follow the recommendations of public health officials. And that is and and the mayor's letter in vetoing this said that I'll quote it in the new year, the the incoming administration in the city council will have the benefit of much more information regarding on the front end its impacts. If you work with organized labor other workers in impacted businesses to evaluate the appropriate next steps. And I think that we're at that time for appropriate next steps, and that is why I am going to vote in favor of this legislation.
Speaker 0: And. Q Councilmember Nelson, is there any one else, Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 3: If you council President Juarez colleagues, as you know, I voted for the original bill in January of 2021 to support Seattle grocery workers and require their employers to provide hazard pay. I also supported efforts to keep it in place for a full year due in part to the earlier delta variant of the coronavirus. I have been, however, torn about whether to continue to require those payments into 2022. Just a few weeks ago, on December 13, eight of us voted to sunset this hazard pay. I know several of my colleagues, including Kasper, are making good points about why to support and uphold Mayor Durkin's decision a month ago. Ultimately, however, I have decided to be consistent with my December 2021 vote, and so I'll be voting to override the veto of our former mayor so that the hazard pay requirements could sunset in 30 days. I want to acknowledge that frontline workers in numerous industries that bravely serve Seattle every day should not only be paid well, but also be able to work the quantity of hours they need. And a key question for me is when is it a city government's role to intervene and require business owners to pay above their current compensation? The pandemic has spurred the creation and expansion of many relief programs funded by several different sources. And I have supported nearly all of these interventions because the pandemic is an extraordinary crisis warranting extraordinary responses. In my original vote on January 20, 21, a year ago to support grocery workers. It received criticism from several of my constituents when the Cincinnati based Kroger company announced the closing of a cherished QVC grocery store in the Wedgewood neighborhood. But I stand by my original vote a year ago, but I need to explain why I think we should override the mayor's last minute veto of our sunset legislation. Again, Seattle has imposed this special hazard pay for a year. The supplemental pay would not end immediately, but rather after 30 days. Dr. Satechi recently announced that things look like they're going in the right direction. Today, the University of Washington and Seattle University announced they would be returning to in-person classes next week beyond the government imposed minimum wage. I believe workers and their employers should negotiate compensation and benefits without a local government dictating what they must be. The local union, United Food and Commercial Workers, you have CWA Local 21 is very effective throughout Washington state and beyond and advocating for the grocery workers they represent in organizing those who may want to form a union and influencing policymakers. Temporary hazard pay for grocery workers already ended months ago in all 35 California jurisdictions that originally required it. And it is also ended in about half of the Washington state jurisdictions that required ending the hazard pay in Seattle to make it more financially feasible for other stores to move into the Wedgewood location and open stores throughout Seattle or to to remain in business as we strive to emerge from the COVID pandemic. I believe it may be time to transition away from some of the emergency measures we have put in place over the past two years, unless such measures are required by public health authorities or funded by the federal government. And so I'll be voting to override the mayors veto today. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilor Peterson. I see that. Councilmember Swann, you have your hand up. Please.
Speaker 4: What I am, of course, opposing the legislation originally sponsored by self-described progressive councilmember mosquito that would end the $4 an hour hazard pay that grocery workers depend on during this public health emergency. In other words, I am voting to uphold the veto from the outgoing mayor. We know that 300 over 330 community members have emailed the council, saying that the council cannot dare to repeal the hazard pay. We've seen a petition to the council from Trader Joe's workers over 40. What Trader Joe's workers have signed this petition urging the Council to maintain the hazard pay. In December, this bill came to the Council for a vote on a day that I was out sick and scandalously all of the eight other council members were present. All Democrats voted to end the hazard pay for grocery workers. This is totally unacceptable. As I had explained in council meetings throughout last summer when this bill ending hazard pay almost came to a vote several times when the vote was held, which means that the vote was delayed at the time. Grocery workers have risked their lives on poverty wages to make food available to all of society through throughout this crisis. I have repeatedly argued that the hazard pay should not only be maintained for grocery workers, but should be extended to all frontline workers for as long as this public health emergency lasts. To get a sense of how anti-worker the Democrats ending of the grocery worker hazard pay was, consider the study released by the Economic Roundtable of U.S. workers in Washington, California and Colorado. This survey shows that while Kroger CEO made $22 million last year, most of the company's frontline workers faced homelessness, addiction or hunger. The study surveyed a staggering 10,000 workers and found that more than three quarters of Kroger's workers are food insecure. 14% faced homelessness in the past year. And real wages for Kroger workers have decreased in the past few years, while executive profits have increased. The original hazard pay ordinance said that the hazard pay should last as long as the COVID public health emergency lasted, as long as there is an emergency. Hazard pay is really the least that grocery workers should be getting. Former Mayor Durkan vetoed the end of hazard pay, which was not the right thing to do. And we have to be clear that she had no choice but to veto. She's a she was a corporate politician, but she had no choice to veto because the bill came to her desk right when Omicron started sweeping the city council members and as you've heard today, have attempted to excuse their anti-worker vote in December by saying that they could not have predicted on the crime. While it is true that Omicron could not have been precisely predicted, that is not the question at all. The question is why were councilmembers many of these self-described progressive councilmembers so eager to end the hazard pay for grocery workers, so eager that they could not even wait for the official state of emergency to end in our city? At the same time, the city council itself gets to be safe and work from home. Kroger executives get to be safe and work from home. None of these excuses are acceptable. And councilmembers Nelson and Peterson not only say that they believe that voting to end hazard pay in December was the right thing to do, but also say that they're voting to end hazard pay now in the middle of the deadly Omicron surge is just stunning. My allegiance to the is to the grocery workers, not to the bosses at Kroger. I will, as I said, of course, be voting to maintain the hazard pay. I really urge all council members to reverse the scandalous position you took in December and vote to maintain the hazard pay. Finally, I want to urge all council member working people in Seattle to support grocery workers who are rank and file members of your CWA as they fight this year for a decent contract and to stand with Starbucks workers fighting to unionize and to fight and to push for rank and file driven, democratically organized unions. I also want to be you know, I want to say that last year across the country, inflation far outpaced wages. In other words, the average family took a real pay cut, a pay cut in real terms last year because even earned wages may have gone up. In nominal terms, inflation has outpaced it. As an economist, I want to be clear that Councilmember Nelson's assertion that price increases are somehow caused by the tiny wage increases by the lowest wage workers is completely unfounded. I mean, this has no basis in statistical evidence. Wages are falling behind prices. While stock market speculation runs rampant. Grocery workers need hazard pay, but also need a substantial raise, safe working conditions and decent hours. I stand in solidarity with grocery workers, rank and file members of UFW in their fight to protect hazard pay and also with all grocery workers, whether they are unionized or not, who are fighting for this hazard pay and for all non-unionized grocery workers to get unionized and then fight for a good contract. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Swan, before we. Is there anyone else that would like to say before I say a few closing comments? Thank you. CARLSON Swan, thank you for your comments. But I just want to add that members are reminded it is never in order to attack the integrity of your colleagues for why they are voting the way they are voting. Its every member should be reminded that it's never an order to make personal comments or undermine what party any of us belong to. I think everybody is trying to rely on each other and hold each other accountable to the rules of civility, decorum and kindness. So while you may not agree with the vote of our colleagues, Council Member Nelson and Councilmember Peterson, and you may not agree with what you deem any particular party, it's really it's really just isn't helpful for the debate and the civility and for the city council to move forward and to the discussion, quite frankly, about how we approach not just today's work in front of us, but every day the work in front of us. I will add, Councilmember Nelson, you did refer to the mayor's veto letter, which was dated December 27th. I. Madam Clerk, please correct me. That's in the clerk file. Correct?
Speaker 2: The actual mayoral veto letter is part of the record and is on the agenda. Today's agenda as well.
Speaker 0: Okay. And so if somebody who's been listening and wanted to see that letter, they can easily access it.
Speaker 2: That is correct on today's agenda.
Speaker 0: Okay. So with that, is there any other comments? Okay. I don't see any. I'm going to give a few more comments about how we're going to move forward on this vote. So here we go. And again, thank you, Madam Clerk, and thank you, Karina Bole, and for assisting us in getting us through this. The procedural the procedural piece of this. The city council will now vote to reconsider passage of Council Bill 120119 and to either override or sustain the mayoral veto. During Roll Call, council members will either vote I to pass the bill an override the mayor's veto or no to not pass the bill and sustain the veto. If the vote on the motion is tied or two thirds, that is six or more votes. No, the bill fails and the veto is sustained. If the vote on the motion is six or more votes in favor, the bill passes, the veto is overridden, and all provisions within the bill go into effect. Are there any questions on the procedural vote? Councilor Peterson.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President. I might have heard it two different ways. So if we're voting to override. Is that a yes or no?
Speaker 0: I'm just getting to that. So let me get through the rest. All right. I have an A. I'm going to read a little bit more than I'm going to. I'm just going to wrap it up. Okay. As a reminder, council members will either vote yes to pass the bill and override mayor's veto or no to not pass the bill and sustain the veto. Now, let me tell you what this means to me. A vote of yes ends hazard pay. In hazard pay in overrides the veto, and a vote of no would sustain hazard pay. It would not override the veto. So with that, any other questions? Okay. So will the clerk please call the role of on the passage of Council Bill 120119 and the consideration of the mayoral vote.
Speaker 1: Nelson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: PETERSON Yes.
Speaker 4: Sergeant No.
Speaker 2: HERBOLD No.
Speaker 3: Lewis No.
Speaker 1: Morales No. Council President Suarez.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 1: Two in favor. Five opposed.
Speaker 0: So that means the motion fails, correct? Madam Clerk. And the bill does not pass and the veto is sustained.
Speaker 2: Alice. Correct. Council President.
Speaker 0: Okay. So we are done with that. Okay. Can we read the next week under committee reports? We have another vote here. Madam Clerk, can you please. It looks like we have a something from Councilmember Lewis on public assets and the Homelessness Committee. Can you please read that into the record?
|
Council Bill (CB)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to employment in Seattle; amending Sections 100.025 and Section 5 of Ordinance 126274 to establish a new date for ending hazard pay requirements and automatically repealing the ordinance.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_01252022_CB 120258
|
Speaker 2: A report of the Public Assets and Homelessness Committee Agenda Item two Constable 120 258 Accepting the deed to certain real property located at 5910 Corson Avenue South, a933 South Store Street, Seattle for general municipal purposes to be used for consolidation of public libraries, building, maintenance, custodial landscaping, storage and fleet facilities at one site and ratifying confirm said prior acts, the committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Casper Lewis, you're the chair of this committee, and you were recognized to provide the committee report.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Speaker 3: Is your or Madam President, rather, as you're aware, as a member of the committee, we had a robust discussion on this bill in a presentation from interim librarian discussing this property swap of the Georgetown neighborhood to acquire facilities for the library to use for storage and other custodial and maintenance activities to sustain the library system. This was unanimously recommended a deal by the Seattle Library Board and then sent along and referred for the committee's consideration. The committee unanimously recorded this bill out for the consideration, the full council, and that is where we are now happy to answer any supplemental questions or to put this matter to a vote.
Speaker 0: Thank you. With that colleagues, are there any questions or comments that you have for Councilmember Lewis and his proposed ordinance in front of us? See none. Is there anything you want to add towards the end there, Mr. Lewis?
Speaker 3: Oh, no, thank you, Madam President. I'm ready to work.
Speaker 0: And your hair looks fine.
Speaker 3: It's the Omni con here. Now, that's why I got.
Speaker 5: I got to get in to get it taken care of. But I've been.
Speaker 3: Studiously self-isolating as evidence.
Speaker 0: Okay. Oh, no. Right. So. So. Not seeing any comments or questions for Council member Lewis. Will the clerk please call the row on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Nelson. Hi, Peterson.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 1: Sergeant.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 2: Herbold. Yes. Lewis.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Council President Suarez. High seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it with the clerk. Please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Moving on to other business. Is there any other business to come before the council today? See now that old ad that everybody's hair looks good today. So with that, we will see you guys next week at our regularly scheduled meeting on February 1st at 2:00. Have a wonderful afternoon. We are adjourned. Thank you.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE accepting the deed to certain real property located at 5910 Corson Ave South (Parcel A) and 933 S Doris St, (Parcel B), Seattle for general municipal purposes, to be used for consolidation of the Seattle Public Library’s building maintenance, custodial, landscaping, storage, and fleet facilities at one site; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_01042022_CB 120245
|
Speaker 4: Will the clerk please read the short title of item number one? And to the record, the Report of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee. Agenda Item one. Council Bill 120245. An ordinance relating to the Seattle Fire Department's Fire Prevention Services amending sections of the Seattle Missile Code and repealing sections of the Seattle Ms.. Code. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you. Casper Verbal, you are the chair of this committee. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Sir. Madam President, on December 14.
Speaker 4: The Public Safety and Human Services Committee heard Council Bill 12.
Speaker 2: 0245 and unanimously voted it out of committee. The bill amends the C.I.A. code to align with the.
Speaker 4: Current version of the Seattle Fire.
Speaker 2: Code and with Seattle Fire Department.
Speaker 4: Practices.
Speaker 2: The legislation includes an effective date of March 1st, 2022, allowing time for Seattle I.T. to make the requisite changes in the city's permitting system. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilmember Humble. Are there any comments you're seeing or hearing? None. Well, the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill for bold.
Speaker 1: All right. Lewis Hi. Morales. Yes. Machado. I. Nelson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Peterson. Hi. Sergeant. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Council. President. Whereas I nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 4: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And, Madam Clerk, will you please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? We're going to move to items two and three. So will the clerk please read items two and three into the record gender items two and three appointments.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Fire Department’s fire prevention services; amending Sections 22.602.010, 22.602.020, 22.602.045, 22.602.050, 22.602.070, 22.602.090, and 3.102.010 of, repealing Sections 3.16.130 and 22.600.050 of, and adding a new Section 3.16.131 to the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_01042022_CB 120230
|
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The motion carries and the appointments are confirmed. Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. So next we have item number seven, and this will be Councilor Petersen coming out of the Transportation Utilities Committee. Will the clerk please read the short title of item number seven to the Record Report of the Transportation and Utilities Committee Agenda Item seven Council Bill 120230. An ordinance relating to the City Department in excuse me, the City Department, the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation and the Seattle Department of Transportation. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you. Casper Peterson, it's all you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Council president. Colleagues, this bill passed unanimously out of our Transportation Utilities Committee last month. This is the very last in a series of council actions to clean up access and ownership of parcels of land needed to facilitate the Georgetown of South Park Pedestrian and bike trail. This ambitious trail project, which will benefit both District one and two, is already funded by prior council budget actions. It's been gratifying to see Seattle City Lights, Public Utilities, Seattle Parks and Rec and the Seattle Department of Transportation work together collaboratively and seamlessly to shepherd this complex project through the council. The project includes vacating a dead end street nearby at City Lights Cell Service Center that will pave the way, literally and figuratively, for significant public benefits along the trails right of way, including a new future dog park. Again, the Transportation Utilities Committee voted unanimously for this council bill, and I'm hoping for a full support of the council today to move this project forward. I'm getting all choked up about it. Thank you. That's all I have to say.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilor Peterson, are there any comments from our colleagues? Yes, Councilor. I was scared. Of course. All right.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Council president. Councilmember Peterson, thanks for your work on this. I want to thank you, Seattle City Light and Department of Transportation for their joint efforts. As you all know, we worked really hard a few years ago to pass a resolution to make sure that every parcel of public land was being used for the public good and that we prioritize housing. I understand that this property is a public benefit as identified in its origination, and the use of the street vacation requested by City Light clearly identifies that there's going to be a public benefit. But the property did not go through the process outlined in resolution 31829 or Resolution 31424, which is the surplus lands legislation that passed in 2018. Again, my hope is that all pieces of property will explicitly go through the process so that we can continue to show to members of the community how parcels, including those owned by City Light, will be reviewed for potential affordable housing development, even as the first priority remains affordable housing. We know that efforts like the one that Councilmember Peterson just outlined are incredibly important as well to connect community. So I'm very supportive of this legislation. I just want to continue to call out for all of our departments, and this applies to City Light and all of the departments. The importance of us going through this process to show that every parcel is being scrutinized for that level of analysis of whether or not housing is able to be built on the site, and that when we have a parcel that's not suitable for affordable housing, that we make it available for efforts like this to connect communities to create more thriving and and vibrant neighborhoods. And that we want to make sure in doing so, we're leaving no stone unturned in our work to create affordable housing and appreciate that this legislation will go forward today. I support it and I would love to make sure that every department shows the work that they're doing to follow a31 8 to 9 resolution and resolution 31424. I appreciate you taking the moment to have me opine on the importance of those resolutions as it relates to public properties in general. And we'll be supporting this legislation today.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilor. Mosquito Councilmember Peterson, is there anything you want to add? Yeah. Okay, so let's see. Any other comments or concerns? Well, the clerk please call the role on the passage of the Bill Herbold.
Speaker 1: That's Lewis? Yes. Morales. Enthusiastic. Yes. Was I? Nelson, I. Peterson.
Speaker 5: All right.
Speaker 1: So why don't. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Council President Juarez high nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 4: Great. Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation? Okay. So let's moving on. We have adoption of other resolutions and that would be me. I think I have items eight and nine. So will the clerk please read item eight into the record? Agenda item eight. Resolution 232036. A resolution designating the monthly President Pro-Tem of the City Council of the City of Seattle for 2022 2023. Superseding Resolution 31924 introduced today, January 4th.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department, the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation, and the Seattle Department of Transportation; declaring certain real property rights to be surplus to the needs of City Light; authorizing the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of Seattle City Light to execute an easement agreement with King County, allowing the temporary use of a portion of City Light property to resolve the encroachment of an existing structure located on the west side of Boeing Field within the Northeast Quarter of Section 29 Township 24 N Range 4 E and the Southeast Quarter of Section 29 Township 24 N Range 4 E, and increasing the temporary use area authorized by Ordinance 126328 by approximately 207 square feet; and transferring jurisdiction of certain properties located in the Georgetown neighborhood in Section 29 Township 24 N, Range 4 E, from the City Light Department to the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation and to the Seattle Department of Transportation.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_01042022_Res 32036
|
Speaker 4: So will the clerk please read item eight into the record? Agenda item eight. Resolution 232036. A resolution designating the monthly President Pro-Tem of the City Council of the City of Seattle for 2022 2023. Superseding Resolution 31924 introduced today, January 4th. Thank you. I'm honored to adopt resolution 32036. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. Sponsor this resolution. I will address it first. Resolution 32036 designates the monthly president pro tem of the City Council of the City of Seattle for 2022 and 2023, which supersedes Resolution 31924. The general rules and procedures of the Seattle City Council provide that a president pro tem shall be designated every two years on a monthly rotation basis based on seniority. To act in the act. To act in the absence of the President. This resolution includes a table outlining assignments per month for the year of 2022 and 2023. My office sent each of you a copy of this proposed resolution yesterday that this Monday, January 3rd, for your consideration. Are there any comments on the resolution? See none. Well, the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the resolution.
Speaker 1: Herbold Yes. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. MOSQUERA Hi. Nelson, I. Peterson. I want.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss. Yes, council president. Was I nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 4: Thank you. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted. The chair will sign it. And will the clerk please affixed my signature to the legislation? Moving on to item number nine, which is also mine. Will the clerk please read item number nine into the record? Agenda item nine Resolution 32037. A resolution relating to committee structure, membership, meeting times and duties of the Standing Committees of the City of the Seattle City Council for 2022 and 2023 and superseding Resolution 31947 introduced today, January 4th.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION designating the monthly President Pro Tem of the City Council of The City of Seattle for 2022-2023; superseding Resolution 31924.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_12132021_CB 120242
|
Speaker 5: Record board of the City Council? Agenda Item one Council Bill 120242 An ordinance relating to City Employment authorizing the execution of a memorandum of understanding between the City of Seattle, certain city unions, and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. I move to pass Council Bill 120242. Is there a second?
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill as sponsor of the bill. I'll address it first and then I'll open up the floor to any additional comments. Colleagues Items one, two and three. On the agenda are council bills 120242120243 and 120244, which all stem from the work of the Labor Relations Policy Committee and related to 2022 wages for represented and non represented city employees. These three bills are interrelated and so some of my comments will apply to all of the three all three bills rather than each one individually. Specifically related to Council Bill 120242. This bill would authorize the execution of a memorandum of understanding between the City of Seattle and certain city unions, including the Coalition of City Unions, which modifies certain city employees terms and conditions of employment. The memorandum of understanding between the City and the Coalition would last from January 1st, 2022 through January 31st, 2022, and would cover approximately 6028, regularly appointed and temporary city employees represented by the Coalition. The key terms of the Memorandum of Understanding include a 4% area wage income increase for eligible employees, the establishment of two new paid city holidays, Juneteenth, which is June 19, and Indigenous Peoples Day, which is the second Monday in October. And the the additional term of the Memorandum of Understanding also includes an agreement on a collaborative effort to conduct a market wage study to review the city's approach to its compensation philosophy. Because the Budget Office estimates you.
Speaker 5: Guys feel like in year seven.
Speaker 0: Let's hold on, Judy. All right. That's okay. Go ahead and meet yourself and I'll continue. Thank you so much. Okay. The city budget office estimates that the aggregate cost of wages, including other wage related items authorized by separately by other legislation, would be about $37 million in 2022. This estimate would cover wage adjustments for about 10,500 employees, including represented employees in the coalition and coalition unions and most non represented employees, central staff funds that there are sufficient funds to cover the costs of the annual wage increases in planning reserves. As a matter of practice and the city's financial and labor relations policy, these funds are held in planning reserves so that when the city negotiates union contracts, there are funds available to pay for the changes within the parameters authorized by the Labor Relations Policy Committee, a committee in which five council members sit on in conjunction with representatives of the executive, including the director of the City Budget Office. The executive provides notice of the planning reserves in the six year financial plans included with the proposed budget that the City Council deliberates, analyzes, evaluates and votes on yearly. Again, all three of these Council bills that we are voting on today approve labor relations policies and fiscal impacts related to those policies that were established in the parameters set by the Labor Relations Policy Committee. And I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation and the next two bills which we will vote on individually . Are there any additional comments on agenda item one? Council Bill 120242. Hearing, no additional comments will occur. Please call the role and the passage of Council. Bill 120242. Agenda Item one.
Speaker 1: Lewis. Yes. Morales. US must get up. Hi, Petersen.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Strauss. Yes. Verbal? Yes. Whereas I council President Gonzales. I eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please? If it's my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Will the court please read item two into the record?
Speaker 5: Agenda Item two Council Bill 120243 An ordinance relating to city employment providing salary increases for 2022 for certain non represented city job titles and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment; authorizing the execution of a memorandum of understanding between The City of Seattle and certain City unions; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_12132021_CB 120243
|
Speaker 5: Agenda Item two Council Bill 120243 An ordinance relating to city employment providing salary increases for 2022 for certain non represented city job titles and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. I moved to Council Bill 1 to 0 two for three. Is there a second?
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill as sponsor of the bill, or address it first and then open the floor to any additional comments so called. In addition to the item to the comments I made and agenda item one I will add specifically related to Council Bill 120243. This bill would authorize, among other terms, an adjusted wage increase of 4% for most non represented job titles. This agreement would come into effect January 5th, 2022. The wage increase would apply to about 1806 non represented employees. The amount of the wage increase would be consistent with a Y in the memorandum of understanding with the Coalition of City Unions, which we just voted on and passed. That was Council Vote 120242. Historically, the city has provided the same wage increases, benefits and other conditions of employment for non represented employees. As for Coalition members. This is a matter of ensuring equity in the workplace, particularly for and for folks who work in a mixed represented non represented environment in their departments and agencies. With regard to the fiscal impact of this legislation, I will echo the comments that I just made. Those comments relating to the fiscal impact are equally true in the context of this Council bill. So as a result, I would urge my colleagues to support the passage of this Council bill. Are there any additional comments on Agenda Item two Council Bill 120243. Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council president. Appreciate the time to speak to this morning at council briefing these three bills actually for folks in the public interest. The money was set aside, as I understand from our city council, central staff set aside in a line item called planning reserves, which is at the bottom of page 687 of our budget. Thank you.
Speaker 0: It so much consumer. Peterson. Are there any other comments on agenda item two Council Bill 120243. Hearing none. Will the court please call the role on the passage of Council? Bill 120243 Agenda item two.
Speaker 1: Lewis. Yeah. Morales. This was Skinner. I. Peterson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Whereas High Council President Gonzalez. I stayed in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. The bill passes and the chair will sign. It will please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Will the clerk please read item three into the record?
Speaker 5: Agenda Item three Council Bill 120244 An ordinance relating to city employment to be known as the 2022 pay zone ordinance. Adjusting the pay zone structures for 2022 for the city's discretionary pay programs and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment; providing salary increases for 2022 for certain non-represented City job titles; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_12132021_CB 120244
|
Speaker 5: Agenda Item three Council Bill 120244 An ordinance relating to city employment to be known as the 2022 pay zone ordinance. Adjusting the pay zone structures for 2022 for the city's discretionary pay programs and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. I moved past Council Bill 120244. Is there a second second? Thank you so much. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Again, I am the sponsor of this bill, so I'll address it first and then allow others to make comments, if any. Constable 120244 would adjust the pay bands for city discretionary pay programs by slightly more than 7%. Employees in these discretionary pay programs would be eligible for a salary increase within this payment, subject to the discretion of the appointing authority. The Seattle Department of Human Resources Director recommends adjustments to these pay bands every one or two years, depending on the particular program. SDH Hours Director Direct Excuse me. Director did make a recommendation, and the recommendation was to adjust the pay bands by 7.016% to reflect a compounded increase of 2.9%, plus an additional 4% that has been authorized with council bills. 120242 and 120244. The 2022 adopted budget appropriated funds for a 2.9% wage increase for certain non represented job titles in executive departments, in part because these job titles were excluded from the 2.9% wage increase in the 2021 adopted budget due to financial constraints stemming from the COVID 19 economic crisis. Again, I've already spoken to how the city has planned and budgeted for the fiscal impacts of these annual wage adjustments for city employees. And just like I did with the previous two bills, I recommend to my colleagues passage of this legislation. Are there any additional comments on Agenda Item three Council Bill 120244. Hearing none. Will the court please call the roll on the passage of Council Bill 120244. Agenda Item three.
Speaker 1: Lewis. Yes. Morales. Councilmember Morales. Yes. Thank you. Councilwoman Rosetta I.
Speaker 2: Peterson by.
Speaker 1: Strauss?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold? Yes. Whereas I council President Gonzalez. I am in favored and opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the terrible planet will please if it's my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Liquid Please read item four into the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment, to be known as the 2022 Pay Zone Ordinance; adjusting the pay zone structures for 2022 for the City’s discretionary pay programs; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_12132021_CB 120184
|
Speaker 5: Jeff Horwich Council Bill 120184 An ordinance relating to city employee employment, establishing Juneteenth as a legal holiday for certain city employees and illegal parking holiday. Amending other provisions to implement Juneteenth as a legal holiday, conform with state law and make technical corrections and amending sections 4.20.190 and 11.1 4.277 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. I moved to pass Council Bill 120184. Is there a second.
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 6: Second.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. The bill has been moved and seconded. I am going to hand it over to Councilmember Morales, who's the sponsor of the bill to address the item.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Council President. The proposed legislation, as Judy just said, would establish Juneteenth as one of 11 legal holidays for city employees. It would automatically cover non-representative employees and cover represented employees subject to their unions agreement. It would not apply to uniformed police and fire employees as those employees establish their holidays by collective bargaining. It would also establish Juneteenth as one of ten parking holidays. I grew up in Texas. So Juneteenth, the Juneteenth celebration isn't new to me and was made a state holiday in Texas in 1980. And I knew as a kid that this day was really special for our black neighbors. I know that some believe making this a holiday diminishes the uniqueness of the celebration by offering it to everyone. But I think it's important that our country acknowledges slavery. This holiday, as we as we recognize it as a city, also allows us to acknowledge the legacy of trauma for generations of black Americans and to demonstrate an understanding of the need to actively pursue an anti-racist society. So establishing Juneteenth as an official city holiday gives us an opportunity to remark on our progress toward achieving that goal and bring awareness to the work that we still have to do.
Speaker 0: Thank you for those comments. Councilmember Morales, really appreciate your leadership in this area. Are there any additional comments? An agenda item for Council Bill 120184. Seeing any additional hands raised. Again, thank you so much, Councilman Morales, for your leadership in this area. Really appreciate you bringing us forward both in our budget process and in this trailer bill and through our Labor Relations Policy Committee work as well. Please call the roll on the passage of Council Bill 120184. Agenda Item four.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Sarah. Hi.
Speaker 2: Petersen I. Strauss Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold Yes. Whereas I council President Gonzales. Right. Eight in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Well, the Court please read the short title of item five into the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment; establishing Juneteenth as a legal holiday for certain City employees and a legal parking holiday; amending other provisions to implement Juneteenth as a legal holiday, conform with state law, and make technical corrections; and amending Sections 4.20.190 and 11.14.277 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_12132021_CB 120246
|
Speaker 5: Agenda Item five Council Bill 120246. An ordinance relating to the city's traffic code conforming the Seattle Municipal Code with changes in state law, amending sections of the Seattle MRGO Code and adding new sections of the Seattle Municipal to the Seattle Municipal Code.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. I moved past Council Bill 120246. Is there a second second? Thank you so much. It's been moved and seconded to pass the Council bill. Colleagues, this is one of those rare and exceptional circumstances in which the legislation is listed on our agenda as not having a sponsor identified for the legislation before its introduction . As a result, as Council President presiding over these proceedings, I'll go ahead and address the substance of the bill. This is this pro forma council bill would adopt a set of amendments to a traffic code in the Seattle Municipal Code to ensure that it conforms with changes to Washington state law. This represents an annual exercise undertaken by the City and the Council to update our local traffic codes to reflect changes made to the state's traffic code in each legislative session. State law prohibits local jurisdictions from enacting or enforcing any ordinance in conflict with the provisions of state traffic laws. And this legislation would ensure the cities, the city, remains in compliance with applicable traffic laws at the Washington state level. As a result, I do recommend that my colleagues support the passage of this legislation to ensure that we continue to have a municipal code that is in compliance and aligned with state law. Are there any additional comments? Agenda Item five Council Bill 120246. Councilmember Petersen, please.
Speaker 2: Thank you, council president. I concur with your remarks and thank you very much for for handling the remarks on this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 0: My pleasure. Thank you. PETERSON okay, colleagues, any other comments? I'm not hearing any. Will the court please call the rule on the passage of Council Bill 120246. Agenda Item five.
Speaker 1: Lewis. Yes. Morales Scary, I.
Speaker 2: Petersen All right. Strauss Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold Yes. Whereas I council President Gonzalez. I am in favor, not opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. The bill passes and the terrible planet will appear. Please fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Please read item six into the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the City’s traffic code; conforming the Seattle Municipal Code with changes in state law; amending Sections 11.14.055, 11.20.040, 11.20.230, 11.30.040, 11.31.120, 11.34.020, 11.40.240, 11.44.020, 11.44.040, 11.50.320, 11.50.340, 11.53.100, 11.53.120, 11.53.140, 11.53.200, 11.53.205, 11.55.010, 11.55.080, 11.56.025, 11.56.050, 11.56.120, 11.56.350, 11.56.355, 11.58.005, 11.58.195, 11.58.230, 11.70.060, 11.82.520, and 11.84.440 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and adding new Sections 11.14.097, 11.14.712, and 11.70.070 to the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_12132021_CB 120119
|
Speaker 5: The Report of the Finance and Housing Committee Agenda Item seven Council Bill 120119 An Ordinance relating to Employment in Seattle amending sections 100.02025 and Section five of Ordinance 126274 to establish a new date for ending hazard pay requirements and automatically repealing the ordinance. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, because we're our state. You are the chair of this committee. Someone to hand it over to you to provide the committee report.
Speaker 3: You very much council president colleagues, as you'll note on agenda item number seven, there is a substitute version noted on our agenda. I would like to move Council Bill 1 to 0 119 by substituting version two, which is link on today's agenda for version 1a6.
Speaker 0: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adopt proposed substitute version two of Countable 120119. Would you like to address the substitute?
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, as you'll remember at the beginning of this year, in 2021, one of our first acts as a council was to move and pass the legislation I sponsored to pass emergency legislation to provide hazard pay for grocery workers, requiring grocery stores to pay employees an additional $4 an hour to compensate them for the risks to their health and safety and the health and safety of their families, especially before any vaccines were available at the beginning of the pandemic. Many industries were able to go remote to reduced hours to reduce exposure and more. But essential workers, especially in grocery stores who helped to feed the families and to keep families safe, had no choice but to report to work. Many of these grocery workers called in to testify about the health and safety risks that they were facing, including facing unmasked customers, extra cleaning and frequency needed to clean surfaces throughout grocery stores . These stories included examples of customers coughing or arguing about masks and more. We didn't just hear about this during public comment. We also had a panel to provide data and study after study to look at opportunities to protect grocery store workers. One study one study from Boston found that 20% of grocery store workers tested positive for COVID 19, despite 91% of those employees wearing a face mask. The positive rate of infection among grocery store workers was five times as likely for those who interacted with customers on the floor of grocery stores than those who did not. And while hazard pay cannot fix all of those situations, it certainly was one measure that this council wanted to make sure to advance to provide a small boost to workers who are taking these extra risks. We pride ourselves in Seattle being labor leaders on labor standards. And it wasn't just us who recognized these risks at the time of the bill's passage. Cities up and down the West Coast had passed or were beginning to announce legislative efforts to require hazard pay for grocery store workers. This included in California, Berkeley, Long Beach, Los Angeles, San Francisco, West Hollywood, Oakland, once a video, and Los Angeles County when Seattle City Council passed that we were also an impetus for cities in this region and our county to pass hazard pay as well. This legislation was always temporary before vaccinations could be widely available and before other safety measures could be secured and discussed with employers. This legislation was not intended to be permanent wage replacement, which of course I support and have been advocating for and will continue to work with members of CWA 21 and other workers who are on the front line to secure higher wages for our workforce, especially in low wage industries. In our passage of the hazard pay. We noted our intent was to consider modifying or eliminating the hazard pay requirements after four months of implementation and review, current health and safety and economic risks for frontline workers for the COVID emergency to help us with these considerations. On June 15, we had a panel discussion of representatives from grocery workers, the grocery industry representatives, as well as public health. Interim Director Worsham was present with us in that meeting. We celebrated the progress that we made since COVID 19 pandemic started. We had celebrated and acknowledged the work that had gone into making sure that vaccines were more available since the passage of hazard pay. And we also acknowledged some of the real racial disparities in vaccine rates and the need for ongoing measures, including improved protocols, PPE, access, clear mask guidelines and more. During the panel, as well as after, we got a good response from grocery store workers that they would continue to work with us on addressing those solutions. And that includes grocery store employers and employees who were interested in longer term solutions to addressing these disparities. During the panel, we also heard about partnerships with King County Public Health to host grocery store worker vaccination clinics. And I had the honor of volunteering at one of those clinics early on in the pandemic, when vaccines first became available and grocery store workers had access to those vaccinations based on emerging public health data. We held that. We held that the final passage of the amendment to repeal the grocery store worker and hazard pay requirement from July until now. Or they. Indefinitely is the language that we use for when a bill will not be brought up within a 60 day period. Although I am bringing this amendment forward today, I want to be clear about a few things. Number one, we will consider hazard pay again for grocery store workers and other workers if needed, on any new public health data that continues to make itself available. Number two, this hazard pay legislation is not a substitute for long term pay and benefits for workers. Those are conversations we will continue to engage in and encourage between the employer and worker and worker representatives. Number three, this legislation would not have been possible without the direct advocacy of S.W. 21 and grocery store workers calling me and asking for us to do this over the holiday break, which we quickly worked with those workers and all of you on council to pass the hazard pay requirements and work to implement it as soon as possible. This also wouldn't have been possible without the willingness of grocery store employers to advise us on administrative functions and without the collaboration of public health. Seattle, King County and the Mayor's Office. Finally, thanks to the deep engagement that we did with the UAW 21 and the grocers. I am proud that hazard pay has sparked a conversation between them around longer term wins and policy improvements. These will yield a longer lasting and higher level of investment in worker safety and respect beyond this temporary ordinance. This will continue to have beneficial impacts for those grocery store workers. Through the conversations that employers and worker representatives are engaged in. I will also note that of all the California jurisdictions that I noted when they passed their hazard pay legislation earlier this year, those California cities only kept their hazard pay in effect for 120 days. So already in the city of Seattle, we have hazard pay that has lasted twice as long as these California jurisdictions. A full year has been into a full year will be in effect given that the implementation date of this legislation in front of us will not be in effect until January. I am proud that Seattle workers have gone gotten this hazard pay for so much longer than these other cities and jurisdictions. And I'd like to thank all of you for your swift action and your support to pass this at the beginning of the year. And I'd like to continue to lift up the work that is going to have lasting impacts from the conversations that you have S.W. 21 and the grocers are having sparked by the need for additional safety, training and investments and workers that all of us can be proud of at this point. After talking with Public Health Seattle King County. We know that the best way to continue to prevent COVID, especially preventing crime, is to vaccinate, vaccinate, vaccinate and keep those masks on. I'm proud that Seattle workers have been able to keep this hazard pay for the full year. This was temporary in nature. And I am I am thankful that there is going to be a lasting benefit from these conversations beyond just the hazard pay that will result in improved protections and safety going forward. I want to thank such a fruit from my office who's been working on this legislation for the last year. Cory Annable from central staff was always at the ready to help provide additional information and legislative updates and her constant updates with public health as we work to make sure that there was a data informed discussion as we consider any update project to the legislation in front of us. Thank you, colleagues. And with that, I would encourage your support today as we look at longer term benefits that the employers and the workers will continue to work on to protect employees and the public.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Mosqueda are there any additional comments on the proposed substitutes? Councilmember Peterson, Please.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President I just wanted to thank Councilman Mesquita and CW for their commitment to workers and public health and for following through on this, not letting it. It was never meant to be permanent. But but we really I know a lot of people appreciate that there was a commitment to continue to look at indicators, continue to look at trends, and then decide when was an appropriate time and to appreciate this being brought forward and voted on today. Thanks you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Peterson. Any additional comments on a proposed substitute? The hearing, none will the Court please for the role on the adoption of the proposed substitute version two of Council Bill 120119. Again, we are voting on the substitute version of the bill before we vote on the bill as amended.
Speaker 1: Lewis. MORALES Yes. No. Sarah, I am.
Speaker 2: Peterson I.
Speaker 1: Strauss Yes. Herbold Yes. Whereas I council President Gonzalez I aid in favor and oppose.
Speaker 0: The so much the motion carries a substitute is adopted and the amended bill is now before the council. Are there any further comments on Agenda Item seven? Council Bill 120119 as amended to be hearing no additional comments. Will the FERC please call the role and the passage of amended Council Bill 120119. Agenda Item seven.
Speaker 1: Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Mosquera. I. Petersen.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold. Yes. Whereas I. Council President Gonzalez. I aid in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes as amended and the church will sign it. Will the please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the Court please read the short title of item eight into the record?
|
Council Bill (CB)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to employment in Seattle; amending Sections 100.025 and Section 5 of Ordinance 126274 to establish a new date for ending hazard pay requirements and automatically repealing the ordinance.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_12132021_CB 120227
|
Speaker 5: Gender Item nine Council Bill 120227 An ordinance related to street vacations amending Section 15.6 2.090 of the Seattle Municipal Code to exempt publicly funded affordable housing projects from compensating the city for vacations. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Quirk. I'm going to hand it back over to Councilmember Mesquita to address this item.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much, Council President. Colleagues, you've heard me talk about street vacations and the importance of us clearing any fees or hurdles needed to make sure that we can build more affordable housing in the city. Generally, this is now the legislation that helps us move forward this policy commitment into 2022 and beyond. I want to thank Councilmember Peterson, who also had this item up for a briefing discussion in his committee with an agreement that we would have a briefing, discussion and possible vote in mind. This also follows the conversation that we jointly had as a council related to one parcel earlier this year. And so I'm proud that we now have this legislation in front of us removing fees that, quite frankly, go right back to the city of Seattle so that we can clear a path for more affordable housing developers. To be able to build to build affordable housing helps us bring those housing units back on much faster. And I also know that that also comes with a tradeoff. So thank you, Councilmember Peterson, for the work that you've done with Seattle Department of Transportation and support of this legislation ultimately, so that we can help move forward and reduce the fees and thus the barriers to building more affordable housing units. I also want to thank Pastor Willie Seales, who's been working with Lee High, for example, on building this spirit and affordable housing project on church property in the Central District. And with the calls from Pastor Seales and others, we have been able to now move forward on a policy that helps us realize the goal and the desire to make sure that limited dollars, when we are building affordable housing, go directly into building those housing units. For example, without the street vacation that it would only be able to create 45 affordable units with the street vacation. We're now going to be able to see around 68 affordable units. So this has been a great example of how we as a city can work to reduce those barriers and reduce the sort of internal administrative hurdles and fiscal hurdles for community partners as we seek to create more affordable housing. Again, thanks to central staff, the Office of Housing for working with us and Erin House and my office along with Craig for their work on this legislation. I think that this is a win win for everyone as we seek to build more housing as fast as possible.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Mosqueda. Appreciate it. Are there any additional comments on Agenda Item nine Council Bill 120227. Hearing no additional comments. Will the Court please call the roll on the passage of Council? Bill 120227 Agenda item nine.
Speaker 1: Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. ROSQUETA. I. Petersen I. Strauss Yes. Herbold Yes. Whereas I council President Gonzalez I it in favor not oppose.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it will. This affects my signature to the legislation on my behalf. The Court Please read items ten and 11 into the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE related to street vacations; amending Section 15.62.090 of the Seattle Municipal Code to exempt publicly funded affordable housing projects from compensating the City for vacations.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_12132021_Res 32029
|
Speaker 5: Report of the Governance and Education Committee Agenda Item 17 Resolution 32029a Resolution Adopting General Rules and procedures of the Seattle City Council superseding Resolution 31920. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. As Chair of the committee and sponsor of the resolution, I'll go ahead and address this item first and then we have a handful of amendments to consider during today's afternoon session here. So really quickly, colleagues, Resolution 31920 would adopt the Seattle City Council general rules and procedures of the Seattle City Council, which govern both our internal management and the procedures available to the public in order to access our democratic process. The City Council typically conducts a bi annual review of its procedures and rules that guide and facilitate councilmember duties and meeting deliberations. This year has represented a much more robust process than usual, as emphasized by the 15 amendments that were proposed and the 14 changes that were included in the base legislation. So I want to thank you all for your engagement on making sure that we get the council rules set on the right track for the next two years . There are many good policy changes in this resolution, but perhaps the most notable change to the council rules relates to the council meeting schedule. I'm very pleased that the committee adopted amendments to the council rules that will shift our regular council briefings to Mondays at 2:00 PM and change the date of our weekly full City Council meeting from Mondays at 2 p.m. to occur now on Tuesdays at 2:00 pm. I believe that this change will reduce the sometimes enormous amount of work that is required of council members and particularly staff on Saturdays and Sundays, including staff members in the city clerk's office and our I.T. department and other support staff, including our deputy city clerks . It is critical for council briefings and city council meetings to occur effectively and efficiently as a year round governing body, and particularly following the last two incredibly challenging years in which we have done our work entirely remotely. We have to acknowledge the limits on our individual and collective capacity and remember that we are in a marathon, not a sprint. So I'm hopeful that this particular change, along with others in the package, including electronic participation, including voting on resolutions and and other really important amendments on the Council, will help create a more efficient, effective and sustainable legislative process within this this legislative body. There were a few proposed changes to the council rules. That committee decided to take back up the amendments today. Those are the amendments that we will be considering during this discussion now and do want to make sure that I am facilitating the process for folks to be able to consider these amendments. So I'm going to go ahead and ask folks to reserve comments on the rules as a whole until we've considered all the amendments. And we will just focus our comments now and our discussion now on on various amendments that are going to be discussed all, again, consistent with comments and the discussion and the deliberation that we had in the Governance and Education Committee meeting last week on December 8th. I'm not aware of any new amendments being proposed. So these are sort of modifications and revisions or enhancements to policy issues or choices that have already been discussed publicly and in in two committee hearings. So this is our opportunity to make a final policy decision on some of these proposed amendments related to how we how the council will do business over the next two years. So the First Amendment is going to be Amendment eight two. This is an amendment that I am sponsoring with Councilmember Peterson. So I'm going to move to amend Resolution 32029 by adopting Amendment eight to that was recently distributed. Is there a second?
Speaker 2: Second?
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment two as recently distributed again as sponsor of the amendment. I'll make sure to address it first and then I will provide council. In an opportunity as my co-sponsor, to address the item. And then. And then we'll go ahead and open it up for public comment from the rest of our colleagues. The Governance and Education Committee took action on December 8th, as I just mentioned, to adopt an amendment sponsored originally by Councilmember Peterson. I was actually he authored it and I was your official sponsor. Since Casmir Peterson was not a committee member, is not a committee member of the Governance Education Committee. This amendment, authored by Councilmember Peterson, would allow council members to abstain from council votes on resolutions that were referred either to the council directly or to most standing and select committees prior to the council vote. However, council members would not be allowed to abstain from council votes on resolutions that come to the Council with recommendations from the Select Budget Committee based on discussions of various options at the Governance and Education Committee. The amendment before us now, which is Amendment 82, would allow council members to abstain on any resolution that in the in the discretion of the Council President does not retain materially to the city of Seattle. As we discussed during the Governance and Education Committee meeting. This amendment in committee, this amendment would not preclude the placement of a resolution of a resolution on the introduction and referral calendar, but rather would simply signal to Council members that they may now that they now have three different ways that they can vote on a resolution at full council. They can either vote yes, vote no, or abstain. So that that is the effect of the resolution that would be before us. So again, we are switching from the base resolution that included Councilmember Peterson's language that identified that a councilmember may only abstain from a resolution that was coming from the Select Budget Committee to making it a little bit more broader. To say that a council member may abstain from a resolution at full council if the resolution, as determined by the Council President, does not materially pertain to the city to the city of Seattle business. So that is the proposed amendment before us. I'm happy to answer any questions about the substantive amendment, which is fairly simple, I think, and provides an opportunity to to again abstain on only those resolutions that the council president determines are not materially related to the City of Seattle business. Councilmember Peterson, would you like to make any additional comments?
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. Just just briefly, it was fun working with you in your office on this amendment and appreciate bringing this option forward to just give council members additional flexibility and choice to abstain on these types of resolutions. And this brings us closer to Robert's Rules Order Standard and what other Washington citizens are doing. So I appreciate collaborating with us.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilman Pearson. I appreciate the opportunity to work with you and your office as well. Any other comments or questions on a proposed amendment? A two. Oh. Can't remember her. Please.
Speaker 5: I'm so sorry to do this, but I. Even though I really like the direction that things were moving in, in committee, trying to define the types of resolutions that council members were seeking the opportunity to abstain on. And I feel more confident in, for instance, the ability to abstain on resolutions that really relate to international relations, like I that is language that I don't think there would be any unintended consequences with. I am concerned about the unintended consequences of saying of the Council taking an action to say that something isn't city business. And I am just recently working sort of through my thinking on on that with some assistance from the city the city light apartment. And given the concerns I have about the potential unintended consequences. I am not going to be able to vote in favor of this amendment, though I did really like the direction it was moving in.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, any other comments or questions on amendment aid to. Right. Hearing none. Will the court please call the rule on the adoption of Amendment a22 Resolution 32029.
Speaker 1: Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Musgrave I. Petersen I. Strauss Yes.
Speaker 5: Herbold No.
Speaker 1: Whereas yes. Council President Gonzalez I. Seven in favor. One opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. The motion carries, the amendment is adopted and we now have a amended resolution before the council. I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Herbold now, who has a motion to make related to Amendment The.
Speaker 5: Thank you so much. I would move of Amendment B in resolution 31920.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. It's been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment B as recently distributed. I want to hand it back over to Councilmember Rebel to address her amendments.
Speaker 5: Thank you so much. Glad to have this opportunity to bring forward an amendment that speaks to the consideration of how we will be returning to our civic building in the coming year and doing the public's business. Thank you again, Council President Gonzales, for supporting and encouraging all council members to participate in this conversation. The Committee and for originally sponsoring the amendment that I authored regarding E participation. Also appreciate, of course, the collaboration with Councilmember Mesquita, who is a co-sponsor to this amendment and her office to retain to refine the E participation proposal. And please, we were able to come up with a revised amendment circulated this morning. And just the the intent of the of the amendment underscores that when we are returning to our civic building, it is important that we take advantage of some of the lessons that we learned during the pandemic and that robust electronic participation is possible . Previously, council rules allowed for electronic participation in a very specific, very narrow set of circumstances. We have been able to do electronic participation throughout the pandemic only because of the governor's executive order related to the pandemic. So the current proposal states a preference for conducting business in person, but it also allows for electronic participation whenever technically feasible for any reason. And it asks council members to communicate well with the Council President's office and allow staff to plan ahead by providing 48 hours advance notice of electronic participation when they can do so. I think this threads the needle on broadly allowing for electronic participation, while also recognizing the additional burdens on staff for supporting this hybrid meeting model. Thanks to Customer Mosqueda for working with my office to strengthen the amendment, which will set the tone, I believe, for our return to City Hall, and I urge the full council's adoption. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Herbold. And I'm going to go ahead and recognize Councilman Christina as one of the co-sponsors of this amendment as well.
Speaker 3: Thank you, council president. I want to thank Councilmember Herb as well and echoed her sentiment. Appreciate the opportunity to work with you and your team. Christina has been great about working with us to ensure that we have equitable access to electronic participation. Thanks so much to Social Perri for spearheading those conversations and working with your team. And thanks to Dan Peter from central staff for his work on these amendments and all of the time that you all took over the last few days to really finalize this language, I think it's really important to get this right. With the COVID 19 pandemic, we see that there's so many times where public health and equity reasons might cause a councilmember to not be able to participate in person and really appreciate that this legislation and the amendment in front of us today really helps to make sure that no one is choosing between doing their job and ensuring broader participation in the public deliberations of our work and protecting the public's health as well. So thanks so much for all of the cooperation, customer support.
Speaker 0: It's so much councilmembers Herbold and Mosqueda for making comments on Amendment eight. Are there any additional comments on Amendment B? I'll just say thanks so much to both of you for working together. We had a really robust conversation about it during the Governance and Education Committee, and I'm glad that you all had an opportunity to work offline and thread the needle here in a manner that meets both the goals of flexibility, but also safety, and an opportunity to allow.
Speaker 2: Our.
Speaker 0: Technical staff to to really have the opportunity to facilitate the needs of council members who may want to or need to continue to meet in a hybrid fashion. Appreciate your your collective work on that, because remember anything else?
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 0: I think we're ready. Let's see here. Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of proposed Amendment B?
Speaker 2: LEWIS Yes.
Speaker 1: MORALES That's. Was it a i.
Speaker 2: Peterson I.
Speaker 1: Strauss Yes. Herbold Yes. Whereas I council President Gonzales I eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The motion carries an amendment be is adopted. I'm going to hand it over now to Councilmember Strauss to make his motion on proposed amendment c.
Speaker 2: I think he council president I'm offering amendment C version two to this resolution. And I would like to move Amendment C, version two as distributed to colleagues earlier today and I believe is attached to the agenda as well.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Just maneuvered and seconded to adopt Amendment C, which was recently distributed as Strauss. Back to you to address your amendment.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. This amendment was redistributed to add increased clarification regarding the amendment. What I'll say is top line. These rules are already in place because our council rules refer to Robert's Rules of Order as far as deliberations are concerned. This is just taking Robert's rules of order and putting them in our rules so that we know what we are supposed to be doing. This amendment was limited to me by council members to 10 minutes per speech promotion. The rules resolution already states that council members are limited to two speeches promotion. That limit does not include questions. So this ten minute limit is already stated within Robert's Rules of Order, which apply wherever council rules are silent. And this amendment would restate that the ten minute limit on council moves for clarity, for clarity and emphasis in committee are proposed to limit the same amendment, but to limit the debate to 5 minutes per council member promotion. Because I figured if we request the public to address us within 2 minutes, we can do it in five. But the amendment failed and so this amendment would set that limit at 10 minutes, as including Robert's Rules version two of the amendment, which was distributed just before this meeting, simply changes the word voice to unanimous consent at the request of the city clerk's office. Thank you, Councilperson.
Speaker 0: Thanks so much, Councilmember Strauss. Appreciate it. Are there any additional comments on this amendment? Cosmo Peterson, please. And then Councilman Mosquito.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council president. I'd like to speak for 12 minutes in favor.
Speaker 1: As you all.
Speaker 0: Know, I have been timing you.
Speaker 2: I really appreciate this amendment. Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 0: All right. What about short and sweet? Okay. Any good? I'm sorry. Councilman Moscato, please go ahead.
Speaker 3: I'm still laughing. That was really funny. Councilman Strauss, thank you very much for your work on this amendment. Appreciate the clarifications that we've also received from central staff and the clerk's office about the ability to answer questions. If I have questions directed at a council member or those, the time that it takes to answer a direct question as amended by the Council President does not count towards the full ten minute to ten minute allotments. Also appreciate that there is work being done through this amendment which puts this Roberts rules recommendation in the affirmative. We will automatically assume that we're going to have these ten minute allotments versus having the body vote to support it. I think that will help with a number of items, and I appreciate that there's some flexibility if the body decides to vote otherwise. But thank you very much for the work that you've done here. And I'm happy to support this amendment in front of us today.
Speaker 0: All right. Because more stress. You will have the last word if no one else has anything to say, because I do try to enforce the Robert runs for order to the best of my ability. Colleagues, any other comments before we hear closing remarks from Councilmember Strauss? I'm not seeing any other hands raised. Councilmember strauss, you have the last word.
Speaker 2: I thank you. Council president noting this is my second time speaking in on this motion and both Councilmember Peterson and Councilmember Mosqueda clocked in at just a heckle, a freckle, past the hair as far as timing goes.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 2: Back to you.
Speaker 0: Those 17, 17 seconds, Councilmember Strauss. All right. I'm hearing no additional comments on Amendment C. Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment C two Resolution 32029.
Speaker 1: Lewis. Yes. Morales. Let's get up. Hi, Petersen. Strauss Yes. Herbold. Yes. Whereas. Oh, yes. Council President Gonzalez. I paid in favor and opposed.
Speaker 0: The motion carries. Amendment C is adopted and the amended resolution is before the council. That is the last, the third and the last amendment that I am aware of related to resolution 32029. Are there any further comments on Agenda Item 17, Resolution 32029?
Speaker 5: Councilmember please just want to thank you, Council President Gonzalez, for guiding this discussion. At already mentioned, I appreciated the collaborative approach and allowing us all to come to your committee and provide comment and sponsoring amendments on our behalf if we weren't members. But I also really appreciated that we did this before the end of this year so that we could have the benefit of your wisdom, having been our Council President for the last last two years. And I think a lot of a lot of the input has been really well.
Speaker 2: Informed by.
Speaker 5: Your another set of your lived experiences.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez Well, thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember of all. Appreciate it. Okay. Any other comments? I'll just close out by saying a big thank you, colleagues, to all of you for all your engagement in the council's revision process. A lot of work has gone into briefing council members, analyzing proposals and preparing various amendments. And for that work, I especially want to thank the staff members on the Council Roles Working Group from the Office of City Clerk Monica martinez Simmons, Elizabeth Atkinson, Jody Schwinn, Linda Brown and Amelia Sanchez. Thank you. From central staff Esther Handy and Dan Heater. Thanks to both of you. When the city attorney's office, Brandon is leaving Gary Smith and finally, my very own deputy chief of staff writer from my office, who played a very significant role in making sure we all stayed on track and and were able to get this across the finish line in a way that was truly a consensus document. So much gratitude to all of them. We are, as I mentioned before, making a number of proposed changes to the Council rules via Resolution 32029. As always, this was an iterative process that will require feature, revision and refinement by the future council. So many of the things that we are implementing through these rule changes are new to both the Council's culture and the way we do business. And so it will be important for the next council president in two years from now to to have a look back process to make sure that there is an opportunity for all of those representative sections of the council rules. Working Group can give the next council the benefit of any any learning that was had that would necessitate an additional change to the Council. So thanks to everyone for your deep engagement. And with that, colleagues, we are at the place where I am recommending adoption of this resolution and I will ask that the clerk please call the role on the adoption of amended Resolution 32029 Agenda Item 17.
Speaker 1: Lewis. Yes. Morales. This was set up by Peterson I. Strauss. Yes. Verbal. Yes. Or as I counsel President Gonzales, I aid in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The motion carries. The resolution is adopted as amended, and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? The Court Please read the short title of Item 18 into the record.
Speaker 5: The Report of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item 18 Council Bill 120215. An ordinance relating to Land Use Review Decision Procedures amending sections of the Seattle Missile Code. Authorized Director of the Seattle Department of Construction Inspection to administratively waive development standards.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION adopting General Rules and Procedures of the Seattle City Council; superseding Resolution 31920.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_12132021_CB 120215
|
Speaker 5: The Report of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item 18 Council Bill 120215. An ordinance relating to Land Use Review Decision Procedures amending sections of the Seattle Missile Code. Authorized Director of the Seattle Department of Construction Inspection to administratively waive development standards. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jodie. Appreciate it. I'm going to hand this over to Councilmember Strauss, who is the chair of the committee, so that he can walk us through this item.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. In February of this year, the Washington State Department of Ecology issued an order to King County to take actions to address repeated unauthorized bypasses of untreated wastewater from the West Point treatment facility into Puget Sound. Otherwise, raw sewage to the order requires King County to comply by the end of 2025. And one component of this order requires the county install a battery based power supply system to prevent bypass events that could be caused by disruptions to the power flow to the facility. In layperson's term, the facility needs to have a consistent power supply and even just a quick lag that is not a power outage can shut down these systems. Typically, constructing this battery system would require a lengthy city permitting process, including asking the city council to approve conditional use decisions because the park is currently in single family zoning until later today, which will be in neighborhood residential zoning. All of this introduces significant schedule risks, which could impact the county's compliance with the state order. And as you recall, the mayor initially discussed declaring an emergency order to allow the county to bypass some of these permitting steps. After discussions between the mayoral and council central staff, including Kyle Freeman of New Jersey. This legislation, which was identified as a better path, this bill before us would waive the requirement for council conditional use permit and allow SDC director to waive some development standards for the proposed expansion that is necessary to meet the Department of Ecology corrective order. All of that said, this legislation would also exempt the project from secret requirements, and this bill contains safeguards to prevent this provision from being exploited, including maximum maximum size thresholds, a requirement for construction management plan, and only applying one exemption to projects necessary to comply with the Department of Ecology Order. In committee, we heard from the leadership of the County Wastewater Treatment Division who urged us to pass this legislation before the end of the year. And I concur. Urging a yes vote. Thank you, Council President.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Strauss. I do see that Councilmember Peterson has his hand up, please.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. I just want to thank Councilmember Strauss for shepherding this through this committee. It's really important to see how the city lights your public utilities. King County Wastewater. Also, kudos to our central staff for coming up with a workable and rapid solution so that this issue can be put back into the court of King County Wastewater. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilman Peterson. Any other comments on agenda item 18 Council Bill 120215 hearing than will the Kirklees Council on the passage of the bill. 120215. Agenda Item 18.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Musharraf. I. Peterson. I. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Whereas I. Council President Gonzales. I didn't favorite and opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will these affects my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the court please read Item 19 into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to land use review decision procedures; amending Section 23.51A.002 of the Seattle Municipal Code to authorize the Director of the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections to administratively waive development standards for minor expansions of sewage treatment plants subject to a Department of Ecology corrective order and finding an emergency under Seattle Municipal Code Section 25.05.880.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_12132021_CB 120239
|
Speaker 5: Agenda Item 19 Council Bill 120239 An ordinance relating to Seattle's construction codes amending sections of the 2018 Seattle Energy Code adopted by ordinance 126279. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. I'm going to hand it back over to Councilmember Strauss to walk us through this item.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council president. And I do believe that Councilmember Lewis will be speaking to this. So I'll just share that. At the start of 2021, we adopted the strong synergy code, my nation, which banned the use of gas or electric resistance for space or water heating in multi-family residential buildings and for space heating and commercial buildings. I'll pass it over to Councilmember Lewis and follow up with any further comments if needed.
Speaker 0: In summary, Councilmember Strauss, Councilmember Lewis, please.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chair. And just to follow along with Councilmember Strauss's remarks, this legislation extends the impacts of the legislation we passed last spring by encompassing most commercial construction, with a couple of exceptions that are itemized in the bill to be included under the requirements of that bill to include electric water heaters in new construction of commercial structures. As we've discussed extensively over the last two weeks, we expect this legislation to have a positive impact on our efforts to fight climate change. Appreciate the efforts of stakeholders in this legislation over the course of the last several months in order to answer a lot of questions that were left outstanding from the process in the spring , necessitating a little bit more discussion and appreciate Councilmember Strauss making space for this and in his coveted committee spots during this month. Given the limited amount of work that we are putting through, I also appreciate the work of Noah on in Councilmember Strauss's office and his effective working with Parker Dotson and my office to shepherd this through , as well as the work of Stsci and other external stakeholders who have been working on this over the course of the last six months plus. And with that, I have nothing else to add and look forward to.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Lewis. Are there any additional comments on Agenda Item 19 Council Bill 120239 Strauss, please.
Speaker 2: Thanks. Just wrapping up Council President, this legislation includes several exemptions that did result from compromises made at the Construction Code Advisory Board, including existing upgrades to existing commercial buildings. And this type of exemption doesn't exist in other parts of the code. And I just want to note that as we transition in this type of work to addressing the climate crisis, we must ensure that our workers are also taken care of. And so this compromise does continue to move us forward, and we still need to do more to meet the needs of our workers who are earning family wage family wages. Thank you, Councilperson.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Strauss and Councilmember Lewis, that does conclude the debate on this item. So will the first please call the roll on the passage of council bill 120239 Agenda Item 19 Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Warhol's house was set up by Peterson.
Speaker 2: I. Strauss Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold Yes. Whereas I council President Gonzalez. I aid in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the please to fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the Court please read the short title of item 20 into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle’s construction codes; amending Sections C404.2.3, C404.2.3.1, C406.8, C406.8.1, C503.4.6, and C503.5 and Table 406.1 of the 2018 Seattle Energy Code, adopted by Ordinance 126279.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_12132021_CB 120214
|
Speaker 5: Agenda Item 21 Council Bill 120214 An ordinance relating to land use and zoning renaming single family zones two neighborhood residential zones. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Councilmember Strauss, back to you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. In September, the city council passed an amendment to the sale, a comprehensive plan to change the name of single family zones to neighborhood residential zones to better reflect the reality of these zones, which already include many backyard cottages, detached houses that are home to multiple families and legacy duplexes and triplexes that pre-date our existing zoning laws. The name change was also a long standing request of both the Seattle Planning Commission, as well as the City Council from the mandatory housing affordability process. In September, we adopted that comprehensive plan amendment. The legislation before us today would implement that comprehensive plan amendment by amending the municipal code to effectuate the name change. Again, there are no changes to zoning within this bill. We are required to amend the comprehensive plan before we can change the land use code. So just like in September, the legislation does change the underlying. It does change the zoning name. It does not change what is allowed to be constructed in that zone. It just changes the name to neighborhood residential. I have to like I have to call out and shout out the leadership. Councilmember Mosqueda. Councilmember Mosqueda has led on this issue before I came to office as well as to Aaron House for her work and outreach and Alicia Whitson for his amazing work on all of these land use policies. Nor on my committee director has had an integral role. And thank you to Noah Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 0: Appreciate it. Colleagues, any additional comments on this council? Bill Agenda Item 21 Council Bill 120214 Councilman Mosquito, please.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Council President. Thank you. Chair of Land Use of Members Trials. Thank you for sponsoring this follow up legislation to the legislation we co-sponsored this summer amending the Comprehensive Plan. I am very excited about this follow up. I think that, as you said, this will help us lay the ground, make sure that our language and code, as well as in a comprehensive plan, is reflective to the true character of South Africa's. As we embark on the much awaited and deeply engaging comprehensive plan, major updates that will start with community engagement next year and will hopefully work to address the exclusionary zoning still embedded in our statute. I really appreciate that the more inclusive, accurate names such as Negative Neighborhood Residential recognizes these neighborhoods are already home to that diversity that you outlined and helps to make sure that folks know how that diversity adds to our thriving neighborhoods across Seattle. And the name Single Family Designation solely does not yield the truly diverse nature of what our neighborhoods are as we seek to have robust discussion with community members going forward. I want to also thank Erin House and I know you did a tremendous amount of work. And as I mentioned in your committee last week, I want to extend our appreciation as well to our state legislative champions, who have also been embarking on similar efforts at the state level to try to create more inclusive and diverse cities across our state. And I want to thank our very own representative to represent Mary Fitzgibbon, Representative Chopp, along with community organizations such as the Housing Development Construction, South Seattle Chamber of Commerce and Sierra Club. 350 Seattle Share the Cities and API a Seattle chapter. I think this is a really exciting day. From a purely technical perspective, the term single family has been a misnomer since 1994, when the ADU legislation was passed so long overdue and greatly appreciated. Councilmembers very excited to vote for this.
Speaker 0: You so much. Councilor Mesquita, are there any additional comments on comfortable 120214. Agenda item 21 Hearing None. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of Council Bill 120214. Agenda Item 21.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Let's get up. Hi. Peterson. Hi. Strauss. Yes. For Bill? Yes. Whereas I council President Gonzalez I eight 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 on my behalf? Please read item 22 into the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; renaming Single-Family zones to Neighborhood Residential zones; amending Chapter 23.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) at pages 1 through 107, 111 through 114, 117 through 126, 131 through 140, 142 through 214, and 216 through 221 of the Official Land Use Map; renaming Chapter 23.44 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and amending Sections 6.600.080, 11.16.240, 15.16.040, 15.17.100, 15.17.120, 15.17.150, 15.32.200, 15.32.300, 22.801.200, 22.900C.010, 23.04.010, 23.30.010, 23.30.030, 23.34.006, 23.34.010, 23.34.011, 23.34.012, 23.34.013, 23.34.014, 23.34.018, 23.34.072, 23.34.089, 23.40.006, 23.41.004, 23.41.008, 23.42.052, 23.42.056, 23.42.058, 23.42.106, 23.42.108, 23.42.110, 23.42.112, 23.42.122, 23.42.124, 23.42.130, 23.44.002, 23.44.006, 23.44.008, 23.44.010, 23.44.011, 23.44.012, 23.44.013, 23.44.014, 23.44.016, 23.44.017, 23.44.019, 23.44.020, 23.44.021, 23.44.022, 23.44.024, 23.44.028, 23.44.034, 23.44.035, 23.44.036, 23.44.041, 23.44.046, 23.44.060, 23.45.514, 23.45.518, 23.45.527, 23.45.536, 23.45.550, 23.45.578, 23.47A.014, 23.47
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_12132021_CB 120235
|
Speaker 5: Agenda Item 22 Council Bill 120235 An ordinance relating to Historic Preservation Imposing controls upon 802 16th Avenue and adding it to the table of historical landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Madam Clerk has Member Strouse back to you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. This legislation imposes landmark controls on property located at zero 2/16 Avenue in the Central District, also known as the Immaculate Conception Convent. The home was constructed in the neoclassical style by architect Edwin Holton and includes several exterior stained glass windows. The house was constructed beginning, beginning in 1900 for the family of Thomas Constantine, then stage manager for the People's Theater. It was later purchased by Future City Council member and later by the Immaculate Conception Church for a as a convent for nuns. The house sat empty for much of the 1970s due to redlining. While vacant, the house became a space where children roller skated and local bands practiced and practiced, including Hometown Hero, Garfield Bulldog, Jimi Hendrix. How the home has since been divided into four apartments and is occupied by owner Sue Perry as well as daughter Amy. I hope I go pain. I'm so sorry, Amy. I know you are a leader in so many ways. You say one more time.
Speaker 0: Ago being.
Speaker 2: A gopi and thank you. Sincere apologies. Dr. Hagopian. The house is being designated under three of six standards for designation that it is associated with cultural, political or economic heritage of the community. It embodies characteristics of architect of an architectural style, and that it is an outstanding work of the designer or builder. Controls will apply to both the site and house exterior, including its stained glass windows council president. That's the committee report.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Strauss. Appreciate it. Are there any additional comments on agenda item 22 Council Bill 12023 Thank. Because we're asking to please.
Speaker 3: You very much. And Councilmember Strauss, I'm very glad that you mentioned Professor Hagopian as well. I appreciate the family's interest in this parcel. And as we talked about in your committee, I think this is a great example of what Professor BEAUBIEN talks about, which is public health and community health, centering on an ability for folks to have cultural spaces and places to gather. And housing and community spaces all accessible to our community is something I'm really excited about. And Amy noted that in her and her conversation about how this site has been used over the years, and I look forward to future opportunities to hear stories like that in the future and in the future with the use of this location. But that it was a great time to focus on community and public health. And I wanted to just thank Professor Hagopian and her family as well as the folks who made the the recommendation and passage possible. So thank you for coming. Councilmember Strauss is the chair of the committee for shepherding this through and looking forward to supporting it.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Any additional comments on agenda item 22? Harry Nunn will fill the role on the passage of Council Bill 120235 Agenda Item 22 Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes. Morales. Yes. Mosquito. Hi, Petersen. Hi, Strauss. Yes. HERBOLD Yes. Whereas I council President Gonzalez I eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the Court please read Item 23 into the Record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to historic preservation; imposing controls upon 802 16th Avenue, 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_12132021_CB 120164
|
Speaker 5: Report of the Public Assets and Native Communities Committee? Agenda Item 23 Council Bill 120164 An ordinance relating to Seattle Parks and Recreation authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to enter into an agreement with the Woodland Park Zoological Society for Operation and Management of the Woodland Park Zoo. The committee recommends a bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Customer worries. This is your ordinance. I want to hand it over to you to provide the committee for report.
Speaker 6: If you're council president, as the clerk says, this is legislation relating to the Woodland Park Zoo contract. So this is legislation that would renew the operations and management agreement between the city of Seattle and the Woodland Park Zoo. I will highlight I won't go through all the highlights. I shared some of that this morning. So this is the current 20 year contract, which the current 20 year contract remains active until February 22 of this year. Both parties and the zoo and the city have negotiated agreement to renew and update policies related to the public benefits , zoo operations, services and care of the animals. As I shared this morning, I want to thank my colleagues on the committee, and those of you who came, who were not part of the committee are Councilmember Strauss and submitted the 15 amendments by November 30th. And we got them all done and I think it's a better deal. And so with that, the committee recommends or I recommend that the Seattle City Council Pass Council Bill 12064 as amended.
Speaker 0: Council President thank you so much for your words of support. Are there any additional comments on Council Bill 120164 Agenda Item 23 as we're asking, please.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. I also want to thank Councilmember Juarez as chair of the committee for the work that you've done on the various amendments. I think those 15 on just one piece of legislation and especially extend a thank you to unite here locally local eight for bringing the opportunity to include labor peace provision into this agreement and to our attention. And thank you Councilmember Juarez and to members of the zoo for working with us and for the committee's vote to include the Labor Harmony Amendment and to this agreement in front of us. Excited about that and thank you.
Speaker 1: For your work.
Speaker 0: Much conspiracy to consume a verbal.
Speaker 5: You so much want to also appreciate the leadership of my colleagues who represent the neighbors to the zoo. Councilmember Strauss and Councilmember Peterson and of course Council member Suarez for steering the committee through this really important complex oversight work on the agreement. Really many thanks to the passionate advocates who care so deeply about the zoo and the animals in its care. This was difficult because so many people care about the zoo and because the state of research and standards of care and community sentiment all can change so rapidly. In a 28 year agreement committing significant city resources, it was appropriate. I feel that we took the time to carefully consider what was proposed here from stakeholders and debate changes. I'm particularly glad and thankful that we supported requiring council oversight and approval of the long range plan, which will identify the capital and animal habitat changes that this zoo will pursue for years to come. By requiring approval of the long range plan we are building in a touchpoint where the public will have an opportunity to raise concerns and the Council will have an opportunity to exercise reasonable oversight of significant planned changes to the zoo that may impact its operations, animals or financial health. Over the course of the agreement, I know this was a challenging process, but with coordination required between council and central staff and enforced by Councilmember Juarez, I think the the outcome was was was a very good outcome. And I hope the public agrees and I hope that the zoo agrees. I really appreciate their collaboration on the effort. And I also want to just give a shout out to Brian Goodnight on council central staff who helped us sort through and make sense of a long but important document as well as the staffing of Christina because he was in my office as well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember.
Speaker 6: For.
Speaker 0: Any additional comments. Councilman Juarez, any closing remarks.
Speaker 6: Now, my husband was trying to vote, but other than.
Speaker 4: That, no.
Speaker 0: Well, Don, you'd have to run against it if we wanted to.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I did.
Speaker 6: He's still in West Seattle, right?
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: All right, well, hearing no additional comments will occur. He's got the role on the passage of Council Bill 120164. Agenda item 23.
Speaker 1: Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Mosquera. I. Peterson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Let's thank you, Councilmember Suarez by Council President Gonzalez. I aid in favor not oppose.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign. It will affect my signature legislation on my behalf. Please read item 24 into the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Parks and Recreation; authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to enter into an agreement with the Woodland Park Zoological Society for operation and management of the Woodland Park Zoo.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_12132021_CB 120188
|
Speaker 5: Agenda Item 24 Council Bill 120188 An ordinance creating an Indigenous Advisory Council for Tribal and Urban Indian Engagement. Adding a new Chapter 3.75 to the Seattle Missile Code and amending Section 3.35.050 of the Seattle Municipal Code. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. I'm going to hand it back over to Councilmember Juarez to address this item.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 6: Council President. This is actually a great day, a big day for the city of Seattle for the creation of the Indigenous Advisory Council. We've never done this and we did it. Thank you, colleagues. This bill creates a nine member Indigenous Advisory Council for the important purpose of providing direction, guidance and subject matter expertize to advise Seattle elected officials and city departments on policy issues pertaining to urban native populations. Tribal communities. Tribal Government. The Advisory Council will not only work closely with the Public Assets and Native Communities Committee, but with other Seattle City Council members, the mayor and the city departments to coordinate overall policy development. This legislation is a long time coming and I'm very proud of this council for working with me to get it done. This legislation builds upon the work of this Council from two years ago when we created a new staffing position to support the work of the Council. Thank you, Madam Chair and Madam Budget Chair. This budget action passed and the position has since been filled under the Department of Neighborhoods. We engage with tribal councils, tribal leadership, community organizations, urban Indian organizations and subject matter experts in the drafting of this legislation. We researched what other jurisdictions had created, particularly by Portland and San Francisco. I envision a council structure to recruit and empower community leaders, elders, youth professionals and tribal council elected leaders to bring forward their perspective and direct public policy here at the city of Seattle. I'm also committed to empowering our Indigenous Advisory Council staff leaders on our new Stafford neighborhoods, Francesca Murnane, to allow this body to organically grow and expand as the community deems and sees fit. The city needs Indigenous knowledge at the table to allow accurate representation and greater ideas in our public policies and debate. The city is committed to building that trust with tribal governments and learning more. The passage of this bill would make this a reality, and I'm very proud of this historic moment. The Public Assets and Native Communities Committee recommends that City Council pass this bill. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, consumers. Appreciate it. Are there any additional comments on Council Bill 120188? Agenda item 24. I'm Carlsberg Strauss, please.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And thank you, Councilmember Juarez. I know we've been tracking this from afar because I don't want to get in the way of your leadership just knowing that your your staff has been incredible on this work. So I just want to thank you and your staff for this work.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Right. Any other comments? Right. Hearing none. Will Kirk, let's go ahead and make history, shall we? Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of Council Bill 120188 Agenda Item 24 Lewis.
Speaker 1: Denise Morales. As. Was it a? Yes. Petersen Yes.
Speaker 2: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 1: You're bold. Yes. Whereas I council President Gonzalez I didn't favor.
Speaker 0: And unopposed the bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the person please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Congratulations, Council, Lawrence.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right, let's keep going here. Will the clerk please read item 25 into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE creating an Indigenous Advisory Council for tribal and urban Indian engagement; adding a new Chapter 3.75 to the Seattle Municipal Code; and amending Section 3.35.050 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_12132021_Res 32034
|
Speaker 5: Genda item 25 Resolution 32034a resolution relating to Seattle Parks and Recreation authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to act as a 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 State Recreation and Conservation Office Office. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Coming handed back over to Councilmember Juarez.
Speaker 6: And Q Council President. As I shared with you before, this is a perennial issue. It comes through committee every year, and every year we go to the state and the state gives us money. That's pretty much it in a nutshell. So this bill would allow Seattle Parks Superintendent to accept grant.
Speaker 4: Funding from the Recreation and.
Speaker 6: Conservation Office. We do this every year and our committee, your committee, the city's committee, recommends that the city council adopt this resolution.
Speaker 0: Wonderful. Thank you so much, Councilmember Wise. Appreciate it. Are there any additional comments on Resolution 32034, item 25? Here in none will the police have a role on the adoption of Resolution 32034 Agenda Item 25 Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: MORALES Yes. Must get up high.
Speaker 2: Paterson High.
Speaker 1: Strauss Yes. Verbal Yes. Whereas High Council President Gonzalez High eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Lippert Please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Hey, let's go ahead and have the first read item 26 into the Record.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION relating to Seattle 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 State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO).
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_12132021_CB 120248
|
Speaker 5: Report of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee. Agenda Item 26 Council Bill 120248 An Ordinance relating to City Employment Creating a compensation program for the position of Fire Chief specifying provisions for the Administration of said compensation program and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: Madam Sirkin They handed over to Councilmember Herbold, who is the chair of this committee, to address the item.
Speaker 5: Thank you so much. So the background on this is currently the fire chief is classified as what's called an executive for that's the same classification as exists for the deputy fire chiefs. The executive has identified salary compression issues in the department and that is created when the job top job is classified in the same way as other jobs. And that creates a outcome where there's little or no difference in pay, but large differences in responsibilities, skills or qualifications. The Human Resources Department connect. It conducted an analysis of comparable fire chief positions among what's referred to as the standard West Coast seven cities San Francisco, San Diego, Oakland, Long Beach, Sacramento. San Jose and Portland. To come up with a new salary rate for the position of fire chief and this legislation codifies that the. Thank you so much, Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 0: Are there any additional comments? Hearing on what the police called the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: LEWIS. Yes. Morales Yes. Mosquera i. Peterson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Strauss Yes, for both. Yes. Whereas I council President Gonzalez, I didn't favor none of those.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Well, the clerk please read item 27 into the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment; creating a compensation program for the position of Fire Chief; specifying provisions for the administration of said compensation program; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_12132021_CB 120247
|
Speaker 5: Agenda Item 27 Council Bill 120247 An ordinance relating to the Organization of City Government adding data reporting responsibilities to the City Attorney's Office and adding a new Chapter 3.46 to the Seattle Municipal Code. The committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Governor Herbold, you are the chair of this committee. Would you like to address the item first?
Speaker 5: Actually, I think I would like to hand it over to the sponsors to address. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Great customer. Lewis, would you like to go ahead and make some remarks about the base legislation? I know you have an amendment that you'd like to have us consider, but perhaps you can address the base legislation before we consider the amendment.
Speaker 2: Certainly, Madam President, I mean, this is the much discussed data reporting and transparency legislation that would require quarterly reporting of certain important metrics from the Seattle City Attorney's Office pursuant to certain funding decisions that we made during the budget cycle. I do think part of the confusion attached to this is that if we had been successful in having this legislating happen concurrent with the rest of the budget, maybe it wouldn't look strange.
Speaker 6: To be doing it now.
Speaker 2: But in any event, this legislation matches certain new funding additions in this recent budget, with certain reporting requirements similar to other sources that affect notice and reporting requirements. It is incorporated into the Seattle Municipal Code. I think I can leave it right there for now pending the discussion on the amendment and I can make further remarks later if that is helpful as well.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Lewis. Appreciate it. Colleagues, we're going to go ahead now that we have the base legislation that to consider before us is described, Councilmember Lewis, I think it would be appropriate for us to consider the amendment and have a discussion about the amendment. And then once the amendment passes through or does not, we can then have a we can open up that conversation to the bill as amended or not. So consider, Lewis, when you go ahead and make your motion for us to consider the amendment, and then we can discuss that amendment and then and then open up the discussion to the broader bill after we consider the amendment.
Speaker 2: Thank you, councilmembers. I have an amendment I would like to propose. It did not meet the council rule of distribution prior to 12 noon and would request that the rules be suspended to allow consideration.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lewis. If there's no objection, the council rules will be suspended to allow to allow an amendment that was not distributed by noon, as customarily was just. Mentioned. Carry no objection. The council rules are suspended and we cannot proceed with consideration of the amendment. Councilor Lewis. Now you have to move the move the actual amendment.
Speaker 2: Yes. Thank you, Madam President. I do move to amend Council Bill 1 to 0 247 as presented on Amendment 1/2.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to amend the Council Bill as presented on Amendment one. I'm going to hand a back over to Councilmember Lewis to address the amendments.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. And this is an amendment that was recommended after consultation with law. I do apologize not distributing this amendment. Prior to noon, there was some confusion on whether I would be bringing it or whether Councilmember Peterson would be bringing it. But we did sort that out and I did so distributed. The impact of this amendment relates to a mandatory language that Council President Gonzalez passed into this legislation during the committee meeting last week, creating a 90 day notice requirement for material changes to the free file diversion program. This would alter the language to be notification to the Council of such changes within 90 days of implementation, rather than wording it as 90 days before implementation. This is the preferred language of the law department just to make sure that this legislation does not potentially run afoul of the charter requirements on giving full supervisory responsibility of pending legislation, including the possibility of of a diversion. Investing that in the city. Attorney I don't believe the practical effect of this amendment is going to be that significant, though it is possible that it could certainly create a looser notification requirement than the current language, though I think the important thing indicated here is that there be an expectation of notification and I am sure that that is going to be something that the Council will be very assertive about, making sure that there is close consultation on how these investments are being are being spent. So this is the preferred language from law just to make sure that we do not inadvertently run afoul of the charter. And I do believe just erring on the side of being cautious and staying within our oversight and due diligence. LANE This language is more appropriate, a more appropriate modification of the legislation. So with that, I don't have anything else to add.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Lewis. Are there any additional comments on Amendment One? I haven't seen any other hands raised. So let's go ahead and pull this to a vote. Well, he's called the role on the adoption of Amendment One.
Speaker 1: Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Let's get up. I. Petersen I.
Speaker 2: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 1: For both, yes. Whereas I counsel President Gonzalez I it in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The motion carries and the amendment is adopted and we now have an amended council bill before us. Are there any further comments on the amended council? I'm not seeing any hands raised. Do you want to say thank you so much to Councilmember Lewis and his staff for working with my office on this bill? It was a pleasure to co-sponsor this bill with you. That is really at the core a good governance transparency bill that requires some reporting that is transparent to members of the public on a set of programing that we have been consistently asked to fund and to expand. And as a result of those budget implications, I do think it's appropriate for us to request, regardless of who the city attorney is, information about the effectiveness of that program in a way that is transparent, consistent and where expectations are the same in this sort of cross branch setting. So appreciate an opportunity to work with you and with you in your office. And of course, thanks to Brianna Thomas, my chief of staff in my office, for all of her good work on this as well. And huge thanks to Councilmember Herbold for allowing us to have a hearing and and shepherding us through the legislative process. We appreciate your graciousness in allowing us an opportunity to have that conversation in your committee. Councilmember Lewis, any closing remarks?
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I do just want to briefly we've been discussing this a lot, and I made extensive statements in briefings. So I just want to cover some of the top line edits I alluded to in my remarks before the amendment. I do think that the timing has been somewhat unfortunate given that this legislation appears deep, coupled from our budget, which has invited all sorts of strange interpretations and strange bedfellows opposing more transparency, including a daily newspaper. I would say that I just want to emphasize the coupling of this legislation with the unprecedented additional investments in the city attorney's office. This incoming city attorney is going to have more resources available to her than any of her predecessors, including new positions to facilitate the collection and dissemination of data which this legislation is structured to complement. So this is not some new mandate on top of existing resources. This is new requirements for the office that is directly related to personnel increases and funding increases that we just put into this budget with something like this in mind at the time. So I think that that's just important emphasized. That is a $38.5 million budget that the city attorney's office is going to have for 2022. It's a 9% increase from the previous biennium and certainly warranted given the situation that we're in the city and the need to make sure that all of our officers that engage in public safety work can be successful. The implication that this council is being insufficiently supportive of that incoming office is frankly just not borne out by the statement made by the budget that we just passed earlier this month. So I do I just want to signify that despite the tension over the course of the last week regarding this legislation, I remain dedicated to working with the incoming city attorney to address a lot of chronic issues in the city. This data transparency is going to be a big part of allowing the council and the city attorney to work together to really refine and address the best strategies to address some of our public safety challenges. And it is my hope that we can move forward in that spirit despite this disagreement over this legislation this week. So with that, I don't have anything else to add.
Speaker 0: Anti-consumer Louis for closing out debate. Appreciate your leadership on this issue. Will the Court please call the roll on the adoption of Council Bill 120247 as amended?
Speaker 1: The words. Yes. Morales. Yes. Skinner I. Peterson No. Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Verbal? Yes. Whereas I. Council President Gonzalez and seven in favor one opposed.
Speaker 0: The motion carries and I'm sorry yes the motion carries the council bill is adopted as amended and the chair will sign it will the first please to fix my signature. It's in the legislation on my behalf will please read item 28 into the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the organization of City government; adding data reporting responsibilities to the City Attorney’s Office; and adding a new Chapter 3.46 to the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_12132021_Res 32033
|
Speaker 5: Agenda Item 28 Council Bill 32033a resolution declaring the City Council's and the mayor's intent to consider strategies to ensure that all unreinforced masonry buildings in Seattle are seismically retrofitted. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much for coming to hand it over to Councilmember Herbold to address this item.
Speaker 5: So much so little background on the issue first. In 2017, the city's unreinforced masonry policy committee released final recommendations, which note that there are over 1100 unreinforced masonry buildings in the city. And these buildings pose a risk because occupants of them are likely to be injured or killed in a major earthquake. The cost of seismic upgrades is a barrier for building owners. The report suggested that the city worked to focus first on the 77 buildings with critical vulnerability. Those include hospitals, schools and fire stations. The 2017 recommendations estimates a total cost to building owners for all 1100, you are rooms of over $1,000,000,000. So finding a way to finance this work is a really important component to developing a program to require seismic retrofits. In 2020, after city lobbying efforts, the state passed and the governor signed into law something called the Sea Pacer program. This is a program that provides a financing financing mechanism to help owners of commercial and multifamily buildings cover the costs associated with energy efficiency and seismic retrofit. The PACER program is is well, the state basically authorizes counties to create the C Pacer program. So King County has had to enact it because the funding mechanism is related to the function of property assessments. As we know, that's a function of county government. So King County has just recently done this, which is great news. And as a result, that program is anticipated to begin accepting applications in early 2022. Since early 2020, I've been working with stakeholders to craft a resolution that would provide guidance to city departments in their development of a phased mandatory retrofit program for you arms. I had hoped to pass the resolution last year. However, the work of the Office of Emergency Management and the Seattle Department of Construction is inspections necessary to fulfill the requirements that are contained in the resolution was not possible given the 2020 focus on addressing the emergency impacts of COVID 19. So today is a culmination of a year's worth of work with stakeholders and the executive to agree on the reporting parameters and timelines contained in the resolution. Additionally, included in Mayor Durkin's proposed budget and supported with the final passage of the Council was funding for a full time position to facilitate and coordinate the work necessary to develop a final program to address unreinforced masonry buildings. I just want to, before we call for the vote, I want to give thanks to a SAP, which is otherwise known as the Alliance for Safety, Affordability and Preservation. It's a broad spectrum of concerned stakeholders, including market rate, affordable housing developers, property owners, historic preservationists, engineers and neighborhood associations. It is they that have come together to develop these creative solutions to the threat to public safety and the rich legacy of our region's built environment posed by the impact of future seismic events on our unreinforced masonry buildings. Creating a pathway as contemplated in the resolution will require that we continue to work together. And I look forward to that work next year. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Councilmember Herbold, are there any additional comments on Resolution 32033, agenda item 28? Hearing no additional comments. Will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of resolution 32033? Item 28.
Speaker 1: Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Mesquita, I. Peterson. Hi. Strauss. Yes. You're both. Yes. Whereas I council President Gonzalez, I aid in favor and then oppose.
Speaker 0: The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign. It will please affixed my signature to the legislation on my back squished down.
Speaker 5: Will the. Sorry, Judy. You are.
Speaker 0: Unmuted still. Will the group please read item 29 into the record?
Speaker 5: The Report of the Community and Economic Development Committee Agenda Item 29 Council Bill 120241 An ordinance relating to human rights, including protections against discrimination based on citizenship and immigration status. The committee recommends the bill pass.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION declaring the City Council’s and the Mayor’s intent to consider strategies to ensure that all unreinforced masonry buildings in Seattle are seismically retrofitted.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_12132021_CB 120241
|
Speaker 5: The Report of the Community and Economic Development Committee Agenda Item 29 Council Bill 120241 An ordinance relating to human rights, including protections against discrimination based on citizenship and immigration status. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Customer morale as someone handed over to you to provide the committee report.
Speaker 6: Q Council President Yes. This legislation would align the city's discrimination protections with recent changes to the state's Washington law against discrimination to include discrimination based on citizenship and immigration status, and to provide a definition of race that is inclusive of traits historically associated or perceived to be associated with race. This includes, but is not limited to hair texture and protective hairstyles such as afros, braids, locks and twists. And because black women are disproportionately likely to be discriminated against because of their hair, including hairstyles in the city's definition of race can help protect illegal discrimination that is primarily faced by black women. So there's sort of too intense here to align us with the state's law and also to make sure that we are protecting this class.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Morales. Are there any additional comments on Council Bill 1202 or one item 29? Harry Nunn will discuss the law on the passage of Council Bill 1 to 0 two for one item 29.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Mesquita I. Petersen, I. Strauss Yes. Verbal Yes. Whereas I council President Gonzalez I aid in favor and oppose.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the please. If it's my signature to the legislation on my behalf, will the clerk please please read items 30 through 34 into the record?
Speaker 5: Agenda Items 3334. Appointments 20642065206720682078. The appointment of Alexander F Chang as member Seattle Human Rights Commission for a term two January 22nd, 2022 and the appointments of Rupali Dhingra, Amanda, Richard, Jacqui Schultz and Shyla Reid as members. Four Terms to January 22nd, 2023.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to human rights; including protections against discrimination based on citizenship and immigration status; adding a definition of race for certain purposes; and amending Sections 3.14.910, 3.14.931, 3.110.260, 4.80.020, 6.02.270, 6.202.230, 14.04.020, 14.04.030, 14.04.040, 14.04.050, 14.06.020, 14.06.030, 14.08.015, 14.08.020, 14.08.045, 14.08.070, 14.08.190, 14.10.010, 14.10.020, and 18.12.280 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_12132021_Res 32035
|
Speaker 5: Agenda item 40 Resolution 32035. A resolution recognizing the efforts of the Crown Hill community to prepare an action plan for their community and identifying strategies and actions to implement the Crown Hill Urban Village Action Plan.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to adopt Resolution 32035. Is there a second second? It's been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution. I'm going to hand this over to Councilmember Strauss was the sponsor of the resolution.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Council President. And I do need to note that it is a bittersweet and a humble honor to be the last to respond to your request as presiding officer for Council of the City Council in the City of Seattle. I'm glad that this is a three hour meeting, lest you forget the long meetings, and I hope that Cameron is in the background with a way to celebrate once we're done. Conduct business. To the resolution 3 to 0 three five, the Crown Hill Community Action Plan. This resolution recognizes the tremendous effort, a tremendous community effort that went into producing the Crown Hill Community Action Plan, which was finalized this last Friday. The community planning process that resulted in the Crown Hill Community Action Plan began in 2018. The Office of Planning Community Development launched a process to engage with neighborhood, ultimately connecting with around 300 community members through workshops, focus groups, door to door, canvasing, tabling at community events and much more. Those community conversations informed the Community Action Plan, which sets the vision for Crown Hill's future as a walkable, vibrant neighborhood as one of the fastest growing, changing neighborhoods in Seattle. It is one that lacks a light rail station. This Community Action Plan contains steps that the city and community members can take to make the neighborhoods vision a vision for a community light rail station into a reality, something that I support. The plan is broadly oriented around these three priorities a distinct neighborhood with great destinations and a vibrant public realm streets that encourage walking and making it easy to get around in connected, engaged, thriving communities. This Community Action Plan was delayed and put on pause because of COVID. I'm glad that this is another opportunity where the city of Seattle can build back better and bring this forward. Community members contacted me earlier this year with concerns that the plan would be forgotten in the mayoral transition. And so I worked to push the mayor's office to have OK'd complete this work on this plan before the end of the year. OPD took one final round of community feedback and made final changes to the plan last week to add more emphasis on affordable housing and encouraging new indoor meeting and gathering spaces. The next steps for this plan will require us to adopt new design guidelines for Crown Hill next year. And again, if Councilmember Juarez can get 130th Street Station, I'm going to get a Crown Hill station. I hope everyone heard that loud and clear. I would also like to thank Katie Hyman at OPIC for her fantastic work on this. And I would like to thank Karen LaBelle, president of the Crown Hill Village Association, and Selznick and Patty Arroyo for joining us at the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee recently, as well as everyone else who shared their feedback to help shape this plan. With that Council President, you are nearly released and I that is my report.
Speaker 0: Thank you, councilmember strauss. Are there any additional comments on resolution 32035? NEARY None will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Resolution 32035. Agenda item 40.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. I must get to Paterson. Hi, Strauss. Yes. You're bold. That's. Whereas I council President Gonzales. I didn't favor none of.
Speaker 0: Thanks so much. The motion carries, the resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it for the very last time. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? There is one other item of business. If there is no objection that Council members will be excused from today's meeting. Hearing no objection, Councilmember Solon is excused from today's meeting. Colleagues, is there any further business to come before the Council? Ellesmere Mosquito Police.
Speaker 3: I am so excited, council president, that we were able to surprise you. I do hope that you and your team really heard how much we appreciate you and look forward to continuing to work with you on the future. Thank you for having this marathon meeting and I just want to take a second to say thanks to VanMeter as well. I didn't get a chance to shout them out. Congratulations on their next chapter as well. With all of the work they've done on council for the last 13 years, it's been a really great honor to work with VanMeter as well, but wanted to just get that last thank you. And as council members, I just can't help myself. Council Member.
Speaker 1: Council.
Speaker 3: Members I again, thanks for the opportunity to surprise the council. President and president, congratulations again.
Speaker 0: Well, thank you so much. I did want to also, you know, it was publicly announced today that Dan Itr, our deputy director, is going to join mayors, the mayor's office as mayor elect Harrell's policy director. And we do want to wish him much luck and of course, express our deep and profound gratitude to him for his 13 years of service to the city council in particular, and to council central staff. And so we again wish him much luck and we are deeply appreciative for everything that he is given to us. So colleagues, of course, I cannot adjourn a meeting of the city council that you guys been subjected to, my beautiful daughter. So I'm going to I'm going to.
Speaker 5: Have.
Speaker 0: Her come over here maybe for the last your last public appearance, except for now, she's being shy.
Speaker 1: Well, look, who wouldn't it say by here?
Speaker 0: Virtually adjourned. Thank you, colleagues. Your next meeting will be sometime in January. I want to thank you all for your your friendship and for all of your amazing work and look forward to seeing you all in New York.
Speaker 2: So thank you.
Speaker 0: Share with many by Reserve Bank.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION recognizing the efforts of the Crown Hill community to prepare an action plan for their community; and identifying strategies and actions to implement the Crown Hill Urban Village Action Plan.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_12062021_CB 120213
|
Speaker 2: If you the bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will these affect the legislation on my behalf? Moving on to many reports, item one is read one into the record agenda.
Speaker 3: Item one Council Bill 120213 An ordinance relating to land use and zoning extending for six months. A moratorium established by ordinance 125764 and extended by ordinances 1 to 6 006126090126241 and 126362 on the filing, acceptance, processing and or approval of any application to establish a new principal or accessory use or change of principal or accessory use for any site currently used as mobile home park as defined in section 23.8 for 8.032 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Before I open the public hearing on this item, I am going to turn it over to Councilmember Strauss as the sponsor of the bill to provide us with some introductory remarks.
Speaker 1: Member Strauss Thank you. Council President Pro Tem Herbold This legislation extends the existing moratorium on the redevelopment of any of Seattle's remaining mobile home or better known as manufactured home parks. There are currently two remaining manufactured home parks in Seattle, both in District five, the mighty deep five. The more this moratorium was first adopted by the City Council in early 2019 in response to a concern that one of the manufactured home parks may be redeveloped. The moratorium has been extended four times since then, with this being the fifth and final extension. Earlier this year, when we adopted the fourth moratorium extension extension, Councilmember Suarez and I shared that we had a proposal to enact long term protections so that we could stop doing these short term moratoriums. Unfortunately, over the summer, that proposal was challenged to the hearing examiner delaying its consideration. The Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee held an initial briefing on the long term proposal just last Friday and plans to hold a public hearing and vote on this Wednesday before sending the legislation, this final permanent legislation to full council next week. One of the aspects of this delay was that rather than going to court. We were able Councilmember Moore has led the effort. We were able to avoid court by just compromise and consensus. It was great that said, because the delay occurred to the final legislation. The current moratorium is expiring January 10th and there will be about a one week gap between the current moratorium expiring and the long term protections taking effect. So this north, this last moratorium extension before us today would sunset when the long term protections take effect. I ask that we extend this moratorium one final time to prevent any loopholes before long awaited long term protections can be adopted by the City Council next week. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 2: Forgive me so much. Hate the fair. As Presiding Officer, I'm now opening the court hearing on the Bill 1213 extending the moratorium established by Ordinance 12 5764 on the filing, accepting processing and or of any application to establish a new principal or professor, use or change a principal or accessory used any site currently used as a mobile home park as defined in section 2384, a032 of the Seattle Municipal Code and ratifying and confirming prior acts. The online registration to speak at the hearing opened at 12 noon today. I will call on I believe there's only one speaker and I will call on that speaker and it will. Online registration will remain open until the conclusion of the public hearing rules apply to the public comment period. So I choose public hearing. As I described earlier, Speaker will be provided 2 minutes with a 10/2 warning. Throughout comments and speakers, mikes will be muted and applauded. Public Comment Time. Public Comment Related Bill 1213 is only being accepted. Public hearing and speakers are asked to begin their comment by stating their name. I have one person signed up for public comment on the hearing on the Bill 1202 to let the 0213 And that is even him. And I even. I am still seeing you. As did Mr. Haines. You can hear. These are six. And I am not seeing Mr. Heins with us anymore. So please, one more time. Nobody new signed up refreshing my brother here and David Haines is showing now as not sense. So with that, let's close the public hearing or have anybody remotely, so to speak, on Constable. Well, to think that could do is confirm, I understand was not a member of the public in the queue before the hearing.
Speaker 1: That is correct.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. There is no one present for this public hearing. This public hearing is now closed and will move to the putting and discussion of. I will move to ask Council Bill 12 0213 So a second. So I guess I can and Q is then moved in second to possible member Strauss as lead sponsor. Well, you are recognized in order to address this item.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And I think that I may gave all of my explanations for the public hearing, just saying that, again, this legislation extends the existing moratorium on the redevelopment of any manufacturing complex in Seattle. Thank you to councilmember words for her leadership on this. We do have that final long term legislation ready to come before full council, and we need this final extension to ensure that there's no loopholes. I urge a yes vote. Thank you. Council President Pro Tem.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Are there any comments from council members on the bill? All right. Seeing no raised hands. Well, he called the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 0: Whereas I. Louis. Yes. Well, Sarah. Councilmember.
Speaker 2: I think I.
Speaker 0: Peterson.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 0: Sawant. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Council President. Pro Tem Herbold.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Seven in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 2: The Senate bill passes and the chair will sign it or is affects my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Moving on with these read item is the report.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; extending for six months a moratorium established by Ordinance 125764, and extended by Ordinances 126006, 126090, 126241, and 126362, on the filing, acceptance, processing, and/or approval of any application to establish a new principal or accessory use, or change a principal or accessory use, for any site currently used as a mobile home park, as defined in Section 23.84A.032 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.