meeting_id
stringlengths 27
37
| source
stringlengths 596
386k
| type
stringlengths 4
42
| reference
stringlengths 75
1.1k
| city
stringclasses 6
values |
---|---|---|---|---|
SeattleCityCouncil_12062021_CB 120236
|
Speaker 3: Agenda item to council bill 120236 An ordinance relating to city streets changing the name of the portion of Thomas Street between First Avenue North and Second Avenue North to Lenni Wilkins way and superseding the relevant portions of Ordinance 404 for Ordinance 89910 Ordinance 102981 and any other ordinance to the extent inconsistent and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
Speaker 2: And so my move to pass a council bill to set. Is there a second?
Speaker 1: Second.
Speaker 2: And Kim Petersen as sponsor of 0ur recognized in order to address this item.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President Pro Tem Herbold, colleagues, as I mentioned during this morning's council briefing, this council bill 120236 follows up on resolution 32019 that we recently adopted unanimously to change a portion of Thomas Street near Seattle Center to Leonie Wilkins Way. Leonie Wilkins is, of course, the legendary basketball star, coach and philanthropist. And while the resolution added an honorary designation, the streets adopting this ordinance is stronger and more permanent because it legally changes the street name. As noted in the summary fiscal note, our Seattle Department of Transportation will create and install the signs at a modest cost, which is already covered by their existing street sign budget. I join the Durkan Administration in encouraging its passage today. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Number ten, are there any additional comment on the bill? Just seeing none with Clark. Please call the roll on the package.
Speaker 0: Whereas I.
Speaker 1: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 0: Rosetta.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Peterson Hi.
Speaker 0: Sergeant. Yes. Strauss Yes. Council President Pro Tem Herbold.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. The bill passes and the chair will sign. It will be the signature legislation on my behalf. Item number three will please read item three at the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to City streets; changing the name of the portion of Thomas St between 1st Ave N and 2nd Ave N to Lenny Wilkens Way; and superseding the relevant portions of Ordinance 4044, Ordinance 89910, Ordinance 102981, and any other ordinance to the extent inconsistent; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_12062021_CB 120237
|
Speaker 3: Gender Item for Council Bill 120237. An ordinance relating to city employment, commonly referred to as the fourth quarter 2021 Employment Ordinance, designating positions as exempt from the civil service system and returning positions to the civil service system all by a two thirds vote of the City Council.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I move to pass council bill. Oh 237 is there a second? Okay. Thank you so much. It has been moved in second to the council bill and in the absence of sponsor of session and Gonzalez, there were mosquito will address this item that has referred directly to the full council. Thank you very much. Council President.
Speaker 3: Pro Tem Council Bill.
Speaker 2: 120237 is the fourth quarter 2021 employment ordinance. This is routine employment related legislation to exempt positions from the civil service systems and or to return positions to designation within the civil service system. The Seattle Department of Human Resources developed and transmitted this legislation, which would return two positions to civil service and exempt another 12 positions from civil service. There are no direct costs associated with these personnel actions today. Council President Earned Purchase A Yes. Oh, thank you so much. Are there any other comment from council members on this legislation? Seeing no additional comments for the clerk is called the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 0: Whereas I Louis.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Must get to.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 0: Peterson.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 0: Sergeant. Yes. Strauss? Yes. Council President Pro-Tem Herbold.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. The bill assumes and the chair will final will the use of my signature legislation on my behalf. Moving into the report of the Trent Committee. Five Will the clerk please read item five into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment, commonly referred to as the Fourth Quarter 2021 Employment Ordinance; designating positions as exempt from the civil service system; and returning positions to the civil service system; all by a 2/3 vote of the City Council.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_12062021_CB 120233
|
Speaker 3: The report of the Transportation and Utilities Committee Agenda Item five Council Bill 120233. An ordinance relating to the City Light Department directing the transfer of certain funds in the Light Fund into the rate stabilization account in 2021 and amending Section 21.4 9.086 of the Seattle Municipal Code to simplify the operation of the rate stabilization account. The Committee recommends the Council pass the bill.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. As chair of the Transportation and Utilities Committee, you are recognized in order to provide the committee report.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President Pro Tem Colleagues Council Bill 120233 is Seattle City Lights Proactive Policy to protect ratepayers from increased charges by adjusting its rate stabilization account. The Rate Stabilization Account was created by the Council so City Light would have a reserve to buffer ratepayers from the ups and downs of the wholesale power market. Revenue put into the RSA from sales on that market during high water flow periods is a major factor in the utility's ability to avoid raising rates during prior times of the year when the utility has to buy power to meet customer needs. However, the weather does not always cooperate, as the summary in fiscal note indicates. In early 2021, the outlook for the same strong and no surcharge was expected to come back on within the next year. However, dry hydro conditions, combined with exceptionally hot weather and high wholesale market prices, quickly depleted the RSA balance during the third quarter. Council 4120233 does two things. It moves money from another account city light into the RSA to avoid adding a 3% surcharge to the customers bills. And it simplifies the RSA structure to make surcharges a less frequent occurrence. These changes will not adversely impact Seattle's resilience bond rating or its debt coverage ratio. The committee recommended passage unanimously. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Peterson. Any additional comments from club members on the passage of the bill? Kate, seeing none of the clerk fees, all the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 0: Whereas I Lewis. I was scared to.
Speaker 2: By.
Speaker 0: Peterson.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 0: Sergeant. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Council President, Pro Tem Herbold?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Seven in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 2: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. The clerk, please, affixed my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Moving on sex on the agenda. Please read item six The Record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; directing the transfer of certain funds in the Light Fund into the Rate Stabilization Account in 2021; and amending Section 21.49.086 of the Seattle Municipal Code to simplify the operation of the Rate Stabilization Account.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_12062021_Res 32031
|
Speaker 3: Agenda Item six Resolution 32031a resolution ratifying the 2021 update to the Green Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed or Water Resource Inventory Area Salmon Habitat Plan Making our Watershed Fit for a King. The committee recommends a resolution be adopted.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much again. There's an item coming out of the Trump Choice Committee and then as chair of the committee, are recognized in order to provide the committee report.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President Pro Tem Colleagues Resolution 32031 ratifies the city's salmon habitat plan for the geographic area called Water Resource Inventory Area nine. And this includes the Water Mesh River. Thank you, Councilmember Herbold, for your hard work on that important environmental plan. And I do support your amendment that you'll be offering today. This updates the 2005 plan and includes a list of over 100 capital projects developed in partnership with member jurisdictions, including the City of Seattle. And the plan is used to inform policy decisions such as an allocation of funds available for capital improvement projects that improve salmon habitat . Funding is available from a variety of sources. Seattle's evenly represented by our technical experts from Seattle Public Utilities and by Councilmember Herbold. Our Transportation Utilities Committee unanimously recommended adoption of this resolution for the plan. Thank you.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you so much. As as mentioned, I move to amend the Resolution 2031 as presented on the amendment on the agenda second. Thank you so much. It has been moved in, seconded the documents. The amendment, as presented on the agenda, just fell very, very quickly. The amendment, as mentioned this morning and adds a recital regarding the recent decision to fund a new amateur space stored on the habitat and mentions the stewardship position and the interest of our A9 in finding it. We are able to amend the plan itself now that the commitment has made the B fund the the position because it is adopted by 16 other jurisdictions. So instead, yep, we are using is just simply adding a recital reflects that why were nine has already funded the Basin Steward position beginning in 2022? Is there any comment on the amendment? Seeing no sense will lurk is called the roll and the adoption of the amendment.
Speaker 0: Whereas I. Lewis. Yes. Well, to. I. Peterson I so want, yes. GROSS That's council president pro tem. HERBOLD Yes. Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. The motion carries and the amendment. Other further comments on the amended resolution. Seeing no further comments. Will the clerk, please of the role on the adoption of the resolution as amended?
Speaker 0: Whereas I was. I must get to.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Peterson. I so want. Yes. Strauss yes. Council president pro tem. Her vote yes. Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: Thank you. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted as amended and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature legislation on my behalf? Moving on to item number seven, will the clerk either read item seven into the record?
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION ratifying the 2021 Update to the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed or Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA 9) Salmon Habitat Plan, Making Our Watershed Fit for a King.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_12062021_Res 32030
|
Speaker 2: Thank you. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted as amended and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature legislation on my behalf? Moving on to item number seven, will the clerk either read item seven into the record?
Speaker 3: Agenda item seven Resolution 32030. A resolution relating to the City Light Department acknowledging and approving the City Life Department's adoption of a biennial energy conservation target for 2022 through 2023 and ten year conservation potential. The committee recommends a resolution be adopted.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. Councilmember Peterson is chair of the committee. You are recognized in order to provide committee report.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Colleagues, this resolution approves Seattle City Lights Biennial Energy Conservation Targets State Initiative 1937, adopted in 2006, requires City Light to establish renewable energy conservation targets that are cost effective and reliable. Utility must report the conservation targets by annually to the State Department of Commerce. Resolution 32030 approves these new targets both over the next couple of years and through the next ten years. The target was prepared, using methodologies consistent with those used by the Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Planning Council. The committee unanimously recommended approval of this resolution. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Gibson, any final comment on that, which is the.
Speaker 1: And he's called the war resolution.
Speaker 0: Whereas I. Louis, I. Mascara. I.
Speaker 1: Paterson I.
Speaker 0: So want. Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Council President pro tempore vote yes. Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. The resolution is adopted and I will sign it. The clerk is affixed. I signature the legislation on my behalf. Moving on the agenda on the items eight and nine is read items eight and nine record.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION relating to the City Light Department; acknowledging and approving the City Light Department’s adoption of a biennial energy conservation target for 2022-2023 and ten-year conservation potential.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_11292021_CB 120225
|
Speaker 1: The report of the City Council Agenda Item one Council Bill 120225 An ordinance relating to the City Life 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 Emergency and amending Section 21.4 9.042 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. I'm of the past council. Bill 120225. Is there a second?
Speaker 2: Second?
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. It's been. The bill has been moved and seconded. Councilmember Peterson, you are the sponsor of the bill. I'm going to hand it over to you to address the item.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council president, colleagues, as I mentioned, council briefing this morning, these next two council bills on the agenda will extend a key release program for overdue utility bills for lower income households that are customers of Seattle City Light and Seattle Public Utilities. Seven months ago, on April 19th, the Council approved enhancements to our local emergency assistance programs that lower the overdue utility bills for struggling low income households. Those enhancements were set to expire next month, due in part to the persistence of the COVID pandemic. These two bills would extend these program enhancements to the end of 2022. On today's agenda, the first item that will vote on is council 120225, which is for Seattle City Lights. The second item is Council a12022640 Utilities. Our City Council central staff reviewed both those and had no concerns. Both utilities and I recommend passage of these bills for the emergency assistance programs.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. Are there any additional comments on Council Bill 120225 Agenda Item one. Hearing. No additional comments will please call the role on the passage of Council. Bill 120225. Agenda Item one.
Speaker 1: Verbal. Yes. Juarez. I. Louis. Yes. Morales s must gether. I Peterson. I so want. Yes. And Council President Gonzalez, i. Eight in favor and oppose.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes and the terrible Senate bill to please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Well, the quick please read item two into the record.
Speaker 1: Agenda item two Council Bill 120226 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 Code.
|
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_11292021_CB 120232
|
Speaker 1: Agenda item three Council Bill 120232 An ordinance relating to city employment authorizing the execution of a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Seattle and Protect 17 Office of Emergency Management Unit to be effective through December 31st, 2021, and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. I move to pass Council Bill 120232. Is there a second?
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill has been moved and seconded. I am the sponsor of this bill, so I'll address it first and then happy to open up the floor to any additional comments on the bill. Colleagues, as I described it during this morning's council briefing, council Bill 120232 would ratify a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Seattle and Protect 17 Office of Emergency Management Bargaining Unit. The agreement would cover approximately 13 positions in strategic advisor classifications and would be effective only through December 31st, 2021. The agreement is for a short duration because Protect 17 OEM unit is part of the coalition of city unions and will be a party to the proposed agreement with the Coalition for 2022. The terms of the agreement would include provisions relating to wages, benefits, hours and working conditions, including a retroactive 2021 wage adjustment of 2.9%, which is commensurate with the area wage increase included in the 2021 adopted budget for representative employees in the Coalition. The Labor Relations Policy Committee previously approved and considered and deliberated these parameters. And these parameters are consistent with the terms of this collective bargaining agreement, and I recommend that you support the passage of Council Bill 1 to 0 232. Are there any additional comments on Council Bill 120232? Agenda item three. Council member, please.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. I just want to say congratulations to the members of Protect 17.
Speaker 0: And use this as a chance.
Speaker 1: To say how thankful I know.
Speaker 0: We all are for the work that they've done over the last two years during this pandemic. Very happy to.
Speaker 1: See this tentative agreement in front of us. Looking forward to voting for it. Thank you, Council President.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, councilor. Must get it. Any additional comments on agenda item three? All right. Hearing on will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of council bill 120232. Agenda item three.
Speaker 1: Verbal. Juarez. Hi, Luis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: What else? S must get that I Peterson. I so want. Yes. And Catholic President Gonzalez I h in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will a clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Other business colleagues, as I mentioned this morning, I need to move to be excused. So there is no objection. I will be excused from count from the full council meeting on Monday, December six, 2021. Hearing objection, I'm excused from counsel. The Council meeting on Monday, December six, 2021. Is there any further business to come before the council? Hearing than colleagues just conclude that items of business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on December six, 2021, at 2:00 PM. I hope that you all have a wonderful afternoon workshop. Thanks so much to you.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment; authorizing the execution of a collective bargaining agreement between The City of Seattle and PROTEC17 Office of Emergency Management unit to be effective through December 31, 2021; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_11222021_CB 120210
|
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. We'll look for fees to fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Will the clerk please read item one into the record report the City Council Agenda Item one Council Bill 120210. 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 renewal with the United States Army for the City of Seattle's continued interim use and occupancy of 33.95 acres at the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. Thank you so much. I moved the past council bill 120210. Is there a second? Okay. It's been. We've been seconded to pass the bill. I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Mosquito, who's the sponsor of the bill and who has a amendment for our consideration. Thank you very much, Council President. I move to amend Council Bill 120210 by substituting version two for version d1a substituting attachment one substituting exhibit B, C, E and F, two attachment one all as presented in the agenda and by removing exhibits G and H.
Speaker 2: I can't.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. It's been you've been seconded to amend the Council bill. Councilmember Mosqueda, anything else you would like to say to address these amendments? Thank you very much. Council President colleagues. This legislation authorizes finance and administrative services to exact executive excuse me to execute a one year lease agreement with for one year extensions for the Fort Lawton site currently owned by the U.S. Army. While the City of Seattle's application to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development continues to go through its process for approval and the redevelopment plan to create affordable housing, open space and habitat. As a reminder, Fort Lawton project approved by council, will create 85 supportive housing units for older adults, including veterans who have experienced homelessness. 100 units that are 100 units that will include one, two and three, four bed one, two and three bedroom flats or row houses for renters with incomes up to 60% of the area median income . It will include 53 bedroom, permanently affordable housing row row houses or an townhomes for households with incomes up to 80%. AMI this is all included around an athletic field, forest, land and parkland. This lease agreement authorized by this legislation will allow the city to use the property in the interim while we await approval from HUD and make sure that we can continue towards our long term redevelopment plan. The city doesn't pay a fee to the U.S. Army, but it is responsible for all holding and caretaking costs associated with the property, which are covered equally by the Office of Housing and Parks and Recreation Department. We look forward to working with the administration and to seek approval from HUD for the Fort Lawton Redevelopment Plan. You're excited about this, but this is an interim step today. Thank you. Council President. Thank you so much. Colleagues, any additional comments on the amendments? Hearing none. Will the court please call a roll on the adoption of the amendments?
Speaker 1: So on. Yes. Strauss. Yes. For bold as. Whereas I. Lewis.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Skinner. By Paterson.
Speaker 4: High.
Speaker 1: Council President Gonzalez. I favor it.
Speaker 0: Unopposed motion carries any amendments are adopted. Are there any additional comments on the bill as amended? I've not seen any hands raised, so we'll please call the role on the passage of the bill as amended to want.
Speaker 1: Yes. Strauss. Yes. Scribbled. Yes. Whereas I. Lewis. Yes. Morales Yes. Mosquera i. Peterson I counsel President Gonzalez i. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? K Council Members Select Budget Committee report consists of 33 items of business. This afternoon, Council members will be provided an opportunity to make comments on each item before I request the clerk to call the
|
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 renewal with the United States Army for The City of Seattle’s continued interim use and occupancy of 33.95 acres at the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_11222021_CB 120220
|
Speaker 0: At please read the title of item two into the record. Agenda item to Council Bill 120220 an ordinance authorizing and 2021 acceptance of funding from non city sources authorizing the hands of the Executive Department, Department of Education and Early Learning. Human Services Department. Department of Transportation. Seattle Public Library. Fire Department. City Attorney's Office. Seattle Center. Seattle Parks and Recreation and Police Department to accept specified grants, private funding and subsidized loans and execute, deliver and perform corresponding agreements and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The Committee recommends City Carson City Council pass the Council bill with councilmembers Mesquita, Herbold, Gonzales, Suarez, Lewis, Morales and Straus favor and Councilmember Peterson abstaining. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments on the bill. Will the piece call the vote on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: So on. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Whereas I. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. I. Peterson.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 1: Council President Gonzales. I nine in favor.
Speaker 0: Nine opposed the bill passes in the trouble planet. Will the card please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read the title of item three into the record channel? Item three Council Bill 120221 An ordinance amending ordinance 126237 which adopted the 2021 budget, including the 2021 through 2026 capital improvement program a.S.A.P
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE authorizing, in 2021, acceptance of funding from non-City sources; authorizing the heads of the Executive Department, Department of Education and Early Learning, Human Services Department, Department of Transportation, Seattle Public Library, Fire Department, City Attorney’s Office, Seattle Center, Seattle Parks and Recreation, and 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_11222021_CB 120221
|
Speaker 0: Nine opposed the bill passes in the trouble planet. Will the card please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read the title of item three into the record channel? Item three Council Bill 120221 An ordinance amending ordinance 126237 which adopted the 2021 budget, including the 2021 through 2026 capital improvement program a.S.A.P . The committee recommends the bill passed as amended. Thank you so much. Are there any comments on the bill? Council members the one place.
Speaker 3: Sorry. Just finding my place here. I will I will be voting no on this 20, 21 year end supplemental budget. Unfortunately, because this vote is coinciding with the votes on the total city budget for next year, it has not received the attention it needs. As in previous years, there are many elements of this supplemental budget that I have no objection to, but there are some aspects that are very objectionable, and for that reason I will be voting no. This supplemental budget increases the police budget for this year 2021, by a total of $6 million. 333,540. How can the police complain of hundreds and hundreds of vacancies and a reduced payroll on the one hand and demand millions more dollars in mad money? On the other, it makes no sense. Some of that increased funding comes from the general fund and would better be spent on housing renewal programs and social services. Other funding comes from federal grants, and some of those grants are particularly ominous because it includes grants from the FBI and from Homeland Security for those so-called joint operations that have been used in the past to criminalize dissent. Like the way peaceful Black Lives Matter protesters were arrested and investigated by federal officers in the Justice for George Floyd movement last year. For those reasons, I will be voting no on this supplemental budget.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Comes first. Are there excuse me, any additional comments? Any additional comments? Any additional comments on the bill? Gary None. The piece called the roll on the passage of the bill won't.
Speaker 1: No. Strauss Yes. Herbold Yes. Whereas I. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Mascara.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: I. Council President Gonzales I. Eight in favor one opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign. It will occur. Please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. The clerk please read the title of item four into the record. Jan Item four Council Bill 120040 An Ordinance Meeting Ordinance 126000 which adopted the 2020 budget, including the 2023 2025 CFP, changing appropriations to various departments and
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 Budget, including the 2021-2026 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 2021-2026 CIP; creating positions; modifying positions; abrogating positions; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_11222021_CB 120040
|
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign. It will occur. Please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. The clerk please read the title of item four into the record. Jan Item four Council Bill 120040 An Ordinance Meeting Ordinance 126000 which adopted the 2020 budget, including the 2023 2025 CFP, changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels and from various funds in the budget and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts or by three quarter vote of the City Council. Kinney The committee recommends the City Council pass the council bill with Councilmembers Macheda Herbold, Gonzalez, Suarez, Lewis Morales and Strauss in favor and Councilmember Peterson abstaining. A few. Madam Clerk, are there any additional comments on the bill? Any additional comments last time? Any additional comments on the bill? Carry none. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Sergeant. Yes. Strauss Yes. Herbold Yes. Whereas I. Lewis Yes. Morales Yes. ROSQUETA, i. Paterson, I. Council. President Gonzalez. I mean, in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the quick please read the title of item five into the record? Item five Resolution 32026 Resolution requesting King County and the State of Washington to increase services to address behavioral health conditions.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 126000, which adopted the 2020 Budget, including the 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various funds in the Budget; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_11222021_Res 32026
|
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the quick please read the title of item five into the record? Item five Resolution 32026 Resolution requesting King County and the State of Washington to increase services to address behavioral health conditions. The committee recommends that City Council adopt, as amended, the resolution. Thank you so much. Are there any comments on the resolution? Councilmember Strauss, please.
Speaker 4: I think your council president has more point of order for as we are voting, if when you request the clerk to call the walk, you call the item in which we are voting for. Following along the agenda, I just know there's so much we're voting on today.
Speaker 0: Sure.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold, please.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. Just a couple of words on this resolution. We all know that the impact of the pandemic on our mental health has been undeniable over the last year and a half. The unprecedented anxiety, pain and isolation of the past year and a half have led to negative mental health impacts and occasionally dropping into self-harm and gun fire, assault and other forms of violence. We want to note that this lack of adequate mental health resources is felt by Seattle residents every day at funding. Our behavioral health system is primarily a county and state responsibility. I'm pleased that our partners at King County are supportive of and aligned at. That leads to better support for Seattle residents that are struggling with behavioral health challenges. City is willing to do our part and we're looking forward to the county leading the way. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold, are there any additional comments on resolution 32026? Agenda item five. Hearing? None. Will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of resolution 32026? Agenda item five.
Speaker 1: Want. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Whereas I. Lewis. Yes. Morales. As was KERA. I. Petersen. I. Council President Gonzalez. I. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Resolution 32026. Agenda item five is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the Court please read the title of item six into the record and the item six Resolution 32027.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION requesting King County and the State of Washington to increase services to address behavioral health conditions.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_11222021_Res 32027
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Resolution 32026. Agenda item five is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the Court please read the title of item six into the record and the item six Resolution 32027. A resolution modifying the Mayoral Civil Emergency Order of October 29th, 2021, related to hiring incentives for public safety. Emergency Response. The committee recommends the City Council adopt, as amended, the resolution with councilmembers Herbold, Gonzalez, Lewis and Morales and favor councilmembers Macheda and Serrano opposed and councilmembers Suarez, Peterson and Strauss abstaining. Thank you, madam. Are there any comments on resolution 32027? Agenda item six. Councilmember Herbold, please.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. As a clerk, this was approved in the Budget Committee by a42 vote with three abstentions. The CBA and the resolution are intended to amend the mayor's emergency order on hiring incentives to first limit the duration of the emergency order through the end of 2021. And secondly, to limit expenditures pursuant to the order $500,000 in 2021 is the amount his office estimated would meet it in 2021. The resolution works in conjunction with a budget action in the chairman's balancing package, which requests a report from the City Budget Office to the Council on a potential citywide hiring incentive for frontline workers beyond those covered in the mayor's current emergency order. Extending those incentives to to recruits, to departments beyond speed and the Community Safety Communication Center. Item Leaves in place Mayor's Executive Order regarding hiring bonuses for police officer in line areas through the end of 2021. Some of you may recall that there is another proposal not on the agenda today to limit the hiring incentives to only see us seek recruits and not permit the incentives or our recruit. If the vote in favor of action eight does not prevail, we will very likely see the other proposal before us at our next meeting, and that this proposal is related to an executive order promulgated by Mayor Durkan. I believe it's appropriate the executive order and end of her term regardless which action amending mayor and executive order ls. Incoming elect incoming mayor elect Harrell could issue a new executive order in 2022. Support important work of all of our city departments and I recognize the difficulty we are having filling vacancies in this labor market and the impact on the delivery of supply of public services and the impact on morale in each of these departments. And for that reason, I, for one, would strongly prefer of a 2022 fixation, which means indeed, we could add bonus incentives for rather than having a new conversation both this year and again next year, about excluding SPV officer recruits. Finally, as a reminder, the balancing package before us. There is no funding for bonuses in 2022 as a quently then those funds are not in the 2022 budget. It's more important than ever that if we're going to have a bonus program in 2022, we have deliberations about how to fund it before authorizing it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: He becomes member. Councilmember Peterson, please.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President. I thank you, Councilmember Herbold, for that. I support Mayor Durkin's executive order for hiring incentives, and it seems to have achieved some early success. I believe these hiring incentives are needed after the alarming spike in the number of police officers in 911 dispatchers leaving their positions. At the same time, I agree that today's suggested modifications of the executive order from our public safety chair are reasonable and fiscally prudent as they allow the hiring incentives to continue to the end of this year. And while the Council unfortunately did not approve hiring incentives as part of our fall budget process for next year 2022, today's action still leaves the door open for the incoming administration to reissue a similar executive order if needed, as Seattle competes with other jurisdictions across the nation for emergency response personnel. I would encourage the incoming administration in January to do what it can and not only to hire police officers and firefighters and 9 million dispatchers, but also to retain these valuable employees that we already have. So they continue to serve Seattle. So I will be voting for these modifications. Thank you.
Speaker 0: I think it comes from Peterson, who has more than one.
Speaker 3: Thank you. On October 29th, Mayor Durkan issued an emergency order to reinstate hiring bonuses of up to $25,000 for new police officers. Ironically, her excuse for this emergency order was to give police even more money because of the COVID 19 emergency. In other words, even though so many police officers are actually endangering the public by refusing to be vaccinated or to wear masks, they still apparently need to be given more money. Mayor Durkan has shown a shocking double standard when she advocated for hiring bonuses in the Seattle Police Department. The police are some of the highest paid city of Seattle employees, making more than double what is paid to social workers like homeless service workers. The mayor has claimed in the past that she could not that she could she could not open homeless shelters and tiny house villages because there are not enough homeless service workers to staff new spaces. Where are the hiring bonuses then, or just decent living standards for impoverished homeless service workers who actually help people turn their lives around? Most importantly, the size of the police budget is not what has a statistical impact on the amount of crime in a community, and that includes police officer salaries as well, not having a statistical impact on public safety. I apologize for my dog. It is reducing inequality and providing affordable housing and living wage jobs and affordable services, including childcare, but has a greater statistical impact. I absolutely share the concerns that working people have about the rise in gun violence. There is no question that we do need to address this. But if you look at the data, you will see that this is happening. Even though the police budget has been bloated for many years, while the social services and affordable housing that working people, oppressed communities and the poor need continue to be gravely underfunded and at the same time, rents by corporate landlords are skyrocketing. Studies show overwhelmingly the best and really only solution to public safety issues is to fund the needs of our society to address crime, and particularly to stop crimes before they even happen. We need to find affordable housing, social housing that is publicly owned, high quality, affordable housing funded by taxing big businesses and the wealthy. We need to raise wages and and exploitation, not increase repression. We need an elected community oversight committee with full powers over the police. On November eight, my office introduced legislation to modify the mayor's executive order, which would stop the implementation of the police hiring bonuses that the council voted on Loder in September against implementing twice by legislation left in place the hiring bonuses for 911 operators. However, rather than bringing that legislation to a vote, it was delayed by two weeks to give the political establishment the opportunity to bring alternative legislation through the Budget Committee that essentially approves the mayor's executive order, which is the bill in front of us today. I'm confused how this bill, which does not amend one word or a number in the budget, was treated as budget legislation. But regardless, it is the bill in front of us today. This bill approves Durkan the executive order on hiring bonuses for the duration of her term. In my view, those hiring bonuses are a terrible misuse of city resources that should be used for affordable housing, social services and for the needs of our communities. So I will be voting no on this resolution if the majority of the Council agrees with me and votes no on this emergency order. I hope the Council will consider to schedule a will. Agree to schedule the resolution from my office rejecting the mayor's emergency order for a vote next Monday.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. Silent. Are there any additional comments on item six, which is resolution 32027? Councilmember, will you have the last word.
Speaker 2: On the points for the viewing public? I just want to advise that the mayor's office has confirmed that funding is available throughout during 2021 to implement the executive order. I have requested an update from the Mayor's Office on the implementation of the vaccine mandate as it pertains to police officers and 911 dispatchers. I'm confused as to. Councilmember still wants reference of the vaccine mandate and the fact that officers haven't complied as a reason for why a hiring incentive for departments that who for whom their management is enforcing the vaccine mandate event. I mean I think that is what is partially creating the need for hiring incentives is to support the officers in one case and the one dispatchers in the other case who have complied and who are are still with the city, still performing public service and are working in departments that have large vacancies. So I really see the the allowance of of hiring incentives through the end of this year as really being part and parcel of supporting the enforcement of the vaccine mandate.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you so much, Councilmember Herbold. Okay. With that debate is now closed on this particular agenda item. So will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of resolution 32027? Agenda item six.
Speaker 1: So want no. Strauss. Yes. HERBOLD. Yes. Whereas. Yes. LEWIS Yes. Morales Yes. Well, Sarah, I.
Speaker 4: Peterson I.
Speaker 1: Council president. Gonzalez, I Adan favor one opposed.
Speaker 0: Resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the group please fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will Clark please read the title of item seven into the record. Agenda Item seven. Resolution 32028. A resolution concerning the health, well-being and safety of domestic workers, expressing council's intent to establish a right to portable paid
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION modifying the Mayoral Civil Emergency Order of October 29, 2021, related to hiring incentives for public safety emergency response.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_11222021_Res 32028
|
Speaker 0: Resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the group please fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will Clark please read the title of item seven into the record. Agenda Item seven. Resolution 32028. A resolution concerning the health, well-being and safety of domestic workers, expressing council's intent to establish a right to portable paid time off for domestic workers in Seattle and requesting the Office of Labor Standards to work with community stakeholders to draft legislation creating a portable policy for domestic workers. The committee recommends the City Council adopt the resolution with councilmembers Macheda Herbold, Gonzales, Suarez, Lewis, Morales and Strauss in favor and Councilmember Peterson abstaining. Thank you so much, Madam Clerk. Are there any comments on resolution 32028? Agenda item seven. Councilor, Mosquito Council president, colleagues, I'm excited about this resolution as a corresponding piece of legislation to pass today along with the budget. The COVID 19 pandemic really has amplified the inequities that are inherent in our current treatment of frontline essential workers. This inequity that we are seeing across many industries exponentially impacts communities of color, workers of color. And there has been a clear impact on domestic workers as well. I am excited about the legislation in front of us that will continue the path of good policymaking that's rooted in community experience, rooted in the experience of those who are the frontline workers themselves, in this case, domestic workers. This piece of legislation builds on the $500,000 that the mayor also included in her proposed budget that the council is continuing to include in our proposed budget and works on policy development in collaboration with community partners such as the Domestic Worker Standards Board and the Affordable Benefits Coalition to develop policy to expand upon the benefits of the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights codified two years ago. We all believe that workers deserve respect and all worker on all workers should have dignity. And the legislation in front of us that corresponds with ongoing conversations throughout next year will allow for us as a city, as a city family to develop in partnership with community, a policy that outlines how to ensure there's paid time off for caregivers and their families so that they can care for their kiddos and their elders as well. No worker should be forced to choose between working while sick or facing lost wages. But until we ensure that there is a paid time off policy that can correspond to the work of domestic work which has many different hiring entities, often we are in a situation where disparity continues. I look forward to continuing to work with community partners and hearing more from cities like San Francisco and Philadelphia who have passed or are considering ordinances protecting the right for paid time off to domestic workers. Those cities are currently working on legislation and implementation to make sure that this commitment is a reality. I really love that we are on the national stage for all of the work that you all supported with the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights, that national conversation continues to center around how domestic workers have a clear path to paid leave when they need it. So thank you all for your consideration of this resolution in front of us today, which is really about the ongoing work that we will commit to in 2022 with community as and this correlates to the $500,000 included in the 2022 budget process for other aspects which include doing outreach, engagement with hiring entities, community partners, and the necessary work for education and enforcement. I look forward to hearing more in 2022 as we develop this policy together. Thank you, Councilor. Was there any additional comments on resolution 32028 Agenda item seven? What I wanted to think. Madam President. One more. One more time, Councilman. State, go ahead. Just wanted to thank Lori Mayhew, who's in our office of legislative intern, who has been really leading the effort on this. So thank her and Annabelle and labor standards for their deep engagement with community partners, including the Portable Candidates Coalition, and shout out to them as they continue to call in and express support for that. So thank you all. Anything else? All right. Well, Clark, please call the role on the adoption of resolution 32028. Agenda item seven.
Speaker 1: The want. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Whereas. LEWIS Yes. Morales Yes. Russia i. Peterson, I. Council President Gonzalez. I vote in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Resolution 32028. Agenda item seven is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read the title of item eight into the record? Agenda Item eight Clerk File 314487. The 2022 proposed Budget Committee recommends City Council file to file with council members must get a Herbold, Gonzalez, Suarez, Lewis, Morales and Strauss in favor and Councilmember Peterson abstaining. Thank you so much.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION concerning the health, well-being, and safety of domestic workers; expressing Council’s intent to establish a right to portable Paid Time Off (PTO) for domestic workers in Seattle; and requesting the Office of Labor Standards to work with community stakeholders to draft legislation creating a portable PTO policy for domestic workers.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_11222021_CB 120189
|
Speaker 0: Emotion carries and the click file is approved and placed on file. Will the clerk please read the title of item ten into the record? Agenda Item ten Council Bill 120189. An ordinance relating to the 2022 budget authorizing department directors to accept anticipated future grants and enter into revenue back service contracts to support appropriations in the 2022 budget . The Committee recommends City Council pass the Council.
Speaker 1: Bill.
Speaker 0: With council members Muscat, a Herbold, Gonzalez, Suarez, Luis Morales and Strauss in favor and Councilmember Peterson abstaining. Thank you. Are there any comments on Council Bill 1 to 0 189? Agenda item ten. These are comments on agenda item ten, if there are any. Right. Not seen any hands raised. So the police call the role on the passage of Council Bill 120189. Agenda Item ten.
Speaker 1: Want? Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Whereas I. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Mosquito. I. Petersen. I. Council President Gonzalez. I am not in favor of.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Will the clerk please read the title of item 11 into the record? Agenda Item 11. Resolution 32024. A resolution adopting revised financial policies for the emergency fund. The committee recommends City Council adopt the resolution with council members Macheda Herbold, Gonzalez, Suarez, Lewis Morales and Strauss in favor.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the 2022 Budget; authorizing Department directors to accept anticipated future grants and enter into revenue-backed service contracts to support appropriations in the 2022 Budget.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_11222021_CB 120193
|
Speaker 0: Agenda Item 15 Council Bill 120193 An ordinance relating to Seattle Parks and Recreation authorizing an administrative amendment to Ordinance 115859, which established the Beach Maintenance Trust Fund as a subsidiary fund of the Shoreline Park Improvement Fund. Which fund was established by Ordinance 115496 as part of the settlement agreement with the Municipality of Metropolitan excuse me Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle for the construction of the West Point and Elk Secondary Sewage Projects, and which expired in January 2011. The committee recommends City Council passed that.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 0: Members must get a Herbold, Gonzalez, Suarez, Lewis, Morales and Strauss in favor and Councilmember Peterson abstaining. Thank you so much. Are there any comments on Council Bill 1 to 0 193, agenda item 15, you're on agenda item 15. Any comments? Hearing no comments. Will the court please call the roll on the passage of Council Bill 120193 Agenda Item 15.
Speaker 1: It's a want. Yes. Strauss Yes. Herbold Yes. Whereas I. Lewis Yes. Morales Yes, that's correct. I. Peterson I. Council President Gonzalez i. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Council Bill 120193 Agenda item 15 passes and the chair will sign it. Will the court please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the Court please read the title of item 16 into the record? Agenda Item 16 Council Bill 120194 An ordinance relating to King County Conservation Futures Levy proceeds authorizing the mayor to enter
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Parks and Recreation (SPR); authorizing an administrative amendment to Ordinance 115859, which established the Beach Maintenance Trust Fund (70200) as a subsidiary fund of the Shoreline Park Improvement Fund (SPIF) (33110), which fund was established by Ordinance 115496 as part of the settlement agreement with the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (“Metro”) for the construction of the West Point and Alki secondary sewage projects, and which expired in January 2011.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_11222021_CB 120194
|
Speaker 0: Council Bill 120193 Agenda item 15 passes and the chair will sign it. Will the court please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the Court please read the title of item 16 into the record? Agenda Item 16 Council Bill 120194 An ordinance relating to King County Conservation Futures Levy proceeds authorizing the mayor to enter into a new Interlocal cooperation agreement between the City of Seattle and King County to allow for the acceptance of Conservation Futures Levy funds authorizing the deposit of 2020 and 2021. Allocations from King County Conservation Futures Levy proceeds into the city of Seattle's park funds. The committee recommends the city council passed bill. Councilmembers Mesquita, Herbold, Gonzalez, Suarez, Lewis, Morales and Strauss in favor. And Councilmember Peterson abstaining. Thank you so much. Are there any comments on Council Bill 120194 Agenda Item 16. You're now on agenda item 16. Any comments on Council Bill 120194. Hearing no comments. Will the police play the role on the passage of Council Bill 1 to 0 one nine for Agenda Item 16 to 1?
Speaker 1: Yes. Strauss Yes. Her bold. Yes. Whereas I. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Mosquera. I. Peterson.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Council President Gonzalez. High nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thanks so much. Council Bill 120194. Agenda item 16 passes and the chair will sign. It will please fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Will the clerk please read the title of agenda item 17 into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to King County Conservation Futures Levy proceeds; authorizing the Mayor to enter into a new Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between The City of Seattle and King County to allow for the acceptance of Conservation Futures Levy funds; authorizing the deposit of 2020 and 2021 allocations from King County Conservation Futures Levy proceeds into The City of Seattle’s Parks Fund.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_11222021_CB 120195
|
Speaker 0: Agenda Item 17 Council Bill 120195 An ordinance relating to the financing of the Finance and Administrative Services Fund authorizing and or fund loans up to a total of $8 million from the Fleet Capital Fund and $2 million from a wheelchair accessibility accessible fund to the Finance and Administrative Services Fund for financing of eligible COVID 19 response expenses . Thank you, Madam Clerk. I'm going to pass Council Bill 1 to 0 195. Is there a second?
Speaker 2: Okay. And.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. It's been moved and seconded. Are there any additional comments on a council bill? 1 to 0 195. Agenda item 17. Any additional comments on agenda item 17 Hearing none. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of Council Bill 120195. Agenda Item 72.
Speaker 1: One. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. S. Whereas i. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Mr. Carter, i.
Speaker 4: Peterson Hi.
Speaker 1: Council President Gonzalez. I. Nine in favor.
Speaker 0: Nine Opposed Council Bill 120195 Agenda item 17 passes and the chair will sign it. Will the Kirk please to fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read the short title of item 18 into the record? Agenda Item 18 Council Bill 120198 An ordinance relating to contracting indebtedness, authorizing and providing for the issuance and sale of limited tax general obligation bonds to pay for all or part of the cost of various elements of the city's capital improvement program.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the financing of the Finance and Administrative Services Fund; authorizing interfund loans up to a total of $8,000,000 from the Fleet Capital Fund and $2,000,000 from the Wheelchair Accessible Fund to the Finance and Administrative Services Fund for financing of FEMA-eligible COVID-19 response expenses.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_11222021_CB 120198
|
Speaker 0: Agenda Item 18 Council Bill 120198 An ordinance relating to contracting indebtedness, authorizing and providing for the issuance and sale of limited tax general obligation bonds to pay for all or part of the cost of various elements of the city's capital improvement program. The Committee recommends the Council pass the Council bill with council members Mesquita, Herbold, Gonzales, Suarez, Lewis, Morales and Peterson and Faber and Council member Strauss abstaining. Thank you so much. Okay. Are there any comments? Excuse me, are there any comments on Council Bill 120198. Agenda Item 18. We're now on agenda item 18. Any comments? Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President Just very excited to vote for this. The abstention in committee was a technical issue. I much like I'm requesting you to read out the numbers. I was unsure of where we were in that agenda and just very excited to vote yesterday. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thanks, Governor Strauss. I know we have a lot on the agenda. I appreciate your your encouragement to go a little bit slower so that all of us, including the viewing public, can stay on track. Okay. So any additional comments on Council Bill 120198 Agenda Item 18 Hearing None. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of Council Bill 120198. Agenda Item 18.
Speaker 1: Sawant. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Lewis. Or excuse me, Councilmember Suarez, I.
Speaker 4: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales Yes. Mosquito. Hi. Peterson Hi. Council President Gonzalez. Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Council Bill 120198 Agenda item 18 passes and the chair will sign it. Will the park please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Leclerc Please read the short title of item 19 into the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to contracting indebtedness; authorizing and providing for the issuance and sale of limited tax general obligation bonds to pay all or part of the costs of various elements of the City’s capital improvement program and for other City purposes approved by ordinance, to provide loans to one or more public development authorities of the City for certain eligible capital purposes, and to pay the costs of issuance of the bonds; providing parameters for the bond sale terms including conditions, covenants, and other sale terms; creating the 2022 Multipurpose LTGO Bond Fund; amending Ordinance 126219; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_11222021_CB 120224
|
Speaker 0: Agenda Item 19 Council Bill 120224 An ordinance relating to contracting indebtedness, authorizing and providing for the issuance and sale of limited tax general obligation bonds to pay all or part of the cost of certain transportation elements of the city's capital improvement program. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you so much. Are there any comments on Council Bill 120224 Agenda item. Knight Excuse me. Agenda item 19. We are now on agenda item 19, which is Council Bill 1 to 0 224. Any comments? So, you know hands raised will the work please call the role on the passage of council bill 120224 Agenda Item 19.
Speaker 1: It's a want. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Her bold. Yes. Whereas I. Lewis.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Rosetta I.
Speaker 4: Petersen Yes.
Speaker 1: Council President Gonzalez. Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Council Bill 1 to 0 two two for agenda item 19 passes and the chair will sign it. Will the park please the fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read the short title of item 20 into the record? Agenda Item 20 Council Bill 120196 An ordinance relating to the electric system of the City of Seattle. Adopting a system or plan of additions and betterment to and extensions of the existing municipal light and electric power generation transmission and distribution system of the city.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to contracting indebtedness; authorizing and providing for the issuance and sale of limited tax general obligation bonds to pay all or part of the costs of certain transportation elements of the City’s capital improvement program and for other City purposes approved by ordinance and to pay the costs of issuance of the bonds; providing parameters for the bond sale terms including conditions, covenants, and other sale terms; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_11222021_CB 120196
|
Speaker 0: Agenda Item 20 Council Bill 120196 An ordinance relating to the electric system of the City of Seattle. Adopting a system or plan of additions and betterment to and extensions of the existing municipal light and electric power generation transmission and distribution system of the city. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I move to pass Council Bill 1 to 0 196. Agenda item 20. Is there a second? I can. Thank you so much. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Are there any comments on a council bill? 1 to 0 196. Agenda Item 20. Any comments on agenda item 20 see no hands raised will occur. Please call the role on the passage of Council Bill 1 to 0 196. Agenda item 22.
Speaker 1: Want. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Thank you. Whereas I. Lewis Yes. Morales Yes. Musgrave, i. Peterson. I. Council President Gonzales. I. Nine in favor and oppose.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Council Bill 120196 Agenda item 20 passes and the chair will sign it. Will it please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? The clerk please read the short title of item 21 into the record. Agenda Item 21 Council Bill 120197. An ordinance relating to the drainage and wastewater system of the city of Seattle recommends the bill passed with council members Macheda Herbold, Gonzalez, Suarez, Lewis Morales and Strauss in favor and Councilmember Peterson abstaining.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the electric system of The City of Seattle; adopting a system or plan of additions and betterments to and extensions of the existing municipal light and electric power generation, transmission, and distribution system of the City; authorizing the issuance and sale of municipal light and power revenue bonds for the purposes of providing funds to pay part of the cost of carrying out that system or plan, providing for the reserve fund requirement (if any), and paying the costs of issuance of the bonds; providing parameters for the bond sale terms including conditions, covenants, and other sale terms; describing the lien of the bonds and authorizing their issuance as either senior lien parity bonds or junior lien bonds; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_11222021_CB 120200
|
Speaker 0: Agenda Item 23 Council Bill 120200 An ordinance relating to the Office of Housing Creating a new fund in the City Treasury. The Council budget action was approved by the following vote Council members Mosquito Purple, Gonzalez Suarez and Lewis Morales and Strauss in favor and Council member Peterson abstaining. Thank you so much. Are there any comments on Council Bill 120200 Agenda Item 23. Any comments on agenda item 23 Seeing no hands raised. Will the Court please call the roll on the passage of Council? Bill 120200. Agenda Item 23.
Speaker 1: Student. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Whereas I. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. For Sarah. Hi. Paterson. Hi. Council President Gonzales. I nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Council Bill 120200 Agenda item 23 passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? The clerk please read the title of item 24 into the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Office of Housing; creating a new Fund in the City Treasury.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_11222021_Res 32023
|
Speaker 0: Agenda Item 25 Resolution 32023. A resolution amending Resolution 31334 establishing the City Council's intent to fund the Seattle City Employees Retirement System as informed by the January 1st, 2021 actuary study. The committee recommends the bill pass. Excuse me. The committee recommends council adopt a resolution with council members Mesquita, Herbold, Gonzales, Suarez, Lewis, Morales and Strauss in favor and Councilmember Peterson abstaining. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Are there any comments on resolution 32023? Agenda item 25. We're on agenda item 25. Are there any comments on that resolution? See, no hands raised will occur. Please call the role on the adoption of resolution 32023. Agenda item 25.
Speaker 1: Silent. Yes. Strauss. Yes. HERBOLD. Yes. Whereas I. Lewis.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Skinner. Hi. Peterson Hi. Council President Gonzales. Now I'm in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Resolution 32023. Agenda item 25 is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the person please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read the short title of item 26 into the record? Agenda Item 26 Council Bill 120201 An ordinance relating to city funds closing certain funds, sub funds and accounts authorizing the Department of Finance and Administrative Services to take action pursuant to those closures. Thank you so much. I move to pass Council Bill 1 to 0 201.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION amending Resolution 31334; establishing the City Council’s intent to fund the Seattle City Employees’ Retirement System (SCERS) as informed by the January 1, 2021, Actuarial Study.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_11222021_CB 120223
|
Speaker 0: Thanks so much. Council Bill 120202 Agenda item 27 passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Please read the title of item 28 into the record. Agenda Item 28 Council Bill 120223. An ordinance relating to the financing of the Transportation Fund authorizing interphone enter fund loans up to a total amount of $15 million from multiple city funds as bridge financing to be repaid by the proceeds of a future surplus property sale. The committee recommends the bill pass the council members Macheda Herbold, Gonzalez, Suarez, Lewis, Morales and Strauss in favor and counsel Peterson abstaining. Thank you so much. Are there any comments on Council Bill 120223 Agenda item 28 We are now on agenda item 28 and looking for comments, if any. See no hands raised. Will the clerk please call the role on the passage of Council Bill 120223. Agenda Item 28.
Speaker 1: Yes. Strauss. Yes. HERBOLD. Yes. Whereas I. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Mosquera. I Paterson High Council President Gonzalez I nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Pete, thank you so much. Council Bill 120223 agenda item 28 passes and the chair will sign it. Will Clark, please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Will the clerk please read the title of item 29 into the record? Agenda Item 29 Council Bill 120228 An ordinance relating to taxation increasing the commercial parking tax and amending subsection 5.35.030. B of the Seattle Ministerial Code. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you so much. Are there any comments on Council Bill 120228.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the financing of the Transportation Fund; authorizing interfund loans up to a total amount of $15,000,000 from multiple City funds as bridge financing to be repaid by the proceeds of a future surplus property sale.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_11222021_CB 120228
|
Speaker 0: Agenda Item 29 Council Bill 120228 An ordinance relating to taxation increasing the commercial parking tax and amending subsection 5.35.030. B of the Seattle Ministerial Code. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you so much. Are there any comments on Council Bill 120228. Agenda item 29. We are now on agenda item 29. Does anyone have any comments? Hearing no comments. Will the police call the roll on the passage of Council Bill 120228. Agenda Item 29.
Speaker 1: Sergeant. Yes. Strauss. Yes. HERBOLD. Yes. Whereas. I. Lewis.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Mascara. Hi, Petersen. Hi. Council President Gonzalez. Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Council Bill 120228 Item 29 passes and the chair will sign it. Will the park please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Please read the title of item 30 into the record. Agenda Item 30 Council Bill 120222.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to taxation; increasing the commercial parking tax and amending subsection 5.35.030.B of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_11152021_CF 314367
|
Speaker 3: And I don't want to call 314367. The application of 4130 to Development LLC and the Seattle Housing Authority to rezone portions of the lot located at 14302 30th Avenue Northeast and portions of the lot located at 14330 30th Avenue Northeast from single family, 7200 square feet to low rise three with a mandatory housing affordability two suffix project number 3023581 Type four.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. I got to hand it over to Councilmember Strauss, who is the chair of the committee responsible for this item to provide us the report.
Speaker 2: I thank you, Council president, colleagues. This clerk files a contract rezoning application to rezone the property at 1430 to 30th Avenue Northeast and a portion of the adjacent property at 14330 30th Avenue Northeast from single family zoned 7202 low rise three. Both properties are currently split zone between S.F. 7 to 7200 and low rise three and the lot at 43 zero 2/30 Avenue Northeast. The applicant plans to develop four townhomes for a total of 21 units. The lot at 41330 30 if avenue northeast is owned by Sale Housing Authority and has no plans for redevelopment but is being included in the recent application to avoid a narrow strip of single family zoning remaining on a block, otherwise zoned for low rise land use and neighborhoods. Committee unanimously approved this application with two changes made in committee. The First Amendment increased the mandatory housing affordability requirements to the full development on these sites. Both the STSCI and hearing examiner recommendations included an m suffix to note denoting the low lowest level of affordable housing requirement. Thanks to list with some of central staff, the committee recognized that the higher M2 suffix should have been applied. This change increases the image a requirement from 7% or $7 per square foot to 9% or $12.50 per square foot. Contract reasons are typically conditioned on future development, conforming to the development proposal submitted at the time of the recent application. Because the Seattle Housing Authority has no plans to redevelop. The committee also removed that condition from a portion of the reason. Both the director and hearing examiner issued recommendations for this for the approval of this rezoning application, and that is the committee report. Council President, thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Strauss, are there any additional comments on agenda item one? Hearing no additional comments and no hands raised will call the roll on granting as conditions. The quick file.
Speaker 1: It is then.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: So want. Yes. Strauss. Yes. HERBOLD Yes.
Speaker 2: LEWIS Yes.
Speaker 1: MORALES Yes, that's correct. I council President Gonzalez I Adan favor and opposed.
Speaker 0: The court filings granted as condition and the chair will sign the findings, conclusions and decision of the City Council. Will the verdict please affix my signature to the findings, conclusions and decision of the City Council on my behalf? Will the clerk please read Agenda Item two into the record? And Madam Clerk, I think your muted. Inc you.
Speaker 3: Report of City Council Agenda Item two Council Bill 120216 An Ordinance relating to land use and Zoning Amending Chapter 23.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code at page eight of the official land use map tourism portions of the lot located at 14302 30th Avenue Northeast and portions of the lot located at 14330 30th Avenue Northeast and accepting property
|
Clerk File (CF)
|
Application of 14302 Development, LLC, and the Seattle Housing Authority, to rezone portions of the lot located at 14302 30th Avenue NE and portions of the lot located at 14330 30th Avenue NE from Single Family 7200 (SF 7200) to Lowrise 3 with a Mandatory Housing Affordability 2 suffix (LR3 (M2)) (Project No. 3023581, Type IV).
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_11152021_CB 120216
|
Speaker 3: Report of City Council Agenda Item two Council Bill 120216 An Ordinance relating to land use and Zoning Amending Chapter 23.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code at page eight of the official land use map tourism portions of the lot located at 14302 30th Avenue Northeast and portions of the lot located at 14330 30th Avenue Northeast and accepting property use and development agreements as a condition of recent.
Speaker 1: Approval.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Colleagues, I move to pass Council Bill 120216. Is there a second second? Thank you so much. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill and to hand back over to Councilmember Strauss to provide the report on this as the sponsor of the bill.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. This is the Associate Council bill for the for the contract free zone just mentioned on the item previous to this. The clerk file contained the rezoning application is council bill effectuate the zone and accepts the property use and development agreements and changes the zoning map itself. That's the final word on this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Short and sweet. Thank you so much. Customer stress there? Any additional comments? Not seen any hands raised. Will the Court please call the role on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Paterson I so want. Yes. Strauss Yes. Herbold Yes.
Speaker 2: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales That was correct. I counsel President Gonzales. I aid in favor and oppose.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the child will sign it. Will the court please affect my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read Agenda Item three into the record?
Speaker 3: Agenda item three File 314459. Petition of Grand Street Commons LLC for the vacation of the Ali in BLOCK 14 Jesse Kinnear's addition to the City of Seattle being the block bounded by South Grand Street, 22nd Avenue, South South Holgate Street and 23rd Avenue South.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending Chapter 23.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code at page 8 of the Official Land Use Map to rezone portions of the lot located at 14302 30th Avenue NE and portions of the lot located at 14330 30th Avenue NE from Single Family 7200 (SF 7200) to Lowrise 3 with a Mandatory Housing Affordability 2 suffix (LR3 (M2)) and accepting Property Use and Development Agreements as a condition of rezone approval. (Petition by 14302 Development and the Seattle Housing Authority, C.F. 314367, SDCI Project 3023581-LU)
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_11152021_CB 120218
|
Speaker 3: And the item for Council Bill 120218 an ordinance relating to property at some point authorizing the Director of Housing to execute an easement agreement for a sanitary sewer main line with the University of Washington. Authorizing related agreements and actions to support the development of cottages for people experiencing homelessness on a parcel owned by the city and leased to SB Cottages LLC. And ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. I moved the past council bill 120218. Is there a second second? Thank you so much. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. I'm going to hand it over to Councilor Mosquito, who is the prime sponsor of this bill in order to address the item.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much, Council President. Although this legislation is very technical, I am still excited. This legislation helps us advance a long anticipated project like Cottages for People Experiencing Homelessness. By way of background, in 2019, the Council approved legislation to lease city owned property on the former Sandpoint Naval Station site to Lehigh. That's the low income Housing Institute for creation of 20 to 25 units to serve individuals from families making 40% of the area median income. The project will serve homeless families who are children, seniors, veterans, people with physical disabilities, their community members. And we're really excited about the cottage vision that has been drawn up for this location and the way in which it integrates directly into community and creates thriving, local, connected neighbors. The cottages will have living and sleeping areas lofts and kitchens and bathrooms on site. The community will include common buildings, community gardens, outdoor recreation space and walking paths. Construction on the cottage is currently underway. There are being built modular through modules. I can't say that word around offsite by students in pre apprenticeship programs and using vocational training programs. These modules will be assembled onsite by a general contractor. We anticipate groundbreaking will occur January 2020, with tentative opening in September or October of 2022. This legislation helps move the project forward by enabling the Office of Housing to enter into an easement agreement with Connect with the connected University of Washington's adjacent sewer line. Thank you to Councilmember Peterson for your interest in this legislation as well, and happy to have you as a co-sponsor on this. I want to thank Representative Frank Chopp for all of the work that he has done specific in this area and helping to bring this vision to reality. I look forward to working with all of you over the next few years to do more of more projects like this, and specifically in bringing this project to life later next year. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Mosqueda, are there any additional comments? Councilmember Peterson. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President Thank you, Councilmember Skinner, for taking the lead on this. And I want to thank University Washington as well as Lehigh. And and like you said, Representative Frank Chopp, this project follows in the footsteps of other long term housing projects. And in District four, such as Gossett Place and Marion West and our court and the solid ground housing already at Magnuson Park and Mercy Magnuson housing there as well. This project is on the western edge of Magnuson Park and then of course the Cedar Crossing projects, which is under construction right now on top of Roosevelt Light Rail Station. So proud to be supportive of this low income housing infrastructure. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilman Peterson. Are there any other comments on the bill? Seeing no additional hands raised will occur. Please call the will on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Paterson.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Sergeant. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes.
Speaker 2: LEWIS Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales Yes.
Speaker 4: Skinner I.
Speaker 1: Council. President Gonzalez I am in favor and oppose.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Other business. Is there any further business to come before the Council? I'm not seeing any hands raised. So Collins is just going through the items of business. On today's agenda, our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on November 22nd, 2021, at 2:00 pm, the very same day we are slated to vote. Take the final votes on our budget. So I hope that you all have a wonderful afternoon. I will see many of you later on this week, but for now we are adjourned. Thanks, everyone.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to property at Sand Point; authorizing the Director of Housing to execute an easement agreement for a sanitary sewer main line with the University of Washington; authorizing related agreements and actions to support the development of cottages for people experiencing homelessness on a parcel owned by the City and leased to SP Cottages LLC; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_10112021_CB 120186
|
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the piece affixed my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read item one into the record? Agenda Item one Constable 120 186 Plaintiff Study Employment authorizing the execution of agreements between the City of Seattle and certain city unions. Authorizing compensation for certain city employees not covered by collective bargaining agreements and ratifying confirming certain prior acts. Thank you so much. I move to pass Council Bill 120186. Is there a second second? It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. I am the sponsor of this bill, so I'll address it first and then open the floor to comments. But before we actually debate the underlying bill, I did want to move the adoption of the amendment. I did have an opportunity to speak about the amendment this morning and it was published on the agenda. It is Amendment eight pardon. So I'm gonna go ahead and do that first so we can have a conversation of a potentially amended bill before us. So I moved to amend Council Bill 1 to 0 186 as presented with Amendment A on the agenda. Is there a second? Okay. Thank you. It's been we've been seconded to amend the bill is presented on Amendment A. Again, colleagues, as I describe during this morning's council briefing, this legislation would authorize additional pay for frontline city employees to acknowledge hardships, offset additional costs, and retain frontline city employees to continue to deliver in-person essential city services during the COVID 19 Public Health Emergency. As it relates to the items addressed in this legislation, the city last week reached a new tentative agreement with Protect 17, representing the central staff analyst bargaining unit. Amendment eight, which is currently before us, would attach this new tentative agreement to the Council bill so that it would be ratified, along with the other agreements already included in the legislation that was transmitted to us by the executive branch. This tentative agreement includes the same terms and benefits as the other agreements that were attached to this bill as it was transmitted. And the late edition of this agreement is simply the results of sequencing, since the executive led negotiators and city unions did not initially include the central staff analyst bargaining unit. This agreement is ready now to be attached to this legislation now that those negotiations have occurred and have been completed. So I'm happy to answer any questions about Amendment A, but of course, I do recommend that my colleagues support the adoption of A. Any questions? Or comments on Amendment eight seen none will accept. Please call the role on the adoption of Amendment eight.
Speaker 1: Whereas I. Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes, i.
Speaker 2: Peterson I.
Speaker 1: Sawai Yes.
Speaker 2: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold Yes. President Gonzalez I. Nine in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 0: The motion carries in and Amendment eight is adopted. And I'm going to go ahead and make comments on the amended bill before opening up to any further debate. Again, Council Bill 120186, as amended, includes terms for frontline worker pay that are authorized by this Council bill that would be authorized by this Council bill if approved. So the terms in this bill, excuse me, were negotiated with various unions representing city employees, and the benefits provided therein will apply to both represented and non represented frontline workers employed by all three branches of city government, including the legislative branch. Following the adoption of Amendment eight, which we just did, this legislation would ratify four tentative agreements with all the bargaining units who have agreed to these terms. This frontline worker pay will go to eligible employees in the form of a lump sum payment of up to a maximum of $1,750. This is comparable to the total value of the telework stipends that have been paid to city employees who have been working virtually throughout the pandemic. So generally speaking, city workers are eligible for either the telework stipend or the frontline worker pay and cannot earn both benefits. The estimated cost for additional paid to, represented and not represented frontline workers is approximately $6.5 million, and there are sufficient reserves in the general fund needed to support this this additional expense. I do want to make sure that members of the viewing public and colleagues know that future legislation will have to come before the Council later this year or early next year to make appropriations to various city departments in order for them to execute the lump sum payments to eligible employees. Once we have a better sense of the full universe of those who will claim it. Finally, as I noted during this morning's council briefing, the city has now reached tentative agreements regarding frontline worker pay, with all unions representing city employees. With the exception of the Seattle Police Officers Guild and Police Officers Guild was offered the same terms and benefits agreed to by all other unions, but has so far rejected the city's proposed terms. Of course, we're disappointed in in that rejection, but that will continue to move through our processes here to make sure that the frontline workers who are complying with vaccine requirements and who are also and agree frontline workers in agreeing to accept these terms are compensated accordingly. Okay, folks, I don't have anything else to say on this particular issue, so I'm going to go ahead and wrap up my comments and open up the floor to any additional comments on Council Bill 120186. Any additional comments or questions? Cast member me, please. I just want to make one additional point. Thank no president with us for covering this so thoroughly. One additional point I would like to just add is my understanding as it relates to the position that Spock has taken, that the city.
Speaker 3: Did not.
Speaker 0: Tie offers on acknowledgment, appreciation, pay, two offers on vaccine mandates.
Speaker 3: So I just think that's.
Speaker 0: An important clarification for folks who are.
Speaker 3: Following along on.
Speaker 2: Both of these related issues.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions on council? The 120186 as amended herein, none. Will the court please call the rule on the passage of the amended bill.
Speaker 1: Suarez II. Lewis.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Morales Yes. Macheda i. Peterson I so want yes. Strauss Yes. Verbal yes. President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: I. Nine in favor. Nine opposed the motion carries the bill passes as amended, and the chair will sign it. Will the Court please affect my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Is there any further business to come before the Council? Not seen any hands raised. So, colleagues, this does conclude the items of business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on a is on October 18, 2021 at 2:00 PM. I hope that you all have a wonderful afternoon returns. Thanks, everyone.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment; authorizing the execution of agreements between The City of Seattle and certain City unions; authorizing compensation for certain City employees not covered by a collective bargaining agreement; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_10042021_CB 120182
|
Speaker 0: Agenda Item one Council Vote 120 182 Relating to the Tenant Relocation Assistant Ordinance clarified that I cannot give the patient license required for the removal of a rent or increase restriction. Thank you so much. I move to pass Council Bill 120182. Is there a second?
Speaker 1: Second.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Customers want you are the sponsor of this item, so I'm going to go in hand it over to you to walk us through the report.
Speaker 2: Thank you. One minute the bill has been moved and seconded. I believe I should. Do I have to?
Speaker 0: Yep. Already. Already done. We have to develop the procedure. So now you can go ahead and just talk about the bill.
Speaker 2: Thank you. This bill is a legislation from the city of Seattle, Department of Construction and Inspections, clarifying that the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance applies to buildings that exist, the multi-family tax exemption affordable housing program. The ordinance, which is known as TRAIL, which is its acronym for short, requires building owners to pay relocation assistance when they displace renters through no fault eviction in order to demolish or remodel the building or a similar change of use. This bill is for clarifying purposes and is pretty straightforward, making it clear that exiting the MFP program, the multifamily tax exemption program, counts as that sort of change of use. There are a couple of buildings in Seattle that are expected to exit the MFT program this year. The department walked through one such building and estimated that approximately 10% of the tenants there would be eligible for relocation assistance because the ordinance has extremely restrictive means testing that even count the income of your roommate against you. While this clarifying language will only help a small minority of renters, residents of some affordable homes are expected to be eligible for it this year. So I appreciate Dan Gonzalez's willingness to send this bill directly to full council with the city council today. And I urge members to vote. Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. Silent for that report. Are there any additional comments or questions on the bill? Not seeing any hands raise. I do want to note for the record that we have been joined by Councilmember Miles. Well, a quick piece called The Roll on the Passage of the Bill Herbold. S Juarez i the less.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Morales Yes. Mesquita All right. Peterson I so want this.
Speaker 3: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez. Nine in favor, nine opposed, the motion carries, the bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the parties affix my signature on the legislation to the legislation on my behalf? Well, the clerk please read item two into the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance; clarifying that a tenant relocation license is required before the removal of a rent or income restriction; and amending Sections 22.210.020, 22.210.030, 22.210.040, 22.210.050, 22.210.070, 22.210.080, 22.210.090, 22.210.100, 22.210.110, 22.210.120, 22.210.130, 22.210.136, 22.210.140, and 22.210.160 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_10042021_Res 32020
|
Speaker 0: Agenda Item three Resolution 32020 Setting a public hearing on the petition of Grand Street Comments LLC for the vacation of the Alien Black 14 Jesse Canaries Edition. Thank you so much. I need to adopt resolution 32020. Is there a second?
Speaker 1: Second?
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution. I'm going to hand over to Councilmember Peterson, who's the sponsor of this item, to address it.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President colleagues. Resolution 32020 simply sets the date for a public hearing on whether to vacate a city owned alley to benefit a proposed affordable housing project called Grande Street Commons, located in the Mount Baker neighborhood. All street vacations go through the transportation committee, but due to budget season, this public hearing would take place at a full city council meeting on Monday, November eight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Are there any additional comments on the resolution? Caspir Mosquito See that you have your hand raised. Thank you very much. I want to thank Chet Petersen for their work on the Transportation Committee, always looking for opportunities to partner transportation and housing and walkable, livable Seattle. So thanks for your work on this legislation here today to move this more quickly forward. I do want to thank you for your work, to understand your work quickly to move this. As we understand, the project is ready for groundbreaking in December and needs the street vacation in place before then. And just flagging that this is one of several affordable housing projects that I've learned of recently that require street vacations from the city. While typically projects are required to compensate the city for the appraised value of the land, which can be anywhere from several hundred thousand dollars to upwards of $1,000,000. And in these cases where it isn't, where it is, where it is, an affordable housing project that is trying to be built, it's precious time and limited public resources for building affordable housing that I want to make sure is not just going back to the city to pay for the street vacations, which I think we all agree makes no sense. So I'm excited for this step today. I think that the issue overall was brought to our attention by Pastor Seales. So I also want to thank who we're working on with and working with on an affordable housing projects such as church owned sites in the Central District, and looking forward to continuing to work with Pastor Seales and the Mount Baker Community Housing Office to work on future legislation to help continue the process and making sure that street vacation fees for affordable housing projects are something that those who are developing affordable housing don't have to go through. And I see this as complementary to that larger vision. So thank you so much for your work on this, Councilmember Peterson, and look forward to working with you central staff and Erin house in my office who's been a who's been doing a lot of research to get to the bottom of of how we can avoid that sort of revolving door of funding back to the city to really just expedite creating affordable housing and utilizing our public land efficient efficiently. So just teeing up more conversations to come in the post budget conversations in December and next year. And thank you, Councilmember Peterson, for all of your work in the future. Any additional comments on the resolution? Gilmore, Hanson, Peterson. Anything else to add? Okay. I'm hearing I'm seeing a a no, thank you. So will the clerk please call the roll on the passage on the adoption of the resolution Herbold. Yes. Thank you. Juarez by.
Speaker 1: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 0: Morales. Yes. Let's get to. I. Peterson I so want.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Strauss.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez. 9 a.m. favored unopposed motion carries. The resolution is adopted. The chair will sign it. Will the quick fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the correct please read items four through eight into the record?
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION setting the public hearing on the petition of Grand Street Commons LLC for the vacation of the alley in Block 14, Jos C. Kinnear’s Addition to The City of Seattle in the block bounded by 23rd Avenue South, South Grand Street, 22nd Avenue South, and South Holgate Street in the North Rainier/Mt. Baker Hub Urban Village area of Seattle, according to Chapter 35.79 of the Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 15.62 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and Clerk File 314459.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_10042021_CB 120181
|
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez high nine in favor and unopposed motion carries and the appointment is confirmed. All right. Part two of the Councilmember Strauss show continues. Will the clerk please read item 11 into the record? The Report of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item 11 Council Bill 120181 Amending Section 23.50 8.0 44 of the set of the code to facilitate the transfer of development rights from Pearson Snohomish Counties to Seattle. The committee recommends the bill pass. All right, back over to Councilmember Strauss, who's the chair of the committee and is recognized in order to provide the committee's report.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President, do I need to move or second this bill before discussing you.
Speaker 0: Know it's that it's coming to us straight from committee so you can just give the committee report and then we'll go ahead and call the roll.
Speaker 3: Fantastic Council president. Colleagues, this is possibly one of the biggest bills that we will take up this year that has caught no attention or limelight. And that's and the reason I say that is because Council Bill 120 181 will allow for regional regional transferable development rates program to work with peers in Snohomish County. As many of you know, we already have a TDR Transferrable Development Rights Program here in the city of Seattle working with King County. And we do not have that program set up to work with Snohomish and Pierce Counties. So, for instance, when we stand in Seattle and look east to the mountains, we now see many different suburban developments on the foothills. Before the Cascades, a regional TDR program allows us to preserve that farmland and forestland and turn that development capacity into built and put it in buildings in downtown in South Lake. Union said another way if we had TDR program set up years ago, we would be able to look east from the city of Seattle to the Cascades with uninterrupted views of the forest land. Now for us to be able to retain our uninterrupted use of forest and farmland from Seattle to Mt. Rainier or to Glacier Peak, we need this program, and this program has not been in place. And that's why I say it's one of the biggest things we've done with the little littlest amount of fanfare. Again, I just want to kind of highlight the aspects of this bill. Currently, Seattle Seattle's PDR program allows receiving sites only in certain parts of our city, such as downtown in South Lake Union, to buy additional development capacity by purchasing credits from eligible sending sites to farmland or forest land such as landmarked properties on first hill or farmland and greenspace in rural King County. The program allows us to accept more growth in our urban centers while preserving green spaces, agricultural lands and historic properties that make our region so beautiful. As the supply of TDR credits from Seattle and King County slows. This legislation before us today allows for additional credits to be purchased from Pearson Snohomish County, encouraging preservation in more of our region while allowing for the continued growth we need in Seattle. Throughout the consideration of this legislation, we've heard from Kingston Homes and Pierce Counties about the importance of this change, as well as from conservation groups such as for Terra. Again, this is probably one of the biggest little things that we will do all year because the impact is so incredible. Yet we have to do very little to achieve preserving farmland, forest land and undeveloped land in our suburbs and creating more density here in our cities. Thank you. Council President colleagues, that is the committee's report.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Councilmember Strauss, are there any additional comments on the bill? I don't see any hands raised. So will the clerk please call the role on the passage of the Bill Herbold. Yes. Suarez, I. Louis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Morales. Yes. Mesquita, i. Peterson. I. So what?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Strauss.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez. High nine in favor. None opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the corpses affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read item 12 into the record? Agenda Item 12 Casper 120 135 Relating to land use and zoning.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE amending Section 23.58A.044 of the Seattle Municipal Code to facilitate the transfer of development rights from Pierce and Snohomish Counties to Seattle.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_10042021_CB 120155
|
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez. High nine in favor. None opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the corpses affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read item 12 into the record? Agenda Item 12 Casper 120 135 Relating to land use and zoning. Amending the comprehensive plan to change the name of single family areas to neighborhood residential areas as part of the 2023 2021 Comprehensive Plan Amendment process, the committee recommends the bill perhaps as amended. Thank you so much. Well, it is my absolute pleasure to hand this back over to Councilmember Strauss, who's the chair of Early and use the Neighborhoods Committee to provide a committee report on the bill.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Council president and colleagues with such enthusiasm with the vote. Just a moment ago, I bring to you another small and important change. The legislation before us amends the comprehensive plan to change the name of single family areas to neighborhood residential areas, which is a more accurate term. Describing the areas in which they cover neighborhood residential reflects the reality on the ground today, as our so-called single family areas include houses with multiple families or unrelated roommates, as well as attached and detached dwelling units. Legacy duplexes and legacy apartment buildings all built before the current zoning rules took effect, as well as multi-family units apartment buildings that are built in areas that no longer allow them to be built. Thus, neighborhood residential reflects the reality we feel on the ground that there are many different types of buildings that make our residential areas vibrant and many different building types that are already in what we know now as single family zones. This name change was recommended to us by the Seattle Planning Commission in 2018. The City Council has placed this proposal on the table for consideration as part of the Comprehensive Plan Document Process in 2019, 2020 and earlier this year. I want to thank Councilmember Muscadet for her work before I came into office on this, because this has been a long anticipated change. I have heard some concern from community members that this changes, that these changes do nothing more than. Let me take one step back. I've heard I've heard concerns from community members that this leads to so many different things. What I think we need to be grounded in today is that what we have before us is a bill that changes the name of these zones. It does not change the zoning. It does not change the uses. It does not change the height, bulk or scale of buildings in these areas. It simply changes the name in what we call areas of our of our city. We have held two public hearings on this proposal in July and September and notified all affected community councils of the change over this last summer in the Planning Commission's recommendations for this round of comprehensive plan amendments. They showed strong support for this change in committee. We adopted one amendment which was suggested to us by Councilmember Herbert. Thank you for that correction, Councilmember Herbert. Well received. And that amendment removed awkward language in both the Morgan Junction and Northgate Community plans that would have resulted from this change. I was more than happy and glad to work with Councilmember Mosqueda on this change and happy and I feel lucky to get to work with her as she's been leading this effort for so long. I look forward to continuing a conversation about our growth strategy as we lead up to the 2024 comprehensive comprehensive plan. Major update. Thank you. Council President. That is the committee report.
Speaker 0: Wonderful. And I know that concerned Mesquita is a co-sponsor of this effort with you. So I do want to give her an opportunity to also make introductory remarks on the bill before we open it up for comments from others as as data, please. Thank you, Madam President. And I do want to thank the Land Use and Neighborhoods committee chair. Thank you very much, Councilmember Straus, not just for your co-sponsorship of this proposal, but also for your leadership throughout this process. As you noted, there have been multiple public hearings, committee conversations that we've had. We also, through with Councilmember Morales's office, had a conversation that rooted our conversations today with the research that we received from the Racial Equity Toolkit. Many discussions were had in community, including making sure that the 17 neighborhood plans who currently have references to single family homes were directly reached out to and that those individual neighborhoods knew about the potential change. We received over 400 individuals and organizations who wrote in to us with comments about the 17 neighborhoods and appreciated making sure that. I'm clarifying for the record how much public engagement was done on this with those 17 directly affected neighborhoods. And again, as Councilmember Strauss has has accurately summarized once again, for the record, the importance of the name change, but also centering us on the fact that this is just a name change to address a misnomer. A misnomer that is still in statute that I think is continuing to misrepresent the city that we want to be in the future and currently misrepresents the fabric of our neighborhood right now. I will just include the three comments here that came from letters of support from community members today. The first comes from the Seattle Chamber of Commerce, the letter states. It is true that this legislation is a simple name change, but Seattle must take this first step of passing Council Bill 120155, as well as continue to address the historic and ongoing impacts of exclusionary zoning through changes to existing policies. The other letter that we received today came from the Housing Development Consortium. The letter states, With this amendment, you are laying the groundwork to create more opportunities for diverse housing in neighborhoods in Seattle and the upcoming Comprehensive Plan Update. This is a down payment on on a purpose for opportunity and more opportunity for people in this city, families and children, to have access to wonderful neighborhoods across our city. And finally, from Habitat for Humanity, from Seattle, King County's Habitat for Humanity, they say one example of the kind of change we can see even more by passing this type of proposal is our work in South Park on Saturday. We were blessed to have the opportunity to celebrate the completion of our most recent development on this site, where we turned one single family home into 13 permanent, affordable homes. Today, there are now 13 families living in South Park, in part because of the zoning flexibility that is required by authorizing this legislation. You are taking one step, an important step in continuing to move Seattle to a place where everyone has a place to call home. I raise this three letters as examples of the diverse type of comments that we've received, the diverse type of entities that have written in to support this important but simple piece of legislation in front of us. As we proposed neighborhood residential. We are in all aspects, recognizing that language matters. We we are recognizing that neighborhoods are diverse homes to housing and commerce, diverse homes to parks and services, diverse homes to neighborhood amenities that can make our communities more walkable, climate resilient, that help us achieve our 15 minute commitment so that everyone can access all things they need without ever having to get into a car. The reality is that, quote, single family only doesn't reflect the current use and make up of our neighborhoods that really have duplexes and triplexes, row houses, connected homes, courtyards and apartments. Again, like the one that I lived in in Cleveland that has been zoned out and currently banned from being in existence. So I want to thank finally the members of the housing excuse me, of the Seattle Planning Commission, who, as we've talked about before, have recommended year over year. Every single time the Planning Commission has sent recommendations to council and to the Mayor. Since 2018, they have requested for this proposal to be included. And I spoke with members of the Planning Commission from before 2018 and they said we made that recommendation far before 2018 as well, but very happy that they are very happy to see it finally move into action. And in addition to the 400 individuals and organizations who we are working with on getting feedback from those 17 neighborhoods, letters and communications were sent to all communities affected. And this included deep conversations, especially here in District one at the Morgan Junction Community Association in July, where we met with members of my. First met with Highland Park, Morgan Junction, Alki and other West Seattle neighborhoods. And I bring these up to show how important these conversations are right now with just the simple name change, because we're going to be calling upon those same individuals, organizations, folks who have differing opinions to really set the stage for our 2023 comprehensive plan throughout 2022 will build on the discussions that we've had this year to make informed policy discussions, root decisions rooted in what community is informing us of. So I'm excited about those conversations being able to start from a place of shared understanding of what the current fabric of our city currently is. Again, thank you to Councilmember Strauss and I have to say thank you, Councilmember Waters. And I know she's loving this. Thank you. Peace as I lead into the other thank you's for Representative Macri Representative Fitzgibbon, Representative Shop, the Housing Development Consortium, South Side Chamber of Commerce, Seattle Chamber, Seattle Sierra Club Air. The Institute of Architects Sara City of Streets of Seattle. Seattle for Everyone. Habitat for Humanity. Seattle Planning Commission. Seattle Tech for Housing Lish Woodson Central Staff No on from Councilmember Strauss's office and Aaron House from my office, who have just been incredibly instrumental with helping to shape this policy in front of us. And we know we're going to look ahead to these major changes coming. As Councilmember Strauss said, we're not getting ahead of those discussions in today's piece of legislation that is narrow and scoped in its effect. But those conversations over the next two years, I'm very excited about that. We are going to be able to result in meaningful policy discussions and decisions that help us get at exclusionary zoning, on creating more diverse housing choices and on combating displacement. Setting the stage and setting the narrative that is rooted in language that is meaningful and reflective of our neighborhoods is critical. So I'm excited for this first step. And thank you very much, Councilmember Strauss, for shepherding us through a very inclusive conversation with community. Thank you so much, Councilman. Is there any additional comments on the bill? Councilmember Herbold, please. Thank you. I just wanted to, though. Councilmember Styles very graciously thanked me for the amendment that I had flagged. Even though I'm not a member. I want to thank Councilmember Strauss for bringing it forward. And I want to thank the Morgan Junction Association for identifying it as a as a is a treat that was necessary for for readability. I really appreciate their their fine eye towards towards making sure in in a piece of legislation it's all about creating more clarity about what what uses are allowed. I really appreciate their paying attention to that level of detail. Thank you. Thanks so much, Councilmember Herbold. Any additional comments on the bill? Well, I'll put myself in a queue.
Speaker 3: You're on mute now. Council President. Apologies.
Speaker 0: The host mutiny.
Speaker 3: Was it, Mitch?
Speaker 0: Yeah. I'm starting to think that number one is taking host responsibilities. I have. Well, you'll be pleased to hear that. My comments are very short. I was just going to say gravy. I was going to say that I'm very excited to vote in support of this bill as the sponsors of this bill have mentioned. We've heard from many stakeholders for a long period of time on this name change, and I also believe that this will better reflect and include residents of a neighborhood. It's my hope that our zoning will also move forward in the near future to reflect our cities, the reality of our city's rapid growth in the last decade, and look forward to continuing to support the Council's work in allowing more neighbors and the density that will be necessary to invite those additional families into into all of our all of our neighborhoods so much thanks seconds member Strauss and the skater for your important work. That being said, Councilmember Strauss, would you like to have the last word?
Speaker 3: Just echoing the thanks to everyone who called it out and did it belted out well. And Deputy Clerk Schwinn adding to the conversation here. I appreciate all of you and thank you all for your great work. And Noah and Erin House. Thank you for all you've done.
Speaker 0: Appreciate it. Deputy Clerk Winds small nudge to keep it moving along. With that being said, well, the curfew is called the roll on the passage of verbal. Herbold. Wow. Yes. Oh, thank you. SUAREZ Hi.
Speaker 1: LEWIS Yes.
Speaker 0: Morales Yes. Mesquita, I. Petersen.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: So what? Yes.
Speaker 3: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez High nine in favor. Nine opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign. It will affect my signature to the legislation on my behalf. All righty. Well, please read item 13 into the record and I am 13.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending the Comprehensive Plan to change the name of Single Family areas to Neighborhood Residential areas as part of the 2020-2021 Comprehensive Plan amendment process.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_10042021_CB 120154
|
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez High nine in favor. Nine opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign. It will affect my signature to the legislation on my behalf. All righty. Well, please read item 13 into the record and I am 13. Cancel Bill 120 154 Blaine 26 Downing of Ending Sale Comprehensive Plan to incorporate changes proposed as part of the 2021 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendment Process. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended. All right. I'm to hand back over to Councilmember Strauss to walk us through.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President. Colleagues, two more bills than I promised will be done. Council Bill 120154 amends the comprehensive plan as part of the 2021 annual amendment process. As we just discussed, this leads us to a major update and these amendments we considered a year ago. If I have that right now, I'll text me if I have said that incorrectly. This legislation makes other changes to the comprehensive plan as part of the 2021 annual amendment process. As a reminder, state law allows us to amend comprehensive plan one time per year. The Council engages in a two year process for amending the comprehensive plan first by passing a resolution that sets the docket of amendments to be considered and then considering seven amendments the following year. The amendments in Council Bill 120154 were docketed last year. There are two amendments being made as part of this legislation. The first is a proposal from the community, from community members to add a half block in the new district to the University District Urban Center. The second is a set of changes from the Office of Planning and Development for early implementation of the key aspects of the 1/30 Street Station area plan to encourage denser housing near the future lot transit station that is on schedule. Thank you to Councilmember Juarez. This legislation as transmitted also includes amendments related to manufacturing district areas as part of the mayor's maritime and Industrial Strategy's recommendations. Those amendments had to be removed in committee because CPA has not been concluded on those proposed changes. The mayor's office has shared its intention to conduct an environmental impact statement on most of the proposed changes, which could allow the amendments to be considered next year. The Seattle Office of Planning, the Seattle Planning Commission and Pcdi recommended all the amendments included in this legislation, he added, and the committee mittee urges a vote. Thank you, Council President colleagues.
Speaker 0: Eight. Are there any additional comments on the bill? I'm not seeing any other hands raised. Oh, I see. One hand raised comes over silent, please. Sorry. Give me a while.
Speaker 2: To get my I.D.. I. I just want to make sure this is item number 13, Murray. The amendments to the comprehensive plan.
Speaker 0: Yes, this is item 13.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I will be voting yes on the comprehensive plan amendments this year because I do not object to any of the amendments this bill contains. But the fact that yet again council members have left out developer impact fees is just stunning and it's completely unacceptable. Developer impact fees are the fees that the city could charge corporate for profit developers to raise tens of millions of dollars in progressive revenue to fund roads, parks and public transit. And in fact, other cities in Washington State charge developer impact fees. As an illustration, developer impact fees in Seattle could have funded $40 million worth of public transit expansion. I want to quote what I said on September 29th of last year, one year and five days ago. Quote, I want to be clear that I object to what has been left out of the bill. In particular, there is no mention of developer impact fees. Developer impact fees can only be passed into law after they are put into the city's comprehensive plan, and the comprehensive plan is amended only once each year. So the fact that the developer and back fees are not included in this bill means that we have to wait another year or two to vote for them for the opportunity to make developers. Big developers pay, corporate developers pay for the impact they have on our city's infrastructure. Unfortunately, there is a long and bureaucratic process for establishing developer impact fees before they can be passed. They need to be in the comprehensive plan and before they can be put in the comprehensive plan, they need to be studied under the state's Environmental Protection Act, CBA outrageously, even though developer impact fees were included in the Resolution Council passed last year, listing the issues that should be studied for this year's comprehensive plan, the mayor refused to do that study. If we had developer impact fees available this year, we could raise the funds to reimburse all the cars to metro busses and ports. And keep in mind, these are, quote, my thoughts on my comments last year. So when I say this year, that meant last year and last year meant two years back. Here we are once again, one year later. And again, this data, my collection agency study. This study has not been done to allow it to be included in the comprehensive plan, despite the fact that it was placed on the list of things that would be done to prepare for this year's comprehensive plan. And despite many, many false amendments from council members, in fact, and from successive councils, you know, it's based on the numbers and from the current ones. In fact, in July of last year, the Council voted yes to include an amendment from my office to our transportation funding bill that added the following various clauses and I quote Whereas developer impact fees would be established as early as 2021 to increase funding to buy bus service hours from Metro. And. WHEREAS, Developer impact fees are a progressive funding source paid for by large corporate developers. And. Whereas, the Seattle City Council intends to complete in 2020 any required CIP analysis to enable developer impact fees to be enacted in 2021. And. WHEREAS, the Seattle City Council is committed to enacting developer impact fees in 2021 raised not less than $44 million, which would allow Seattle to increase funding for Metrobus. Our end quote. This is from the amendment from my office that was accepted by the council to a transportation funding bill. Unfortunately, that type of analysis requires the chair of the Council committees that consider land use to prioritize impact fees for the central staff. Time for the committees. And it's clear that neither Councilmember Peterson nor Strauss, who chaired the committees, have agreed to do that this year. But as a matter of fact, the council as a whole, the Democrats on the council as a whole have not prioritized developer impact fee in any way. This is a clear demonstration of the inordinate power big developers have in Seattle's politics and how much Democratic Party politicians bank do that. Despite the endless rhetoric that we hear, the mayor's office refused to be busy for analysis on developer impact fees in 2020. Then in 2021 it was deprioritized by council members and all of this happens behind closed doors to the public, does not even know who to blame and why things are not moving forward. Why is it that a completely sensible idea like developer impact fees is not going forward? I mean, the reality is it's all political impact fees are hated by corporate developers, not surprisingly. And that is why you see the inaction on the city council in the absence of a real. Campaign, a real grassroots campaign, a real momentum on the ground to push for forward. Like the Amazon backs like $15 an hour, like the many renters rights victories that renters have won this year because we've built independent campaigns to win them. So the overall result is that years have gone by and corporate developers continue to make double digit profit rates, just humongous profits, without paying anything resembling their fair share in taxes . And we can see that developers, contractors, big banks, big corporations, all of whom are making big bucks from construction and development. They are also the entities responsible for denying basic and fair contracts to construction workers. And we are seeing courageous carpenters, union carpenters on strike for or for a fair contract for themselves. And so all of this is in the mix here. I voted yes on the previous agenda item, changing the name of single family zones to neighborhood residential. But let's be crystal clear that Bill was nothing more than a name change, having absolutely no material impact. This is where the political is. That is where the political establishment chose to put their time and energy instead of fighting to introduce developer impact fees. They want us to focus. They want to focus everyone on symbolic issues, ignoring the struggles present to pay their fair share. As I said before, I will be voting yes on the comprehensive plan amendments because I do not object to those amendments in particular. But I urge members of the public who want if we want to rent developer impact music, we want big developers to pay anything resembling their fair share, particularly to urgently expand transit hours in Seattle . Then we will need to build a campaign independent of.
Speaker 3: The council president. Point Order.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Thank you, Councilmember Strauss. I appreciate it again. Colleagues, our city council rules do require us to keep our comments focused on the legislative matter that is being debated, as opposed to generalized comments about unrelated legislative matters or only tangentially related legislative matters. So I appreciate your help in in staying true to the requirements of the City Council rule, just to make sure that we are staying efficient and equitable.
Speaker 2: And in Gonzalez, all my comments were 100% related to the comprehensive plan. So I do not share your point, your your claim that it was anything show or peripheral in any way.
Speaker 0: Council Members. Council Member So what I and I am I am for the record, disagreeing with your characterization that all of your comments were 100% related to the Council bill before us, which are in, in my understanding, routine amendments to the comprehensive plan that have been in the works for a year. I agree that you would like to see them move for be be more robust and you have an interest in advancing the legislation that you just described. But that is not the matter that is before us. The matter that is before us is contained within this Council bill. Your objections are duly noted. And again, I just want to make sure that we are being efficient and effective with the time that we have together. And I'm just asking for you all to work with me in being able to achieve that. Any additional comments on this bill? I'm not seeing any other hands raised. Council member stress. Would you like to close out debate?
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President colleagues, just to respond to some of the things that have been said on the record just a moment ago. Understanding the impact fees have been previously docketed and have been docketed for a number of years. Being docketed is a request to have the executive and executive departments study the issue at hand. And not only that, but counsel put forward the resources. And when I say study, that means to have CPA conducted on the policy proposal. Furthermore, the City Council has put forward the resources to have impact fees studied. So there is no we have made the request of the executive to have acted. We have put forward the resources needed to do so. At this time, we are waiting for CPA to be concluded and before we can amend the comprehensive plan to move to include impact fees. That is the schedule of of land use items. It is out of our control at this point because that is the schedule in which it needs to be completed. And so as we are waiting for a CPA to be conducted or concluded at that, once it is concluded, we would be able to take it up for consideration. Thank you, colleagues. That is the committee report.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Will the court please call the rule on the passage of the bill coupled? Yes. Suarez I. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Macheda. I. Peterson.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: So.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Strauss.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez, i. Nine in favor and unopposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes, and then I will sign it with the clerk. He's affixed my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Well, the clerk please read item 14 into the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending the Seattle Comprehensive Plan to incorporate changes proposed as part of the 2021 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment process.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_10042021_CB 120149
|
Speaker 0: Agenda Item 14 Council Bill 120 149 relating to land use and zoning amending maximum size of use limits and minimum parking requirements for indoor sports and recreation uses amending section 23.50 point zero 27 and 23.50 4.0 15 of the sentiments of the code. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you so much. I'm going to hand it back over to councilmember strauss walks the.
Speaker 3: Council president last bill of the day council bill. I'm just double checking to make sure I have this right. Yes. Council Bill 120149. This legislation increases the maximum size limit for indoor sports and recreation uses in industrial general two zones. It also places certain restrictions on the higher size limit, including that the site must be 500 feet from shorelines close to neighborhood, commercial or mixed use, mixed zones and not within a mile of another such facility. Indoor sports and recreation uses are defined in the code as including things like practice facilities, but not including spectator venues. That could drive large increases in traffic and visitation. In total, this legislation could allow for the development of such a facility on one of about 45 different parcels throughout District six and District seven, mostly in Inner Bay and in Ballard as well. There have been some speculation in the press that this proposal constitutes a spot rezone. After consulting with the city attorney's office of PCB, the mayor's office and my colleagues, I'm confident that this does not meet those criteria. This legislation does not rezone any land. It does not allow, and it does not allow new uses. So, again, does not rezone land. It does not allow new uses in that zoning. It simply adjusts the maximum size of a use that is already allowed in this zone and applies that change to many properties across the area. As a strong supporter of protecting our industrial areas, I have spoken about with stakeholders in the bid make about this proposal to ensure that they were aware of it and do not have any concerns. In addition to these conversations, we have received many letters of support, including from Todd Rickey, the CEO of the Seattle Kraken. Chuck Arnold, president of the Seattle Seahawks. Diane Sycamore, the former director of planning and development for the city of Seattle for over 14 years. Louise Cherney, former president of the Greater South Business Association, as well as from Swedish Health Services Symetra BCU, the Pacific Science Center, Carter, Subaru and rise above an organization focused on empowerment of Native youth through basketball. As we have heard in public comment and elsewhere, the Seattle storm could apply for permits to build their own practice facility if this flexibility is established, while a different party could ultimately submit the proposal. I do believe that a storm practice facility or any other practice of practice facility would have a positive impact on our city. Creating more spaces for sports and recreation benefits all of us the kids, families, neighbors and fans alike. Local governments oftentimes support the Seahawks, Mariners, Kraken and Sounders, and it is important that we as the city also have the storm, the Seattle storms back as they are the most winningest team and they have had Seattle's back for so long. As Sue Bird shared at public comment in committee. Teams can lose their star players when they don't have the infrastructure to support their players. For instance, practice facilities. If teams do not have a good place to practice and hone their skills off of the competition court, they may lose those star players. Currently, the Seattle storm is practicing at Seattle Pacific University's gym facilities. And if a player wanted to spend extra time shooting, practicing or playing, they could have that time interrupted by a university student hoping to also use that facility. This month, the Seattle Kraken's new facilities and Northgate in that climate pledge arena are a reminder of the positive impacts that sports and sports facilities can have on the city when they are done right. When we are using private dollars to create these institutions so that the public is not spending money, and the city of Seattle and the general public are benefiting from these programs, players and teams. This is another opportunity to allow for a sports facility that will benefit Seattle and to allow our women's professional sports team to invest and deepen their roots in Seattle. This is another moment where we get to tell our four time championship team that Seattle's got their back. Thank you. Council president. That is the committee's report.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Are there any additional comments? All right. I'm not seeing any hands raised. Oh, there we go. That's memorable. I just want to say, for the record, when I first heard about this legislation, I have concerns because how it was described, it made me think that we were we were changing the zoning in contradiction . Several votes of the councilor began as related to proposed changes from industrial zone for the slot in the comprehensive plan. And when I learned that the legislation does not change the underlying zoning and maintains the current industrial zone, my concerns were addressed and I just wanted to kind of get that on the record. Thank you so much, Councilmember Old. Appreciate it. Any additional comments you write, any closing remarks? I'm going to stress?
Speaker 3: Just a sincere thank you to my colleagues, and especially Councilmember Juarez, who is a longtime supporter and champion of the storm.
Speaker 0: Excellent. All right. I'm not seeing any additional hands raised. So will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill? HERBOLD Yes. Suarez I. Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Morales. S mesquita. I. Peterson. All right. So what?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Strauss. S President Gonzalez high nine in favor and unopposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign. It will occur. Piece affixed my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Sir, any further business to come before the council? All right. I'm not seeing any hands raised. So colleagues, colleagues, this does conclude the items of business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on Monday, October 11, 2021, at 2:00 PM. I hope that you all have a wonderful afternoon. We're adjourned. Thanks so much about.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending maximum size of use limits and minimum parking requirements for indoor sports and recreation uses; amending Sections 23.50.027 and 23.54.015 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_09272021_CB 120157
|
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez. I h in favor and opposed. Thank you so much. The motion carries in the clear file has been accepted and filed with the clerk. Please read item two into the record. Agenda Item two Council 120157 relating to affordable housing on properties owned or controlled by religious organizations. Modifying affordability requirements adopted in ordinance 126324. And amending Section 23.40 2.005 of the Soundness four Code and Section ten of Ordinance 26 384. Thank you so much. I moved to pass Council Bill 120157. Is there a second back? Thank you so much. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Strauss, who is the sponsor of this bill, in order to make comments on the bill.
Speaker 3: Thank you counts president. As this has been discussed at council briefing council but 120157 makes changes to council 2120081, which the Council passed on June 28 to increase the affordability requirements from 60% in May to 80% in my Council. Bill 120081 implemented a new state law that allows for larger buildings than zoning would have otherwise allowed for affordable housing developments on sites owned or controlled by religious institutions. The state law defined affordable housing as 80% in my as did the original bill Casper 120157 that was transmitted to council and voted out of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee. We did in committee considered the amendment to require 60% AMI but moved forward without that requirement before council, as we all know, ultimately passed a similar amendment lowering the affordability requirements to 80%. Am I making Seattle's law more restrictive than the state law? Following these votes, my office and others were contacted by churches and community organization organizations expressing deep concern with the amendment, including from the Nehemiah Initiative, which works with historically black churches in Seattle to save many black churches in the central area and to combat displacement. These stakeholders shared that 6% AMI requirements threatened the viability of certain affordable housing projects, meaning they would lose affordable housing units that would otherwise have been built under this ordinance. And additionally, I heard that churches had planned to use this ordinance in ways that are more broad than what the City Council discussion reflected. In some cases, churches may wish to build affordable housing to allow their members to return home to the communities that have already been displaced from. Some of these members may not qualify for 60% Army units, and they still have been displaced. I don't. Also understanding that churches can still have a range of affordability of the units. Not all units must be placed up to 80% AMI. At this point, I don't believe the city needs to micromanage how these religious organizations best serve their congregations. But I think I'm pretty much done. I just want to say that this legislation will amend the previous council bill to provide more flexibility to churches to serve the congregations, build the needed affordable housing, and maintain themselves financially so that they can too can continue providing services to their community. Thank you, Council President.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Strauss, for giving us some initial comments on the bill as introduced as kinds of a120157. I do know that folks have comments to make about the the bill, the underlying base bill. We do have one amendment to consider. So as usual, we will go through the amendment, have a conversation and deliberation around the amendment. We'll take a vote on the amendment. And then once we know whether the bill is amended or not, we will open up the floor to comments on the general bill. So without further ado, I'm going to go ahead and hand it over to Councilmember Herbold to make her motion on Amendment One. And then I will ask if there is a second. Thank you. I commend Council Bill 12 0157 as presented on Amendment One, which was recently distributed.
Speaker 3: Second.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to amend Council Bill 120157 as presented on Amendment one. I'm going to hand it back over to the council member for Bullet to walk us through. Amendment One. Thanks so much. So I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this amendment. This amendment would allow the higher 80% AMI rental affordability threshold in those urban centers and villages identified in the comp plan as having a high displacement risk. But should the amendment pass, it would maintain a 60% AMI rental affordability threshold in other locations throughout the city. Just for some context, what that all means at 60% ami a qualifying one person household would pay an affordable rent of $1,162. A qualifying four person household would pay an affordable rent at $1,726 a month for three bedroom rented units that are developed on property owned in urban areas, in villages with high displacement risk by religious institutions that receive this density bonus, allowing them to build in some cases, nearly twice the number of units would have a more permissive extent of AMI affordability threshold, and their units could be rented at a rate of a studio being rented at $1,545 a month and a three bedroom apartment renting at $2,295 a month. That's the description of of the amendment, just as you know why I why I think it's so important. I know we talked about the fact that state law permits a maximum 180% AMI affordability threshold. We discussed with the other version of the ordinance I really appreciate hearing via Councilmember Strauss's office that that's the sponsor for the legislation in the state legislature. Representative Whalen, who represents the 46th District of Bellevue, Redmon, Kirkland, Clyde Hill, Medina, Yarrow Point and Hunts Point, that her legislative intent was that it be at the 80% threshold. But again, we are no way prohibited from considering the needs of renters in our cities by lowering the affordability requirements, just like we do with other local housing programs that are authorized through the state legislature, for instance, MFT. There's a higher affordability threshold that that we could offer, but we don't. We are we reduce the affordability threshold because that's what renters in our city need. My knowledge, no one has demonstrated, and I know council members have asked how a 60% AMI threshold affordability requirement would thwart the goal of developing of of of incentivizing the development of affordable housing by.
Speaker 4: Our.
Speaker 0: Religious institution partners. Again, the density bonus can increase the development potential of these persons by up to double further. The development performance that we have seen when requested not seem to attack the value of land itself, which the religious institutions own. You don't account for the value of land that will lead to a return on investment calculation that looks like a loss. But only is whether the developers are religious institutions or private developers. We do not need to incentivize developers to build units at these rents. We are nearly market rate if we allow all religiously owned properties throughout the city to develop at 80%. AMI, we're actually creating a disincentive for religious institutions to partner with nonprofit developers, resulting in fewer rentals out at affordability rates. So now that we're reconsidering this issue, the alternate path I'm saying, maintains the 80% AMI threshold within urban centers and villages identified in the comprehensive plan as having higher displacement risk. This includes the Central District, Columbia City, Beacon Hill, Rainier Valley and other areas where historically and you'd be displaced. You. Okay. Colleagues, any comments or questions on that amendment? I see. Council member Strauss has his hand up, please.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President. Council member Herbal. I absolutely appreciate the spirit in which this amendment is brought in because you are correct in understanding we have to serve the poorest among us. And 80%, Amara, does not necessarily do that. This is there are many different avenues that we fund housing and sit in requirements for 60% AMI throughout the city. And that's but at this point, I do not believe it is appropriate to limit higher affordability levels only to some urban villages and centers. These are lines drawn on streets and the problems that our city faces and those are for zoning specifically. So I have heard of projects in other districts that would be prevented from using this flexibility and the flexibility that they were expecting because they are not located in urban villages or centers. I have also similarly not heard any external stakeholders advocate for this amendment. I have when I've reached out to my stakeholders and only heard of opposition. So nothing personal here. I absolutely appreciate the spirit in which you're bringing this. I unfortunately will oppose this amendment today. Thank you, Councilmember Girl.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Strauss Any additional comments on proposed Amendment one? Council Member Paterson, please.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Council President. And just for the viewing public, who might not be as familiar with this legislation. This is we had adopted the council adopted legislation and then some groups approached the mayor's office and wanted to see the legislation changed. And so the mayor submitted it to us. And because we're going in budget season, it's coming straight to the full council for discussion today. And I think there were some you know, I appreciate the points made by both council members who spoke, and it was a close vote to begin with on the original legislation. So it sort of makes sense that there would be these good ideas floated from the various council members. And I really think that council, our Herbold amendment is a compromise. It is it's it's it's basically saying that, okay, even though the original legislation allowed additional time under the higher income 80%. Am I that perhaps that wasn't enough time for for some churches. So what this amendment is doing is geographically it's saying those those churches that did approach the mayor's office and had were very vocal about it. They would be able to stay at 80% AMI And so I think that this compromise that, you know, we don't want to make a citywide policy when we don't necessarily we don't need to apply it citywide. It makes sense to apply it geographically as Councilmember Herb what it's done in the high displacement area. So I will be supporting this amendment. I do see it as a compromise from the original bill. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Peterson. I see that councilmember mosquitoes and hand is up. Please go ahead. Thank you very much. PRESIDENT Thank you, colleagues, for the opportunity to chime in on my my support for the underlying bill. I will be voting no on this amendment. I do appreciate that. We do have a chance to talk about this again. If you'll recall, the last time we talked about it, it was one of the hottest days in record for Seattle. And many of us were huddled near fans in the dark trying to stay cool on a very hot afternoon. So having the chance to now have a chance to look at the legislation that was passed with the amendment last time. I was a no on the amendment the first time around, but having the chance to really read through the amendment this time around and recognizing that it's slightly different, appreciate the nuance that was trying to be woven here. I do want to underscore why I am voting no on this. Even though it is a tweaked amendment up from the original, I think the bill as transmitted contained several large public benefits by maintaining the continuity of EMI levels across across the city. But I'm just going to focus on two very briefly. The first is that maintaining the Army threshold of 80% means that organizations will have the ability to create affordable housing without seeking as much public subsidy. And that is a huge public benefit. That means our public, affordable housing dollars can be stretched to go further to create more deeply affordable housing throughout the city. And I do think that it towards the goal of creating more affordable housing if religious institutions have to compete for public subsidies. If the threshold were to be lowered to 60%, that means there's fewer funding sources that could be rated together to create that affordable housing, which is the goal of this legislation both in the city. I know it's our goal as well as the state legislature, by keeping the 80% AMI threshold that the current level of where it's at. We are opening up the ability for more of these religious organizations to be able to access complementary funding sources that are not public subsidy only. And that way we can help these organizations build the housing. That is our overall goal. The Knight Nehemiah Initiative also emailed us earlier today, I believe, showing how if the threshold was lowered to 60% EMI, that it would actually support their existing projects. We don't want to be in a position where we are in any way, even unintentionally reducing the ability for us to build more affordable housing units across our city. And in the document that they sent us, they showed how their numbers don't pencil out under 60%. And I believe these religious organizations are potentially in the red, whereas 80% AMI would provide small income stream to make these projects more viable. Number two, the ability to build AMI to build that 80% and mine units will function as an anti displacement policy. This bolsters religious institutions ability to not only provide housing for communities that have been largely displaced, but largely affected by gentrification and displacement. But this also helps us prevent future displacement in our communities, where these religious institutions have experience with working with communities, especially our elders and our communities of color, who are experiencing higher rates of displacement. So working with them, allowing them to bring funding, keeping it in a percent, I believe is a win win. So I'll be voting no on this amendment and yes on the other line Bill. Thank you, Councilmember Moschino, for those comments. I see that Councilman Morales has her hand raising her hand overturned.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I, too, appreciate the the you know, what you're trying to accomplish. Councilmember Herbold, this isn't something that I will be able to support the amendment. That is mostly because we have heard from a lot of folks in our community who aren't supportive of this amendment and who specifically requested, as we were, the underlying legislation was being considered, who are waiting religious institutions here, who are waiting for this bill because they do have a project that they're waiting to proceed with and want to be able to provide housing for their young families. You know, the the amendment, as I understand it, would really limit, you know, limiting to urban villages doesn't provide flexibility to these institutions that are outside of those areas like the institution that I'm talking about, who contacted our office. So I think it's important that we proceed with the underlying legislation and and with the frankly, with the original intent of the state sponsor who had passed the 80%, Amy, which is what advocates had been pushing for at that level. So I worry about the underlying bill, but will not be supporting the amendment itself.
Speaker 0: Any additional comments for Councilmember? Councilmember bill, you'll have the last word. I'm just looking for any other hands raised on Amendment One. I'm not seeing any other hands raised. I did want to make some comments on Amendment One as well before we hand it over to Councilmember Herbold and have her close that debate. So, colleagues, the bill before us today does include reporting requirements that will help us better understand this policy tool and how we can support more community led affordable housing projects that is in the base bill without the amendment. Since this issue last came before the Council, I have had the opportunity to personally meet and hear from several impacted stakeholders, specifically from stakeholders representing the interests of black churches in Seattle, about the need for flexibility without losing sight of our goals around affordable housing across the city of Seattle, my staff have worked through some of the scenarios with the Office of Housing and Mural Staff on this particular issue, and I do believe that the bill before us without amendment will allow for a future decision on affordability thresholds to be informed by data collection. Therefore, today I'm going to vote yes on the underlying bill, but unfortunately cannot support the proposed amendment in doing so . This does not deny the need for ongoing need for deeply affordable housing throughout our city and in every single neighborhood, including those that are at greatest risk of gentrification and displacement. Indeed, we know that the greatest housing needs are faced by those in the 0 to 30% area median income. The recent McKinsey report estimated housing costs in the Seattle King County region would be about $1 billion, and it pencils out to be about needing an additional 37,000 units of affordable housing to address the needs of those on the extremely low income spectrum. So I want to acknowledge that that I just, like many of my colleagues and so many in our region, share a really deep commitment to addressing these housing needs. But I have also heard loudly and clearly in the weeks after our initial vote on this Council bill, that the City Council should forego the temptation to place the burden of meeting this deep need on the few religious institutions who are in a position to realize affordable housing communities in our city. So, so, so in the letter, for example, that we received today from Michael Ramos of the church council, Greater Seattle, he writes, quote, Generations have lost wealth and assets to redlining and other systemic colonial violence, even as rents and property taxes rise to unaffordable levels. The majority of black land based assets in Seattle are owned by Seattle's historic black churches. It is essential that we recognize black churches as an essential asset, cultural hub and service provider for black Seattle residents, and consider the ways we may support them to leverage their assets towards community development in the face of ongoing white supremacist violence. We must also be mindful of the long term impact of our development decisions providing space for the return of displaced black renters in a sustainable way that does not contribute to further racial and economic segregation closely. I think it is important that we not substitute our judgment for the judgment of black churches who advocated for the new state law. The reality is that for their statewide advocacy, we wouldn't be in a position to be considering this affordable housing bill at all. So black church leaders have unequivocally also told us since the passage of a similar amendment, that this amendment before us now will similarly tie their hands. In this instance, the proposed amendment has the effect of reducing the income threshold from 80% to 60%, but now has a layer of geographic restrictions that could potentially further exacerbate the racial disparities associated with concentrating growth in our urban villages and urban centers. Or, in the words of Donald King from the Nehemiah Initiative, which was recently shared with me, he wrote, quote, I agree that the limit of 60% may be more aligned with most black households, but I still believe that 80%, Amy, provides for more choice and acknowledgment of the reality and aspiration of black renters to be considered more prosperous. The 60%, Amy, will negatively impact the land value of the property that our black churches seek to leverage for a more independent and less subsidized housing production. So I want to thank Donald King, the Housing Development Consortium, Community Enterprise, the Church Council of Greater Seattle, and all the other stakeholders who have reached out to share details of why this bill is needed without proposed Amendment One. And I encourage my colleagues to also vote no on this proposed amendment. Again, since my initial vote, I have had deeper conversations about the operational impacts of adjusting the income threshold. And while I am deeply committed to more deeply affordable housing, I think this bill is simply the wrong vehicle by which to effectuate that desired outcome at the level we truly need across the city of Seattle. So as a result, I'm convinced that voting for the Council bill. All that is before us without the proposed amendment will help black churches in our city combat anti displacement, and it will do so in a manner that respects their self-determination, while leaving the door open to address our shared desire to incentivize and or require other developers to incorporate a lower income threshold into the projects. So with that being said, I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Herbold for purposes of closing out debate. I will keep it very short. As I've said, I believe that having the threshold at 80%, we are actually creating a disincentive for religious institutions citywide to partner with nonprofit developers. Something that feels really lost in this conversation is that this legislation affects religious institutions all across the city. According to the Stsci Directors report, there are six 692 parcels throughout the city owned by religious institutions. Of course, not all of them are large enough or have enough space to take advantage of this added density. But nevertheless, they are all over the city. They are not only in locations where black churches are facing displacement. The Housing Development Consortium wrote today to say that the 60% AMI will negatively impact the net operating income of the projects that the black church seek to leverage for more independent and less subsidized housing production. My amendment was intended to address this directly by allowing more expensive rental housing to be built in those areas where black churches are faced with displacement. Councilmember ROSQUETA, you referenced being able to review the the assumptions underlying the the conclusion and the analysis that 6% AMI housing would not pencil out. I would greatly appreciate the offer opportunity to review those assumptions when I have done so. As I mentioned earlier, I saw that the value of the land was not included in the assumptions, making it look as if there was a rate of return or return on investment. Sorry, that would would support the the the argument that they're not penciling out. But once you include the value of the land, that these density bonuses in many cases would double. That is not the case. I just want to also again underscore the point that I made this morning, that if you look at the data from the 2017 American Community Survey, 80%, sorry, 80% AMI housing. So housing that is developed at the 80% AMI threshold of affordability will be out of reach for 69% of black renter households that we have 14,320 black renter households in the city. And housing at these rates will be unaffordable, out of reach for 69% of them. I believe that when we're looking at a public benefit, we we should be looking at creating something that is not market rate housing. And 80% AMI housing is essentially market rate housing. Thank you. Thank you so much. Councilmember Herbold. Okay. That does conclude debate on Amendment one. So I'm going to ask the clerk, please call the adoption of Amendment one. Strauss No. Herbold. Purple X. Lewis now. MORALES No. Let's get a. No. Pietersen?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: So on.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez now three in favor, five opposed. Thanks so much. The motion fails and the amendment is not adopted. Now we are going to open it up for general comment on the underlying bill. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing none. Will the court please call the court? Never mind that we're silent. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: So I think you. So I think that in considering this legislation, we need to be concrete about what it actually accomplishes and what the cost is. You know, on the one hand, this program is based on increasing the height limits or density allowed on church land for affordable housing. And I certainly support increasing density. And so, in my view, the program as a whole does not sacrifice anything. On the other hand, this policy has been described as creating affordable housing to stop gentrification and reverse displacement. And I am very concerned that it will not accomplish that because of today's both policies. And the affordable housing limits are increased to 80% of area median income. It becomes shockingly expensive and a more horrible that actually has gone over the data quite comprehensively. But just to reiterate some of those points and also to add some other statistics, I mean, unbearable just now, as you were quoting, talked about how if you bring it up to 80%, it essentially becomes like market rate housing. Well, according to the Office of Housing, rent for a one bedroom apartment pegged to 80% of area median income is a is $851 per month, which is $550 a month, more than if it were pegged to 60% of am-I. And in fact, it's actually more expensive than the average mortgage rate rent for a one bedroom in Seattle. So we're not talking about, you know, minuscule differences. We're talking about a big difference and I believe comparable just referenced some of the conclusions that can be reached from State of Community American Community Survey, really, which is basically the census data which which will guide me if I'm wrong. But I think you said that 80% and my benchmark essentially would mean that 69% of black households will not be able to afford it. Actually, before I go on, would you just confirm that, please?
Speaker 0: Yes, 80%. And my housing is out of reach for 69% of black renter households in Seattle.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. And so it's just it's just too expensive to actually have an impact on displacement and gentrification, which is the goal of this. It is the stated goal of this whole effort. And that's because the whole premise is to be dependent on for profit housing, on the for profit housing market, to make housing affordable. Which the for profit market has resoundingly failed to do for decades. In fact, affordability problems are dramatically worse now than a decade ago. The argument for increasing the rent limit by $550 a month, which is just whopping. I mean, what we just heard from renters who are just having an absolutely hard time and that problem is disproportionate and compounded for black households, as we know. So the argument for raising the rent limit that we have heard is essentially that developers and property owners, which are churches in this case, will not be able to afford to build the housing if it is less expensive without without public subsidy. But that is exactly where I mean, that's where the the problem lies. I mean, that is exactly why so many activists, including Black Lives Matter activists, helped to build the tax on movement when the Amazon home tax a tax on big businesses to fund affordable housing. I mean, that cannot be the last word. That's not enough. And in fact, we will need a massive fight using the people's budget movement this year to make to make sure that the actual funds are allocated to affordable housing in the way that it was intended when the council voted on it. I don't know what Mayor Durkan has planned to do, but, you know, we'll see when we look at the draft budget from Mayor's office and it and even even last year actually funds were from the Amazon tax were used to backfill the budget shortfall. I think we have to that's big business is more I mean they are making money hand over fist and we should make sure that all the money that was intended already to build affordable housing should be used and additional revenues should be raised progressively to make sure that there are no budget cuts either is not one against the other. And I mean, and it just it just foolhardy to depend on the for profit real estate market. And I just don't see how this is viable. I mean, I would be open to, you know, to supporting this. I mean, and to be very honest, I mean, I, I really acknowledge the good intentions of the Church Council of Greater Seattle. So many of the faith community leaders who I believe genuinely want to build affordable housing and my staff and I, again, very honestly, spent a lot of time looking into the numbers to see if this was going to be something justifiable. But it just again, if we want to be data driven, then I just don't know how this this is this is going to be viable. I understand that the faith leaders want to try this legislation to build affordable housing. And I also understand that many of them also support the Amazon movement. And so I would really urge them to understand that we cannot ask working class renters, much less the black community, working class renters, to pay on unmanageable rents and then call it affordable housing. That just cannot happen. We actually need to need the expansion of taxes and citywide citywide taxes on big business. And also, we need to bring enough pressure to bear to force the state legislature to tax the rich statewide to greatly increase funds for affordable housing. We also need to rent without corporate loopholes, not just in Seattle, but also statewide, so that we can make the market rate housing also affordable. So I think given all these gains, it's really difficult. And I would also note that as far as I know and my staff know, that we have made sure to ask a lot . We have not heard from any renter or a black renter, much less advocating for this change. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Any other comments on the bill? Councilmember Mosquito. Thank you very much. I first want to thank the Nehemiah Initiative for their work and advocacy and deep education that they did on this legislation in the last few months and earlier this year. I am happy to see this legislation back before Council where we've all had a chance to sit with it and not 100 degree rules and trying to make some decisions in the moment. I feel like this has been an opportunity for us to really have engagement both with community and among council and restore here today a key facet of the legislation to ensure that this is workable, workable for religious organizations in our communities to actually build affordable housing that is needed. I also want to be really clear about something. No one is saying that this legislation alone is going to build the affordable housing that we know we all need across the city. We are all committed to building that affordable housing, and that is why the majority of council both sponsored and passed jump start progressive revenue for the payroll tax in Seattle. And that's why we had a unanimous council vote for the spend plan, which puts two thirds of that funding into building affordable housing. We all know that we need this, and I think by passing this legislation today, we should continue to underscore that building affordable housing is not on the backs of our community, church organizations or religious institutions, nor can it all be done on religious properties. So this is one small but important component to our overall goal to build affordable housing. I also want to say I am appreciative of the conversation that we've had around the Am I levels. Again, I think that restoring the and my levels to 80% am-I is going to be a win win in both achieving affordable housing and working towards our shared goal on this Council of advancing anti displacement strategies. Religious organizations as well do not have to build up to the 80% and my threshold. They can choose a different level of am-I affordable it if they want to, but by not requiring them to have a lower amount, they will be able to potentially partner with additional affordable housing developers, which we've heard time and time again. Many organizations don't want to be held to a paternalistic standard, and that's not language coming directly from them in our conversation. So I appreciate that we are taking an important step today and that we also, at the same time, in the same breath, are recognizing that this is not going to solve our affordable housing needs and that we're going to continue to work on building more deeply affordable housing, creating the funding sources to do so. And like we did last year through Jumpstart Progressive Revenue in Seattle, which focused on 60%, actually 30%. And below that, we will continue to focus on more affordable housing and workforce housing across the city, with more progressive revenue sources at our fingertips soon, which again as a stand alone, are not enough to solve our deep housing affordability crisis across this region. So much more work to do. But excited about this legislation today. Thank you so much. Are there any other additional comments before we hand it over to Counselor Strauss to close it out? I'm not seeing any of their hands raised. So, Councilmember Strauss, why don't you close us out?
Speaker 3: Thank you, council president and thank you, colleagues. Echoing Councilmember Skater's comments about the Jumpstart ordinance that is going to be funding so much of our housing needs. Councilmember Herbold, Council President Councilmember stated the four of us were the original four co-sponsors. So I absolutely see each of your dedication to this. I'll just briefly state that this is this bill does not require religious institutions to put the housing at 80% AMI. It allows them to go up to 80% AMI. It's my understanding that that there will be a mix of those housing units and the religious institutions are different than other institutions where that those dollars will be funneled back into their organizations to support their congregations that are providing services to their communities. I'm not here to micromanage them. I appreciate everyone's intent on this bill and where everyone's coming from. Thank you, Councilmember. Her book for your understanding of my position today. Thank you, Councilperson.
Speaker 0: It becomes more stress. Okay. That does close out debate on this council Bill. So I'm going to ask that the clerk please call the vote on the passage of the Bill Strauss.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: HERBOLD No. Lewis.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: Morales a. Must get to. All right?
Speaker 5: PETERSON No.
Speaker 0: So what? No. President Gonzalez, I. Three. Yes. Five in favor. Excuse me. Six in favor. 3a5 in favor. Three opposed. There you go. Thank you. That's all right. I was keeping tally, too. Okay, so the bill passes and the chair will sign it.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to affordable housing on properties owned or controlled by religious organizations; modifying affordability requirements adopted in Ordinance 126384; and amending Section 23.42.055 of the Seattle Municipal Code and Section 10 of Ordinance 126384.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_09272021_CB 119585
|
Speaker 0: So one. Yes. President Gonzalez? Yes. Eight is in favor and unopposed. The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Well, please read item 11 into the record. The report is suspended. The bill excuse me. And Reference Rights Committee Agenda Item 11 counts 4119585 residential rental properties for clients, a minimum of 180 days prior eviction notice to tenants. Whenever the housing costs to be charge, a tenant are to increase and amending sections 7.20 4.0 or 3020 2.202.0 80 and 22.20 6.1 80. Of this code. The Committee recommends that will pass amended with councilmembers who want one Alice Suarez and Lewis in favor and council with an abstention from Councilmember Peterson. Thank you so much, Councilperson. Before we go through the steps of discussing the bill, would you also like to have Agenda Item 12 read into the record for purposes of discussion? Or are you fine handling each bill separately? I'm fine. We'll take it. We'll take a vote separately on both of them. But I just just for purposes of the conversation.
Speaker 1: Either way is fine with me if I think separately will also work.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, we'll go ahead and do it separately. And if if it starts looking like people want to comment on item 12 as well, then we'll go ahead and take a pause and have that read into the record at that time. So. Okay. I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Samant, who is the chair of the committee in order to provide the committee's report.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And I would like to make a few comments before moving the amendments, if that's okay. The this legislation. So I'm sorry, I'm speaking about item number drop.
Speaker 0: See what I mean? We're no.
Speaker 1: No, no. Go ahead. I know this legislation is the first of two bills from my office addressing the crisis renters face from rising rents as reported in the Sustainability and Rent Committee and and also in successive Monday morning briefings of the City Council. The data from apartment list dot com. A landlord website shows that rents in Seattle have increased over 25% in 2021 alone. I mean, this is just a staggering rate of increase. If this trend were to continue, rents will have increased by 40% by the end of this year. Imagine getting a 40% increase in your wages. I mean, that's just unheard of. So undoubtedly, this is an unmanageable situation for renters and also is a clear explanation of why we need rent control. And as members of the public and the members know, my office has drafted rent control legislation which we hope to bring to a vote in December. But in the meantime, we do need legislation to mitigate the harm that is going to be experienced by recent years because of the skyrocketing rents. And that's what today's vote for the bills today are intended to do. This bill in front of us right now requires landlords to provide six months notice for rent increases. Currently in Seattle, only two months notice is required, which is not nearly enough notice for renters to rearrange their lives when they are displaced by a rent increase, particularly given how difficult it's going to be for them to find another rental home, just given how unaffordable most housing has become across the city. And this is also a national phenomenon. And also, as I've mentioned before, this bill was originally requested by the City of Seattle Renters Commission.
Speaker 0: Oh.
Speaker 1: Increasing the notice landlords are required to give renters already. Freezes cannot stop the rent increase, but it does give renters the time they will need to find new housing and rearrange their lives when the rent, if and when a rent and these forces them to move. The Sustainability and Renters Rights Committee recommends the city council pass this bill, as Amelia mentioned, with all votes in favor and unopposed and one abstention. I just wanted to read an extract from a letter that was sent to the city council by a social worker, Heather Steiner, who also spoke in public comment a little while ago, who works in the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, who says, quote, I've had to move, slash, relocate eight times in ten years because my landlord kept raising my rent every year by 5 to 10%. I work in social services for the with disabled people, and I do not get income raises anywhere near this level. I cannot absorb thousands of dollars in increases every year. So I keep being forced to move every 12 months. And it is getting so hard on me, my pets and my work patients who operate out of my home office. These people are very disabled and any change in their schedule and structure is very hard on them. And I am drowning here. My work is very important to me. But if I cannot find a way to keep my head above water financially, I will be forced to abandon all my disabled patients and find a higher paying job . So I really urge the City Council to vote yes in favor of this bill because it's clear that it will make a real, tangible difference in the lives of renters. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember San Juan. Are there any other comments on the bill? Elsewhere, Peterson pleads.
Speaker 3: To Council President colleagues on this bill. During the committee meeting, I proposed an amendment to exempt small landlords defined as owning four or fewer units in Seattle. And the amendment failed by a narrow vote. And so I abstained at committee to give myself more time to to think about what to do today. I do appreciate the intent of this bill and support helping struggling renters. A theme of our response to the COVID pandemic has been to boost rental assistance for those in need. We've also adopted several renters rights bills during the past two years, including the winter ban on evictions. I've heard from many small landlords, though, that the influx of multiple changes to the landlord rental regulations has created confusion and discourages them from continuing to provide rental housing in Seattle. Currently, we provide 60 days notice and so this bill would triple that time period. One approach would have been to perhaps double that to 220 days and then see how well that worked. These are tripling it. Regardless, I support expanding the notice period for larger corporate landlords, but my amendment again would have exempted small landlords owning four or fewer units. And since that committee meeting, nothing substantive has changed in the bill. In fact, I've heard from multiple mom and pop landlords concerned. So I will be voting no on this bill, mainly because it does not exempt small landlords. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Peterson. Next up is Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President. I am supporting this bill as I did in committee. In my opinion, this bill merely asks the landlord to give a few more months notice for rent increases. It does not because because state law currently bans rent stabilization. This bill does not prevent a landlord from increasing the rent, nor does it restrict the amount of an increase. And while this does mean that landlords have to wait a short amount of time before before implementing an increase, the more important piece of this bill for me is that it means tenants have adequate time to find a new job, to find new housing, to deal with childcare issues that may present as a result of this change, or to make any other number of adjustments that may be necessary so that they can pay for a rent increase or make the plans to move out and find something that's more affordable. So I think this is a relatively small ask from the landlords, but could have a really acute impact, a meaningful impact for for tenants. So I will be supporting the legislation.
Speaker 0: In due course their morals. Are there any other comments on the bill? I'm not seeing any hands raised. Customers want anything you'd like to see in closing.
Speaker 1: Just that. Of course, there are advocates that I would like to publicly thank, but I'll save them for the second bill because both the bills were advocated together, advocated for together, and only to add the small landlords are not the ones increasing rents by high rates which which is where it makes a difference how much notice you have. So as far as what the bills today that they're considering are concerned, they simply don't affect the small landlords who are not actually looking to gouge their tenants.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember. One paper does conclude debate on this bill. So will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 3: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 0: Herbold Yes.
Speaker 3: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 0: Morales That's. Must get a high.
Speaker 3: PETERSON No.
Speaker 0: So what?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez I seven in favor one opposed. Thank you so much. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will a quick please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read the short title of item 12 into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to residential rental properties; requiring a minimum of 180 days' prior written notice to tenants whenever the housing costs to be charged a tenant are to increase; and amending Sections 7.24.030, 22.202.080, and 22.206.180 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_09272021_CB 120173
|
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez. Yes. Eight in favor and unopposed. The motion carries and the appointments are confirmed. Will it work? Please read item 20 into the record report of the Finance and Housing Committee agenda item 20 Constable 1201 78 minutes 26 to 37, which adopted the 2021 budget, changing preparations to various departments and budget control levels all from various funds in the budget and listing of proviso all 54 of the City Council. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended. Thank you so much. I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Muscadet, who is the chair of the committee to provide the report. Thank you very much. Colleagues, this is the legislation that I mentioned this morning that I am so excited about. Council Bill 120178. Item number 20 on our agenda is the legislation that follows up on the priorities that many in the community had worked on for years and the priorities that you council had worked to prioritize in last year's budget and the budget cycle in 2019 as well. This legislation lifts the proviso excuse me, on the $30 million that we had set aside and put a proviso on for the Strategic Investment Fund, following through on the years long process and advocacy by community organizations that work to ensure that the city made good on its promise that when we sold the Mercer Mega BLOCK, that we maintained our commitment that $30 million would go to investments in historically and historically in communities, historically experiencing displacement and having lack of access to high opportunity neighborhoods. As a reminder that this legislation was fully established in 2019 when, in addition to allocating a portion of the Mercer mega sale to historic investments and housing, the City Council also passed a budget proviso to create a community driven strategic acquisition fund. This included an advisory board to make recommendations on how to spend the money to support equitable development projects in communities experiencing high rates of displacement and low access to opportunity as defined by the community themselves. Last year, we as a council worked to reinstate the $30 million fund when this funding was cut by the mayor's proposed 2021 budget and the 2021 final budget. We made sure that this funding was prioritized and the community celebrated. It is exciting to celebrate again today to see this proviso lift and the legislation today move forward. We will now be able to see the $30 million that had been requested by the community at a bare minimum get out the door to community driven anti displacement acquisitions, supporting investments for the creation of housing, child care, small business and community space. We've heard time and time again from community advocates that it is very important, if not one of the most important things that we can do to displaced, to combat displacement is to make sure that we are taking land off the open market and to make sure that the city does everything it can when we have under-utilised public property to hold it in our hands. Since the sale of the Mercer Mega BLOCK. We have changed our policies in the city to maintain public land in public hands and use it for promoting public good. But this sale had already been in the works prior to my arrival on council and the community. Organizations that knew that this transaction was already in place demanded that the community organizations be able to at least get $30 million in addition to the investments in affordable housing, to build assets that promote resiliency and support community vision. So this piece of legislation and this property has been through a long process, and I think we are in a much better position public policy wise to make sure that future properties like of the Mercer mega parcel are remain in public hands. And then today we're following through on that commitment and the vision of the community and the Community Advisory Board and the hard work of opacity, especially Juliet and Uber, who have presented to our community our committee meeting a handful of times and their intensive work that they did and their brave actions that they took to stand up to make sure that the project applications, the selection process, was really in alignment with what the community had been calling for. We know there are many, many worthy projects that have not been selected for this limited pool of funds. We are very much interested in continuing to work with members of the public council colleagues here to continue to leverage additional dollars coming in through the door, such as through the Jumpstart Progressive Revenue legislation that we passed last year to see which additional projects we can continue to move forward as we seek to fulfill the vision of those who had applied for these dollars in whole. Cause I want to thank you for your consideration today. I know many of you have been working on this for many years and to the community as well as the members that I mentioned at obesity. And I want to thank Erin House who has been working on this for a number of years as well for our work on this legislation in front of us today and hope to have your support. Thank you so much. Colleagues, are there any additional comments on the bill? Harry Nunn will a quick piece called the wall on the passage of the bill strauss.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 0: Herbold. Yes. Lewis.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 0: Morales. Let's get to Abby Peterson.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 0: So what?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez I 18 in favor and unopposed passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Is there any further business to come before the Council? Here in non-college, this does conclude the items of business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on October 4th, 2021, at 2:00 PM. I hope that you all have a wonderful evening. We're adjourned. Thanks so much.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to relocation assistance for economically displaced tenants; requiring the payment of economic displacement relocation assistance to households that are vacating a housing unit after receiving notice of a rent increase of ten percent or more or of less than ten percent where the cumulative effect for the household’s tenancy is ten percent or more; and adding a new Chapter 22.212 to the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_09272021_CB 120162
|
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez, high eight in favor. None opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the QUIRK Visa fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Congratulations, everyone who's been working really hard on this issue. Okay. Well, the clerk please read the short title of item 13 into the record and report that the Community Economic Development Committee Agenda Item 13 Council Bill 120 162 establishing a new 15th Avenue East Business Improvement Area. The committee recommends that all passes amended and. So much. Okay. I'm going to hand this over to Councilmember Morales, who is the chair of the committee to provide the report.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council president colleagues, this is the bill to create the fifth avenue via. We discussed this in the Community Economic Development Committee on September eight. We heard from proponents of the idea and also held a public hearing on it. So as you know, the way this works, local businesses vote to assess themselves, to provide cleanup services, graffiti removal, to be able to host neighborhood events and marketing, provide marketing services to the local businesses. I will say we did have some concern. We heard from some commercial tenants about their concern. As you know, it is the property owners who get to vote on whether or not to assess themselves. The small businesses who may rent from these owners don't get to participate in that vote. So we hear from some of them that they were concerned about the impact on them, assuming that this may pass down in the form of higher rents. So I did amend the legislation in committee to ensure that at least two commercial tenants are on the board and that we include the option of using some of the assessment revenue to pay for small business assistance or other programs that can help keep small businesses from getting displaced. I do want to thank Councilmember Peterson and his staff who had proposed similar legislation when you district the air was passed several months ago. So thanks for working with us to do something similar here. And as Amelia said, we did pass this unanimously out of committee on September 21st. So I am encouraging my colleagues to support the bill.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Are there any additional comments on the bill? I don't see any hands raised so well. The police call the role on the adoption of the bill. Strauss.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 0: Herbert. Yes. Lewis.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 0: Morales.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 0: Mesquita, I. Petersen. I so want.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: President Gonzales. I A-10 favorite. Nunn opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the girl please affect my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read items 15 through 18 into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE establishing a new 15th Avenue East Business Improvement Area (BIA); levying special assessments upon owners of commercial property, multi-family residential property, and mixed-use property within the area; providing for the deposit of revenues in a special account and expenditures therefrom; providing for collection of and penalties for delinquencies; providing for the establishment of a BIA Advisory Board; providing for an implementation agreement with a Program Manager; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_09202021_CB 120157
|
Speaker 0: Okay, great. Thank you so much. Okay, folks, let's go ahead and end our period of public comment. We'll go ahead and go to other items of business on today's agenda, which is the public hearing on Council Bill 120157. Will the Court please read the title of Council Bill 1 to 0 157?
Speaker 1: Constable 120157 relating to affordable housing on properties owned or controlled by religious organizations. Modifying affordability requirements adopted in ordinance 126334 and amended Section 23.40 2.005 of the settlements, the code and Section ten of Ordinance 2060 384.
Speaker 0: Okay. It appears that technology is not our friend today. Just as we're about to do this. I see what Councilmember Strauss was having some need to reconnect. It looks like Councilmember Strauss is with us again. So before I open the public hearing on this item, I am going to go ahead and turn it over to Councilmember Strauss , who is the sponsor of this bill. Councilmember Strauss will provide us with introductory remarks before we go ahead and hold the formal public hearing, for which we do have a handful of members of the viewing public registered to make public comment. So thank you so much, Strauss, over to you.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Council President Gonzalez and apologies for the technological issues that we just experienced. Just wanting to highlight that council bill 120157 is before us today and it makes changes to Council Bill 120081, which the City Council passed on June 28. And this will increase the affordability requirements from 60% AMI to 80% AMI Council Bill 120081 Implementing a new state law that allows for larger buildings than zoning would otherwise allow for affordable housing developments on sites owned or controlled by religious institutions. The state law defined affordable housing as affordable to 80% am-I, as did the original version of Council Bill 120157 that was transmitted to council. The Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee considered the amendment to lower AMI requirements to 60% and decided against and rejected that amendment after hearing from stakeholders. The full City Council ultimately passed a similar amendment and lowered the affordability requirements to 60% AMI making Seattle's law more restrictive than the state law. Following these votes, my office and others were contacted by churches and community organizations expressing deep concern with the amendment, which works with and including from Nehemiah Initiative, which works with historically black churches in Seattle to save the black church in the central area into combat displacement. These stakeholders shared that the 60% AMI requirement threatened the viability of church affordable housing projects, meaning that we would lose affordable housing units that would otherwise been developed under this ordinance. Additionally, I heard that churches plan to use this ordinance as a way in ways that are more broad than what the City Council discussed during for council. In some cases, churches may wish to build affordable housing to allow their members to return home to communities that they have already been displaced from. Some of these members may not qualify for a 60% in my unit and they still have been displaced. I do not believe the city needs to micromanage how religious organizations best serve their congregations. Finally, I was reminded of the great importance historically and today of the Black Church is more than just a religious organization. But as Don King, president of Nehemiah Initiative, put it, as the largest African-American financial, emotional, physical, spiritual service provider and the largest African-American land owner, period. He added much more. And I know that many more people will be speaking during the public hearing today. So I will end with this. Just noting that this legislation will amend the previous council bill to provide more flexibility to churches to serve their congregations, build the needed affordable housing, and maintain themselves financially so that they can continue serving their community. Thank you, counsel presence. Those are my remarks before the bill.
Speaker 0: It's so much Castmember Strauss Appreciate that context setting and additional information both for the viewing public and for us as council members. So as Presiding Officer, I am now opening the public hearing on Council Bill 120157 relating to affordable housing on property owned or controlled by religious organizations. Online registration to sign up to speak opened at 12:00 noon today and I am going to call on speakers in the order of registration. The online registration will remain open until the conclusion of this public hearing. The same rules apply to the same rules that apply to the public comment period will be applied to this public hearing . Each speaker will be provided up to 2 minutes to address the council. Excuse me. And speakers are going to hear chime when they only have 10 seconds left of the allotted time. Your microphone will be muted at the end of your allotted. In their comments by seeing their name. And again, you have to press star six after you hear the prompt of you have been unmuted. Sorry folks, I'm continuing to experience internet stability so and have to turn my camera off. Here again, public comment on this particular section is only related to the council bill just described by Councilmember Strauss, which is a bill related to affordable housing on property owned or controlled by religious organizations. So we're going to go ahead and open up the public comment period. I'm going to go ahead and start calling on folks who are both present and signed up to speak on this subject matter. The first person is Kirsten Smith, followed by Donald King.
Speaker 5: Good afternoon. My name is Kirsten Smith. I live in District one and I am policy staff at Air Seattle. The American Institute of Architects apologized for getting in on the list ahead of him because he should go first. He is a fellow of the air and we are pleased to support the 120157. We also appreciate the Council's willingness to take a second look at the legislation. The Provision Architect strive to apply our professional skills to advance racial and economic justice. One way we do this is to identify policy changes that make development work for bipoc individuals and communities, both to combat the risk of displacement and to generate wealth building opportunities. Adjusting this legislation to make it achievable for black churches to allow them to participate in the program without giving up control of their project to larger developers is an example of exactly this kind of policy adjustment. It also supports the city's commitment to eliminating racial disparities and achieving racial equity while deeper affordability programs are essential and needed to achieve additional city goals. You believe in this case and solve to be addressed elsewhere. We ask you to support Council Bill one 2157 thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you for calling it. And next up is Donald King, followed by Joey Lopez. Of Europe.
Speaker 3: Good afternoon. This is Donald King. I am president and CEO of the Myanmar Initiative of Seattle.
Speaker 5: And in fact, in your name and again, you have the press.
Speaker 3: Sorry.
Speaker 0: No, that's okay. We're all it. It is. Definitely. Let's start the clock over again.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: The next. It's I feel like today is extra Monday. So no worries. You have the full 2 minutes. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Good. Thank you. My name's Donald King. I'm president and CEO of the Myanmar Initiative. And it is the mission of the Nehemiah Initiative to primarily one save the historically black churches, the predominantly black churches of central Seattle. And as part of that mission are we have two objectives in mind. One is to develop affordable housing on underutilized properties of the churches, which is quite abundant. And the second is to provide the church with income from the development of those properties for the churches to survive. So the churches can continue to do good. But also being well financially we are supporting of the passage of CB 120157 because it corrects a previously passed bill, an ordinance 120081 that was flawed. It had a late amendment added to it that required it eligibility of 60% area median income, which does not particularly work for our black churches. We applaud those that work in the low and very low income housing provision market. But with the objective that I just told you about and the second objective of that is being able to make the black churches stronger through the development of their housing. A threshold of 60% or a limit of 60%. Amid does not financially work for that objective. So I am urging you to pass this ordinance, to pass this bill into ordinance 1 to 0 one five. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you for calling in today. Really appreciate it. Next up is Joey Lopez, followed by Benjamin Maurits.
Speaker 3: Council President Gonzalez and members of council. My name is Jose Lopez, a resident of District three in the Safe Land Initiative Lead at the Church Council of Greater Seattle. I appreciate the time to speak today on behalf of the Church Council in favor of Ordinance 120157 to modify the affordability requirements adopted in the past ordinance as relates to affordable housing on properties owned and controlled by religious organizations. As many of you know, the Church Council of Greater Seattle is a century old organization that is committed to making informed, transformational change for deliberation and justice in partnership with Seattle's faith, community and community organization. Much like many of my initiative, as part of this work, we facilitate a network of congregations and faith leaders through our Faith Land Initiative. Our initiative trained and developed faith leaders to cultivate deeper relationships within their congregations and neighborhoods, and a practice toward community stewardship of faith owned land. We also mobilize Seattle's faith communities to take action by practicing transformative stewardship of faith owned land and engaging their lawmakers and elected officials as we look and legislating in terms of affordability. We have to realize the impact for people with the most need like Bipoc family. We know the families that are our families are what will reverse the impacts of displacement and gentrification and policies that contribute to housing exclusion, like the city's history of urban renewal. Past debate focused on rental rates for studio and one bedroom unit. However, 80% of am I for a three bedroom unit is $2,295. I. Reality is that housing of this size is almost nonexistent at this cost or lower. We must be mindful of the long term impact of our development decision providing space for the return of displaced black renters in a sustainable way that does not contribute to further racial and economic segregation. I urge you to vote yes on the passage of S.B. 120157. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you for calling in today, Joey. Next up is Benjamin Morris. And then after Benjamin will be Alicia Ruiz.
Speaker 3: Hello. My name is Benjamin Merritt, and I'm a housing developer in Seattle. I'm here today to answer the specific question of what is the difference between 60% AMI 80% AMI. It is a difference between many homes and no homes for a family of four. The difference between earning 63,000 and about 83,000 a year in income and for a housing providers, the difference between being able to charge that family a fair rent of about 6000 dollars per month, or about 20 $100 a month for a two bedroom home. But for somebody who aims to build housing and for whom, like most of us, must borrow money to do so, it's a difference between being able to pay off your construction loan and not being able to do so. And if you can pay off the loan and you are in charge, then it's the ability to have a bit of money left over afterwards to pay other bills and keep your community going. Now, not everyone needs to fund their operations in this way. Large nonprofits with access to federal tax credits and local subsidies can do just fine building at 60% AMI. And they should. But no one, not even the church with modest profit expectations, can build housing at 60% ami without subsidy. In Seattle, we now have the opportunity to allow smaller faith based groups, especially the black churches, the opportunity to revitalize themselves through housing and to do so on their own without subsidy that they must be able to build to 80%. Ami, please approve this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much for calling in today. Next up is Alicia Ruiz, followed by Gary Tyson.
Speaker 5: Hi, my name is Alisha Reese, and I'm speaking today on behalf of the Master Builders Association opinions and on which county and our nearly 3000 members are today. We stand in strong support of the amended version of Council Bill 120159 that would modify the eligibility criteria to require that all affordable housing units built on property owned by religious organizations serve households with an average income of 80% of AMI. The passage of this amended bill is an important step forward towards racial equality and also provide desperately, desperately needed affordable housing in our city. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you for calling in today. Next up is Garry Tyson. And then the last person I have signed up for this public hearing is Barb Wilson. Looking for Gary Tyson, who is speaker number? Oh, I'm sorry, since we were at the time, Carrie, but I think I just called on him. Do we still have. Speaker 50? There we go. Okay. Just press star six and we'll be able to hear you. Gary, if you're with us, we just need you to press Star six on your end, and then we will be able to hear you. You're not hearing the collar. So let's go ahead and move over to Barbara Wilson. It was number 58 on our list.
Speaker 5: I'm Barbara Wilson, District six. Speaking in favor of 120157, increasing the permissible EMI to 80% would make it financially feasible for religious institutions with less land to build the missing middle housing at virtually no cost to the city. This approach to increasing Seattle's affordable housing exists because a dedicated group of small historical black churches advocated for a state law requiring increasing density for.
Speaker 3: Such buildings on religious property.
Speaker 5: Our own church in Ballard has been exploring building affordable housing at 60%. Am I on our property? We're privileged to have a very large piece of property, but you should know that the part of the property used for such affordable housing will be reduced in value by half. The reality is limiting the definition of affordable housing to 60% AMI and below reduces the land value so much that it's financially prohibitive for the very churches who brought Seattle one solution to increase much needed affordable housing for black historic churches. If you wish to support the black community and their continued presence in their historical neighborhood, please press 120157. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you for calling in today. Okay. Our last speaker is Gary Tyson. Let's see if we can get Garry unmuted and available to give us his comments. All you have to do is press star six. For us to be able to hear you. Okay. I'm still not able to hear Gary. I apologize for that. Sometimes these Zoom features don't work as well as we'd like them to. I would encourage you to email your comments to the full council at council that CEOs, you and CIO of Seattle don't shy away. I'm sorry you waited this long and we're not able to get you on the line, but I am going to go ahead and close out the period of public comment. I don't have any other individuals signed up to speak for this public hearing, and we're going to go ahead and move to other items of business on the agenda again. That was our last speaker remotely present to speak at this public hearing. The public hearing on council Bill 120157 is now closed. This bill is scheduled for a vote at the September 27th, 2021 City Council meeting. And the Council is still accepting comments on your email at council at Seattle Dot Job. Thank you so much. Let's move to payment of the bills. Will the clerk please read the title.
Speaker 1: Council bill 120179. The property managers pay started and claims to the week of September six, 2021 through September 10th, 2021, and ordering payment thereof.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to affordable housing on properties owned or controlled by religious organizations; modifying affordability requirements adopted in Ordinance 126384; and amending Section 23.42.055 of the Seattle Municipal Code and Section 10 of Ordinance 126384.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_09202021_CB 120142
|
Speaker 1: Report of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee agenda item for Council Bill 120 142 relating to the Seattle Police Department prohibiting trainee exchanges in partnership with certain governments and adding a new section 2.20 8.1 41 to set limits for code the committee recommends the bill passes the matter with council members for both moral lessons to watch in favor with abstentions from Councilmembers Gonzalez and Lewis.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Madam Clerk. Okay, folks, this is going to be a long discussion and there are several late breaking amendments. So I appreciate in advance your patience and courage and go get a snack if you need one. But we will get through this in a appreciate in advance your patience and the patience of members of the public as we work through what might be some challenging procedural issues. But hopefully everything will go as smooth as possible. We do have for this discussion available council central staff Ali Velshi and and Gorman, who I can call for comments and questions that might come from council members. I will need to suspend the rules in order to allow for that to occur. But if it needs to happen, please do not hesitate to signal that need to me. And I am happy to do that, not our preferred method of doing it. Our preference is obviously to have all of the policy conversations occur during committee, but there are several amendments that have come out since committee and want to make sure that we as councilmembers and members of the public are getting the the benefit of our central staff and analysis and before we take a vote. So with that being said, I am going to acknowledge council member want who is the sponsor of this bill. The chair of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee thought it was appropriate to allow you to have the first and the last word on this bill as the sponsor of the bill and a member of the committee. So I'm going to end it.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Guns and prison Gonzalez and Public Safety Committee chair Herbold. This is an ordinance that, as you all know, has been months ago requested by the and the deadly exchange movement, which comprises a large number of organizations that I've been in solidarity with and which I will acknowledge later. But this is an ordinance requested by this movement, which bans the Seattle Police Department from sending officers for training in countries with a track record of human rights abuses. This bill originally banned the Seattle Police Department from training specifically in Israel, but because they have done so in the past, learning the tactics brutally used to oppress Palestinians . My office originally drafted this bill to support the end of deadly exchange movement several months ago, when thousands of Seattleites marched to protest the bombing of the Gaza Strip by Israel's right wing political establishment. Since then, we have expanded the bill to ban the Seattle Police Department from training in any country that has a track record of human rights abuses as documented by established and mainstream international human rights bodies. Thank you to the two members, Morales and Mesquita, for co-sponsoring this bill. I especially want to thank the hundreds of community activists from a wide range of movements were brought forward and demanded that the City Council adopt this legislation. Black Lives Matter and Palestinian rights activists, Indian American activists, members of the progressive Jewish community, along with other faith communities, socialists and human rights activists, have been engaged in a wide range of struggles around the world. They have spoken with many voices, but one singular, powerful message. Seattle police training practices must align with the human rights values that this city council has repeatedly declared our paramount to our city. On behalf of the activists leading this struggle, I am bringing three amendments this afternoon to the bill. And just to clarify, none of those none of the amendments on my office are late breaking there. They have been in process and I've been completely transparent about them, not only with members of the public, but also in successive city council briefings on Monday mornings. So the amendments from my office are to amend how the bill defines what countries have committed human rights abuses to close loopholes that may have been created in the amendment that passed in committee last week and a Third Amendment that came out of the discussion during council briefing this morning. These amendments preserve a country neutral, evenhanded approach to limiting police training. If these amendments are adopted, the Seattle Police Department would still have viable training partners, with nearly 100 countries around the world, including Canada, the U.K., Sweden, France, Germany and Italy, among others. While honoring the commitments to human rights that the city council has gone on record as supporting. If the President Gonzalez agrees, I will move those amendments now and then we can have a general discussion on the bill itself after.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I think that makes sense. There are your amendments plus amendments from Councilmember Strauss. So let's do what we ordinarily do, which is go through all of the amendments before we have a conversation about the underlying bill. If that's okay with you, it's okay with me. I do see that Councilmember Strauss has his hand raised, so I will go ahead and acknowledge Councilmember Strauss before we go through that. The the movements related to the amendments.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Council President. There was a drafting error in the email and the amendment that I sent around at 2 p.m. There should be in the new amendment in your inboxes now as long as law has appropriately reviewed. So if you don't see that now, you'll see it in just a second. Um, just wanted to alert that before we brought my amendment forward.
Speaker 0: Okay. Your amendment is we got a little, little bit of time here. We've got two amendments to consider and debate before we get to yours. Appreciate the head's up on that and we will keep an eye out for that email. Okay. So let's go ahead, Councilor. Excellent. Why don't you go ahead and make your motion and see if it gets a second and then I'll hand it back over to you to address the amendment after it has received a second.
Speaker 2: First I will move Amendment one, version two, as emailed to council offices this morning.
Speaker 0: Is there a second? Okay. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to amend. The bill is presented on version two of Amendment one. I'm going to hand it back over. It comes first. Want to address this amendment.
Speaker 2: So for members of the public, this amendment is in substance the same as Amendment one that was linked on today's agenda earlier with one word technical correction. This amendment makes it clear to include in the definition human rights abuses occurring not just within a nation's borders, but also within territories that the nation occupies. There are numerous instances of the military or police forces of a nation abusing the human rights of others outside that nation's borders. And this amendment simply reflects that reality. Thank you to Councilmembers Morales and Mosquito for co-sponsoring this amendment.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you so much. I am looking for comments now on the amendment and I see that Councilmember Herbold has your hand raised, please.
Speaker 1: Q As well as language change was a good change that we had discussed a little bit in committee, but sort of talked about what the intent was, but decided to wait and give central staff an opportunity to actually draft it. This is the amendment that I characterized this morning in council briefings as an amendment that I felt was a friendly amendment. And when I asked central staff what impact this amendment would have, the central staff response was that looking at the purview of the ICC and how that body defines and organizes its work, that the ad does not make any substantive change. And I'm just adding that I do support the clarification that the amendment provides with the understanding that there's no substantive change.
Speaker 0: People so much. Are there any additional comments on this amendment? I'm not seeing any additional comments. Councilors want anything else to add?
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you so much. In that case, will debate is now closed on the amendments. So will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of version to of Amendment One?
Speaker 1: So what?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 3: Strauss Oh.
Speaker 1: Herbold. Yes.
Speaker 4: Whereas now.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 1: Moralez.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Oscar Peterson.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Sorry. I'm having Internet issues. Are we still on the first day? We're still in the First Amendment. Yes. Okay. Sorry about that. Yes.
Speaker 1: That is five in favor and four opposed.
Speaker 0: The motion carries and the amendment is adopted. And I'm going to head it back over to Councilor Russell. Want to walk us through amendments to.
Speaker 2: A move amendment to an email to council offices this morning.
Speaker 0: Is there a second?
Speaker 4: I can. I can.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill has presented an amendment to I'm going to hand it back over to councilors want them to walk us through this amendment.
Speaker 2: Thank you. This amendment was drafted in response to the discussion during this morning's council briefing. Councilmember Strouse said he wanted to make sure that our bill does not preclude the Seattle Police Department from providing executive protection to the mayor. I don't know. The mayor was mentioned, but public officials on official visits to other countries. This amendment makes it clear that this bill is not referring to the times that the Seattle Police Department may act as the security detail for any elected officials from the city. Simply adds a sentence that says, quote, The city is not prohibited from providing executive protection to city elected officials on an official trip to a country meeting, either or both. Exclusion criteria in subsection 320 81418 and 320 8141 be enforced.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Customer So-and-so That is the underlying amendment. My understanding is that Councilmember Strauss has an amendment to the amendment and it and that's what my notes are telling me anyway. So. So I will open it up to comments on this amendment first before I recognize Councilmember Strauss on his amendment to the amendment. Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 1: Because I don't know if this is a point of order or maybe it's not a point of order, but it's a question about an email that we received at 12:34 p.m. from number science staff. I was under the impression that Councilmember Swan was only putting forward amendments one in three. I we did receive earlier an amendment two as described by Councilmember Swan, but I was under the impression that Thomas Swan was not moving that forward.
Speaker 2: So should I respond?
Speaker 0: You're welcome. You're welcome to you. I'll just sort of note that the that regardless of what was communicated before the amend, the motion has now been made. So we have the motion before us unless the sponsor wants of the amendment would like to withdraw that motion. It is now officially before us. So customers want. I'll go ahead and hand it over to you to provide any additional clarification about your intent.
Speaker 2: Um, maybe there is, maybe was talking about each other, maybe there should be some clarification. But as far as my officer's emails are concerned, I as far as I understand, we were clear that we were moving three amendments and we showed them at 11:45 a.m., I believe, including this one. And as members will remember this, the context of this one only came up this morning. So it was added today. So I'm actually not sure about the source of the confusion.
Speaker 0: I just want to make sure so that the records clear it is your intent. Just remember to want to advance amendment to as you just described it.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 0: Excellent. Okay. We are all on the same page. Slate is clean. We are considering and debating amendments to. Are there any additional comments on Amendment two again before we consider the amendment to the amendment? No additional questions. So I'm going to go ahead and recognize Councilmember Strauss, who indicated that he has an additional amendment amendment which was not distributed by 12 noon today because it was not distributed before noon today. And the council will need to first suspend the rules before this amendment can be moved. If there is no objection, the council rules relating to distribution of amendments 2 hours before the City Council meeting will be suspended to consider an additional amendment. Hearing notes.
Speaker 4: Oh, sorry. I thought you knew the second council president. I apologize.
Speaker 0: Okay. Just making sure that was not an objection.
Speaker 4: No, no objection.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you so much. Hearing no objection, the council rule is suspended and Councilmember Strauss is recognized in order to move amendment. I think it's still to be and.
Speaker 6: That's what I was hoping to confirm. I believe it is now to see. And can you help me with this or ally?
Speaker 0: We cannot hold on a minute. We cannot hear from non councilmembers or the city clerk without a suspension of the rules. So, I mean, so what would you need if you need to hear from Ali and or. And I'm happy to suspend the rules accordingly.
Speaker 6: Just 1/2, please. Just.
Speaker 4: Or we need a second.
Speaker 0: Now we are looking. Councilmember Strauss is confirming the version of which amendment he would like to.
Speaker 3: Move.
Speaker 0: Before we look a second.
Speaker 4: To be or to see.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So I promise you all that it was going to be might get a little messy with these last minute amendments.
Speaker 6: Council President I am moving, if you will, in just a second. I move to amend Council Amendment two by substituting it with the corrected version of Amendment to be, which was distributed at about 415 this afternoon.
Speaker 0: Okay. So hearing no objection, the council will assist and then in Councilmember Strauss is recognized in order to move the corrected version of amendment to be. Councilmember Strauss over to you.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Council president. Do I need to make another motion or speak to it?
Speaker 0: We haven't yet suspended the rules. We are waiting for you to confirm which version we were suspending the rules in order to hear. So now is your opportunity to actually make your motion and ask. And then I will ask for a second. If there is second. If there is a second, then we can hear from you on the substance of the proposed amendment.
Speaker 6: Great. Thank you. I moved to amend Amendment two by substitute, substituting it with Amendment A corrected amendment to B, which was recently distributed.
Speaker 3: Second.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to amend Amendment two by substituting it with a corrected version of Amendment to be, which was recently distributed. I'm going to go ahead and hand it back over to Councilmember Strauss to address the substitute version of the amendment, please.
Speaker 6: Great. Thank you. Council president, colleagues. As I'm not on the Public Safety Committee or the committee in which this has come from, I was only beginning to review what came out of committee late last week. I thought some of the concerns that I had shared months ago had been addressed, and alas, unfortunately, they had not been addressed . And so I worked quickly this morning to address those. We did create a drafting error before distributing the original amendment to be. And my apologies for any confusion that that has created. The amendment before you and council president. If we are able to see it on the screen, I would ask central staff to put it on the screen. One of the drafting errors, we were just trying to make the sentence flow more correctly. So the corrected version retains the formatting of the original version and simply makes this nation neutral by being, uh, by including all nations in the world, rather than engaging in an attempt to understand which countries have or have not signed on or are in accordance with UN declarations or committees. This simply says all nations period does not change any of the other content. And can I confirm, can we pull this up on the screen so that colleagues can see it?
Speaker 0: Yeah. If if somebody from central staffs prepared to screen share, I have no objection to that.
Speaker 6: And then also including as it is allowed to provide executive protection, my apologies. If I had had more time with this, I would have included British Columbia, because they are our state to the north, our province to the north. But unfortunately, we're out of time today.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Strauss. The colleagues, you do see the language that is being proposed to be changed here. So let's go ahead and take comments and questions on this particular amendment. Again, if we do need to hear more directly from council central staff, someone just needs to let me know. That's what they want to hear from. And I'm happy to suspend the rules to allow them to address the city council's questions. First person with their hand raised is Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 3: Yes, Madam President. I would so move to suspend the rules to talk to central staff for just a moment.
Speaker 0: Possible break if there's been a formal request for that, colleagues, if there's no objection to hearing from our council central staff on the proposed corrected amendment as described by Councilmember Strauss, I would like to provide them an opportunity to do that. Hearing no objection. The rules are suspended and we can hear directly from our council central staff, which at the moment is Allie Banerjee and Anne Gorman. So please feel free to respond to Councilmember questions as appropriate. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Lewis Thank you so much, Madam President. On the question of to be or not to be, I'm not sure which of the two central staff folks I should be addressing it to. So just take it however you will in the way that this is crafted. Are we assuming in the underlying like the text that is not crossed out above that that that is going to stay consistent regardless of what we decide? Because in reading that the scope is limited to military forces and not to foreign police. So it's a foreign military. Oh, no, sorry. We're partnerships with the police forces, intelligence agencies, security services. So then this would ban trainings with Canadian officials. And I think Councilmember Strauss alluded to that. But I just wanted to ask that the top here.
Speaker 1: Correct? Yes. Yes.
Speaker 5: I'm sorry. Go ahead, Councilmember.
Speaker 6: Oh, and you're great. I was just going to say yes. That's correct. If I had had more time, I would have created an exemption for British Columbia as our province to the north. But alas, at a time.
Speaker 3: Okay. And so and are we going to rest then on Councilmember Strauss's answer to that?
Speaker 1: I don't have anything else to add as as written, this.
Speaker 0: Ward ban training programs, exchanges or partnerships with with police forces in Canada.
Speaker 3: All right. I don't have any additional questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: The much I see that Councilmember Herbold has her hand raised. And then Councilmember Morales. Councilmember Herbold, please.
Speaker 1: Do this exclusively to ask questions. Or could I make a statement?
Speaker 0: Its any comments on the proposed amendment are suspended however. So if you had a question, you need that question. But this is an opportunity for any and all comments on Council Member Strauss's proposed amendment.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So just to sort of underscore the the issue raised by Councilmember Lewis, we received information from from central staff that from 2013 to 2021, Esprit took 48 trips to Canada. To be clear, though, a trip is one incident of travel by a single staff member. But it looks like 13 trips were to attend a conference, two to provide executive protection, which would be exempt by this by this amendment. And two, to support a partnership and 32 receive training. In addition to the fact that this amendment would scoop in scoop in Canada. I've spoken to Seattle Police Chief Diaz, and I understand that the Seattle Police Department is currently working with agencies both in the United Kingdom and Sweden on crowd management processes, which have been along the lines of recommendations of our police accountability agencies and as drafted. And it appears that this amendment could potentially impact this work. There are about 195 nations in the world. I just I'm just very concerned that the the impact is is is is is very broad of this with this amendment and is not. And I understand that the intent of the amendment sponsor, it's not tied to an objective assessment of human rights violations and the human rights records. So I'm listening for my my colleagues arguments on this, but I am unlikely to be able to support this amendment.
Speaker 0: Because remarkable to Councilmember Morales, do you still have a question or comment?
Speaker 2: Um.
Speaker 4: Well, I was just pointing out as as Councilmember Peters sorry, Councilmember Lewis did that the first sentence here and the second sentence seemed to a slightly different things. The first sentence is shall not participate in training programs, exchanges with military forces. And then the second one goes on to say, intelligence agencies or security services. So I my real question is, does that matter or will the broader interpretation be what is adhered to here?
Speaker 0: Yeah, and I think and I think just to be clear on my understanding, that might be relevant to. Two sort of context for that question is that the that language exists in the underlying legislation. So the only parts that are being proposed to be changed are those are sort of the the strikeout of A and B in the addition of the last line. So the that the part that you're identified that may have a inconsistency in is included in the in the baseline bill. So thank you, counsel, central staff, whoever is doing this for highlighting the the text that is in yellow is what Councilmember Strauss's amendment is proposing. Everything else is included in the base legislation that we are considering today. So at council central staff, any response to that particular question as presented by Councilmember Morales? No, no, no response. I, i, i agree with her characterization generally.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Silence, please.
Speaker 2: So I have two questions. It's possible that at least one of them has already been answered, but I'll go ahead and ask that just, you know, just to make it clear. So and my two questions are under this new amendment and would this ban all training programs, exchanges, our partnerships with the police forces of all other countries , including countries, would almost be has had exchanges in the past, just Canada. It seems like the answer is yes. We had this exchange between you and Herb also just confirm that. And then secondly, under this amendment, would the CBD be permitted to attend training inside the United States that involve police forces, intelligence agencies or security services of foreign countries? Those are my two questions. President Gonzalez. I do have comments about this. I will observe them for a bit.
Speaker 6: The president may respond. And then Social Staff Councilmember Swan What I will say is that as to your second question, whether or not those trainings can or cannot occur on domestic soil is a question left for your base bill that's not under consideration for this amendment. That doesn't happen. This amendment simply removes the characterization of which types of countries we can work with to just say all countries. Otherwise, it is not truly nation neutral. This is a nation neutral amendment. And to your first question, yes, the answer is yes. Thank you. And if and if you have follow up, please.
Speaker 0: Enter in response to the first question. Yes, this this amendment would ban such work with Canada as as SPG is currently engaged in. And with respect to the second question, the way I read partnerships with the military forces of any country that would exclude United.
Speaker 1: States military forces.
Speaker 0: But all of the other descriptions of the types of units, foreign, military, police forces, intelligence agencies, those all have the.
Speaker 5: Qualifier foreign attached to them.
Speaker 0: The only one that does not is military forces of any country.
Speaker 2: So but I don't I don't know. And if you address the my specific question was, what would they ask me to be permitted to attend training inside the US that like if the training happened on U.S. soil, that in a training that involves police forces, intelligence agencies or security forces, all foreign countries. So for example, good SBT officers go to training in Chicago, say to train with some foreign police forces.
Speaker 0: The way I read this bill, the operative word.
Speaker 5: Is with their training programs.
Speaker 1: Exchanges or partnerships.
Speaker 0: With the police forces. To me, this does not specified geography. Certainly we work to clarify that.
Speaker 5: But that that.
Speaker 0: Is the way I understand the bill as currently written.
Speaker 6: What I might say is that this has been a process for counsel that should have been taken up at committee tells members. So it seems like you might also have questions about the base bill. I might.
Speaker 2: Ask. I don't have this, but you have provided this amendment at a very last second. It's about your amendment.
Speaker 6: It's the base bill that you're that you have the question about. No.
Speaker 2: No, absolutely not. Your amendment is sweeping, as my verbal also alluded to with other words. But so that's why these questions are coming up. This is not a minor amendment.
Speaker 6: That's why the question that you just had was about the part not highlighted.
Speaker 2: No, it was not about the base. I mean.
Speaker 6: Council president. My apologies.
Speaker 0: I'm going to I'm just like if we get I appreciate this is not council briefing or committee meetings. So we do need to just take a pause and start going back and forth if we can, you know, work hard to not interrupt each other in the spirit of having an open democratic debate. I recognize and appreciate that these are several of these are last minute amendments. And those of us who have not been on the committee are working hard to catch up. And so I appreciate the opportunity for us to extend grace to each other as we are trying to catch up on some of these amendments, some of which are more substantive than others. And again, as I stated at the top, my preference is always to do these kinds of work sessions in the midst of a lot of committee work. But alas, we are in a situation now where that is not the situation. So we are going to go ahead and do our best to get through all of these amendments in a way that is hopefully useful to those of us who have to make decisions on the underlying. Bill. And on these respective amendments, I really appreciate you all working together to hopefully achieve them. So again, I want to make sure that council members want you got answers to the questions that you asked? Not yet.
Speaker 2: No, I don't think so. If you don't mind. I just want to follow up. You know, I don't I it's not clear to me, actually, what the impact of this amendment is. I again, just to ask the question again, can the SPV be permitted to attend training inside the United States? And I heard what and said that the amendment does not comment on that. But that's the whole point. It does not. That is why there is this ambiguity that I think is here. And so, for example, can be a speedy participate in a training session in Chicago where the Israeli police shows up. I mean, I, I the problem is that the amendment removes all of the human rights standards out of the base bill, which is the which is the basic, which was the main and fundamental criterion for the existence of the bill. And by that, by doing that, it creates ambiguity. And I just feel like the question I'm asking is a yes or no should have a yes or no answer again yes. BD For example, participate in a training session in Chicago where the Israeli police show up if this amendment were to pass. And because now there's a because of this amendment, there is ambiguity about whether or not that hypothetical Chicago trip can happen. Because we know I mean, at least I know I don't know if council members will agree, but I believe that introducing any ambiguity is problematic, which is why the base bill, as amended, was taking great pains . And we went to a lot of discussion with community, with council members who make sure that we remove these ambiguities. And from my standpoint, that that was extremely important, not only to make sure that everybody is genuinely in agreement, but also because I am very much afraid, given the track record, the overwhelming track record of the Seattle Police Department will, if we introduce ambiguity, will interpret it in a way that they want to, given their established practices, as opposed to what the community wants to want to accomplish with this legislation. So I would really appreciate some clarity. Thank you.
Speaker 1: To President Mary.
Speaker 0: Darby. Ali Banerjee, please.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And I'm going to invite my colleague and gourmand to jump in if I'm getting this wrong. But I'm going to attempt for just a moment, if you can bear with me to just do a bit of a close reading of the text on the screen. So sentence one in the base bill would prohibit a study from participating in participating in training programs, exchanging exchanges or partnerships with the military forces of any country or engage in the travel. So I read that to mean you cannot travel.
Speaker 4: To that country to engage.
Speaker 1: With the military forces, nor can you participate in a training, whether it's within the United States or housed elsewhere. Similarly, the base bill, as currently written, would prohibit expeditious, participative participation in any training programs or exchanges with police forces, except etc. and then it limits which countries you are talking about from which they are participating in. Councilmember Strauss's amendment doesn't change whether or not the Seattle Police Department can participate in trainings with military forces or with police forces within the United States. So as in your example, a training in Chicago where a military force for another country must participate, participating the base, Bill Northey, and the amendment would prohibit that.
Speaker 4: What Councilmember.
Speaker 1: Strauss's amendment does is it removes any specificity about.
Speaker 4: The countries that this.
Speaker 1: Ban is applied to and broadens it, makes it neutral. It says SBT can't do this with any police force and and and clarifies that they can, however, provide executive protection if city officials.
Speaker 0: Are.
Speaker 4: Traveling to those.
Speaker 1: Countries. Please. And or Councilmember Strauss, correct me if I'm mischaracterizing.
Speaker 4: I'll tell you.
Speaker 6: It. Agreeing with him. That sounded correct to me.
Speaker 0: Okay. Because there was a lot. This was your line of questioning. So I just want to circle circle back and make sure you have finished your line of questioning here so we can I can call in councilmember misstatements.
Speaker 2: Yes. I just was I was just going to thank Ali for the Constitution.
Speaker 0: Rates. Okay. Thank you so much. Customers want customer data. Your hand has been raised for a while. Thanks for your patience, David. Thank you. Thank you very much, council president. Thank you, colleagues, for this dialog. I want to thank Councilmember Siwon for initially bringing this legislation forward. Councilmember Herbold, for all of your work in committee and Councilmember Strauss for this amendment in front of us and really just bring us back to the answer that Ali just provided. I think the underlying goal here, as many community partners have continued to underscore, is to really keep us focused on making sure that as we re-envision community policing, it's really done through the community's lens and that we have a chance to hit a reset button when we think about what training looks like for our police personnel. It doesn't, and it shouldn't be done only by military personnel. And we are making a value statement here that going forward, training will not include partnership with other military entities or other countries and their and their military bodies. So I just want to orient us to the why we're doing this, which is to really refocus us back on.
Speaker 5: Community.
Speaker 0: Orientation to what public safety should look like. And I think this is an important piece of legislation in that longer term goal. I also think that the legislation was enhanced in committee and community excuse me, in committee and and appreciate the clarification that's been offered by central staff here today about both the underlying bill and the amendment in front of us. Councilmember Strauss, appreciate the time that you've worked here to help make sure that we have a full understanding of how both the police forces, intelligence agencies, security forces, all of which we want to make sure are not getting trained by other military personnel or with other countries in their military personnel, regardless of where they are, including to our friends in the north. We do want to continue to reach out to our trainings in the future to be focused on community.
Speaker 1: Strategies.
Speaker 0: And partnerships with community, especially those upstream investments to create greater security so fewer folks ever interact with officers to begin with. I appreciate the clarification that's been offered on this amendment, and with that, I believe that there's support in the community for this. With that clarification that's been provided by Allianz and Central South, thank you again and I look forward to supporting this amendment as well. Okay. Just to be clear, customer must get a year supporting Councilmember Strauss's amendment. And I wasn't the amendment to the amendment. Yes, which I also was the other amendment. But I'm happy to support this amendment that I think acts as additional strength, especially given what central staff has just said in their clarification. On Councilmember Strauss's amendment. Okay. Gets more her. Your hands been raised for a while. I'm not sure if that's new or a hold over or mover. Councilmember, you are next.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Madam President, my comments were actually somewhat similar to Councilmember Herbold. So. So I guess you could have called on her again, but I would just reiterate and lift up what Councilmember Herbold had said earlier. I like I appreciate what Councilmember Strauss is trying to do here, and I appreciate anything that makes this conversation less about any particular country and more about a generalized set of our values as a city. The issue that I have, especially as this is broad enough to include any foreign police force, is there are examples of police forces in other countries that do have practices that we might want to study, that we might want to emulate, that might benefit from some kind of foreign exchange where our police can go and talk with their officials about what they do. Great example being crowd control practices in Sweden or other Nordic countries. Obviously, the United Kingdom historically has has stood out as a place that is generally considered to have a good model of community policing by international standards . And then certainly our biggest trading partner, trade probably trading as well. But our biggest trading partner is is Canada, as demonstrated by the historic foreign trips taken. And I don't really know enough right here in the session about the nature of our training exchanges with Canada. So given those things, I do think at this time, without knowing more information, I can't support this amendment given the broadness.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Lewis. Councilmember Salant. And then Councilmember Strom.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Going to present Gonzalez. I firstly want to congratulate all the activists and community members who called in to public comment in opposition to the original version of the amendment that Councilmember Strauss had sent out at 2:01 p.m.. I just wanted to let all the members of the public who spoke and have been paying attention to this issue that you're organizing clearly had a powerful impact. The 2:01 p.m. version of this amendment would have removed the restrictions on training with police forces of human rights abusers. This 4:17 p.m. draft has been updated to now put police forces back and that does close a substantive loophole. But and, and that's good. But I, I also but I still have concerns about the whole point of this amendment. So at this point, really, the only difference is this amendment also prohibits the Seattle Police Department from training with the police of countries that are not human rights abusers in addition to those that are human rights abusers. And keep in mind, I'm defining human rights abusers as per the mainstream, independent international human rights organizations define these issues . So my intent and the intent of the exchange activists and with whom we have worked closely to draft this legislation, was to focus on human rights abusers as defined as that. And this amendment does not change how the bill impacts human rights abusers. But I am concerned that if this amendment passes, that it will be used to, you know, to overall undermine the law, even if it went in place, because then it would be sort of a blanket term law which will not be accepted by a lot of forces in the you know, in the political establishment. And for that reason, I will be voting no on this amendment. And and I just wanted to clarify, August 1st, I said that he brought this amendment because he he didn't think that the base bill brought in the idea of nation neutrality. I just want to clarify, the idea of nation neutrality was in the context of human rights abuses, not just in general. The objection to the very original version of the bill was that it only mentioned Israel and not other countries that might have also been recorded by the international human rights organizations as having abused human rights. We we agreed with that and we changed it accordingly. So in that sense, it is nature neutral thinking.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Obviously because we're strauss.
Speaker 6: I thank you and council president if there's no other further comments hopefully this my I will close it out for you.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 6: Councilmember Lewis, to answer your question about being too expansive or restrictive as you sit on the committee, I would suggest voting yes in favor of this amendment today and then separately creating a list of countries that are allowed to train with the Seattle Police Department. So being specific and proactive rather than looking backwards and trying to define councilmembers to want in response to your comments about my amendment. Without this amendment, there is a large loophole in your bill. And that loophole is being able to ascertain or understand whether or not the country in question does or does not comply with international standards . Among a number of different lists that even we here at council have had a difficult time understanding today. And so I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment, to make it to to remove the loophole that is in the bill, to make it nature neutral. And if further refinements to these policies are needed in the future to take that up in a proactive way. Thank you, council president.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Strauss colleagues. I do think it's time for us to wrap up debate on this particular amendment. I appreciate the opportunity to have additional conversation about it and and thought that it merited having a little bit more time than perhaps we would ordinarily have, if for no other reason than the fact that we all just are learning about the this proposed amendment in the last hour or so. So thanks so much for your patience. Really appreciate your openness and willingness to to have that public debate. Okay. There are no additional comments on this this amendment. So will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the substitute presented on excuse me on the on the substitute presented on the corrected version of amendment to be recently distributed by Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 1: So what?
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 6: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 1: Or both? No. Juarez?
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 1: Lewis?
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 1: Or Alice? As. I.
Speaker 3: Petersen i.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Now.
Speaker 1: Four in favor, five opposed.
Speaker 0: Okay. I turn my camera on, see? My Internet will cooperate with me. Great. The motion fails. The substitute is not adopted and amendment to is before the council. Are there any additional comments or questions on Amendment two as previously described by Council member? Somewhat. And hopefully all still remember what Amendment two is to so maybe councilmember slot in an effort to close out debate on Amendment two. You can just quickly remind us what it was about because it's been a while since we talked about it and then we can take a roll call vote.
Speaker 2: Thank you. That is exactly what I was going to do. Just remind everyone, because it's been a while. This, as I said earlier, this amendment was drafted in response to the discussion we all had during this morning's council briefing. Councilmember Strauss had said at that time that he wanted to make sure that our bill does not preclude the Seattle Police Department from providing executive protections to city public officials on official visits to other countries. This amendment makes it clear that this bill is not referring to the times that that happens. It simply adds a sentence that says, quote, Speed is not prohibited from providing executive protection to city elected officials on an official trip to a country meeting either or both. Exclusion criteria in the. The two subsections. And.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you so much. Okay, folks, if there's no additional questions, I would like to go ahead and call the roll on this. So will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of Amendment two?
Speaker 1: Somewhat. Yes. Strauss Herbold. Yes. Suarez. Yes. Lewis.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Moschella. I. Peterson. II President Gonzalez. I nine. Favoring unopposed.
Speaker 0: The motion carries and the amendment is adopted. Councilmember. So don't you have a Third Amendment that you would like that I understand you would like to make a motion on? I'm going to go and hand it over to you to make your motion. And again, it's seconded. We will have a discussion.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I move Amendment three as emailed to counsel offices this morning.
Speaker 0: On their second second it's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment three. First one on the handed over to you to address the amendment.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And thank you to Councilmembers Morales and Miskito for also co-sponsoring this amendment. This Third Amendment adds a reference to the International Criminal Code statute, which was left out of the amendment that the Public Safety Committee approved last Tuesday. The current draft of the legislation cites two multilateral human rights treaties, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as indicators of a government's intentions to abide by human rights and international law. However, the amendment left out the International Criminal Code Statute also called the Rome Statute as another indicator of a government's intentions to abide by human rights and international law. Since the bill's exclusions provision in subsection B immediately below relies on the International Criminal Court as the body determining the violations of humanitarian law, it's only logical to cite the ICC statute along with the other treaties. So that's simply what this amendment does.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Colleagues, any comments on Amendment three? Hearing no comments on Amendment three. Will the clerk please call the roll on the. Oh, I'm sorry. We're not calling the roll. Councilmember Herbold, go ahead.
Speaker 1: I'm so sorry. I'm so important. Objective. Satisfied with the criteria on the side of commodity was because we verified criterion that are both based in the foregrounding of human rights and our easy staff supply. As it relates to the I.C.E., as they are in the ICCPR, there are lists associated with those two treaties that establish those countries that are not signatories to the treaties. As it relates to the Rome Statute, it is in the inverse, whereas the lists that exist are indicators of nations that are signatories to the the treaty. I also have some confusion about what what is a signatory, what is a party to what is ratifying? What does it mean to not sign? There's a lot of confusion about this addition. I'm I'm really sorry. I'm not comfortable supporting right now. Currently available data suggests this amendment would expand those exclusion criteria to an additional 48 countries beyond the approximately 35 countries that would be excluded by that criterion in the base Bill. That's about 45% of the world's nations. And I'm and I'm very uncomfortable with, again, broadening the scope of the exclusions on the exclusions that I, I moved in my amendment. This the amendment that is being proposed to the language is being proposed to be amended is a mandatory language to an amendment that I offered last week, specifically , again, with with the intent of making sure that the exclusion criteria are are verifiable and simply implemented by the Seattle Police Department. I don't want the Seattle Police Department to have to do Google searches to make to figure this this out. And I just again, I'm uncomfortable with this expansion, and I feel really strongly that we're kind of making the perfect the enemy of the good here. And we have legislation that accomplishes the goals of of the bill sponsor, as well as community members who have been working to support the efforts.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. Councilmember silence as.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I as of 2019, 123 countries are party to the International Criminal Court statute and therefore would remain liable training partners unless of course in the future they fail other criteria in the ordinance. And I'm actually not clear at all what the problem is. I mean, as far as I can understand, it would take a police bureaucrat about 30 seconds disasters. It's easily verified. You go to the ICC website and you can see all of the participants. And just to clarify, also, my staff member did send Constable Herbold and others the link this morning when one council member first raised this question. I don't understand why the police should not be doing a sergeant, because it is it is a very it's a verifiable data on on a reputable website. It's not some random Google search. And also, I will add that this is an amendment that has been advocated for strongly by the community activists who first proposed the legislation . We referenced the ICC in the following paragraph. So it's also about just technical clarity and consistency. It only stands to reason to include the statute in the earlier section because ICC is already being referred to in the following. And the Center for Constitutional Rights Experts say that this will help clarify the legislation further because of, you know, because it eliminates these inconsistencies. And that's where this amendment is coming from. It's not just the the the social activists who've been pushing for that and the exchange. They are also they've also been in consultation with people who have some expertize on international human rights law.
Speaker 0: If First Councilperson. Are there any other comments or questions on the ministry? Hearing none I will accept comes in our salons closing remarks to me just that closing remarks on Amendment three unless there's anything else you'd like to add. No, I'm hearing no. Okay. Well, the clerk please call the rule on the adoption of Amendment three.
Speaker 1: So what?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 6: Strauss No.
Speaker 1: Herbold No.
Speaker 4: Suarez No.
Speaker 3: Lewis No.
Speaker 1: Morales Yes. Let's get to I.
Speaker 3: Peterson No.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 1: Three in favor, six opposed.
Speaker 0: The motion. The motion fails. The amendment is not adopted. Colleagues, now the amended bill is before the council are there and now is the time to make. And this is. Let me back up. This concludes the amendments that I'm aware of that were slated for discussion and consideration today during full council meeting. So now is the opportunity to to hear general comments on the amended bill. I do want to acknowledge that we have two council members during council briefing this morning request an opportunity to be added to this underlying legislation as co-sponsors. Those two councilmembers are Councilmember Morales and Mosqueda, in your comments on the amended bill, to the extent you intend to make comments, please indicate now in open session that you'd like to be added as co-sponsors to be the amended bill so that we make that notation. And I just let you start recording. So, colleagues, now's the time to make general comments on the underlying bill. Councilmember Salant Because you are the sponsor of the bill, you'll have an opportunity to make final wrap up comments at the end of end of debate. And we have had a lot of discussion about this particular bill. So so hopefully we'll be able to get through this quickly and take a final vote on this proposed legislation. First in line is Councilmember Morales, followed by Councilmember Mosqueda and then Councilmember Peterson and then Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President We have had lots of conversation about this bill. I've had conversations with constituents who support this piece of legislation and those who oppose it. And I've tried to be really clear that my support for this comes from a place of really a deep commitment to human rights, as well as a firm belief that we as a city should not be spending public dollars to send police abroad for the purpose of training with countries that are violating human rights. I'm also firmly believe that we should be moving our police department away from militarization. And really, as Councilmember McKenna was mentioning earlier today, really moving away from a militarization and towards more community based alternatives and toward a different way of policing. And that requires that we invest in the department in a different kind of way as well. I don't think they should be training with militaries or security services in countries that are engaging in human rights. So I do want to express my interest in co-sponsoring the legislation. And the last thing I want to say is that to those who condemned this bill as anti-Semitic, I don't believe this is about the Jewish people at all. It's not about the Jewish religion. This is about the policies and practices of jurisdictions and of states and governments. And as a municipal official, I don't think we should be spending resources to send our police departments to other states and other countries for the purpose of any sort of training. So I look forward to supporting this bill, and I want to thank council members for sponsoring it and the activists and advocates who have been working with with her office and I think with all of our offices to garner support for the legislation.
Speaker 3: Q.
Speaker 0: Thank you, councilmember morales. Councilmember Mosqueda and then after councilmember Mr. will be councilmember peterson. Thank you very much, Council President.
Speaker 1: Colleagues, I want to thank.
Speaker 0: You all for all your work to get us to this day and really.
Speaker 1: To the community.
Speaker 0: Partners, folks that I've met with on all sides of the issue as well. But mostly I want to say thank you to Palestinian and Jewish voice for peace, who I know have done a tremendous amount of research on this legislation in front of us. And I will continue to work with folks who we might not agree on this piece of legislation to continue to find pathways forward for greater support for humanitarian rights locally and across the globe. This is an important piece of legislation, and I want to thank House members for bringing it forward and Councilmember.
Speaker 1: Herbold.
Speaker 0: For your work in committee. Again, I think that is important to really lift up that amendment that you made in committee that I know had quite a bit of support to help get this bill across the finish line here today. Councilmember Strauss, thank you again for the legislation that you were aiming to amend today. Happy to have supported that. And Councilmember, so once amendment number three, that included the Rome Statute. I did support that. I do support it, I think would be helpful for us as a body and as a community to continue to look at the Rome Statute. This Rome Statute, quite literally led to the creation of the ICC International Criminal Court. And so I think it would have been a good addition to this piece of legislation. It would have still allowed for us to have trainings with other countries, over 100 additional countries, including countries that we lift up as good models, including Sweden, Canada and some may include Britain as well. So I know that there will be ongoing work as we continue to try to make sure that this piece of legislation is adhered to. And I will continue to do a research on the Rome Statute to see if we can further strengthen in the future. But this is a piece of legislation that I think is a really important component to our ongoing work to.
Speaker 5: Redefine what community.
Speaker 0: Safety looks like and the different types of trainings that we want our officers to receive, trainings that are rooted in community alternatives to traditional responses, trainings that are not led by military entities, and trainings that no matter the country, are in line with our values of really wanting to have harm reduction strategies and to make sure that we are not pulling in militaristic styles of engagement nor militarizing personnel. I do appreciate all of the works that all of the work that has been undertaken to move this legislation in front of us today and thank the organizers, the community and again, the council members that I noted for all the work that they put into making this legislation possible for us to vote on today. I look forward to supporting this bill in its current version, and thank you very much, Council Members, for your engagement as we consider various strategies to have public safety really rooted in community. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councilmember Skinner. Next step is Councilmember Peterson. And then after Councilmember Peterson, it will be Councilmember Lewis and then Councilmember Herb.
Speaker 3: Thank you, council president and thanks for guidance through all that parliamentary procedure with the various amendments while we actually share common ground to demilitarize our police force. I believe this legislation has been not only distracting, but also divisive. We have heard from the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, and Leaders synagogues in our city who are very concerned about the origin, intent and impact of this legislation. From a policy standpoint, I believe the legislation is seems to be an errant solution in search of a problem. And the legislation has definitely been a time consuming distraction away from pressing matters such as our homelessness crisis. Countless hours have been spent trying to analyze which nations are or are not included in this legislation. And it appears that our Office of Intergovernmental Relations was not appropriately consulted by the original sponsor of the bill. Rather than veering into international law and international relations, we have plenty of ways right here in Seattle to deepen reforms and safety. And that includes revamping the police union contract, which expired eight months ago. I'll be voting no on this final bill. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Peterson. Next up is Councilmember Lewis. And then after Councilmember Lewis will be Councilmember Herbold and then Councilmember Lawrence.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. So I will also be voting against this ordinance today. And I want to say at the outset that I have appreciated the access that the advocates of this ordinance have maintained with my office. And I have gone throughout this process with an open mind to hear folks out. What was really dispositive to me was getting the information back from central staff, particularly this email we received from an informant on September 16th detailing the training that is occurring internationally, at least over the last decade, to illustrate the bottom line of what we're even talking about. You know, this does not, I would add, still substantively go into what exactly these foreign trips entailed, just numbers that foreign trips occurred. I don't know the nature or quality or substance of the trainings that have occurred that were ostensibly banning. There's been assumptions and presumptions made by members of the public and other stakeholders, attributing perhaps that we learned the Seattle Police Department learned core crowd control techniques that have led to the recent extreme and on forgivable abuses that we have seen in recent months in regards to the demonstrations last summer. But I've not actually seen anything indicated anywhere that there's any causal relationship.
Speaker 1: Between these trips.
Speaker 3: But in any event, we do have quantitative or we do have quantitative information about the trips that have occurred. So from 2013 to 2021, SBT apparently took six trips to Israel. Four of those trips were for tactical training, and they occurred in 2013, 2014. So there has been no training trip to Israel that's occurred in over seven years from the police department. Again, we don't have the particular nature of those trainings except that they were tactical in nature and I'm not really sure what they were or what bearing they have on the current department and the activities of the department. There were two additional trips to Israel, but they were for executive protection. They were there for with the amendments, for without fall outside of the scope of this ordinance and would not be banned by this ordinance. There has not been a foreign travel event, like I said, to Israel, of any kind in the last seven years. It's notable that the 2016 trip that chief guest took that has been discussed extensively by advocates of the ordinance was not cited by the department as a trip that would be preempted by this ordinance. Presumably there's some loophole we're not aware of, or for some reason that falls outside of the scope of what the department considers a training trip. That was a trip. I'm just as background that was sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League that she took in 2016 and involved visits with Israeli and Palestinian officials in various capacities in the military. At least that was not cited in the report that and gave us one of trips. Not really sure why that is, but given that.
Speaker 0: Scant.
Speaker 3: Record of trainings with Israel and I'm not aware in the last ten years of any other international trainings aside from with Canada, which involved 48 trips of various types by far our largest trading partner, and given the amendments that passed and were considered, those trips are not banned by the ordinance. It seems that there is no ongoing or frankly concerning practice that this ordinance would prevent or stop. I'm not aware of any pending or planned trainings that the department is going to undertake in Israel. Indeed, it's been seven years and they have not does not seem like that is an ongoing exchange that the city has. Were there a briefing or more process in the committee providing more detailed information about the nature of these trainings, why they're concerning what the Seattle Police Department is learning in Israel or similarly situated countries? That might change my analysis, but from what I'm seeing here, it's been seven years. We don't really know the substance of the trainings that did occur before then, and that seems to be the bottom line. Given that I don't think I need to go into any more detail. Those are my primary concerns. And for that purpose, I'm not going to be voting for this ordinance.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council member Lewis, appreciate you walking us through that rationale. Next up is Councilmember Herbold. And then after Councilmember.
Speaker 3: Herbold will be.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Suarez.
Speaker 1: So very briefly, as background, when this bill was first brought to my attention, I did tell advocates that I would only allow a bill to be heard in the Public Safety and Human Services Committee if it were nation neutral, focused on human rights standards as applied to all countries. I would not permit a bill on my committee agenda that singled out Israel because of the concerns that I heard from members of our community that told me that they were worried that legislation specific to Israel would inflame hate crimes against the Jewish people already on the rise. My support for this bill is very simply based in Seattle Council's statements in Resolution 31858 and 31928 and centered in the very first recital in the bill that Seattle is a human rights city. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, Councilmember Lawrence.
Speaker 4: Thank you, council president. Thank you, everybody, for your work. I will be voting no today as well for many of the reasons that some of my colleagues have already shared. But in general, let me just share a little bit of what my analysis is and then what my thoughts are. I don't think this is the right arena, if you will. And I think today's discussion that started at 415 underscores the discussion, the confusion and the disagreement. We are not an international tribunal. It isn't our job to go through the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. We are not the U.N. we're not the Hague. I'm not going to go back and read the fourth Geneva Convention and what happened in Switzerland. We're not the International Criminal Court or the Rome Statute, which I'm familiar with. I'm with the International Criminal Court statute. I do agree with what Councilmember Mosqueda said, and that was always my thought and intent, including what Council Herbals said. If the focus in the tent was on our values for human rights and that we get away from the militarization of our police force. But based on what Councilor Lewis said as well, we have scant facts, quite frankly, that she can't convince me that we actually need to pass an ordinance, because I think what we're doing is we are punishing Israel. I think that this creates division. I think that we're not being intellectually honest about what's actually going on here. Obviously, this is there is a bigger picture here of human rights that these issues, these human rights issues have been going on for decades. We are spending an inordinate amount of time on this when we have 16 items on today's agenda. And let me just share this with you, which really concerned me. I received three phone calls from three or national organizations, Jewish organizations that wanted me to know. And I also looked it up that the recent FBI hate crime statistics study for 2020 of the 57% religious based hate crimes were all focused on Jewish people. And that to me is alarming when Jewish people make up 2% of the population. So, again, I don't want to go into this this about what is about going down this rabbit hole of international law. I think what we're really saying here is, is we're weaponizing our vote. And one thing that's always disturbed me and most of the time I'm quiet about it or I listen, but sometimes we go and we weaponize our votes to hurt, to punish, to retaliate, to humiliate. And I think that's what we're doing today. And I don't think it's to enlighten, to live, to educate, to lead us into a better place in the right direction. I understand the principles of human rights. I understand why we want to have those values spoken to and addressed. And little known fact about Deborah warriors here. I did study international law and human rights in Strasbourg, France, in Geneva, Switzerland. So I know a little bit about some of this. And again, this isn't that people are against all of these principles and values that we want to uphold as a city. But this shines more it doesn't shine more light on the issue. It creates heat. And those of you who are familiar with the saint, as I'm sure you talk about Gonzales, when something creates more heat than light, then then there's a problem there. And we don't need a law to say this. And this is you can hide behind it all you want. But the reason why we had to change it and we should have, you know, and I made a mistake, by the way, I wanted to make this country neutral, as is Councilmember Peterson was saying. I'm sorry. Councilmember Yeah. I'm sorry. Councilor Lewis was saying. I just I just think that it's intellectually dishonest to put something forward. I know what we're really trying to do. I'd rather that we get right to the facts and be honest about it, have that discussion. And I just want to end on this note. I'm not saying that what council members want is doing is a bad thing. What I'm saying is that we need to be honest about what we're really talking about. And I think that. Thank you, council president, for walking us through all of this and all of the different changes they created. But again, I think it underscores my purpose and the point I was making that it does create division. And I believe as leaders that we have to do more than that. So thank you. I'll be voting no.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Suarez, for walking us through your rationale. You know, I, I also really wanted to, you know, sort of emphasize my agreement with many of the comments expressed by Councilmember Suarez and Lewis in particular. Like Councilmember Lewis, I was one of two council members during the committee meeting that abstained in hopes of being able to do some sort of curing of some of the issues that we discussed in committee. And unfortunately, I just don't feel like that curing has occurred. And am I. Councilmember Whereas, you know, I really am committed to addressing the realities of not wanting to be part of a city that actively participates in, in practices in which other nations are supporting and advancing human rights violations. And, and I just don't have a sense of confidence that that the formula as described in this bill is actually going to have the intended effect. And I also worry that it is that the intent is actually about the ongoing dispute in the Middle East. And I become very concerned about the impacts of our local actions in that space that could ultimately result in some harm, whether we intended it to or not. When our local, local community and I to, like many of you, have engaged with a lot of people in our community on this and have heard and heard, you know , a lot of differing opinions. But I think the overwhelming number of folks that I have spoken to have, have pleaded with, with us to, um, to find a different way to accomplish the underlying goals of demilitarizing our police department, of remaining a human rights city. And I think that I think that there are ways for us to accomplish that that will be both meaningful and productive and and not divisive, to use councilmember words as words. And I would encourage us to do that. So with that, I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Strauss, who I now see has his hand raised. I'm so sorry about that. I'm I for for disclosure, I had to switch to my phone because my Internet has been so unstable. So I apologize if I skipped you in saying that the hamze features. But go ahead. Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Council President colleagues. In July, when I met with both the Jewish Federation and Jewish Voice for Peace in the same week, I told them both that I would be putting forward a nation neutral amendment and that if it was truly expansive to all nations, that I would vote in favor of this ordinance. I told Councilmember Herbold, as chair of the committee, I told you this about the same timeline, at least over a month ago, and I've been consistent in my position that that is where we need it to be. It is not not your fault or my fault that I was not consulted last week in preparation for this bill to come out of committee. It is important for me to make it nation neutral by not attempting to understand international law, to not create loopholes for countries to slide through. And it's important for me to also put on the record that it is important to be said another way. We are able to be critical of Israel without being anti-Semitic. There are many ways to be critical of Israel that are in place no matter. It is important for us to understand that the way that Israel is operating now is not in line with how the United Nations initially found Israel to be with a two state solution . It will help Israel by having a two state solution. What is before us today is a bill about police and training, and I have been very clear about my position since the beginning of this conversation. I've been I've been consistent with each person that I've spoken to about how I will vote with what is presented. That unfortunately has not come before us today. And the bill that I have said that I could support is not before us today. Councilmember Peterson and Councilmember Lewis. Some of your commentary was very hurtful. I'm going to sit there with that because I don't really think that anyone else on this committee knows. I'll take a step back. I'll share with you in private how your comments were hurtful to me today. But I'll leave it with that. I won't be voting for this bill. Thank you, guys.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Strauss. I appreciate you sharing your comments and your perspective with us and hope that you have an opportunity to connect with your colleagues offline as you process what is clearly been hurtful to you. And with that being said, I do think we're ready to conclude debate on this. And so I'm going to hand it back over to councilmembers to want to close out debate and to and to then allow us to take a vote on this proposed ordinance.
Speaker 2: Thank you to councilmembers Morales and Mesquita for adding yourselves as co-sponsors on this legislation. I really appreciate the organizing work of many community members to bring this legislation forward. Over the summer, hundreds of people wrote letters Justified and demanded that the City Council pass this ban on police training with human rights violators. Seattle's and the deadly exchange struggle has been working on this legislation for years. But let me the collective of Palestinian feminist activists whom I've been proud to march alongside in recent months, later pivotal leadership role as well. And I also must commend the active role played by members of Socialist Alternative. My organization were being absolutely dedicated to this issue, both attending the organizing meetings, helping the efforts on the ground, and also being active in public comment. I have especially appreciated the discussions our office has had over the last several months with rabbis and Jewish activists from throughout our community. My council office, which includes staff members who are themselves involved in Seattle's Jewish community life, are acutely aware of the insidious and dangerous nature of antisemitism, as are our allies in the Palestinian communities and community, and as am I as a socialist and as an immigrant woman of color. We all and they all fight alongside us against anti-Semitism because they understand the common struggle against all forms of oppression internationally. But the presence of this ideology of hatred does not absolve any nation or any government, including the city of Seattle, from calling out human rights abusers wherever they are, and from aligning policies and police training with our declared human rights values. As a matter of fact, failing to do this, failing to pass legislation of this kind actually creates more openness for divisions and hate of various kinds, which then adds impetus to oppressive forces. I want to highlight the many groups that are back the efforts here for this legislation. Jewish Voice for Peace, the Seattle Education Association, whose rank and file members adopted a resolution supporting the bill. One America. Seattle Maps. Women Transit Riders. Union Veterans for Peace. Chapter 92 Real Change. Social Justice Fund. Northwest Socialist Alternative Democratic Socialists of America. The Freedom Socialist Party. The American Friends Service Committee. Alcoa. United Church of Christ. The Rachel Corrie Foundation for Peace and Justice. The Center for Constitutional Rights. Kerry Washington. The Coalition of Seattle. Indian-Americans. Palestine Solidarity Committee. Palestine Legal Decriminalize. Seattle Ifnotnow, Kadima, Reconstructionist, Community, La Distancia and many more groups that signed on to a powerful letter in July circulated by the deadly exchange. These are the tremendous community organizations that together, I have no doubt represent the voice of tens of thousands of Seattleites, and those are the voices that are going to be rejected. It seems like by a majority of the council getting ready to vote no. But I do want to appreciate every community member who spoke up in the last six months and joined our council office in demanding action. Collectively, our voices matter. And I'm going to say something about this in a second. And we can demand accountability from the political establishment. Today we have the council has a bill. City council has a bill in front of us that establishes a transparent and evenhanded police training policy that is aligned with the City Council's previously stated and professed human rights values . To fail to adopt this legislation would be to give a pass to Seattle police to continue to train with forces of human rights abusing nations. That would be appalling. The choice is clear, and that is why I am proud to stand with the community and with human rights activists everywhere to urge a strong.
Speaker 3: Bill and.
Speaker 2: The legislation. I do want to respond to some of the points that have come up like onto members. In their closing comments, a gang member, Warren said that we are weaponizing our vote to hurt, punish, retaliate, humiliate. I'm sorry. I literally don't understand what that means. I mean, as opposed to the actual weapons that are hurting, punishing, retaliating, humiliating and killing not only Palestinians, but so many oppressed groups around the nation, not to mention the oppressive tactics and repressive tactics used by the police department here on the Black Lives Matter protests. Resident Gonzalez said she didn't see the things that she wanted cured in the legislation. But we never heard any specific. Things, not one thing on what needed to be cured. We have repeatedly reached out to all council members and I don't accept Gordon Bristow saying he was not consulted. What does that even mean? You know, there is a bill to be voted on. You get all the emails. It's your responsibility to let us know if you have specific objections that need to be dealt with. You brought up one thing in the city council briefing today and my office immediately moved to address that issue, which we agreed with, and that amendment was passed. So I'm I'm just not understanding how these arguments can be taken as genuine. And I just, you know, Councilman Restore said three months ago you would put forward an amendment. He did that at 2:01 p.m. and then he was.
Speaker 6: For council members want to stop talking.
Speaker 2: Because because of community pressure. And I've also said.
Speaker 6: Council members won't stop talking about it.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, these are not.
Speaker 3: Talking.
Speaker 2: About me who made points. I had to respond that you said that we should be so said that the bill creates loopholes for nations to fall through. I literally have no idea what I was just talking about what loopholes mean. We don't know what this is about. These are just talking points that are being said, but no explanation as to why these are the objections that have been that have been put forward. Back in July, we circulated legislation and invited feedback and ideas for improving the bill. We have never we never heard back from Gordon Bush. I was not once we have not heard back from President Bandar either. We still don't know what needed to be cured in the bill. And my last point, but this is the most important point as far as members of the public are concerned. You are my main audience as as a working class elected representative. You all are listening to this debate. You know that it sounds like it's not going to pass. This should be a grim but important lessons to us all. There is no substitute for mass organizing by rank and file community members, labor union members, all of those of us who are committed to social justice. There is no substitute for mass organizing by all of us independent of the Democratic Party establishment, because you see what happens. You rely on, you know, private conversations with council members. You rely on what you consider collegial conversations. You don't want any kind of real feedback. And this is what happens when we do have a fight that we do when this whole year we are one incredible renter's rights victory after renters. Renters, a victory that is not because all these want to move. Well, the.
Speaker 0: Question that I have.
Speaker 2: This.
Speaker 4: Question, please, please, let's call the question so we go this and.
Speaker 2: So that organizing needs to happen and this needs to be a lesson to all of us. When we fight, we can win. When we don't fight, we often don't pick.
Speaker 4: Let's fight all the time.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Salon and everyone I want I want to just sort of take a moment to encourage us to I know that temperatures are running really high right now. And this is exactly part of the reason why I think this bill is perhaps not as helpful as you would have desired for it to be. Even among this very diverse city council, we are seeing lots of very strong emotional reactions. And so I want to encourage us to just bring the temperature down. I think we have now closed debate, I am sorry to the viewing public for for what has occurred. And I want to encourage us as leaders in this city to and to strive to lead by example. And I know that some of us have, even though we have disagreed, we have professionally and thoughtfully stated our opposition to this bill, which is in our right to do. And I do not believe that those reasons or the votes are morally corrupt, nor do I think that people are are abandoning our values to being a human right city. I think we're just disagreeing on how to best effectuate that and look forward to continuing to work with all of you and with each other as we work towards healing and modeling to our behavior of what healing and what a true coalition and community building can look like. So with that being said, Will Kirk please call the roll on the adoption of the amended bill?
Speaker 1: So on. Yes.
Speaker 6: Strauss now.
Speaker 1: Herbold. S. Rice. No. Lewis.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Must get a high. Peterson.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 0: Is it eight GONZALEZ Now.
Speaker 1: Four in favor, five opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill fails and the chair will not sign it. Let's go ahead and move to item five. Will the court please read item five into the record?
Speaker 1: Agenda item five. Resolution 32019 providing an honorary designation of Thomas Street between First Avenue North and Second Avenue North as Lenny Wilkins Way. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
|
Council Bill (CB)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Police Department; prohibiting training, exchanges, and partnerships with certain governments; and adding a new Section 3.28.141 to the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_09202021_Res 32019
|
Speaker 1: Agenda item five. Resolution 32019 providing an honorary designation of Thomas Street between First Avenue North and Second Avenue North as Lenny Wilkins Way. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. You were the chair of this committee. I'm going to hand it over to you to provide the committee's report.
Speaker 3: We thank you, council president, colleagues. This is the resolution we discussed earlier in our Agenda two for the honorary designation of Leonie Wilkins Way. Appreciate Leonie Wilkins joining us and the many callers who during public comment. I have no further comments to add to what I already said earlier.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Are there any additional comments on the resolution? If you do, please try to use the raise the hand feature so I don't receive. Since I'm on my phone scanning the room quickly, I don't see any hands raised purposes called the vote on the option of the resolution.
Speaker 1: Why? That's. Strauss.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold. Yes. SUAREZ Yes.
Speaker 3: LEWIS Yes.
Speaker 1: MORALES Yes. Let's get a high.
Speaker 3: PETERSEN Yes.
Speaker 1: ZAHN Gonzalez high 97, unopposed.
Speaker 0: The resolution is adopted and the terrible sign it will occur affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Will the clerk please read the short title of item six into the record?
Speaker 1: Agenda item six Constable 120163 relating to the satellite department adding a new section to Chapter 21.49 Sunset. On this approach, establish the Renewable Cluster Program. The committee recommends that the bill be passed as amended. Excuse me. That the bill passed.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION providing an honorary designation of Thomas St between 1st Ave N and 2nd Ave N as “Lenny Wilkens Way.”
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_09202021_CB 120170
|
Speaker 1: Record and item seven Capital 12017 be relating to the City Department authorizing General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of City Light to establish and fund an early action Skagit Habitat Enhancement Program. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Just Mayor Pearson, back to you to provide the report.
Speaker 3: City Council President to honor a commitment made earlier this year by the late council of 120170 authorizes our public utility to administer a proactive Skagit habitat enhancement program that will further improve habitats in the Skagit River watershed for endangered species. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Are there any additional comments on the bill hearing? None. Will the court please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Salina?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 6: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold Yes.
Speaker 4: Suarez Yes.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Macheda. I Petersen.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez. I know. Say and opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it will a piece of affect my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read the short title? Item eight into the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; authorizing the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of City Light to establish and fund an early action Skagit Habitat Enhancement Program in anticipation of new Skagit River Hydroelectric Project license conditions to implement meaningful habitat and watershed improvements in the Skagit River watershed for Endangered Species Act listed species; authorizing the execution of necessary and convenient agreements to implement the early action habitat and watershed improvements in the Skagit River watershed; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_09202021_CB 120174
|
Speaker 1: Agenda item eight that's 4120 174. Granted permission to the Board of Regents of the University of Washington to continue to operate and maintain an existing underground pedestrian concourse tunnel under cross. The committee recommends that the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. This also comes from Councilmember Peterson's committee. So I'm going to hand it over to him to.
Speaker 3: Provide the committee report. Thank you, council president, colleagues. The University of Washington has been the long time operator of a pedestrian concourse tunnel. Downtown Council 120174 renews the university's permit to the test train tunnel. Its It runs under Sixth Avenue, north of University Street. This renewal is for 15 years, with an option to renew for an additional 15 years. The committee unanimously recommended that we pass the bill. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Are there any comments on the bill? Seeing and hearing? No comments will occur. Please call the rule on the passage.
Speaker 3: Of the.
Speaker 1: Bill slot.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 6: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 1: Her vote? Yes. Suarez Yes.
Speaker 3: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales A mosquito I.
Speaker 3: Peterson Hi.
Speaker 1: President. Gonzalez Hi. Nine favor. None of those.
Speaker 0: A bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will. He's affixed my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Excuse me. Excuse read item nine into the record.
Speaker 1: Agenda item nine Council Bill 1 to 0 161 relating to the sale of public utilities, updating water regulations to conform to current standards, making technical corrections and amending Section 21.0 4.4 87. Mr. Code Committee recommends the bill pass.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE granting permission to the Board of Regents of the University of Washington to continue to operate and maintain an existing underground pedestrian concourse tunnel under and across 6th Avenue, north of University Street; repealing Section 8 of Ordinance 123793; and providing for acceptance of the permit and conditions.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_09202021_CB 120171
|
Speaker 1: Agenda item 11 Council Vote 1201 71,000,000,002. Surveillance Technology Implementation Authorizing Approval of uses and accepting surveillance impact reports for the Seattle Fire Department's use of emergency scene cameras and hazardous materials cameras. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson, back to you as chair of the committee.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President Council Bill 120171 Accepts Surveillance Impact reports on two technologies used by our fire department, hazardous material cameras and emergency scene cameras. These are basically handheld cameras. Approval was recommended unanimously by the committee. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Are there any comments on the bill? Okay. I'm not seeing any hands raised. So the call roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: So what?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 3: Strauss gets.
Speaker 1: Her vote. Yes. Suarez Yes. Lewis Yes. Morales, a mesquita. Hi. Petersen.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez I 97. Unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it will propose a fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Will the clerk please read the short title of item 12 into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to surveillance technology implementation; authorizing approval of uses and accepting surveillance impact reports for the Seattle Fire Department’s use of Emergency Scene Cameras and Hazardous Materials Cameras.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_09202021_CB 120156
|
Speaker 1: Agenda Item 12 Constable 120 156 Flanked the Multifamily Housing Property Tax Exemption Program, the committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. I want to hand it over to Councilmember Mosquito to provide the committee report as the chair. Thank you very much, Council President. Colleagues, this is exciting. This is legislation related to.
Speaker 1: Making sure that we are.
Speaker 0: Building more affordable housing. This is narrow legislation that allows for follow up action in the state legislature this year, addressing a number of expiring multi-family tax exemption units by granting program extensions for the projects that are expiring over the next two years. This legislation will enable us to grant extensions to expiring projects so that we do not lose those affordable housing units, especially in this time of great economic instability.
Speaker 1: Caused by COVID 19.
Speaker 0: And the consequences of so many individuals.
Speaker 1: Being without income. We need to be making sure that we're creating additional housing.
Speaker 0: Units, additional affordable, affordable housing units across our city.
Speaker 1: And that we are doing.
Speaker 0: So with expediency to make sure we're bringing those housing units online as well in the future. This legislation addresses only those units that are expiring in the next two years, which applies to nine different projects.
Speaker 1: I'll also add for folks who have the chance to join us in the Finance and Housing Committee.
Speaker 0: Meeting, that there is an added.
Speaker 1: Benefit that those nine units that had previously been.
Speaker 0: Not.
Speaker 1: Necessarily needing to comply with existing MFT requirements.
Speaker 0: Are also.
Speaker 1: Now going to have additional requirements.
Speaker 0: That allow for us to have greater transparency and.
Speaker 1: Accountability.
Speaker 0: As.
Speaker 1: We seek to create more MFT compliant.
Speaker 0: Units in the future. In the two years that are.
Speaker 1: Coming up, we will have more comprehensive updates to the MFT program.
Speaker 0: This will be informed.
Speaker 1: By deep engagement with a variety of stakeholders, including the Seattle Building, Construction Trades, other labor organizations and.
Speaker 0: Our friends in the.
Speaker 1: Housing advocacy world.
Speaker 0: I want to thank Erin, House Reps Club and Office of Housing for their work on this legislation and urge your support today with more conversations coming soon. Thank you so much. Are there any additional comments on the bill.
Speaker 3: That.
Speaker 0: Have not seen any hands raised so hearing no additional comments will occur? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill somewhat.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold. Yes. Suarez. Yes. Lewis.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. As let's get to I. Peterson.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez. IE nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes in the chair. We'll find out. Will the parties affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Well, the clerk please read item 13 into the record.
Speaker 1: Agenda item 13 Resolution 32017 Calling for research, engagement and presentation of information to the Mayor and City Council on my multifamily tax exemption program. Prior to considering renewal of the program in 2023, it can be recommended if resolution be adopted as amended.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Multifamily Housing Property Tax Exemption Program; amending Sections 5.73.010, 5.73.020, 5.73.040, 5.73.090, 5.73.100, 5.73.105, and 5.73.110 of the Seattle Municipal Code to allow extended property tax exemptions under certain conditions; to allow exemptions for up to 20 years for permanently affordable homeownership; to add reporting requirements for permanently affordable homeownership; and to make technical changes, consistent with chapter 84.14 of the Revised Code of Washington as amended.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_09202021_Res 32017
|
Speaker 1: Agenda item 13 Resolution 32017 Calling for research, engagement and presentation of information to the Mayor and City Council on my multifamily tax exemption program. Prior to considering renewal of the program in 2023, it can be recommended if resolution be adopted as amended.
Speaker 0: Thanks so much of Indiana. Back over to Councilmember Mosquito to walk us through this resolution. Thank you very much, council president. This resolution does exactly what it says in the title. Make sure that we have additional research engagement and that we have presentation from the mayor's office to city council.
Speaker 1: As we.
Speaker 0: Consider major changes that we'd like to see for the multi-family tax exemption program by the year 2023. This resolution is a companion piece to the MFT extension legislation that we just passed and it calls for monitoring and reporting back to council.
Speaker 1: On how the.
Speaker 0: Executive plans to ensure that the program extension is going.
Speaker 1: Well, that we get feedback and engagement.
Speaker 0: From stakeholders, that we've included labor partners and housing stakeholders, so that we are all set up to weigh policy priorities and potential tradeoffs as we take on the Comprehensive Program Review in 2023.
Speaker 1: I want to thank Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 0: For her work to enhance our report back requirements in the resolution here in front of us and know that there will be much more conversations to come about making sure that those MFC programs excuse me that the MFC program pencils out in terms of creation of additional affording affordable.
Speaker 1: Housing units and the additional.
Speaker 0: Language that was included in committee will help us make those calculations. Thanks so much, colleagues. I hope you will consider voting yes for this bill resolution.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Are there any comments on the resignation of some members, please?
Speaker 2: Thank you. Are there problems with the IMF fee program? It gives a tax exemption in exchange for affordable rents for 12 years. The problem is that most of the quote unquote affordable rent under this program are not really very affordable. And because it is a voluntary program for property owners, they only sign up or when their property tax exemption is greater than the discount on rent. In other words, the city could make the housing more affordable by simply collecting the taxes and using them for rent vouchers. Well, my office supports continuing the program because there are going to be thousands of people in Seattle who depend on it for their housing. And I'll be voting. Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Oh, thank you, Councilor Arslan. Are there any additional comments because memorable, please.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I just want to add, in response to recording, stopped recognition, recording in progress.
Speaker 0: Okay, hold on. We had a little bit of a glitch in the system.
Speaker 3: About that glitch. I think we're still recording.
Speaker 0: Okay. Go ahead. Nothing happened. For those of you who are watching and if it may have cut out that we were in transition, go ahead, Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Just want to highlight that one of the items that the what's before us right now is, I believe, is the resolution that sets out how we are going to make a determination of whether or not to to make changes to the program, end it or extend it, as is. And one of the specific elements in the called out in the resolution is is precisely the issue that Councilmember Swann raised. Is this to analyze this question of whether or not it would reduce the cost to the city instead of providing the tax exemption, take the dollars associated with it, the the tax exemption, the forgone taxes that the city does not collect and use some portion of those dollars to buy down the units. And we the question is whether or not we might be able to buy even greater rent affordability with an approach like that. So we want to flag that. That is one of the specific elements for for a study that's called out in this resolution.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Are there any additional comments on the bill that's in any other hands raised? So with that being said, we'll look at these called roll on the adoption of the resolution.
Speaker 1: So what?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 3: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 1: HERBOLD Yes. SUAREZ Yes. LEWIS Yes. Morales Yes. Let's get to I.
Speaker 3: PETERSON Hi.
Speaker 1: President Gonzalez. I line in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Well, the clerk please read the short title of item 14 into the record.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION calling for research, engagement and presentation of information to the Mayor and City Council on the Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) program prior to considering renewal of the program in 2023.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_09132021_CB 120111
|
Speaker 1: Every part of the Finance and Housing Committee agenda item two accountable 120111 authorizing and 2021 acceptance of funding from non city sources. The committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Mosquito, who is the chair of this committee, to provide the report on this bill.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, I am excited that we finally have in front of us the mid-year supplemental budget. This has been extensively discussed in the Finance and Housing Committee, which all of you have been invited to. I think those of you who have joined our committee meeting and prepared amendments that we were able to discuss in that committee and in front of you, I think we have a bill that reflects many of the amendments from council and again, accomplishing some investments in new emerging areas that we did not anticipate when we had considered our 2021 budget. As a reminder, the supplemental budget and amendments that we consider are intended to be focused on emerging and necessary items for this calendar year. We only have two more weeks until we begin discussing the fall budget, which will allow for us to make investments in the 2022 calendar year. House Bill 120112. Is this councilmember.
Speaker 0: Mosquito? Sorry, I'm going to throw up the flag here. I thought maybe you were ahead of us. But we are an item too, which is Council Bill 120111, which is the acceptance of funding from non city sources. So I'm going to just take you back one agenda item so that you can walk us through the grant acceptance ordinance before we begin the conversation around the supplemental budget.
Speaker 1: Apologies for that Council President. It's a good thing these two items go together. But my apologies, colleagues. Council Bill 120111 is the grant acceptance ordinance. Again, this is a periodic ordinance that we consider to accept funds directed at various city programs and departments. We did have the opportunity, along with discussing the supplemental budget, to ask questions in committee several times on this. And this is a unanimous, unanimous recommendation for our consideration today. Hope to have your support.
Speaker 0: Excellent. Thank you so much. Okay. Are there any comments on this council bill, which is again, the grant acceptance bill? I'm not seeing any hands raised or anyone wanting to make additional comments on the bill. So I'm going to ask that the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Peterson Yes.
Speaker 1: What? Yes.
Speaker 4: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold Yes.
Speaker 6: Suarez, I.
Speaker 2: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales Yes. Mosquera. I. President Gonzalez I. Nine in favor. None 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 the short title of item three into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE authorizing, in 2021, acceptance of funding from non-City sources; authorizing the heads of the Executive Department, Human Services Department, City Light Department, Department of Transportation, Seattle Fire Department, and Seattle Parks and Recreation 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_09132021_CB 120138
|
Speaker 1: Every part of the Transportation and Utilities Committee, eight counts about 120 138 link to the terminal, five flights on improvements project under the Freight Spot Improvement Program. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilman Peterson. I'm going to hand it over to you to walk us through this committee report.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council president, colleagues, as I mentioned in council briefing this morning. All 11 items on today's council agenda from our Transportation Utilities Committee were recommended unanimously by committee members. This first item, Council Bill 120138 is co-sponsored by Councilor Herbold and will provide limited condemnation and acquisition authority in cases needed to secure portions of property necessary to implement a quiet zone that will support freight operations at the Port of Seattle's Terminal five facility and will benefit surrounding neighbors concerned about the noise of the freight trains. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Are there any additional comments on this bill? Councilmember Herbold, please.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much. I just want to reference that this is a really high priority issue for folks. And one many constituents have written about the noise that emanates from trains entering and leaving T5 at the Shell and Cafe intersection. And this is this goes back to to predates the redevelopment of of terminal five. And many have suggested that we should make this area a quiet zone. This led to the development of a statement of legislative intent sponsored by myself in 2016, and that that statement of legislative intent from nearly five years ago requested that a start work with the port, the Federal Railway Administration and the railway companies doing business at Terminal five to extend the existing quiet zone from Terminal five to the Dulwich Way West Marginal Way intersection. As we all know, Terminal five has been undergoing a modernization project was just nearly complete and the port expects full rail operations beginning in 2022 . The timeline originally slated for the quiet zone to be completed was was originally in December 2020 in advance of the completion of the Terminal five project. But the project has been plagued with delays associated with the topic of the of the legislation today related to the business tenant's appeal of the design of the quiet zone, resulting in the city and port conducting extensive outreach to ameliorate the outstanding concerns of that tenant. And I really appreciate the joint efforts of the city and the port in doing so, but also recognize that given the fact that those efforts have not thus far been successful, this legislation is absolutely necessary to move the quiet zone forward. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Councilmember honorable any additional comments on the bill? Okay. And Councilmember Peterson is already letting me know that he is done with his comments. So we won't. We will consider his first word to be the last word on the on this bill. Having said, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 2: Peterson Yes.
Speaker 1: So what?
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 4: STROUSE Yes.
Speaker 1: HERBOLD Yes. Suarez I.
Speaker 2: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales Plus, get a i. President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affect my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read the short title of item nine into the record?
Speaker 1: Agenda Item nine Council Bill 120 159 Building to grant funds from the United States Department, Transportation and other non city sources. The committee recommends the bill pass.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Terminal 5 Quiet Zone Improvements project under the Freight Spot Improvement Program; authorizing the Director of the Department of Transportation to acquire, accept, and record both temporary and permanent property rights from abutting property owners located along West Marginal Way Southwest between 17th Avenue Southwest and Delridge Way Southwest, necessary or convenient for the Terminal 5 Quiet Zone Improvements project through negotiation or condemnation; placing the acquired real property rights under the jurisdiction of the Seattle Department of Transportation and designating for transportation, utility, and general municipal purposes; authorizing payment of all other costs associated with acquisition; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_09132021_CB 120129
|
Speaker 1: Agenda Item 11 Council Bill 120129 Related Waste Water Services of Seattle Public Utilities Adjusting Waste Water Rates to pass through charge changes to treatment rates charged by King County. Committee recommends the bill.
Speaker 0: Passed as amended. Thank you so much, Madam Clerk. Casmir Peterson, back to you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President, colleagues, my previous comments on steam utility rates apply to this bill as well. Again, the rates are lower than we had originally anticipated. These are the wastewater rates and these are mainly passed through by King County. So that's important to note. So the committee unanimously recommended approval. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Councilmember Peterson, are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing none will the please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Your son?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: So I.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbal est Juarez. I. Louis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales mosqueda i president Gonzalez I 18 favor one opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read item 12 into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to wastewater services of Seattle Public Utilities; adjusting wastewater rates to pass through changes to treatment rates charged by King County; amending Section 21.28.040 of the Seattle Municipal Code to reflect adjusted rates; and amending Section 21.76.040 of the Seattle Municipal Code to adjust credits to low-income customers.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_09132021_CB 120130
|
Speaker 1: Gender. Adam 12 accountable 1 to 0 132 Rates and charges for want of services of public utilities, revising water rates and charges and credits to low income customers and amending sections 21.0 4.4 30.4 40 and 21.70 6.0 40 of the settlements for Coke. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. I'm going to hand it back over to Councilor Peterson to walk us through this bill.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council president, colleagues, my previous comments on utility rates apply to this bill as well. This is for fresh water. And I do want to take a moment to thank council central staff Brian Goodnight for his his hard work on these bills with Seattle Public Utilities. Again, the committee unanimously recommended approval. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing none. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 2: Peterson Yes.
Speaker 1: So what?
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 2: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold Yes. Suarez I noticed.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. The most Jetta I.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez.
Speaker 1: I. In favor one opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the Court please read the short title of item 13 into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to rates and charges for water services of Seattle Public Utilities; revising water rates and charges, and credits to low-income customers; and amending Sections 21.04.430, 21.04.440, and 21.76.040 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_08162021_Res 32018
|
Speaker 3: Agenda Item 39 Resolution 32018 Supporting the creation of the United States Truth and Healing Commission on Indian boarding schools and actions to address the Western harm of Indian boarding schools.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. I move to adopt resolution 32018. Is there a second act? Excellent. It's been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution. It casmir was is the sponsor of this item. Some of the going to hand it over to her to address the item.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President again thank you so much for accommodating and by moving item 39 to item number one. I really appreciate it. Resolution 32018 Support Secretary Deb Hollins Truth and Healing Commission Regarding Indian Boarding Schools. This Commission would study and address ongoing impacts of the 1819 Civilization Fund Act. This federal policy passed by our Congress established Indian boarding schools for the sole purpose to forcibly remove American, Indian and Alaska Native children from their families to assimilate into white settlements. The Commission would lead investigative efforts of past, present and U.S. boarding schools, as well as identify services to respond to intergenerational trauma that families continue to face to this present day. The law states through education, therefore forced the removal, cultural genocide and emotional physical abuse of native children was protected under federal law. Back in 2019, then Congresswoman Haaland and Senator Warren introduced legislation to create a Truth and Healing Commission that addresses present day impacts of the 1819 Indian boarding school policy that forcibly removed Native American children from their families in order to assimilate them as what is now deemed a civilized society. Senator Warren and now Secretary, I'm sorry, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland continue to fight for this legislation as we all do. Research and advocacy on this topic is led by the Native American Boarding School Healing Coalition, and our office have been working closely with them, as well as local tribes there. These are national leaders, organizations, tribal governments and policy folks behind this federal legislation to support ongoing efforts at the federal level. I have with me today a resolution that outlines specific measures of the Truth and Healing Commission that the city must support. We hope that the city will support any knowledge. Today, the commission will investigate boarding schools across the country and address the intergenerational trauma that forced removal that the forced removal has had on indigenous balance to this day, as I shared with you all this morning as well, last week, the mayor's office informed us that their intent is to support this legislation and sign this resolution. Council President I respectfully ask and recommend that my colleagues in this Council adopt this resolution. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Guns were wars. Are there any additional comments on the resolution? Hearing none will a quick please kolawole on the adoption of the resolution.
Speaker 1: Scatter. I. Peterson.
Speaker 2: I. Strauss Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold Yes. Suarez.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 1: And Council President Gonzalez high seven in favor nine opposed.
Speaker 0: The motion carries and the resolution is adopted. The chair will sign it will the piece of fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Leclerc, please read item one into the record.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION supporting the creation of a United States Truth and Healing Commission on Indian Boarding Schools and other actions to address the lasting harm of Indian boarding schools.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_08162021_CF 314482
|
Speaker 3: Agenda Item one quick vote 314482. Office of City Auditor Request for an extension for filing a report relating to Serial Department of Transportation, surveillance technology usage and license plate reader technology. And the report on closed circuit television. Traffic Cameras. Technology.
Speaker 0: I moved to approve clerk file 314482 Is there a second second? It's been moved in to approve the clerk file and to hand it over to Councilmember Peterson, who is the sponsor of the quick file.
Speaker 2: As a council president. Our city's Transportation Utilities Committee has three clerk files on today's agenda, all related to technology. Clerk files 314 40 2483 and 484. These clerk files accept the updated schedules for our Seattle Information Technology Department and from our city auditor to give them the time needed to finish the review of various surveillance technologies. The theme here is the need to provide more time due to delays lingering from the COVID pandemic. A Seattle and our city auditor already provided advance notice to us about the need for these extensions. And these three clerk files were on the Introduction Calendar, published online August six. This first clerk filed 314 42 is the request from our city auditor for more time for just two technologies from our Seattle Department of Transportation, the license plate readers, and the closed circuit cameras that assist with traffic management. This is justified because our city auditor's office has been short staffed this past year, and they recently completed similar reports on the same two transportation technologies. I concur with our city auditor's extension request and ask my colleagues to approve it by accepting this third file. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Councilmember Peterson, are there any additional comments on the quick file? Hearing no additional comments. Please call a vote on the approval of the clerk file.
Speaker 1: Russ Heather, I. Peterson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold. Yes. Suarez I.
Speaker 2: Lewis yes.
Speaker 1: And Council President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 1: Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The motion carries and the quick file is approved. Will the clerk please read item two into the record?
|
Clerk File (CF)
|
Office of City Auditor request for an extension for filing a report relating to Seattle Department of Transportation Surveillance Technology Usage on License Plate Reader (LPR) technology and a report on Closed Circuit Television Traffic Cameras (CCTV) technology.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_08162021_CF 314483
|
Speaker 3: Agenda item two quick file 314483. Seattle Information and Technology Department request for a six month extension for the filing of the Surveillance Impact Report due on September 1st, 2021.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. I move to approve Kirk file 314483. Is there a second?
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. It's been moved and seconded to approve the quick file on the handing back over to Councilwoman Pierson.
Speaker 2: Thank you, council president. This is the second of the three files related to technology. This clerk file 314483 provides a brief extension to our Seattle Information Technology Department for finishing the thorough review of various surveillance technologies pursuant to our city's surveillance technology ordinance. Essentially, Seattle. It needs more time due to delays lingering from the COVID pandemic. The good news is that we've already made substantial progress during the past year reviewing, amending and approving two batches of technology reports what we called Group two and Group three, which covered 12 technologies. So this clerk file provides a few more months for the remaining batch. When we had approved a previous six month extension Seattle, it provided notice that they might need a few more months, but we decided to approve extensions only in six month increments, so this extension will give their thorough process a few more months. This is also related to the next clerk file, which will divide group four into two groups for a and four piece that are easier to review. One of the technologies that has attracted interest is the Traffic Management Tracking Card, a second term that's currently examining the possibility of discontinuing the use of a single car, but will still plan to have a stop. Provide a status update on that technology at our September 15 Transportation Utilities Committee. So again, this clerk file will be approving a few months extension for Seattle to finish the next batch.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. PETERSON Are there any additional comments on the quick file? Sharing them with the. Please call the vote on the approval of the quick file.
Speaker 1: Ms.. Gather I. Pietersen.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold. Yes. Suarez. Lewis. Yes. And Council President Gonzalez. i7a favor and unopposed emotion carries.
Speaker 0: The court file is approved. Will the clerk please read item three into the record?
|
Clerk File (CF)
|
Seattle Information and Technology Department request for a six-month extension for the filing of the Group 4 Surveillance Impact Report (SIR) due on September 1, 2021.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_08162021_CB 120105
|
Speaker 3: Report of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee Agenda Item six Council Bill 120105 relating to the Seattle Police Department banning the ownership, purchase, rent, storage or use of less lethal weapons and amended sections 3.20 8.1, four and six of the Seattle Municipal Code. The committee recommends the bill pass as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Councilmember Herbold, you are the chair of the committee, so I'm going to hand it over to you to provide this report.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much. So much of what I'm going to say now is a repeat of this morning's comments. But for the public record and the viewing public, just want to go through the background and the the outcomes of this of our many months policy discussion around the ordinance that amendments to the ordinance that the Council passed back in June. So as context, there are currently no restrictions in the Seattle Municipal Code on the use of less lethal weapons. The Public Safety and Human Services Committee voted for one asset at our meeting on July 13th. At that time, I moved to hold it so that we would not hear it in full council until after the consent decree status conference that occurred last week. We wanted to make sure that in case the court weighed in at that status conference, that we would be informed by by the discussion happening at the status conference. The Court had no comment on the legislation in the status conference. And so I'm looking forward to our discussion and vote on it today. The legislation itself includes a full ban on acoustic weapons, directed energy weapons, blast balls, ultrasonic cannons and water cannons. The use of noise. Flash devices, otherwise known as flash bangs, are banned in demonstrations. The bill conditions, the use of pepper spray and pepper ball launchers on instances when the risk of serious bodily injury from violent actions outweighs the risk of harm to bystanders and separately from the conditions on pepper spray and pepper ball launchers. Tear gas is used allowed in even more narrow circumstances. The legislation does not regulate the use of non chemical launchers, for instance, beanbag rubber bullets, blue tip launchers. And so the there is there is no regulation in the code as relates to the use of those particular type of less lethal weapons. And that's important for folks who have raised questions about what less lethal weapons are available in instances where there is a threat of property damage. When we were in deliberations around this legislation, myself and Council President Gonzalez met with the consent decree monitor and the Department of Justice out of respect for the consent decree process and in with the objective of getting their feedback in advance of final cut council action. This was informal feedback to the formal consent decree process, which is yet to occur. The committee first did back in February after several months of discussion to recommend a draft bill that was used for those discussions. During the conversations about the draft bill, we heard from the Department of Justice concern that restricting the use of certain less lethal tools and of management circumstances could actually lead to officers using higher levels of force, putting both assault of protesters and the surrounding nonviolent protesters both at higher risk of harm. Judge Robert expressed similar concerns. The DOJ likewise inquired as to whether the draft bill allowed for relevant CPD officers to be trained in changes to policy again to avoid the unwanted impact of having untrained officers resort higher levels of force than necessary. This was an issue that Judge Robert also raised. So by submitting the draft legislation for this informal review. Receiving this kind of feedback. It allowed us to make further amendments to the legislation before the legislation itself was referred. And in order to help address those concerns, the Council, the legislation added a definition of a control and provided 60 days to allow for training. After the court approved the legislation. Another update after hearing back from the the the monitor and the Department of Justice was to make clear that in narrow circumstances as it relates to pepper ball launchers, that they they can't be used for the purpose of crowd control. But if there is a large group of people and the purpose isn't crowd control, but it's the risk of avoiding serious bodily injury from violent actions and that outweighs the risk of harm to bystanders. So again, the purpose isn't to move people, but is intended to to mitigate or limit the likelihood that somebody is seriously hurt in a crowd, that the pepper ball launchers are permitted. Again, it's not only is in response to feedback we've received through this informal review process, but it also recognizes that a district court ruling just very , very recently specified that approved policies for the use of our pepper ball launchers. And Judge Roberts specifically authorized the use of pepper ball launches in late February as part of Speedy's Court manual mandated annual update to use of force policies. So given that just in February, Judge Robert approved the use of pepper ball launchers in this narrow, narrow circumstance, we can't very well. Ask him to review a new policy that revokes the allowance that he's just approved. Reminder that all started back in June of 2020, with the Council's unanimous adoption of legislation sponsored by Council member. The want and use of nearly all less lethal weapons and. The the response from the court was to almost immediately issue a restraining order on that bill in July of last year. And in its ruling, the court stated in the temporary restraining order that the legislation itself did not. Public safety. In August 2020, the CPC, the OIG and the EPA. A commented on the the legislation that the council passed. They sent us recommendations for how we might consider changing it. And we shared that feedback from our accountability partners in our committee that that feedback was also sent to Robert as well, because he also had requested that feedback. This bill has consumed much of the time and efforts of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee over the last year. We've discussed this policy, including roundtables with our accountability partners in seven separate Public Safety and Human Services Committee meetings since last September. While not perfect, my overall goal is to adopt the strongest legislation possible, building on the consensus recommendations of the three accountability bodies within the context of the consent decree. I just want to note that the CPC did write to the committee in support for the legislation, while noting their perspective that they believe more needs to be done . They wrote to say. The Seattle Community Police Commission writes today to offer its Support Council Bill 12 0105. The Commission believes that the bill's inclusion of clear delineations of when less lethal weapons can and cannot be used and limitations on who can use them is a significant first step in ensuring the safety of community members when they engage in First Amendment protests. I've heard concerns in past committee meetings. Then we heard some of this today about the right of action contained in in the ordinance. And this is the right of action for members of the public to pursue what they perceive as violations of the ordinance. I want to be clear that the language in the ordinance allows the city to offer a firm, an affirmative defense that the violation did not occur. The language will not make anyone accused of a crime ineligible from using the right of action merely because they've been accused a crime. A person accused of a crime can file suit under the right of action. It is not accurate, as some have suggested, that if the affirmative defense was used, that the judgment of a reasonable person, a crime was committed, that the city, in order to prevail, would only have to prove that an officer said they thought a crime was committed. That is not the legal standard of the affirmative defense just closing out before calling for the vote. Just so folks understand what the the next steps are. If the legislation passes today, the Seattle Police Department will draft policy revisions that reflect the ordinance. They'll do so within 60 days provided by Section four of the bill. The DOJ and the Monitor would then review the policy revisions, and this is when their formal review under the consent decree takes place. Then the court would review the policy revision. And then finally, if the court approves the policy revision, the revised policies and substantive provisions of the bill will take effect as provided by Section five of the bill. So I really want to thank my colleagues on the Public Safety and Human Services Committee for sticking with this for many, many months and meetings and hours. Appreciate all of the engagement with our accountability partners throughout the process, as well as the feedback that we've received from the DOJ, the consent decree monitor and the general public who has come out to every single meeting where we've discussed this and given their feedback to the legislation. And I hope we can all count on your vote in favor of this legislation today. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Herbold. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Consumer redress, please.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council president. Council member. Her. Well, I just have a couple of questions, mostly repeating back to you what I heard you just say to make sure that I got this clearly since I don't sit on your committee. This morning was my first real formal briefing from you on it, and just hearing that the court had no comment on these bills during last week's meeting, is that to be interpreted as they have no issues or is that to be interpreted as they may have issues, but they made no comment?
Speaker 4: The latter.
Speaker 2: That they may have issues.
Speaker 4: We held. We held the bill from being heard in full council. We delayed it because we thought that it might be a topic that the settlement conference was scheduled really without any information about what the topic was going to be. The OR we had some information about what the topics would be. We didn't know if it was going to include this. And so the settlement conference occurred. It was a quarterly settlement conference that the that the city regularly has. This did not come up as a topic.
Speaker 2: Okay. And I heard clearly that the city is in favor of this. Did the monitor or Judge Robert, have concerns that have not been addressed?
Speaker 4: So we'll find out whether or not there are concerns that have not been addressed when we go through the formal consent decree process. We have worked to address the concerns that were raised in the informal process.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And then the last question that I have is what I think I heard you say, just to put it very clearly focused, that after this has passed and before it goes into implementation, the DOJ and the Monitor will have time to review and decide what is implemented and what is not implemented. My question here is just ensuring that we're not at odds with the process and that we are in tandem. Is that a correct understanding?
Speaker 4: That is absolutely correct. Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember. Who will double them?
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Strauss, for those questions. And I do want to sort of emphasize, I've been participating with Councilmember Herbold in the background on many of these process related issues. And just want to emphasize my fervent belief that we have really done everything we can as a city council to protect the integrity of our legislative authority while also complying with what we think are legal obligations under the consent decree. And so don't think that I really do believe that moving forward on this legislation now is the next step in that process to allow us to enter the bill into the more formal review process. But I think we have done everything we can in the informal process to try to identify, suss out many of those issues that we think the court and the DOJ and the federal court monitor might have. And I think this is the next special step to allowing for perhaps a more official, fuller review of the bill. That doesn't mean that the bill that they won't identify additional concerns. But I think at this point, those concerns would be related to the policies as opposed to whether or not the council complied with the process. That's where most data.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to weigh in and say thank you to come from her role as chair of public safety or stewarding this conversation through. Also wanted to thank customers Salon who is not here today but I know has spoken to this issue many times. And I also heard Councilmember Herbold note their efforts, their leadership on this as well, who brought forward the legislation initially. I think all of us here today, by considering this legislation, are really showing that we think that this legislation in this amended form is an important component to making sure that we're moving our commitment to accountability forward and doing so in partnership with our accountability partners along the way. I think the importance of this legislation cannot be understated, especially as the memories of last year's response to the protests are still relatively fresh in many of our minds. We all remember the stories. We all remember the public testimony, the hours of calls that we received as people expressed their frustration and many times their surprise and shock about the response to the protests that were standing up in support of Black Lives. We also heard a number of reports, and this was covered in the press, as well as people calling our offices to note that members of the national press, legal observers, medics had been pepper sprayed or been hit by projectiles like glass balls and launchers. We saw video of a child being sprayed in our streets in downtown Seattle at short range in the face. And we heard the testimony of the father of a nine month old baby who was calling for an end to the days of the use of tear gas in our most dense neighborhood in Seattle on Capitol Hill. The father of a nine month old who had woken up to their baby foaming at the mouth, I think it's fair to say we believe that nobody deserves to be afraid of physical harm when doing their job, whether they're members of our officers, police officers or members of the press, medics, legal observers, everybody who was doing their job and also standing up to express their First Amendment right has a right to be safe. We also want to make sure that bystanders, like the many people who called in, are also free from harm and want to make sure that the tools that are used by our public officers are first prioritizing public safety. I think this legislation puts in force and put in place important side rails for how our police department interact with crowds and demonstrations. And I'm also hopeful that these policies can help de-escalate the response to make sure that it's not continuing to escalate when we see tools that are causing harm to folks. I look forward to voting yes on this legislation. And though it's been through a long process that was just summarized here today, I appreciate the hard work that's gone into this and the importance of this legislation today. Thank you for your work on it.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Service, get it? Are there any additional comments on the bill? So before I handed back over to because we were able to make final remarks, I also wanted to echo my gratitude to Councilmember Herbold as the chair of our Public Safety Committee. This has been a long and arduous process. I think it's been almost a year long process, if not just slightly, a little bit longer than that. And so I think I have a high level of confidence in the process that has been stewarded by Councilmember Herbold. And do you think that it is now time for us to coalesce behind this particular bill and to enter it into the formal process that is the review of the consent decree process, and to allow for there to be a final judgment of sorts on the policy choices that the City Council has determined are appropriate and that are reflected in this particular version of the Council bill, which is different than the first Council bill, which was subjected to a temporary restraining order and was in effect blocked from implementation. And so I think this is a good threading the needle and appreciate the good work of Councilmember Herbold. She managed to thank everyone else of the city. But but it's our responsibility to thank her for the good work that she's done on a very important issue with a lot of really tricky challenges and a lot of stakeholder engagement that needed to happen. So my thanks to you, Council, for all of your your good work. And I'll hand it back over to you for closing our debate so we can call this bill to a vote.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. I did think a lot of the external stakeholders, but I would like also to close out with my appreciation for the many folks internal to the city who have been helping on this on this bill, including Lisa on council central staff, Noel in my office, Carol in the City Attorney's Office, as well as our own legal counsel that has been assisting us on this on this legislation as well. I know people have spent a lot of of hours, and really it's because I think we believe in the intent of the bill, which is to to create some travel restrictions where none currently exist, so that we can do everything that we can to ensure the safety of community members engaging in First Amendment protected protests. It's really important that we continue our work in this area protecting civil liberties during protests, but also recognizing that we are we are we are doing so within the context of the consent decree, as Council President Gonzales put it. It is it is a bit of a threading of the needle. But I do look forward to the next step in this process where we go into the formal policy review and having this legislation still, again, perhaps not as as broad as the legislation that we all voted in favor on in in June last year. But still, I think it's it is a historic effort for the city of Seattle to to to take this this this position, regulating these weapons in the goal of preserving civil liberties and the rights of folks to protest. So thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you so much, Councilmember Herbold, for those closing remarks. Will Clark, please, for the role in the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Let's gather. I. Petersen.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold. S. Juarez. I. Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: In Council President Gonzalez. I. Seven a favor and and opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes material sign. It will fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Thank you so much. Everyone will please read item seven into the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Police Department; banning the ownership, purchase, rent, storage, or use of less lethal weapons; and amending Section 3.28.146 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_08162021_CB 120148
|
Speaker 3: Agenda Item seven Council Bill 120148 relating to parking enforcement and then the ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 budget, transferred positions of the Seattle Police Department in ratifying the ban for certain firearms. The committee recommends the bill as amended.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you so much. Customer Burble. This one also comes from your committee. I'm going to hand it back over to you.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much. So just as a bit of background, last year during the budget process, the Council took budget actions and passed legislation expressing our intent of transferring both the parking enforcement officers in 911 dispatch out of the Seattle Police Department and into the new Community Safety and Communication Center. In May, we took the legislation up that would actually implement the the planned action from the the budget process the previous fall. At that time there was a divided workforce. The supervisors of the parking enforcement officers were interested in in moving to two star and they were are represented by protect and the parking enforcement officer rank and file was represented by IOG and they wanted to go to the Community Safety and Communication Center because there was this division among among workers and also among management. The the executive was also very interested in the pillows going to to store it, as were several council members. We amended that legislation and just transferred the nine or one dispatch to the Community Safety Communication Center. And we included a proviso extension to allow us to continue to have the conversation and make sure that the pillows were continuing to get paid while still at the Seattle Police Department. That proviso extension expires on September 1st. Unfortunately, this extra time did not really have an outcome of a different, different result. There is still a divided workforce. I know that the front line parking enforcement officers and protect who represents the officers are still in conversations with how to come to an agreement and improve relations. But I have heard that that the the positions haven't changed. But nevertheless, I'm being responsive to the the fact that a majority of councilmembers are interested in transferring the pillows to the Seattle Department of Transportation. And for that reason, the bill, as passed out of committee unanimously with an amendment that I introduced, does transfer a P.O. unit to start. The bill, includes a ratified and confirmed clause to ensure the unit is paid come September. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Are there any additional comments on the bill? CHEERING then will the court please call the role in the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Let's get the. I.
Speaker 2: PETERSON All right. Strauss Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbert Juarez, I.
Speaker 2: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 1: And Council President Gonzalez I. Seven in favor.
Speaker 0: Nine opposed the bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will There is a fixed signature to the legislation on my behalf. Will the Court please read item eight into the record?
Speaker 3: The Court of the Land Use the Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item eight Council Bill one 2121 relating to land use and zoning, adopting interim provisions by amended sections 23.70 6.004. 23.70 6.006 and 23.7 6.0 32 of and adding a new section 2340 2.0 41 to the municipal code to facilitate occupancy of street level spaces downtown during the COVID
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to parking enforcement; amending Ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 Budget; transferring positions out of the Seattle Police Department; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_08092021_CB 120150
|
Speaker 4: The Report of the Finance and Housing Committee Agenda Item three Council Bill 120151 related to the city's response to the COVID 19 crisis. Amending Ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 budget, including the 2021 2026 Capital Improvement Program. The committee recommends that the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilor Mosquito, as chair of the committee, recognized in order to provide the committee report.
Speaker 3: Thank you, President.
Speaker 1: Pro tem.
Speaker 3: Colleagues. As you'll recall, we passed the first part of the Seattle rescue plan in council bills, 120093 and Council Bill 120094. We passed this first package of the Seattle rescue plan on June 21st, 2021. This was intended to be the first of three acts in 2021 to address the crisis that COVID is presenting and to deploy federal dollars that have been made available to the city to make sure that we're responding to the urgent needs that have only been made worse by COVID and have been created by this pandemic as well. The first package of bills authorizes spending of about $120 million in 2021 to support Seattle's recovery efforts from COVID 19 backfill revenue. And we also authorized $25 million to provide direct cash assistance to households, specifically households directly affected by the effects of COVID and who are largely our bipoc community. I'm really proud of the first proposal that we passed, and this is our second act of three acts this year that will be in response to the federal dollars that the city has received. The Seattle rescue plan number two here follows up with the first investments by authorizing spending of now over $52 million for targeted aid, for rental assistance programs, to support seniors and to help invest in transportation projects and services. We're going to follow up this legislation this fall with additional funding from ARPA. The American Rescue Plan Act with another $128 million. And that will be taken up during the fall budget process. I want to thank all of you for your work on the first iteration of our Seattle Rescue Plan Act one effort and make sure that you all know how important it is that these dollars are getting out. I've received a number numerous emails from folks talking about the assistance that they've received as small business owners or support that folks have received as childcare providers, and also the direct assistance that we are continuing to try to get out the door for our arts and cultural community. So thank you again for all of the work that you've done. Today's council bill again calls for 120150, provides now $28.7 million more for rental assistance, $7.7 million in direct assistance for seniors to deal with isolation, abuse and neglect. $13.5 million for specific transportation projects that were largely predetermined by our federal partners, as we are working to act as a pass through for that. And Michael Hall, who has been awarded $2.1 million from the Seattle Business Association excuse me, administration to address the shuttered venues grant application that they received. Colleagues, again, $5.2 million. And I want to thank members of central staff for their hard work on this, along with all of you, and sit in my office as we work to get these dollars out the door as soon as possible.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Mesquita. Any other comments on Council 120150 item three on the agenda. Yes, Councilmember. Or is this item secret only?
Speaker 4: Thank you for recognizing me. Council President Alex Peterson. Just really quick, I want to say Castro mosquito. This has been a lot of hard work with this ARPA money and thank you for going behind the scenes and talking to us, at least talking to us individually and as a team. Where the money was going, how we were targeting it, and what our needs and concerns were. So I really, really appreciate that you are consensus space and always look for that middle ground for us to be practical and actually get across the finish line. So thank you. I'm done.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other comments on counts? 4120150 item three on our agenda. Okay. Well, the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Lewis. Yes. Morales. Morales. Yes. Thank you, Macheda. I so want.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss. Yes. Herbal. Yes. Boris. I and council president Peterson.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 1: Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read the short title of item four into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE related to the City’s response to the COVID-19 crisis; amending Ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 Budget, including the 2021-2026 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); accepting funding from non-City sources; changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various funds in the 2021 Budget; revising project allocations for certain projects in the 2021-2026 CIP; imposing provisos; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_08092021_CB 120131
|
Speaker 4: Agenda item for Council Bill 120131 amending ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 budget change, changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels and from various funds in the budget. The Committee recommends that the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Skinner's chair of the committee you recognized in order to provide the committee report.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Council President Pro tem colleagues. This is a very exciting opportunity for us to take a vote on a body of work done by community representatives, created by community representatives as part of our investments in investing in communities that have been dealing with a legacy of racism, of redlining and of disinvestment. This comes out also of the uprising last year for a call for racial reckoning following the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor and so many more. There's been a large recognition across our country that we need to do more to invest in upstream solutions, to create greater housing stability, equitable job opportunities, investments in child care and early learning, and access to higher education and good living wage jobs and retirement security along with housing stability. These are part of the efforts for a much longer term investment strategy that we must be making towards investing specifically into our black community, our indigenous community, and our communities of color across this city. The Equitable Communities Initiative Task Force included 25 members across Bipoc communities who work together to identify four pillars for investments. Those pillars included housing, health, education and small businesses. The proposal in front of us includes $8.8 million into housing, $6.2 million into health initiatives, 7.5 million into education strategies, and 7.5 million into small business investments. I want to thank each of the task force members for their tremendous amount of work. We know that they have done this work in addition to their day jobs and their ongoing activism and work to create a more equitable community. And they did this on top of that work. I want to thank them and really congratulate them for bringing forward this proposal in front of us today as we consider lifting the proviso and releasing these funds with the expectation that they will be immediately released to the community. I want to thank Pastor Carrie Anderson from First Amy Church Song Bags from International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 46 Maggie Angela Cano from the Commissioner of our cleanup mission. Andrea Kaplan from Bird Place. Alicia de Brand. Dale Urban from Northwest African American Museum. Tricia Mullinax DiCicco from Technology Access Foundation. Bananas. Esther from Refugee Women's Alliance. Allie Garrett from Tabor 100. Chris Lampkin from SEIU 1199. Health Care Northwest. Dr. Sheila Edwards Leng from Seattle Central College. Paulina Lopez from the Warmest River Cleanup Coalition. Esther Lucero from Seattle Indian Health Board. Michelle Merriweather from the Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle. Donna Moody from Marjorie Restaurants. Estella Ortega from El Centro de La Raza. Carolyn Riley Payne from Seattle. King County NAACP. Rizwan Rosie from Muslim Housing Services. Victoria Santos from Young Women Empowered. Steven Sawyer from Pocan. And Michael excuse me. Michael Tilley from United Indians of All Tribes. Rae Williams from Black Farmers Collective. Sharon Williams from the City Forum. Pastor Lawrence Willis from United Black Clergy. Christina Wong from Northwest Harvest. We got to say from Ventures. And of course, our very own ex-officio member, Councilmember Juarez, who participated in this task force as well, representing not only DFI, but this entire council. Thank you all for your hard work and I look forward to moving forward so we can get this legislation out the door and will conclude my comments there and turn it over to Councilmember.
Speaker 0: As Police Council member R.S..
Speaker 4: Thank you. I was going to begin by thanking some folks, but Counselor Machete went through the whole list of 26 people, so she kind of beat me to the punch there. But thank you, sis. I appreciate that. I will be short with my remarks and I do have their quickly they're out there prepared, so I'll just go right through them. Today, colleagues, after 30 meetings and months of poring over the data, we get the opportunity to approve the work of 26 community members of the Equitable Communities Initiative Task Force. I served as an ex-officio position for this task force, and my staffer, Gene Alsop, attended every in each meeting. Once the mayor made the announcement, the task force members got to work immediately. The task force started their work by taking an inventory of what we would call the human capital in these neighborhoods, which includes expertize wisdom, leadership and fellowship, and to identify what strengths not only already existed, but what also it could be. To leverage that with investments from the city. In July, the task force transmitted their plan for investing in the four pillars health, housing, small businesses and education. Council members. You know, we don't need to tell bipoc communities what they need. They know we just need to listen and deliver. We're a city with amazing community organizations that are prepared and ready to implement these upstream investments. Now, thanks to the ECI task force, they will be able to apply through a competitive process to start the work. The investments have been vetted to ensure that they are aligned with the legal and constitutional requirements of Washington State. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Washington. And again, a quick thank you. Thank you to the amazing facilitation team by Pamela Oakes from the of the the profitable nonprofit. Another note of gratitude to the anchor group for their work with the media to get the word out about the task force. I've enjoyed we have enjoyed meeting with both organizations. And most importantly, thank you to the task force members as Councilmember Mosqueda listed and the and how we all believed in their mission, including my dear friend and our office. Sharon Williams You have left an indelible mark on the city. I'm grateful for your willingness to take a leap of faith, to work in partnership with our city, to bring us closer to the equitable city we aspire to be on. A just a personal note. I was going through my notes this morning back in September of 2020 when we were putting this task force together and also some of our budget notes. And, you know, there was talk that certain groups were being pitted against each other. And guess what? That didn't happen. We we adhered to the transparency. We are aligned in our core principles. We are aligned in our humanity and our philosophy in investing in upstream community projects with community leadership. So at the end of the day, we put our faith in black lives, black leaders and black community members and others, and good things happened. Today is a testament that we can have more than one plan towards equitable communities when we work together. So thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember past colleagues. Any other comments on this? Yes. Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 1: I was wondering, I moved the amendment.
Speaker 0: Oh. Okay. I'll go ahead and.
Speaker 5: Well.
Speaker 1: I've been waiting for a pause in all the wonderful, wonderful comment.
Speaker 4: And the love fest.
Speaker 0: So this this came out of yes, this came out of committee. So we don't need a special motion to start. But yes, you can recognize you do move the amendment plates.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. I move to make up the bill 12 0131 as presented on as amendment a on the agenda.
Speaker 0: I can't imagine seconded that the bill be amended as presented on Amendment a council approval to sponsor the amendment you recognize in order to address it.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. I really love customer warriors more than one player and for you. So this amendment is just simply to recognize the executive's intent as it relates to the administrative costs. It was a question that came up in committee. The administrative costs are estimated to average out as about 6.5% out of the 30 million. The intent is just really, again, to memorialize that expectation. So no one's taken by surprise when the costs are taken from the 30 million. Again, central staff confirmed with the city budget office and executive that that was indeed the intent. And I also just want to flag that that those those administrative costs might differ depending on whether or not it's HST quickly funding an existing investment or having to create a new program. Which new programs will. We'll have to take more time. They will not be these those are not likely to be investments that can be made immediately. And they also will have slightly higher administrative cost. But it should still hopefully even out at around.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilor Herbold, any comments on the amendment? Amendment A? Okay. Well, the clerk please call the role on the adoption of Amendment A.
Speaker 1: Lewis. I what? Alice. S Muscadet. I so want. Yes.
Speaker 5: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold Yes. Suarez Yes. And Council President Pro Tem.
Speaker 0: Peterson Yes.
Speaker 1: Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The motion carries, the amendment passes and the amended bill is before the council. Any further comments on the bill as amended? Okay. Will the clerk please call your councilmember? Okay. Well, the clerk please call the role on the passage of the amended bill.
Speaker 1: Lewis. I what? Alice? Yes. Must. Whether I so want. Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold. Juarez high end council president pro tem Petersen.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 1: Eight in favor nine opposed.
Speaker 0: Making the bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it with the clerk. Please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Will the clerk please read item five into the record?
Speaker 4: Agenda Item five Council Bill 120147 relating to the financing of the general fund authorizing and to fund loans up to a total of 205 million from multiple city funds to the general fund as bridge financing to be repaid from future tax proceeds and other anticipated revenues and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 Budget; changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various funds in the Budget; lifting provisos; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_08092021_CB 120147
|
Speaker 4: Agenda Item five Council Bill 120147 relating to the financing of the general fund authorizing and to fund loans up to a total of 205 million from multiple city funds to the general fund as bridge financing to be repaid from future tax proceeds and other anticipated revenues and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends that the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Mosquito, as chair of the committee, you recognized in order to provide the committee report.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Council President Pro Tem colleagues. I am again excited to be able to bring forward legislation to you that supports the Council's passage of Jumpstart Seattle's Progressive Revenue. We have not only eagerly anticipated the funds beginning to flow in January of 2022, expected amounts over $200 million. But we also anticipate that about 135 million of that annually will be available to critical investments like housing, like many of the callers called in about today. We also knew when we passed the Jumpstart Seattle Progressive Revenue Tax that the 2021 proceeds from that tax would not begin coming into the city coffers until 2022, and they would begin coming in in quarterly installments for this first year. We have made some important investments using the expectation of funds coming in soon because we knew that those funds would be available starting in 2022. However, we also recognize, along with the City Budgets Office and the Finance and Administrative Services Department, that as we are expecting these funds to come in, as they're coming in quarterly, we still need a bridge to help fund the spending that we have committed to until we receive those funds. So what we have in front of us today is an intra fund loan bill to be able to make critical payments towards services that we have committed to, while then also replenishing that entire fund loan with the Jumpstart Seattle revenue once it starts flowing into in 2022. The bill in front of us is a typical budget bill. It approves about $205 million from loans from several city funds as part of our inner fund loan package in front of us. Per the city's policy, the city's Debt Management Advisory Committee is compromised of myself, central staff, interim directors and either budget director Ben Noble, Finance Director Glen Lee and the Director of Public Utilities, Matt Hara, and Director of City Light, Deborah Smith. We, as the city's debt manager Policy Advisory Committee, met over two weeks ago to approve the interim loan in front of us. This again, is anticipated to be fully paid before the end of 2022, and we do not believe that we would even have to wait that long to be able to refill the Interphone loan. In fact, it's our expectation and assumption that the interim loan can be paid back by midyear next year or early fall next year. But just to ensure that we're giving ourselves a little ample time, we've authorized the fund, the Interphone loan to extend through the end of the year. As a reminder, this is the first year that jump start revenues will be paid again. They will be paid quarterly. So having some flexibility on when we pay back the loan and giving ourselves through 2022 to pay back this in our fund loan source or the sources makes a lot of sense. And our committee fully recommends passage of the bill in front of us today.
Speaker 0: In keeping us from risking our colleagues any comments on this bill? Okay. Well, the clerk please read. Will the clerk please call the role in the passage fill?
Speaker 1: Lewis. I want Alice. As most, whether I saw want. Yes. Strauss Yes. Herbold Yes. Suarez I know. Council President Pro Tem. Peterson high eight 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. Now, under the Public Assets and Native Communities Committee report. Item six Will the clerk please read the short title of item six into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the financing of the General Fund; authorizing interfund loans up to a total amount of $205,000,000 from multiple City Funds to the General Fund as bridge financing to be repaid from future tax proceeds and other anticipated revenues; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_08092021_CB 120140
|
Speaker 4: Agenda item Southern Council Bill 120140 related to Seattle Parks and Recreation authorizing the acquisition of real property commonly known as 3638 34th Avenue South. The committee recommends that the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Horace. As chair of the committee. You are recognized in order to provide the committee report.
Speaker 4: Thank you. This is again was in front of us on August 3rd in our community. And Seattle Parks and Rec has land banked almost an acre property in the North Rainier Hub Urban Village since 2011. This is to meet the goal of providing a large park for a growing community which historically been underserved. This park site is nestled within a series of affordable family and senior multifamily housing projects. We've been doing many of these, if you all recall, throughout the lease the last couple of years. This acquisition would increase the size and improve the utility of the park. The committee recommends council pass this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any comments on this bill? Okay. Will the clerk please read the roll call? The roll and the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Lewis. I. Morales. I must, however I so want. Yes, Strauss. Yes. HERBOLD Yes. SUAREZ Yes. And Council President Pro Tem.
Speaker 0: Peterson Yes.
Speaker 1: Eight in favor and then opposed it.
Speaker 0: Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the court please to fix my signature to the legislature on my behalf? Item eight will please read the short title. Item eight into the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Parks and Recreation (SPR); authorizing the acquisition of real property commonly known as 3638 34th Avenue South; authorizing acceptance of a recording of the deed for open space, park, and recreation purposes; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_08092021_CB 120141
|
Speaker 4: Agenda Item eight Council Bill 120141 relating to Seattle Parks and Recreation authorizing the acquisition of real property commonly known as 1024 South Elm Grove Street. The committee recommends that the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Juarez is chair of the committee, recognized in order to provide the committee report.
Speaker 4: Thank you. This proposed legislation authorizes the Parks and Recreation again to acquire property located adjacent to the dual Amish Waterway Park on the Duwamish River for open space, green space park and recreational purposes. We recommend that council pass this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Colleagues, any comments on this bill? Emilia Clarke, please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Lewis. High morale is a must gather. I so want. Yes. Strauss Yes. Herbals Yes. Suarez I think council president pro tem.
Speaker 0: Peterson All right.
Speaker 1: H 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? The report from the Transportation and Utilities Committee. Will the clerk please read item nine into the record?
Speaker 4: The report of the Transportation and Utilities Committee Agenda Item on Council Bill 120145 Naming the pedestrian bicycle bridge across the Interstate five connecting North 100 Street to First Avenue Northeast as the John Lewis Memorial Bridge. The committee recommends that the bill pass.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Parks and Recreation; authorizing the acquisition of real property commonly known as 1024 South Elmgrove Street; authorizing acceptance of a recording of the deed for open space, park, and recreation purposes; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_08092021_CB 120133
|
Speaker 4: Agenda Item ten Council Bill 120133. Granting Swedish health services permission to construct, maintain and operate the tunnel under and across Miner Avenue. The committee recommends that the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. As chair of the committee, I'll address this item as well as the other two items following it items 11 and 12. I'll just make my remarks all at once. But we have separate motions for each bill colleagues. These all relate to the already approved construction of additional medical facilities for Swedish health. In 2016, Swedish received from the city conditional approval for an early vacation, a tunnel the SkyBridge, to facilitate the development of a new medical office and support of service building pursuant to Swedish 25 major institution master plan. Construction on the building has been delayed, so this legislation enables adjustments. So a clerk file one. Excuse me. Council Bill 120133 would grant approval of a term permit for a pedestrian tunnel under Miner Avenue. S Conceptual approval for the tunnel was already granted in 2016 with Resolution 31700. Then we've got council. Hold on a second. Let me just make sure I got the order right here. Well, let's go ahead and just stick with that council. 120133 would grant approval of the term permit for a pedestrian tunnel under Minor Avenue, as conceptual approval for the tunnel was granted in 2016 under Resolution 317010. Are there any comments on this bill? Okay. Well, the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: LEWIS Yes. MORALES Yes. RUSSELL Whether. I. So what? Yes.
Speaker 5: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 1: HERBOLD Yes. SUAREZ All right. And council president Fred John Petersen.
Speaker 5: Just.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Hate in favor and and opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The next item on the agenda item. 11. Will the clerk please read the title into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE granting Swedish Health Services permission to construct, maintain, and operate a pedestrian tunnel under and across Minor Avenue, south of Columbia Street and north of Cherry Street, 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_08092021_CF 314477
|
Speaker 4: Item 12. Agenda item 12. Quick file 314477. Request for an extension to the conditional approval of a petition to Swedish Health Services to vacate the of BLOCK 95/32 addition to the City of Sale. The committee recommends that as condition.
Speaker 0: Thank you, colleagues. This is Clark. File through one four, four, seven, seven. It would extend the council conditional approval of the vacation of the alley located on the block between Columbia Street, Minor Avenue, Cherry Street and Boren Avenue. Previously approved in 2016. Under Clerk filed 314304. Again, with all these items for Swedish, they were unanimously recommended by our committee. There any comments on this file? Okay. Well, Clark, please call the roll and the approval of the Clark file as condition.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Must gather. I so want. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Suarez. I think Council President Pro Tem Peterson.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: H in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The clerk files approve this condition and the chair will sign the conditions for the clerk. Please affix my signature to the conditions on my behalf. Okay. Now, item 13 with the clerk, please read the short title of item 13 into the record.
|
Clerk File (CF)
|
Request for an extension to the conditional approval of a petition of Swedish Health Services to vacate the alley in Block 95, Terry’s Second Addition to the City of Seattle (CF 314304).
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_08092021_CB 120135
|
Speaker 4: Agenda Item 13 Council Bill 120135 Granting our Seattle number 33 LLC a permit to construct, maintain and operate below grade private utility lines under a prosperous street. The committee recommends that the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. As chair of the committee, I'll provide the committee report. Council 120135 would grant final approval for a term permit to build, operate and maintain private utility tunnels under city streets for a district energy system in South Lake Union. The tunnels would collect waste heat from Seattle Public Utilities Wastewater System and deliver it to buildings on three blocks planned and under development. The tunnels would run below Dexter Avenue, North and Royce Street. Conceptual approval for the district energy system was granted already under Resolution 31980 in December 2020. The Seattle Department of Transportation has negotiated the provisions of the term permit consistent with the conditions of Resolution 31980. Today's Council Bill 120135 would grant approval for an initial 15 year term, which can be renewed. Our committee voted unanimously to recommend approval. Are there any comments on this bill? Okay. Well, the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill. Bluest Eye.
Speaker 1: Alice. Yes. Must gather. I want. Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold. US quartet. I. Counselor. President. Pro Tem Peterson. High eight. In favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it with the clerk, please, and fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Will the clerk please read item 14 into the records?
Speaker 4: Agenda Item 14 Council Bill 120136. They came in the alley and walked 21 years of Sarah aid bills second edition founded by Bell Street seven, Robert Blanchard Street and Eighth Avenue in Salt Lake Union and accepting a property use and development agreement on the petition of ACORN Development LLC, the committee recommends that the bill pass.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE granting ARE-SEATTLE NO. 33, LLC a permit to construct, maintain, and operate below-grade private utility lines under and across Roy Street, west of 8th Avenue North, and Dexter Avenue North, north of Mercer Street, 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_08092021_CB 120136
|
Speaker 4: Agenda Item 14 Council Bill 120136. They came in the alley and walked 21 years of Sarah aid bills second edition founded by Bell Street seven, Robert Blanchard Street and Eighth Avenue in Salt Lake Union and accepting a property use and development agreement on the petition of ACORN Development LLC, the committee recommends that the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Colleagues, I'll address these two items together. House Bill 120136 and House Bill 120137. Items 1415. They confirmed that Amazon met the conditions of street vacations already approved for the so-called BLOCK 20 and block 21. BLOCK 20 bounded by Seventh Avenue, Blanchard Street, Eighth Avenue and Lenoir Street, and block 21 is bounded by Bell Street, Seventh Avenue, Blanchard Street, and Eighth Avenue. As you may recall, street vacations are done in two steps. The most important step is granting the conditional approval with public benefit conditions list up front and the second more ministerial actions to confirm the completion of what was agreed to under the first step. After the construction is completed. These two pieces of legislation constitute the second and final step. Construction is complete. The conditions have been met. A committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of both of these items. Are there any comments on the first item, which is council 120136 BLOCK 21. Okay. Well, the clerk, please call the roll and the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Louis.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Macheda I so want. Yes. Strauss Yes. Herbold Yes. Suarez, I and Council President Proton Petersen.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 1: Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes and a terrible sign when the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Will the clerk please read item 15 into the record?
Speaker 4: Agenda Item 15 Huntsville Bill 120137 Vacating the alley and block 20 areas of Sarah Bill's second addition surrounded by Seventh Avenue, Blanchard Street, Eighth Avenue and Lenore Street and Salt Lake Union and accepting a property use and development agreement on the petition of ACORN Development LLC, the committee recommends that the bill pass.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE vacating the alley in Block 21, Heirs of Sarah A. Bell’s Second Addition, bounded by Bell Street, 7th Avenue, Blanchard Street, and 8th Avenue, in South Lake Union; and accepting a Property Use and Development Agreement, on the petition of Acorn Development LLC (Clerk File 314278).
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_08092021_CB 120146
|
Speaker 4: Agenda Item 16 Council Bill 120146 relating to the City Life Department accepting statutory warranty deeds. The committee recommends that the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Colleagues, I'll address this as chair of that committee. Council 4120146. Accepts the deeds for several parcels of land already purchased by Seattle City life. As part of our obligations under the Federal Endangered Species Act. The city has committed to contribute to the conservation of important salmon and trout habitat in the Skagit watersheds. The city's funding is frequently combined with grant funding to increase the positive impact acceptance of these deeds as a formal step in the process. Our committee unanimously recommended approval. Are there any comments on the bill? Will the clerk please call the role on the passage of a bill? LEWIS Hi.
Speaker 1: MORALES This was Heather. I so want. Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbals. Yes. But as I and Council President Pro Tem Petersen. I 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? Okay. The last item from Transportation Utilities Committee. Will a clerk please read item 17 into the record?
Speaker 4: Agenda Item 17 four file 314451. Petition of Seattle City Light to vacate a portion of Diagonal Avenue, south west of Fourth Avenue South. The committee recommends that all be granted as conditions.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; accepting statutory warranty deeds to the Beeson, Brecht, Chen, Crosson, Fresonke, Judd, Marsall, McElfresh (two properties), Metzler and De Llaguno, and Rasmussen properties in Skagit County, Washington, and the Ring Family Limited Partnership property in Snohomish County, all for salmonid habitat protection purposes; declaring certain real property rights surplus and no longer required for providing public utility service or other municipal purposes, and ratifying the grants of Deeds of Right to the State of Washington on the Beeson, Brecht, Chen, Fresonke, Judd, Marblemount LLC, McElfresh properties, and Rasmussen for salmon recovery and conservation purposes; placing said lands under the jurisdiction of the City Light Department; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_08092021_CF 314451
|
Speaker 4: Agenda Item 17 four file 314451. Petition of Seattle City Light to vacate a portion of Diagonal Avenue, south west of Fourth Avenue South. The committee recommends that all be granted as conditions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's chair of the committee. I'll provide this report. Clerk file three one, four, four, five, one. It's simply the petition of Seattle City Life to make a portion of Diagonal Avenue, south west of Fourth Avenue South. The vacation of this portion of the street would connect Seattle See Light South Service Station, which includes property on both sides of diagonal south at this location. The Seattle Department of Transportation and the Seattle Design Commission have reviewed the vacation position in this Clark file 314451 and recommend granting the vacation public benefits proposed as part of the vacation process include transferring property currently owned by satellite in the Georgetown neighborhood, the so-called slum property to ESTA and to the Seattle Department of Parks and Rec in conjunction with development of a bike pedestrian trail, improved bike ped connections between Georgetown and South Park and an off leash dog park within the Georgetown neighborhood. The committee voted unanimously to recommend approval. Are there any comments on this bill? Will the clerk please call the roll and granting the clerk file as conditions?
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. I must get there. I want. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Yes. Juarez, I think, has a President Pro-Tem Peterson.
Speaker 0: II.
Speaker 1: In favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: And the clerk's I was granted as condition. And the chair will sign the commissions with the clerk, please, to fix my signature to the conditions on my behalf. Item 18 Report. Please read item 18 of the rest.
|
Clerk File (CF)
|
Petition of Seattle City Light to vacate a portion of Diagonal Avenue South, west of 4th Avenue South.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_08092021_Res 32014
|
Speaker 4: Agenda Item 20 Resolution 32014 Intention to establish the 15th Avenue East Business Improvement Area and 6/9 place for a hearing thereon.
Speaker 0: It's a move to adopt Resolution 32014. Is there a second.
Speaker 5: Second issue?
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Morales, as sponsor of this item, you're recognized in order to address it.
Speaker 4: Thank you. As I mentioned, this creates the intention to have a hearing. We have set a hearing for Wednesday, September eight, at 2 p.m. where the debate on tents and the Office of Economic Development will present their proposal. And the goal is for the committee to pass it out will vote on it September 21st with an intention of having it in full council for consideration on September 27th. This establishes a date for the hearing, which is September eight.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Colleagues, any comments on this resolution? Okay. Will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the resolution?
Speaker 1: Lewis. What else? S macheda I so want.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss. Yes. Herbals. S Juarez. I Council President Proton Petersen. High seven in favor then opposed.
Speaker 0: To the motion carries in the resolution. As adopted the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please effects my signature to the legislation on my part? Councilwoman. Is there any additional business to come before the council? Councilmember Salam.
Speaker 2: Thank you. President Peterson, I move to be excused from the August 16th, 2021 city council meeting.
Speaker 0: Second. And I think the clerk's advised me if there's no objection, Councilmember Sala will be excused from that meeting. Hearing no objection. Customer response. Excuse me. Thank you. Colleagues. This concludes the items of business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is August 16, 2021 at 2 p.m.. Hope you all have a wonderful rest of your afternoon. We are adjourned.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION of intention to establish a 15th Avenue East Business Improvement Area and fix a date and place for a hearing thereon.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_08022021_CF 314480
|
Speaker 6: Agenda Item one quick file 314480. Report of the City Clerk on the Certificate of Sufficiency for Seattle City Charter Amendment Number 29. Concerning action to address homelessness and keep areas clean of encampments.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I move to file Clark file 314480. Is there a second?
Speaker 1: Second?
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to file the Clark file. I Lewis. Lois, you are going to address this item, so I'm going to go and hand it over to you for that.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. So in my role as Chair of the Select Committee on Homelessness Strategies and Investments in consultation with Council President, we agreed that it would probably be most appropriate for me to just provide a couple of comments on the process that is before us today. In regards to Charter Amendment 29, I want to stress for the general public and for colleagues here, this is a ministerial and purely pro forma function, a cornerstone of our local democracy and part of our general process for receiving proposed referenda to put a charter amendment on the ballot. This Clark file and the related legislation acknowledges that the King County government has received sufficient signatures from a group of folks who have organized to put a measure on the ballot for consideration of Seattle voters to amend the charter. Voting on this matter today does not express support or opposition by council members to that given charter proposal. It is merely us acknowledging the legitimacy of the process and the certification that we have been sent from the county indicating sufficient signatures for this measure to be placed on our general election ballot. So with that, I would. Really just say that we proceed forward and do the responsibility outlined in the charter and approve this measure for placement on the November ballot and and take care of the clerk file and acknowledge its sufficiency.
Speaker 0: Thanks so much, Councilmember Lewis, for those comments on the quick file to just address the process procedure and why we are taking a vote today on this ministerial procedural matter. Are there any additional comments on the Clark File? And that's in any hands race. So will the clerk please call the roll on the filing of the clerk? Clerk?
Speaker 2: Gladys, I. Lewis.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 2: Morales. I must get that by Peterson. Yes, sir. Want? Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 2: Herbals? Yes. In Council President Gonzalez. I died in favor and opposed.
Speaker 0: The motion carries. And the clerk file is placed on file. Will the clerk please read item two into the record?
Speaker 6: Agenda Item two Resolution 32012 regarding the voter proposal and Charter Amendment 29 authorizing the city clerk and the executive director of the Ethics and Elections Commission to take those actions necessary to enable the proposed amendment to appear on the November 2nd, 2021 ballot and in the local voters pamphlet requesting the King County Elections Director to place the
|
Clerk File (CF)
|
Report of the City Clerk on the Certificate of Sufficiency for Seattle City Charter Amendment No. 29, concerning action to address homelessness and keep areas clean of encampments.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_08022021_Res 32012
|
Speaker 6: Agenda Item two Resolution 32012 regarding the voter proposal and Charter Amendment 29 authorizing the city clerk and the executive director of the Ethics and Elections Commission to take those actions necessary to enable the proposed amendment to appear on the November 2nd, 2021 ballot and in the local voters pamphlet requesting the King County Elections Director to place the proposed city charter amendment on the November 2nd, 2021 ballot and providing the publication of the amendment.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. I moved to adopt resolution 32012. Was there a second?
Speaker 1: Second.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much for the second and colleagues. I am going to hand it back over to Councilor Lewis as the chair of our Human Services sorry, our Homelessness Strategies and Investments Committee. And I just want to remind folks of the advice that all of us received from the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission, that our comments are limited to recitals. But because we are utilizing city resources currently, we are not allowed to speak either in favor or opposition of the substance of Charter Amendment 29. And so I just want folks to be my folks, members of the viewing public and us as colleagues, mindful of those ethics and elections restrictions that are applicable to us some handed over to Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. And those restrictions and rules became even more official, because I see Kevin Schofield tweeted about them earlier. So they are certainly out there for the general public to have seen and be aware of. I essentially spoke to this measure. In my remarks on item one on the agenda, I would just stress again, pro forma ministerial vote to vote on this today does not indicate support or opposition to the measure, but merely as acknowledging the sufficiency of the process to request that the clerk move to do everything logistically that they need to to place this matter on the ballot for November. And given that move that we we do so adopt and proceed with the vote.
Speaker 0: If you consider Lewis and again, the vote to approve this resolution is ministerial in nature and and is consistent with all applicable city laws. Are there any additional comments on the resolution? All right. Not seen any hands raised. Well, the police called the roll on the adoption of the resolution.
Speaker 2: Maurice, I. Louis.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: What else? Yes. Must gather. I Peterson I so want. Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 2: Herbold. Yes. And Council President Gonzalez. I sign in favor and and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The motion carries and the resolution is adopted. Moving to the report on the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee, will the correct please read item three into the right?
Speaker 6: Report of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item three Council Bill 120108 relating to the redevelopment of the Split Terrace Masterplan community. Amending Sections 23.70 5.163 of the Seattle Municipal Code. Replacing Exhibit C Tree Protection Plan of Ordinance 123962.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION regarding the voter-proposed City Charter Amendment 29 (Clerk File 321942); authorizing the City Clerk and the Executive Director of the Ethics and Elections Commission to take those actions necessary to enable the proposed amendment to appear on the November 2, 2021 ballot and in the local voters’ pamphlet; requesting the King County Elections Director to place the proposed City Charter amendment on the November 2, 2021 ballot; and providing for publication of the amendment.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_08022021_CB 120108
|
Speaker 6: Report of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item three Council Bill 120108 relating to the redevelopment of the Split Terrace Masterplan community. Amending Sections 23.70 5.163 of the Seattle Municipal Code. Replacing Exhibit C Tree Protection Plan of Ordinance 123962. The committee recommends that the bill pass as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Court consumer Strauss. You are the chair of the committee. I want to hand it over to you to walk us through this item.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President. Colleagues, as I said this morning and at previous council briefings, this legislation amends the tree protection plan element of the master plan to allow for the redevelopment of vacant passes. The vacant parcels are planned to be redeveloped to expand medical uses associated with Harborview Hospital, which is adjacent to the property and to construct an extended stay hotel which will also support patients and families at Harborview. Having myself spent multiple days in a row at Harborview Hospital, I can tell you that it was made easier because my family lives in the city. We are a regional hospital and having more extended stay opportunities across the street is going to be really a benefit for our entire region. This legislation does enable that development by allowing for the removal of two trees while increasing protections for other trees at in the yes or terrorist property. After working with the Seattle Housing Authority and touring the site, I successfully proposed an amendment to the legislation to increase the replacement requirement for the removed trees from a 1 to 1 replacement to a 3 to 1 replacement. Also appreciative of Councilmember Peterson bringing forward an amendment to put parameters around where replacement trees can be planted to ensure we get the most public benefit for the benefit of the Seattle Housing Authority residents. And with that Council president, I moved to pass Council Bill 120108 as amended, if that is appropriate at this time.
Speaker 0: An emotion is necessary since it went through the committee process and we already have a committee recommendation, but I appreciate that. Are there any additional comments on the bill? I'm not seeing any hands raised and there's more stress. Is there anything else you'd like to add?
Speaker 3: Nothing at this time. Just thankful to get these projects moving and to save and increase the amount of tree canopy there.
Speaker 0: Thanks so much. With that being said, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 2: Honest, I. Lewis.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Morales. Yes. Muscular, i. Peterson. I so want. Yes.
Speaker 3: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 2: Herbold. Yes. In Council President Gonzalez, I back 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? Will the clerk please read item four into the record?
Speaker 6: Agenda item for resolution 32010. Identify and propose comprehensive plan amendments to be considered for possible adoption in 2022 and requesting the Office of Planning and Community Development and the Seattle Planning Commission Review and make recommendations about proposed amendments.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to redevelopment at the Yesler Terrace Master Planned Community; amending Section 23.75.160 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and replacing Exhibit C, Tree Protection Plan, of Ordinance 123962.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_08022021_Res 32010
|
Speaker 6: Agenda item for resolution 32010. Identify and propose comprehensive plan amendments to be considered for possible adoption in 2022 and requesting the Office of Planning and Community Development and the Seattle Planning Commission Review and make recommendations about proposed amendments. The Committee recommends that the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Madam Clerk, because my address when I handed back over to you as this is an item related to your committee.
Speaker 3: I think it comes President. This is the annual comprehensive plan docket setting resolution, which sets the docket of comprehensive plan amendments that will be considered next year in 2022. This resolution provides predict predictability and transparency to the public and requests that OK'd in the Seattle Planning Commission review and make recommendations on the comprehensive plan amendments that Council intends to consider next year. I hope this year amendments can be submitted for by for council consideration by members of the public or by council members. The Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee and central staff consider amendments based on criteria the Council has set has previously set by resolution, and this year Council's central staff, the Office of Planning and Community Development and Seattle Planning Commission. We're all in agreement on the recommendations for docket ing of within this resolution. Two amendments are added to the docket by this resolution. An amendment from Council Member Lewis to remove an arterial street designation from West Florencia Street between Third Avenue North been in for background and reference. We cannot put traffic calming measures on arterial streets. And if anyone's driven on West Orange here, we know that this street needs. Traffic calming and it's a very narrow street. We also have an amendment from myself that would add language to the comprehensive plan to encourage the living. Putting a lid on freeways to reconnect communities and create new open space and buildable land. There are six other amendments proposed and were deemed as not meeting the criteria for docking. One of these is James Gracey. You did call in and spoke up about your project, a project that I think has great merit. Unfortunately, the comprehensive plan is not the correct vehicle for your reasons, since it is a single property. The proper reasoning process for a one piece of property is the contract rezoning process. This resolution that we are considering today is separate from the annual comprehensive plan amendment process, which we will be taking up in in September. So for reference, we set this resolution for what we will consider in September of 2022. What we are taking up in September of this year, in 2021 was taken up a year ago by resolution in August, July of 2020. So instead, these docketed proposals will be studied in the months to come and again considered in the 2022 round of amendments. Council President Checking with you. Do I need to move to adopt or we are good to go. Those are my that is the committee report on this bill.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you so much. Colleagues, any other excuse me, any other comments on this resolution? I have not seen any hands raised. Oh, there we go. Councilmember Hubble, please.
Speaker 6: All right. I tried to do it electronically, and it's not going as an option. My apologies. I wanted to mention a couple items that are included in this. Moving forward is a longstanding request from some members of the South Park community about the the South Park status as an urban village and the request for a report to council as described in some resolutions associated with that may take years ago. So I really appreciate that this amendment was included. Also want to speak to the fact that I'm pleased that the the amendment related to impact fees is is included. And then lastly, well, there's actually two more. Two more points as it relates to a transportation element that hasn't moved forward, because I think it's considered it wasn't considered because it was a repeat I repeat amendment. And that is specifically the event, the amendment in the transportation element of the comp plan to minimize damage from heavy vehicles . Just want to note that this is really an ongoing issue as it relates to the condition of the streets, specifically around areas where we have increased the use of transit and and also in areas where other types of long, large vehicle street vehicles are using the streets are just calling out the streets around Westwood Village as well as many in South Park. And so just want to flag my my interest in finding some way to work on this issue moving forward. And then lastly, member Strauss, thank you for staying request not move forward regarding an amendment for a proposed housing project in District one. I think we all agree that the vision for this property aligns with many other city goals related to neighborhood access, building, community wealth and combating displacement. I know OPC has stated that they are interested in working collaboratively with the property owner to identify other potential options for the site. And as Councilmember Strauss mentioned, a contract rezoning is one approach, another another approach that OPC has identified. Is the recent legislation passed that allows for affordable housing on religious property? The proponents of this of this compliant amendment have expressed an interest in building housing that is affordable to under 50% AMI and object states that under the religious property zoning legislation, the current zoning potentially would allow for 30 affordable housing units. And conceivably, this is a more expedient path forward since this Council Bill 12 0081 has already been passed. Conceivably, this might be a more expedient approach to meeting these goals rather than a commitment amendment. So looking forward to discussing the efforts and how to move forward with the project components. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Also.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Herbold, Councilman Lewis.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I just want to speak briefly to uplift the the hard work of all of the neighbors in the Florencia corridor who have been organizing for years to get some kind of action in this stretch to provide the necessary safety, security and placemaking that that neighborhood would like to do in this war on Shia in the Florencia area, but are currently unable to because of the designation as an arterial. I just wanted to say to everyone, if you're if you folks are listening up there in Florencia who've been organizing around this, we have heard, yeah, this is one more hurdle that that has passed to get some necessary changes in this corridor and have really appreciated working with you. I just wish that this could be happening faster. I definitely want to thank Councilmember Strauss for his leadership and making the time and carving out the space for consideration of this important change and look forward to moving it another step.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilor Lewis. Okay. Any other hands? If not, I'm going to let Strauss have the last word.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President, Council member Lewis. In terms of her role, that had great remarks. Well said. And colleagues, this process here is one example of why I have such strict parameters around the Land Use Committee about knowledge of intent, amendments and legislation. Because, as Councilmember Lewis pointed out, for us to make simple changes on the street requires your advance notice before we can even take it to the plant, before we can actually make changes. So thank you, colleagues, for indulging me in my early request for early notice. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. All right. Well, the clerk, please call the roll on the adoption of the resolution.
Speaker 2: Harris I.
Speaker 4: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 2: Morales Yes. Macheda. I. Peterson. I so want. Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: Herbals. Yes. In Council President Gonzalez, I, I'm in favor and and opposed.
Speaker 0: The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please to fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Moving now to the report of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee. Will the clerk please read item five into the record?
Speaker 6: The report is the Public Safety and Human Services Committee Agenda Item five Resolution 32011 approving the 2021 to 2026 revision to the Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan. The Committee recommends that the resolution be adopted as amended.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION identifying proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments to be considered for possible adoption in 2022 and requesting that the Office of Planning and Community Development and the Seattle Planning Commission review and make recommendations about proposed amendments.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_08022021_CB 120109
|
Speaker 6: The report of the Select Committee on Homelessness Strategies and Investments Agenda Item six Council Bill 120109 Relating to city finances, creating a fund for depositing donations, gifts and grants related to the City of Seattle's response to homelessness and provision of human services. The committee recommends that the bill pass as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Councilor Lewis, you are the chair of the committee. Somebody handed over to you to provide this report.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. In June, we had a hearing on this bill with central staff president to answer questions to the committee satisfaction. There were some slight changes that were made in consultation over the course of the month of July, leading up to last month's committee meeting, where CBO made a few technical changes to this bill. The committee then reported it out with no votes in opposition and I believe seven, eight or seven votes in favor. You know, just to speak to a very briefly, this bill before us will create a dedicated city fund to accept private contributions per approval from the Seattle City Council. The same way we approve all external grants and contributions of money to the to the municipal coffers in order to engage in homelessness, shelter and services projects. There are a number of stakeholders out there interested in figuring out ways to expedite efforts that the Council has, in many cases already funded, but ways that the impact could be stretched even further by taking advantage of offers from potential partners. As I've said many, many times in discussing this bill, private philanthropy is never going to replace concerted government action to solve the big problems that face our society, including the state of emergency on homelessness. But when folks do step forward to serve, it can make a discernible difference. And we should, as a city, carve out space to engage in those partnerships when possible. So well, with that, I urge passage of this bill and look forward to moving it out.
Speaker 0: It's so much consumer. LEWIS Are there any additional comments on the bill? Harry. None of the parties called a vote on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Gladys, I. Lewis.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 2: Morales. Yes. Must gether. I Peterson. I so want. Yes. Strauss Yes. Herbold. Yes. Council President Gonzalez high nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the caucuses affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Other business colleagues. If there is no objection, I am requesting to be excused from the Monday, August 9th, 2021 Council briefing and City Council meetings. Hearing no objection. I will be excused. From the August 9th, 2021 Council briefing and City Council meeting. Councilmember Peterson at is the Council President Pro tem for the month of August and he will preside over the council briefing and city council meetings on August 9th, 2021. My appreciation to Councilmember Peterson for stepping in as council president pro tem while I take a brief little break. Councilmember Strauss, I see that you have more than pleased.
Speaker 3: The council president just also requesting to be excused from council briefing on August 9th. I will be here for a full council.
Speaker 0: If there's no objection, Council Member Strauss will be excused from the August 9th, 2021 Council briefing meeting. Hearing no objection. Councilmember Strauss is excused from the August 9th, 2021 Council briefing meeting. Any other business? Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President I just want to.
Speaker 1: Remind that I had requested.
Speaker 2: To be excused for Monday.
Speaker 1: August 16th. I will be out of town that day as well.
Speaker 0: Okay. Have we already made that motion or do we need to make it again?
Speaker 2: We did that, I think, two weeks ago. But I just.
Speaker 1: Want to remind everybody now that it's coming up.
Speaker 2: Okay. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Any other further business to come before the council. Hearing NAN colleagues just conclude the items of business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled City Council meeting is on August 9th, 2021 at 2:00 PM. I hope that all of you have a wonderful afternoon. We're adjourned.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to City finances; creating a fund for depositing donations, gifts, and grants related to The City of Seattle’s response to homelessness and provision of human services.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07262021_CB 120126
|
Speaker 0: Strauss. Yes. And Council President Gonzalez high seven in favor nine opposed the human work the bill passes and the child will sign it. Will the work visa fix my signature piece of legislation on my behalf? Well, please read the short title of item one into the record. Agenda Item one Council Bill 12012 sets relating to Seattle Parks and Recreation authorizing an exchange of city owned property at Walt Playfield for property owned by Seattle's Seattle School District Number One adjacent to West Seattle Elementary School. Thank you so much. I moved past Council Bill 120126. Is there a second second? It's been moved the second to pass the bill and to hand it over to Councilmember Juarez, who is the prime sponsor of this bill, to address the item.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Council President, and thank.
Speaker 0: You for.
Speaker 4: Allowing this item to advance to full council. So Seattle.
Speaker 0: Parks and Seattle Public.
Speaker 4: Schools can meet their deadline. Colleagues, as I shared with you an email, an informational background email on.
Speaker 0: Friday.
Speaker 4: July 23rd.
Speaker 0: This executive proposed legislation will authorize.
Speaker 4: An exchange of city owned property at Walt Hunley, PLAYFIELD for property.
Speaker 0: Owned by.
Speaker 4: Seattle Public Schools.
Speaker 0: Adjacent to West Seattle Elementary School. We've done these common property swaps between parks and other city departments, such as START in the zoo and Aquarium. And now we're doing another one with Seattle Public Schools.
Speaker 4: Salem Public Schools in Sealed Parks and Rec began the process of formally transfer transferring these two pieces of property in the 1980s, but did not.
Speaker 0: Complete the legal process required for transferring the properties, including the execution.
Speaker 4: Of quick quitclaim deeds. The property trade involves two pieces of land of equal value in size.
Speaker 2: This trade.
Speaker 4: Will give Seattle Parks and Rec full control over.
Speaker 0: Its existing athletic.
Speaker 4: Field in Seattle public schools, full control and the ability to develop its.
Speaker 0: Property at the elementary school.
Speaker 4: Bill ensures that the portion of the property being transferred to Seattle Public Schools remains available for public outdoor recreation through the execution of an interlocal agreement between the two agencies.
Speaker 0: Madam President, I recommend that Council pass this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Consumer awareness. Do you have your handwriting? Thank you so much. I really appreciate Summer Warriors for bringing this forward for the viewing our listening public in District one. Just want to add a little bit of more detail about the Interlocal agreement. The Interlocal agreement specifies that the district will not develop or fence off the public recreation portion, but will have the ability to install a gate in the existing fence that will allow students to access and recreate the arrangement, equalizes the area of the transfers , and neither agency will be required to compensate the other for the exchange. And the legislation does not in any way change the current use of the affected pieces of property. They'll continue to be used as they are now, but with underlying ownership appropriately held by the correct agency user things. And you do so much because number herbals. Are there any additional comments on the. No. Caring and honorable. The clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill. Herbert Juarez, I.
Speaker 1: Louis Yes.
Speaker 0: PETERSON.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Sergeant.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Strauss.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: And counseled President Gonzalez. Yes seven a favor and opposed the bill passes and the chair will sign it will the fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read item two into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Parks and Recreation; authorizing an exchange of City-owned property at Walt Hundley Playfield for property owned by Seattle School District No. 1 adjacent to West Seattle Elementary School; authorizing execution, acceptance, and recording of quitclaim deeds; authorizing an interlocal agreement ensuring public outdoor recreation use of a portion of property deeded to Seattle Public Schools; and finding that the land exchange meets the requirements of Ordinance 118477, which adopted Initiative 42; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07262021_CF 314479
|
Speaker 0: And counseled President Gonzalez. Yes seven a favor and opposed the bill passes and the chair will sign it will the fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read item two into the record?
Speaker 4: Agenda item to file.
Speaker 0: 314471. Designation Official Facial Recognition Technology Surveillance Technology Pursuant to Seattle Surveillance Ordinance. Seattle Municipal Code 1418 020. Thank you so much. I move to approve Clark Kyle 314479. Is there a second?
Speaker 1: Second.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to approve files. 314479. I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Herbold, who is a co-sponsor of this file item to address the item. Thank you again so much and really appreciate the opportunity to work with Councilmember Peterson on this bill. He is the chair of the committee that has oversight of the surveillance technology related actions. And so and so this is a clerk file to the surveillance ordinance. Really appreciate his leadership. And in helping me work through some of the issues related to our recent Office of Professional Accountability Investigation, where the director concluded that an officer's use of facial recognition technology was not in violation of the city's surveillance ordinance. We received analysis from central staff. The analysis shows that the facial recognition technology is currently within the jurisdiction and purview of the surveillance ordinance, meaning that the use of the technology is currently prohibited unless reviewed and approved as described in that graphic or as described in the in the ordinance itself. But in order to eliminate any confusion in the future, whether facial recognition technology is covered by the surveillance ordinance, council central staff recommended that we use the clerk file as the mechanism for this particular clarification. We've also sort of heard differing opinions from from Chief Diaz in the Seattle Police Department back in November of 2020, when this issue was first brought to public awareness awareness. Chief Diaz wrote that SPD does not use Clearview AI and has no intention of using Clearview AI. And he went on to say, As chief, I'm committed to upholding the tenets of the surveillance ordinance and the civil liberties of our residents. Clearview AI's business product is at odds with those two central priorities. Further on my request again last year, the chief sent out a department wide communication reminding everyone in the same police department about the policy. It made clear that one cannot use personal technology as a means to bypass city policies. And included for the review of the employees what the actual content of the policies were. Certainly the chief publicly indicated that it is a gray area, saying it's not. It is his position. That surveillance ordinance, as presently codified, covers the use of facial recognition software. And again, the clerk file before the council today will ensure that in the future the surveillance ordinance is very clear that it does include the use of facial recognition technology and will be subject to the review process outlined in the ordinance . Thank you. Thank you so much, Councilmember Herbals. Any additional comments on the quick file? Councilmember Peterson, please.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council president? Yes. As council member, Herbold said, approving this quickfire would designate facial recognition technology as surveillance technologies, who would then be subject to the thorough review and approval process as prescribed by Seattle's strong surveillance ordinance. The there's actually a SNC section 14.1 8.0204 that states that council may at any time designate that a technology is or is not surveillance technology, and it actually asks for a clerk trial to do that. So thanks to the foresight of the authors of the surveillance ordinance for giving us this option to do this today, and we encourage you to adopt this court file. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. PETERSON Any additional comments on the Clarke file? I'm not seeing any other hands raised. Well, the clerk please call the role on the approval of the cork file. Purple's. It's.
Speaker 4: CLARENCE Hi.
Speaker 1: Lewis Yes. PETERSON Yes.
Speaker 0: So what?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Strauss Yes. And Council President Gonzalez. Yes. Seven in favor, nine opposed the motion carries and the clerk file is approved. Will the clerk please read item three into the record? Agenda Item three quick file 314456. Sold Unit Lot Subdivision Application by Solar Real Estate six LLC to subdivide three parcels into eight parcels of land and one of
|
Clerk File (CF)
|
Designation of Facial Recognition Technology as Surveillance Technology pursuant to Seattle Surveillance Ordinance, Seattle Municipal Code 14.18.020.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07262021_CF 314456
|
Speaker 0: Strauss Yes. And Council President Gonzalez. Yes. Seven in favor, nine opposed the motion carries and the clerk file is approved. Will the clerk please read item three into the record? Agenda Item three quick file 314456. Sold Unit Lot Subdivision Application by Solar Real Estate six LLC to subdivide three parcels into eight parcels of land and one of those parcels into 13 unit lots at 11200 Andrus Way North East. Thank you so much. I move to file Clark file three. One, four, four, five, six. Is there a second?
Speaker 3: Second?
Speaker 0: Thank you so much has been seconded to file clerk file 314, four, five, six. I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Strauss to address the item.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Council President this clerk file. And our next item number four on the agenda.
Speaker 1: Is the ordinance that will be associated with this clerk. While Clerk Baran took most of my speaking points for me, because this is a technical and legal matter where City Council's role is to ensure that this process has certified the needs, that the plan meets all the conditions previously set by the hearing examiner. So let me go through the points here. This file and the following council will grant.
Speaker 3: Final approval to the quote.
Speaker 1: Pines at North Cape, unquote, subdivision at 1014, Northeast 1/112 Street.
Speaker 3: And Northgate.
Speaker 1: This plot divides one person to eight, with one of those parcels being further subdivided into 13 unit lots for individual townhome sales. In total, the project includes 13.
Speaker 3: Townhomes and seven.
Speaker 1: Live work units. Our role, the council's role in this process is to again certify that the plot meets all the conditions previously set by the hearing examiner. Seattle Department of Transportation, Seattle Department of Construction, Inspections and Council central staff.
Speaker 3: Have all confirmed that the plat meets all.
Speaker 1: Requirements and recommend the council approves this application. With that in mind, I moved to place clerk file 314456 on file. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Strauss. Are there any additional comments on the quick file? Harry Nunn. Well, the piece called The Roll on the Filing of the Park File. Both. Yes. Lawrence, I. Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Peterson.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Sergeant.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Strauss.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: And Council President Gonzalez. Yes. Seven in favor and opposed the motion carries and the clerk file is placed on file. Will the clerk please read item four into the record? Agenda item for Council Bill 120127 approving confirming the plot of the ponds at Northgate and the portions of north east quarter of Southeast Order of section 29, township
|
Clerk File (CF)
|
Full unit lot subdivision application of Isola Real Estate VI, LLC, to subdivide three parcels into eight parcels of land and one of those parcels into 13 unit lots at 11200 Pinehurst Way NE. (Project No. 3032523-LU; Type III).
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07262021_CB 120127
|
Speaker 0: And Council President Gonzalez. Yes. Seven in favor and opposed the motion carries and the clerk file is placed on file. Will the clerk please read item four into the record? Agenda item for Council Bill 120127 approving confirming the plot of the ponds at Northgate and the portions of north east quarter of Southeast Order of section 29, township 26, North Range four, east and Central Washington. Thank you. I moved to pass Council Bill 120127. Is there a second?
Speaker 1: Second?
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. The bill has been moved and seconded for passage. I'm going to hand it back over to you. Caspar Strauss, in the event that there is anything else you'd like to add.
Speaker 3: Bank accounts present in the clerk, Brian have done a wonderful job.
Speaker 1: This is the Associated Counsel bill to the previous clerk filed.
Speaker 3: The quote pines at north gate.
Speaker 1: Unquote. All subject matter has already been covered and therefore I move to pass Council Bill 120127.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you so much. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing that. Will the court please call the roll on the passage of the bill? Both. Suarez. Lewis. Yes. Pearson.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Sir. I want. Yes. Strauss Yes. And Council President Gonzalez Yes. Seven in favor, nine opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the caucuses affect my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read items five through 11 into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE approving and confirming the plat of “The Pines at Northgate” in the portions of Northeast Quarter of Southeast Quarter of Section 29, Township 26 North, Range 4 East, W.M. in King County, Washington.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07192021_CB 120123
|
Speaker 3: Agenda Item one.
Speaker 0: Council Bill 120123.
Speaker 3: Relating to taxation.
Speaker 2: Delaying the effective date of.
Speaker 0: Heating oil tax on heating oil.
Speaker 3: Service providers under Chapter.
Speaker 0: 5.470 Municipal Code.
Speaker 2: And delaying the date of.
Speaker 0: The Office of Sustainability Environment's.
Speaker 3: First annual Heating Oil Tax.
Speaker 0: Program Status.
Speaker 1: Report.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. I moved past council bill 1 to 0 one two, three. Is there a second? I can. Thank you so much. It's been Ed to pass the bill. I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Morales, who is the sponsor of this bill to address the item.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President So this bill would delay the effective date of the heating oil tax on heating oil service providers. Colleagues may remember that in response to community concerns about the impact of this tax, particularly on low and middle income households during COVID, we delayed implementation last August, delayed through 2020 September 1st, 2021. Another reason for the delay was related to Washington's pollution liability insurance agencies, new heating oil loan and grant program. We what had been discussed as a grant program last year now sounds like it might be going to a loan program. And so replacing these oil takes can cost tens of thousands of dollars. And for low income families, this is a real challenge, no matter how eager they may be to participate in a conversion. So June 1st of this year, the Office of Sustainability in the Environment provided an update to the heating oil loan program and based on feedback from from customers and others. And because the those final rules have not yet been put in place, OAC is proposing that we delay another six months before this tax becomes in effect. So that is the bill that's before you. I do want to thank members of Teamsters 174 and other labor partners who've contacted me about this bill. Many of their members would themselves be subject to this and are frankly nervous about the impacts of having to, you know, have pay the tax that would be passed on to them and also just bear the cost of making these kinds of conversions right now without assurance about the kind of support that they would be willing to get. So they're supportive of this delay while we assess other funding streams and while we wait for the final rule changes from clear. So that is what's before us today. And I'm recommending passage.
Speaker 0: If you have someone on our list for that description, are there any additional comments on the bill? Councilmember members, please.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I will be voting yes on this legislation to delay the implementation of the heating oil tax that Durkan first proposed a year and a half ago. The climate emergency is an existential threat to all of humanity, and we must have a serious and internationalist approach to ending greenhouse gas emissions. And in this case, unfortunately, the heating oil tax is not a serious approach. Yes, heating oil is a terrible fuel. But the reality is people in Seattle do not need a tax to motivate them to switch away from heating oil. Heating oil is expensive, dirty and inconvenient. And the main reason people still use oil burning heaters in Seattle is when they are simply unable to afford to switch to something better. Ideally electricity. My office discussed between 50 Seattle and they confirmed that from their outreach. They found that it is overwhelmingly poor and working class households that have oil heaters and people are switching to other types of heaters whenever they have the means to do so. Ultimately, that means that mail Durkin's proposed climate solution is yet another regressive tax, which is not a surprise. This is very dangerous. Not only does the tax have a very small potential impact on the climate positive impact to deal with the climate crisis. It also adds to the false narrative of blaming consumers and ordinary people for the climate emergency, which lets the big businesses responsible for 90% of greenhouse gas emissions off the hook. We need the opposite. We need we need measures that will actually change the way corporations are functioning. And ultimately, what we need is a militant climate justice movement nationwide and internationally that can take fossil fuel companies into democratic public ownership. We also need to fight for policies on the way to achieving all of those larger goals, which are frankly, urgently needed. That is why the Amazon tax movement fought to tax big businesses to fund the Green New Deal, for Seattle, to make funding available for people to retrofit their homes, for weatherization, and to get away from fossil fuels. And the big business taxes we won include a substantial 20 million climate infrastructure investment paid for by taxes on polluting big businesses, not on working people. Of course, $20 million is far less than is needed because the Amazon tax will significantly reduce when it was rebranded as Jumpstart in an attempt to minimize the essential impact of the grassroots movement. If climate organizers are motivated to fight to increase the Amazon tax next year, to expand the investments for dealing with the climate crisis, and we should absolutely be fighting for that. My office will obviously be standing with them. The city also needs to support the Stop the money pipeline movement, demand to boycott the financial institutions and insurance companies that fund fossil fuel infrastructure like tar sands pipeline. This is an excellent example of policies that we need to do in the here and now. My office as chair of the Sustainability and Renters Rights Committee is preparing legislation to empower the Green New Deal Oversight Board to review and rank financial institutions and insurance companies applying for City of Seattle grants. It is big business and the super rich that control the infrastructure of our society under capitalism. And we must build the movement to make them pay for the infrastructure to end this crisis. I'll be voting yes on this vote. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Are there any additional comments on the bill? I don't see any other hands raised customer or moralist. Anything else to add before we call?
Speaker 3: The.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Well, the piece called a roll on the passage of the. Strauss.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Herbals. Yes. Suarez.
Speaker 2: I. Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Morales.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: Most gather by Petersen.
Speaker 2: I so want.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 2: Thank Council President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: High nine in favor and unopposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign. It will please affixed my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Well, the clerk please read the short title of item two into the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to taxation; delaying the effective date of the heating oil tax on heating oil service providers under Chapter 5.47 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and delaying the date of the Office of Sustainability and Environment’s first annual heating oil tax program status report.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07192021_CB 120113
|
Speaker 0: Reported the Finance and Housing.
Speaker 2: Committee Agenda Item two.
Speaker 0: Council Vote 120113.
Speaker 2: Relating to.
Speaker 3: The multifamily, housing and Property Tax Exemption Program.
Speaker 0: The committee recommends that the bill pass. Thank you so much. Councilor Mesquita, you are the chair of this committee, and I'm going to hand it over to you to provide the committee report. Thank you, Council President. Apologies, colleagues. My internet is unstable, so I am using my phone. Can you hear me? Okay? Council President. We can hear you. Go ahead. Excellent. Thank you. Call this item number two. The 120113 is the MFT extension legislation that narrowly relates to projects whose timelines have been impacted by the pandemic. The Multifamily Tax Exemption Program, which provides tax exemptions in exchange for the creation of units affordable up to 80% of the area. Median income is to be included in the new family rental housing development. This last legislative session, the state legislature made several changes to the MFA program to address a range of program issues. This legislation follows up on the state changes with a narrow focus on projects that have been impacted by COVID. We will be considering another round of MFA legislation in August to respond to other state legislative changes and.
Speaker 1: Programmatic.
Speaker 0: Updates, including considering authorizing extension for empty units that are expiring in the next couple of years to keep those units affordable. This legislation today, though, is narrowly focused on a small handful of projects that have been impacted by COVID and therefore need an additional timeline to be completed. Thank you so much, governors dinner or any additional comments on the bill. Hearing no additional comments on the bill. Well, the piece called The Roll on the Passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 2: Herbold Yes. Suarez, I.
Speaker 1: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 3: Morales Yes.
Speaker 0: Macheda. Hi, Peterson.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 0: So what?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: And Council President Gonzalez I.
Speaker 2: Nine in favor and and opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it will the quick piece of fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Item three Will the clerk please read item three into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Multifamily Housing Property Tax Exemption Program; amending Section 5.73.070 of the Seattle Municipal Code to temporarily allow certain extensions of the Multifamily Housing Property Tax Exemption program completion deadline as permitted by state law; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07192021_CB 120118
|
Speaker 2: Agenda Item three Council.
Speaker 3: Bill.
Speaker 0: 120118.
Speaker 2: Related to creating a fund for.
Speaker 3: Payroll expense tax.
Speaker 0: Revenues, adding a new section 5.38.055.
Speaker 3: To the Seattle.
Speaker 0: Municipal.
Speaker 1: Code and.
Speaker 2: Providing.
Speaker 0: Additional guidelines for extending proceeds. The committee recommends.
Speaker 3: The bill pass as.
Speaker 0: Amended. Thank you so much, Madam Clerk, as more receipt of this one is also out of your committee. So when I handed back over to you and I know you're having some technical challenges right now, but we can hear you and see you loud and clear, so and so. Feel free to take it away. Thank you very much. Council President colleagues. I am excited about the legislation and want to thank everybody for calling in today to express their support as well for Council Bill 120118, which creates the Jumpstart Seattle Fund. This is a commitment of the Jumpstart Seattle legislation that we passed last year, and it has been widely acknowledged that the Jumpstart Progressive Tax meant that this year there was no budgetary layoffs, no deep cuts to city services, and we were able to continue poor services, especially for our most vulnerable during COVID. We were also able to invest in economic resiliency, direct investments into hard working families and small businesses. And this follows on the court victory for Seattle's Jumpstart Funds, who have received a notable ruling that meant that Seattle's Jumpstart legislation was on solid ground in 2022. As you council passed, our spend plan is focused on permanent funding strategies for affordable housing, equitable development, Green New Deal investments and economic resilience. Subsequent budgets have centered on all subsequent budgets have centered on what we landed on housing, homelessness, economic resilience, direct aid. Many of the important investments that we're making in the upcoming years since the beginning of COVID have really helped center our policy investments on how we create a more equitable recovery, how we house more Seattle, and how we look forward to creating a greener local economy. Importantly, we took advancements in this legislative document in front of you to accomplish two goals. Number one, create more transparency around the jump start revenues by creating a fund to track exactly how the projected revenue aligns with the actual revenue. Again, the estimates on the conservative side are expected to bring in over $214 million each year, which is like receiving a American Rescue Plan Act fund twice each year for the next 20 years. This is important legislation that created the fund, but we also want to make sure that those projections are aligning with what the actual revenue is so that we can have a strong spend plan that mirrors those investments. The second thing that this legislation does is it makes good on the large coalition promises that stood behind this proposal to work together to create a strong spend plan. And we want to make sure that those investments are additive, additive to other core investments that our city council and our city community will be making in this upcoming budget, especially in our bipoc communities. It's an alignment with our transparency and our commitments to serving the most vulnerable. We're intending to make sure that this jumpstart dollars, though, do exactly what OAKLAND. As an important reminder, the categories in our spend plan includes 62% of the funds going into affordable housing. This is affordable housing going for families at 30% month below 9%. Going into equitable development initiative. 9% going into Green New Deal priorities. 15% going into economic revitalization. And the remaining 5% is going into the General Fund for administration of the program. I have more to say on those investments after we consider the bill, but I just want to say thank you for your unanimous passage of the spend plan last July, and this codifies that important step as we prepare for 2022. Madam President, I do have an amendment, as I discussed this morning, when you are ready for that. And why don't we go ahead and take up the amendment now and then if others want to make comments about the bill as amended, they will be able to to do that all in one fell swoop. So why don't we go ahead and tick up the amendment? You did spend some time on it this morning, so I think folks are going to be pretty ready to go. But let's let's let's talk about Amendment One and then we'll we'll have discussion and take. Thank you, Madam President. I move to amend from civil 120118 as presented on amendments number one and two this morning. So actually. It's been moved and seconded that the bill be amended as presented on Amendment one because members get to hand it back over to you to walk us through that amendment. Thank you very much, Mr. Herbold, and terribly amused for the support for the amendment and the president. Colleagues, as I mentioned this morning, this amendment accomplishes two things. And I want to thank you for sending around a memo that summarize it. First is it adds a recital expressing the council's intent to consider committing additional funding this year to the no further notice for funding opportunities for affordable housing. We have various rounds of bills for funds and we want to make sure that dollars are appropriated to affordable housing acquisition and development in the 2022 budget. Recognizing there are additional opportunities, things to jump start to ramp up our acquisition, development of affordable housing in the current markets that we should be acting on now. It was also noted in the public commenters notes as well. So thank you for your support on that. More work to come. Thank you, Councilmember Lewis. I also want to present the DA for all of your interest in working with our office on the second thing that this amendment does. Further request of FASB and the City Budgets Office is that it clarifies the 2021 Jumpstart Revenue will be deposited into the general fund and not into the Jumpstart Seattle Fund that is being created with this legislation at the request of this additional clarification, just to make sure that our legislative intent was clear, and this is very much in alignment with what we had already agreed to last year when we passed it, recognizing that 2020 and 20 $21 were going into investments for COVID relief and for government services to make sure that our most vulnerable have the services they need. So so I just want to reiterate that this is in line with what our original intent was and happy to make that decision for our team at Finance Administrative Services. Thanks again to director Glen Lee, who's been leading the community engagement on rulemaking and thanks as well to city budget director Ben Nimble and his team as well for helping to work with us on this technical amendment to have it included. Thank you so much. Customers. Looks like we have one hand raised, so I'm going to call on Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Council President and thank you, Chair Mesquita, for putting forward this amendment on the intent language for adding money to affordable housing production and acquisition. I know the the, the new whereas recital does not have a lot of details in it, which is good. I just want to signal my interest in having any additional funding go to. To the extent possible, those who are experiencing homelessness. So those on the lower end of the scale, the 0 to 30%. AMI since we're in this crisis now, wanted to make sure that money is targeted to the lowest income possible, extremely low income. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. Any other additional comments on Amendment One? Hearing no additional comments on Amendment One will occur. Please call the role on the adoption of Amendment One.
Speaker 2: Strauss.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 2: HERBOLD Yes.
Speaker 3: SUAREZ Right.
Speaker 1: LEWIS Yes.
Speaker 2: Morales Yes. Musgrave.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Peterson I.
Speaker 0: So want. Yes. And Council President Gonzalez I stand in favor and unopposed. The motion carries, the amendment is adopted and the amended bill is before the council. Are there any additional comments on the amended bill? Okay. I'm not seeing it. I'm not seeing any hands raised. So customers get. You get the last word. And then we will call the role on the passage of the bill as amended. Thank you, colleagues. Excited for this legislation to pass. And I just have two summary comments to make about where the dollars go. And thank you again for the unanimous support last year for the Senate plan. I'll build on Councilmember Peterson's comment as well, just as a reiteration of this council's commitment to serving our most vulnerable with these jump start funds. As a reminder, colleagues and members of the community, 62% of the Jumpstart Fund goes to affordable housing, including housing serving households at or below 30% of the area median income. A portion of the funding is set aside specifically for community focused acquisition and housing to address past discriminatory practices and policies such as redlining and racial restrictive covenants , and making sure that there's more first time home ownership options, especially for those who are at highest risk of displacement and have faced barriers due to past discriminatory practices. This is going to have a disproportionately positive impact for our bipoc communities who are impacted by the lack of access to affordable housing and higher rates of homelessness in Seattle. These funds are designed to benefit those who've been historically marginalized. Specifically, black adults represent 28% homeless household population receiving services in our city services right now. That's more than quadruple the percentage in King County's population. And I think county black adults are evicted at 5.5 times more often than white adults. Roughly 51% of white households in Seattle own their homes, while 25% of Hispanic households and 24% of black households are own their homes. We see these disproportionate rates of home ownership and who is being affected by housing instability and possible evictions to come. And we know that these disparities have only been exacerbated by COVID. And that's why I'm so excited to work with you as we implement the housing component of Jumpstart. 9% of the funding, both equitable development initiatives. That means for projects advancing economic opportunity, preventing displacement, meeting our community needs by building things like housing and childcare space for small businesses, culturally competent community spaces as well. 9% goes into Green New Deal priorities to transition folks in off of fossil fuels in their homes so that more homeowners are able to stay in place just like we just talked about with the previous bill and invest in job training options for just transition with specific emphasis on outreach to bipoc communities to create pathways for good green union jobs for our local communities. And this again has a disproportionate positive impact for our.
Speaker 2: Bipoc.
Speaker 0: Specifically because we are experiencing highest rates of environmental injustice in our bipoc communities. We've seen that those who've been impacted by heat waves show that our bipoc communities are in neighborhoods that have been previously red lines and are disproportionately impacted, a person exposed to all types of air pollution. We can make investments by Green New Deal investments that are outlined here in the Jumpstart Seattle proposal, and I'm really excited to see this legislation move forward with such a heavy emphasis on green media investment. And finally, 15% of funds go to economic revitalization. This is focused on local economic recovery and resiliency, workforce stability, labor training, and looking at opportunities for greater diversity among our local economies so that we improve the overall stability of Seattle. And there's two important components in this legislation that we're back to today. One is that it includes a value that we can look at the jump for Seattle funds. If there is incredible shortfalls in our projected COVID baseline projections for revenues in 2022 and beyond. That's a smart thing to do. Budgetary, and I think help set us up for both success with our spend plan and in the case that we have to the ability to be flexible. And we've also built in this legislation the exact language that our council passed last year was, which was a desire to set up an oversight board with the inclusion of community at the table as specified in the legislation to pass, so that there is year to year updates to council and a direct community oversight component to make sure that. These dollars are being spent the way that we have said. Thank you for your consideration of this bill in front of us that sets up the system so that we have greater equity and access to this. Jumpstart those. Thanks so much. Government data that closes out debate in discussion on the bill as amended. So I'm going to ask that the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the amended bill.
Speaker 2: Strauss.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: Herbold. Yes. Suarez.
Speaker 1: LEWIS Yes.
Speaker 3: Morales Yes.
Speaker 0: Macheda Hi.
Speaker 1: Peterson I.
Speaker 0: So want.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 2: And Council President Gonzalez I nine in.
Speaker 0: Favor not opposed the bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affixed my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the court please read item four into the record? The Report of the Governance.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE related to creating a fund for Payroll Expense Tax revenues; adding a new Section 5.38.055 to the Seattle Municipal Code; and providing additional guidelines for expending proceeds.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07192021_CB 120120
|
Speaker 0: Favor not opposed the bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affixed my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the court please read item four into the record? The Report of the Governance.
Speaker 3: And Education Committee agenda item for Council Bill 120120.
Speaker 0: Relating to the employment of public records, officers, returning positions to civil.
Speaker 3: Service system and amending section.
Speaker 1: 4.13.10.
Speaker 0: Of municipal code. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you so much as chair of the committee. I'll go ahead and provide the committee report and ask if there are any additional comments on the bill before we call it to a roll. Colleagues, as I've mentioned previously, this council bill would give civil service status to the five public disclosure officers who process the public records request of elected officials for the city of Seattle, including the mayor's office, the Legislative Department and the city attorney's office. This legislation was developed in partnership with city attorney Pete Holmes after engagement with the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission, Seattle Information Technology Department and Public Disclosure Officers. And it is intended to ensure that the city of Seattle employees are shielded from undue political influence while carrying out their duties to respond to Public Records Act requests on behalf of elected officials. The legislation is an important step towards protecting the transparency and effectiveness of our public disclosure process, especially when the request is directed at an elected official. The Governance and Education Committee considered this bill and her presentations from our council's central staff and unanimously recommended that the Council bill be adopted by the City Council. And I'd like to encourage all of my colleagues to join us in voting to adopt this legislation. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Customers get a police. Thank you, Madam President. I just want to say thank you for your leadership on this legislation. I think that this is a really important aspect of creating greater transparency and accountability and an easy yes for me. I think that it's exciting to see how this bill put us in alignment with King County and Washington State. That and progress provides the public with a greater sense of trust about how we both make policy decisions based on those budgetary reports that we receive. I appreciate all the work that has been put into this legislation to create greater confidence in our forecasting capabilities of the city and help us create stronger financial positions going forward. Appreciate the work that you have done thanks to your team in special place as well. And I want to thank you and Tom for their work as you considered this legislation. I think it makes a lot of sense and look forward to working with you to implement. Thank you. You I think you're talking about agenda item five. We're on agenda item for right now, which is on the civil service bill. But I'm sorry. That's okay. Don't worry about it. Don't worry about it. Okay. So any additional comments on the bill? Hearing none. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill? Strauss.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 2: Herbold. Yes. Suarez. Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: Morales.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: Marcella. Hi. Petersen. I so want.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: And Council President Gonzalez. I mean, I'm in favor and unopposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please to fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will a quick please read the short title of item five into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment of public records officers; returning positions to the civil service system; and amending Section 4.13.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07192021_CB 120124
|
Speaker 3: Agenda Item five Council.
Speaker 0: Bill 120124 Relating to the Organization of City Government Creating an Office of Economic and Revenue Forecasts, the committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you so much, Madam Clerk. As Chair of the committee again, I'll provide the committee report and then happy to open it up to any additional comments on the bill. Colleagues, I'm excited to be voting on this legislation today after nearly nine months of collaborative negotiations with the executive to develop this legislation. I believe that establishing the Office of Economic and Revenue Forecasts will create a more open, transparent and robust forecasting process that will enhance both the Council's and the public's access to and understanding of the city's budgetary forecasts. The implementation of this office should also improve the dynamic between future councils and future mayors by building a stronger foundation of trust and balance between the branches as it relates to the development of the city's budget priorities. There are two prominent events during 2020 forecasting process that highlighted for me and many others how important it is to level the playing field between the council and the mayor's office with regard to our access to information related to the city's forecasting process. Those events prompted me, my staff and central staff, to look at alternative models for how governmental bodies develop their budget forecasts. And indeed, both Washington State and King County utilize independent forecasting offices that are outside of the legislative and executive branches. King County went so far as to pursue a voter approved charter amendment in 2008 in order to create their Office of Economic and Financial Analysis. Fortunately, based on my and central staff's review of the analysis conducted by our City Attorney's Office, we at the City Council are able to establish our own independent office in a manner consistent with our city charter. And the legislation we're voting on today is reflective of all of the feedback that we received from the city attorney's review and their legal advice upon its creation. The Economic Revenue Forecast Office would provide independent forecasts and economic analysis, fulfilling the policy intent of the Council budget action that this Council previously took. And that was included in the 2021 budget that was adopted. It would also consist of three and a half full time equivalents through a combination of newly created positions and transferred positions from our city budget Office and Finance and Administrative Services. This new office would be headed by a director who would be hired by and report to a new forecast council comprised of the mayor, the city finance director, the council president and the Council Budget Chair, or their respective designees. The Forecast Council would be responsible for providing oversight of the new office and for approving the forecasts. The Governance and Education Committee did have a conversation and presentation on this particular proposed piece of legislation and unanimously recommended that the Council bill be passed and adopted by the full Council. And I'd like to encourage my colleagues to join us in voting to adopt this legislation. Are there any comments on the bill? Councilman Strauss, please.
Speaker 1: I think your council president will be supporting this legislation today. I think this is a smart choice to remove a city, but to create a an office forecast office that is not tied to either the executive or the council. I'm just going to take this moment to really share kudos of the city budget office. Last year during the recession and reopening of our of our economy. Because as compared to the state level the city budget office really did an amazing job of making accurate predictions that we could work off of as compared to the state that did a little bit had a bigger drop and a bigger rebound. So I know that we have the tools and I know that our city budget office is doing great work. And I think that this year legislation today is the next great step. Thank you, council president.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Strauss. Really appreciate that. Any other customer, Herbold, please. Thank you. Just really quickly, I also want to thank you, Council President Gonzales, for moving forward. The intent that the council expressed again under your leadership during the budget discussions last year to create this independent office. This is, I think, considered a best practice and really appreciate knowing that moving forward, whether or not it's at times when there are increased revenue forecasts or or potential reductions in revenue, that the Council will have access to that information as opposed to sort of the current practice where an often we find it out at the same time when there are budget proposals to. To cut or add. So it will allow us as the body that is most responsive, engaged with the public to to give input to those budget discussions and decisions. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, Councilmember Peterson, please.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President. I wanted to also explain my support for this new office. There were some articles written about this proposal recently that delved into legal issues and looking at the city charter. And I think that it was healthy to to to raise these issues. I did some additional research, got additional comfort with with that aspect of it from a from a practical standpoint, having worked for a budget chair many years ago and the timing of these revenue forecasts has also been a source of frustration. And so I think it's important to to have both branches collaborating on on this. This data about what the revenues are going to be, how we're predicting them, and having that information at the same time so that we're so that legislative branch isn't sitting around waiting. When is this information going to come so that we can then figure out how to make decisions since we ultimately have to adopt the budget and decide whether to amend it. So I was really pleased when you brought this proposal up and then the more to geologists I've done, it seems like it's going to be good for the city that we have this information at the same time, both the executive and legislative branches. So thank you for bringing that forward.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilor Pearson. Appreciate that. Any additional comments on the bill? I've not seen any other hands raised, so I'll go ahead and closes out. I think Councilmember Peterson stole the words right out of my mouth. And that's the note that I wanted to end on, is that I think that as the budget appropriation authority, it has seemed odd to me in the six years that I have served on the council to oftentimes feel like we are caught on the back of our heels when we're receiving revenue forecast changes in the middle of and sometimes towards the end of our budgeting processes. So I think that this bill will allow for more equitable access to information and to more timely access to relevant information in a way that will really allow and facilitate for the co-equal branches of government at government, at the city of Seattle, to really function like co-equal branches of government, and to make sure that both of us have an opportunity to really fulfill our duty and obligation as both the budget proposer and the budget doctors for the City Government. So I'm excited about an opportunity to advance this bill and appreciate the ongoing support of my colleagues in the effort to advance this this important, important piece of legislation. Did want to thank did want to thank Cody writer in my office for all of his hard work over the last nine months, as well as Ali Pankey and Tom McPhail. And also, of course, appreciate the the collaborative opportunity that we had with the city budget office and with other members of the executive to come up with a shared plan and vision on how this can be achieved in a way that fulfills both the executive's desire and ours as well. So with that being said, I'm going to go ahead and close that debate and ask that to please call the roll and the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: GROSS Yes.
Speaker 2: HERBOLD Yes. Suarez. Guy.
Speaker 1: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 3: Morales Yes.
Speaker 0: Rosetta, I.
Speaker 1: Peterson I.
Speaker 0: So want.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: And Council President Gonzalez High.
Speaker 2: Line in favor.
Speaker 0: And unopposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the court please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Is there any further business to come before the Council? Right. Hearing that, colleagues, this does conclude the items of business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is scheduled for Monday, July 26, 2021, at 2:00 PM. I hope everyone has a wonderful afternoon. We are here to thank you.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the organization of City government; creating an Office of Economic and Revenue Forecasts; adding a new Chapter 3.44 to, amending Section 3.39.010 and 3.39.035 of, and repealing Section 3.40.060 and Chapter 3.82 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07122021_Res 32009
|
Speaker 3: The report of the Transportation and Utilities Committee agenda and one Resolution 32009 providing an honorary designation of South Hill Street between 21st and 22nd Avenue South as Clarence Cox Jr Way. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Because Pearson, as chair of the committee, you are recognized in order to provide the committee report.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President I would be interested in turning this over to one of the sponsors that they would like. I know Casper Morales spoke to it this morning, if that would be okay with the council president.
Speaker 0: If that is your preference as chair, I'm happy to call on Councilmember Morales.
Speaker 2: Yes. And I'm happy to speak to it as well. They're not available.
Speaker 0: Go ahead, Councilman Morales.
Speaker 1: Fine. Thank you, Chair Peterson. So as we discussed in the Transportation Committee, this resolution is to honor Clarence Cox Jr. For nearly 50 years, since 1971. He's helped develop the talents of hundreds of young people, young Seattle musicians, as director of the Garfield High School's internationally renowned jazz ensemble. He's been director of all band programs at Garfield and more recently was the founding educator at Seattle's Jay-Z program. Under Mr. Cox's direction, the Garfield Jazz Ensemble took first place in 23, 24, 29, 2010 at New York's essentially Ellington National Jazz Band Competition and Festival at New York City's Lincoln Center, where they swept every major competition on the West Coast, including the Lionel Hampton Jazz Festival in Moscow, Idaho, and Oregon's Mt. Hood Jazz Festival. And I believe we have the director of jazz at here with us today as well. Yes.
Speaker 3: Hello, everybody. Hello, President Gonzales and council members, thank you so much to Councilmember Morales and her staff for helping us shepherd this through. My name is Lori to Cook and I am the executive director and co-founder with Clarence Cox of Seattle, Jay-Z. And I just want to thank all of you for giving us the opportunity to do this meaningful honoring of Clarence Cox with a street naming in front of the future location of Seattle, Jay-Z's new home in the Rainier Valley. Councilmember Morales gave such a nice introduction. I don't have much more to add, except that with all the incredible work that Clarence Cox did at Garfield High School, you'd think that would be enough. But instead, in 2010, he went on to launch Jay-Z with me and our co-founder, Sheree, Sheryl Hecker, to ensure that all students had access to the life transforming opportunity of music education at Garfield High School, despite the diversity of the student population. If you're familiar with the program, the bands themselves do not reflect the population of the school. And his goal was to ensure that students across the city had access to music education. And so Jay-Z was launched in 2010. And now we serve over 1000 students with significant financial aid to a very diverse population of kids. And we are so excited by the opportunity to be able to honor Clarence in this very meaningful way. When we open our new building at the corner of Clarence, a Cox Wade.
Speaker 0: And 22nd Avenue South.
Speaker 3: So I just want to thank you all for considering this opportunity. We're very excited about it.
Speaker 1: And again.
Speaker 0: A special thank you to Councilmember Morales and her staff for shepherding this through. Thank you so much, Morales and Lori, for being with us. My apologies, colleagues. I should have actually moved to suspend the rules to allow Laurie to actually address the council during the full council meeting. And my apologies that I did not do that in advance of hearing from Laurie. But we're all we've got that all done. And I didn't hear any objection to allowing Laurie to speak so retroactively. The rules are suspended. No, that's okay, Laurie. Don't worry about it. I should have I should have managed this process a little bit, a little bit more. And I am sorry that I did not do that. But don't worry about it. So. So, colleagues, we are going to go ahead and hear any additional comments on the resolution from any other council members who may want to speak to it. Looking for raised hands. Any additional comments? Councilmember Peterson, is there anything else you'd want to add as the chair?
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council president. This what? This resolution was recommended unanimously by our committee.
Speaker 0: It's great. Okay. So I think we're going to take a vote now. Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the resolution.
Speaker 1: So on? Yes. Strauss Yes, they're both. Whereas I. Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: MORALES Yes. What's better.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Peterson High Council President Gonzales. I didn't nine in favor none of those.
Speaker 0: The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will it please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Congratulations. Thank you so much, Lori, for being with us. And again, thanks so much for your remarks and your support of the resolution as well.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much. Have a great day.
Speaker 0: You too.
Speaker 1: Thanks, Lori. Goodbye.
Speaker 0: Okay. Item two Will the court please read the short title of item two into the record agenda?
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION providing an honorary designation of S Hill Street between 21st and 22nd Avenues S as “Clarence Acox Jr. Way.”
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07122021_CB 120103
|
Speaker 0: Okay. Item two Will the court please read the short title of item two into the record agenda?
Speaker 3: Item two Constable 120103 relating to the city department operation, the Chief Executive Officer and general manager to execute a long term lease and operating agreement with a Georgetown Steam Plant. Community Development Authority for the use and occupancy of the city's Georgetown Steam Plant property in National Historic Landmark. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. You are the chair of the committee, so I'm going to hand it over to you to provide the report.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President, as we discussed in council briefing this morning, Council 120103 authorizes Seattle City Light to enter into a long term lease with the nonprofit Community Development Authority. To take care of this, 115 year old Georgetown steam plant originally built to supply power to the city's streetcar lines. City Light on the plant since 1954, using it to provide standby power until 1977. Since that time, the Georgetown steam plant has been entered into the National Register of Historic Places and the city's list of historic landmarks. Under the ordinance, the nonprofit will enter into a 30 year lease with two possible extensions to manage the site as the historical attraction it has become and will indemnify the city. The lease by City Light and the Community Development Authority implements the work of an advisory committee that concluded it's in the city's best interest to have this historic property managed by a mission driven nonprofit council. 1120103 accomplishes this goal. It was recommended unanimously by our committee. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Chair Peterson, are there any additional comments on the bill? I have not seen any raised hands. So will the crook please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Swan Yes. Strauss Yes.
Speaker 3: Revolt? Yes.
Speaker 1: Whereas I. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. What's better.
Speaker 3: I Peterson.
Speaker 2: High.
Speaker 1: Council President Gonzalez I nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the Kirk please to fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read item three into the record?
Speaker 3: Agenda item three Resolution 3 to 0 zero seven related to the City Department adopting a 2022 three 2026 strategic plan for the city department and addressing the associated five year rate path, the committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; authorizing the Chief Executive Officer and General Manager to execute a long-term lease and operating agreement with the Georgetown Steam Plant Community Development Authority for the use and occupancy of the City's Georgetown Steam Plant property, a National Historic Landmark; allowing the Authority to assume regular public programming in the Georgetown Steam Plant for the purposes of historical interpretation as well as education in the areas of science, technology, education, arts, math, and related events, and also to provide continual general upkeep and stewardship of the Georgetown Steam Plant, including the addition of amenities enabling more and better community access.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07122021_Res 32007
|
Speaker 3: Agenda item three Resolution 3 to 0 zero seven related to the City Department adopting a 2022 three 2026 strategic plan for the city department and addressing the associated five year rate path, the committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 0: I hand this back over to Councilmember Peterson as chair of the committee.
Speaker 2: It's the council president. Our Transportation and Utilities Committee unanimously recommended adoption of Resolution 32007, which is the updated strategic plan for Seattle City Life on June 16. The utility presented the plan to our committee. Then on July seven, our committee heard from the Seattle City Review panel about why they fully endorse a citywide strategic plan. It's a multiyear plan for implementing the mission of this $1 billion, city owned utility enterprise, which provides affordable, reliable and environmentally responsible electricity to over 900,000 people in Seattle and surrounding areas. Despite several cost pressures, including the COVID pandemic, Seattle City Light has surpassed expectations in keeping their rate increases under control. City Light also succeeded in not increasing the net utility bills of electricity customers this year when its customers were the most vulnerable. Moreover, City Lights proposed rate path will also have a lower than expected rate increase in the future as compared to the previous strategic plan. Net result is the six year average annual increase will be less than 3.5% instead of the original 4.5%. On June 16, our committee already saw this, so our committee unanimously endorsed this plan, as did the review panel. And so we recommend passage today. Thank you.
Speaker 0: So much. PETERSON Are there any additional comments on the resolution? He was very silent.
Speaker 1: Please. Thank you. As I have done in the past, I will vote yes on the strategic plan because it accurately reflects city lights projected costs. However, when it lists a projection of the rate increases over the next six years, it does not say who should pay those rate increases. Since taking office, including as a previous chair of the City Council and Energy Committee, I have consistently argued that the wasted light divides up costs between big business and regular Seattle residents as very regressive city lights formula effectively charges Seattle residents almost twice as much per unit of electricity as it charges big business. Several years ago, my office proposed legislation to change that, but no other council member agreed. The utility does have a utility discount program for low income Seattle residents. But like all means tested programs and you need to apply for less than half of eligible people in Seattle are actually on the program. So I'm voting yes on this strategic plan, but I intend to vote no when there's legislation to actually raise rates unless those rate increases are paid by big business instead of regular working class. He avoids. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. Want any other comments on the resolution? I'm not hearing any other comments on the resolution. So will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the resolution?
Speaker 1: Silent. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Verbal. Yes. Suarez S. Lewis Yes. Morales Yes. Mr..
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Peterson I counsel President Gonzalez i. Nine in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 0: The resolution is adopted and the chair 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 four into the record?
Speaker 3: Agenda item four taxable 120117 relating to city finances, creating and changing the names of funds in the city treasury.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION related to the City Light Department, adopting a 2022-2026 Strategic Plan for the City Light Department and endorsing the associated five-year rate path.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07122021_CB 120117
|
Speaker 3: Agenda item four taxable 120117 relating to city finances, creating and changing the names of funds in the city treasury.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. I moved to pass Council Bill 120117. Is there a second second? It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilor Mosquito, you are the sponsor of this bill, so I'm going to hand it over to you to address this item.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Council President. Colleagues, thank you for considering this legislation. This legislation is related to last year's passed legislation, ordinance 126161, which created the 2021 LTG Taxable Bond Fund and authorized an interim loan to support spending on the West Seattle Bridge in anticipation of the 2021 bond proceeds. This was before the 2021 adopted budget was presented and before the decision between whether or not to repair or replace the West Seattle Bridge. The 2021 adopted budget anticipated additional taxable bond sales for the Overlook Walk and Aquarium Expansion Progress projects, and directed those proceeds to the same fund. Now Finance and Administrative Services Department has since determined that we can sell non taxable bonds for the West Seattle Bridge repair, but that those bond proceeds will need to be held in a separate fund from the taxable bonds. This legislation does just that, this legislation accordingly. This legislation accordingly offers several technical corrections to the bond funds associated with the West Seattle Bridge repair work. And I hope the council will consider this message today. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Mosqueda, are there any additional comments on the bill? Looking for hands. Oh, Councilmember Herbold, please.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much. Just very quickly, I want to thank Chair Mascara for her quick action on this. Appreciate that. This is being referred directly to full council and technical teams is very welcome to address the needs associated.
Speaker 1: With the bond fund requirements.
Speaker 0: Thanks again. All right. Any additional comments on this particular piece of legislation for other hands raised? I am not seeing any additional hands raised. Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Sergeant. Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: For both. Yes. Whereas I. Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. Let's get to.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Peterson.
Speaker 2: High.
Speaker 1: Council president Gonzalez I 19 favor and oppose.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read item five into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to City Finances; creating and changing the names of funds in the City Treasury; amending Ordinance 126161, which authorized an interfund loan; amending Ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 Budget, including the 2021-2026 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.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_07122021_CB 120114
|
Speaker 0: Motion carries and the appointment is confirmed. Will the park please read the short title of item seven into the record?
Speaker 3: To be part of the Finance and Housing Committee Agenda Item seven Council Bill 120114 relating to the Office of Housing authorizing acquisition of two parcels in South Park for the purpose of development of affordable housing and community ground for space. The Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Governor Mosquito. You are the chair of the committee and are recognized to provide the committee's report.
Speaker 3: Excellent. Thank you. Council president, colleagues, as I mentioned this morning, I'm really excited about the legislation in front of us. Constable 121104 is an opportunity for us to move forward on developing affordable housing in a critical area of our city that has seen high risk of displacement. This legislation also represents the first time the Office of Housing is useful utilizing the Acquisition Authority that I sponsored Veon and via an amendment to the Administration and Finance Plan. Update In 2019, we as a Council made the decision to adopt the amendment so that we could increase the Office's Office of Housing Authority to quickly act and move forward on purchasing lands of exactly this type for acquisition. Again, in this year in our acquisition and finance plan update in June, we now have not only increased the amount of funding the Office of Housing had, bringing that amount previously to 30 million. Now, the Office of Housing also has more ability to purchase properties like this in the future because we removed the cap. So this is a really great example of that good work that this council did being put into action and examples of the type of future purchases that we will now be able to see via the Office of Housing. Given this Council's authority to remove the CAP on acquisition authority. This property specifically and I see Councilmember Herbold teeing up to speak about it in District one. This is specific to South Park and the South Park Community Center community, who has been working in collaboration with the Damage Valley Affordable Housing Coalition and Duwamish Valley Cleanup Coalition. Office of Housing and the Office of Sustainability and Environment. That is going to be working to create more affordable housing in South Park, using community preference strategies to help stave off and even reverse some of the effects of displacement, specifically in the South Park community. This piece of the legislation also works towards addressing climate resilience in the neighborhood. South Park is a neighborhood that is experiencing a high risk of displacement, and it also is an area, as we discussed in our committee, that is experiencing a disproportionate impact of environmental injustice in the community. This project and the legislation in front of us is responsive to those concerns and will help tremendously add value to the neighborhood at a site previously occupied by just a garage. So let's turn that space into housing and more community assets. The timing of this legislation is also reflective of the urgency expressed within the community and an agreement the Office of Housing has begun to enter into with the community and the seller so we can be competitive in the purchasing of this property. I want to note that acquisitions like this, in addition to the legislation that we passed in 2018 that prevents the city from selling off public land and under-utilised land to the highest bidder. Both of these strategies help bring in more public assets to the city, allow us to acquire and retain more public property that can be used for the public good, like housing and community sites. That is being considered here at South Park housing coupled with community space on the ground level so that we can truly create homes and a place for folks to continue to live, thrive and enjoy in our city. So, colleagues, I am hopeful that you will consider passing this legislation today again passed out of the Finance and Housing Committee with a do pass recommendation unanimously, as this legislation allows the Office of Housing to acquire two parcels in South Park for affordable housing development, along with ground floor space. And again, this is a community supported project that will utilize these properties to create up to 100 family sized affordable housing units and affordable being defined at 60% of the area median income. Along with that critical community space on the first floor, the community has asked the city to acquire the site and do an RFP for affordable housing development with community priorities in mind, which can commence as soon as we pass this. So looking forward to passing this today and thank you for your support.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much for that report. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 3: Please. Thank you so much. I want to just lift up the fact that affordable housing was one of seven priority areas identified in the Damage Valley Action Plan. And this was a plan that was passed a couple of years ago. I think our our action on the action plan is good evidence that with community support and community mobilization, the plans that are developed by community won't just sit on a shelf someplace gathering dust, but that they can actually translate into concrete action. The specific goal that this addresses is pursuing additional opportunities for permanent affordable housing for low income households in the Duwamish Valley. South Park is such a small, close knit community that they they often say that they can literally put together a by name list of folks at risk of displacement with the inclusion of the community preference policy embedded in the request for proposals that will be developed with the community involvement. This acquisition can go a long way towards beginning to address displacement for that list of community members. I want to also give a shout out to the Dual Valley Affordable Housing Coalition for their long track record on developing community vision and for organizing affordable housing in South Park, Georgetown and the communities of Egualmente Valley. This is part of a three pronged approach that she's done a lot of work on. I've gone to a lot of meetings about this approach, and it is specifically focused on addressing displacement with the development of new affordable housing. They state, in partnership with a nonprofit developer, build new affordable housing for families, including displaced households from the Duwamish Valley. Second prong is a multipurpose building, a one stop cultural anchor where local families can access opportunities and resources, open space for gatherings and pop up multigenerational space for learning retail, affordable child care and low income housing units . And the third prong is the preservation of naturally existing affordable housing. They rates in the next 2 to 3 years with the help of public and private partners, or, of course, orchestrate the acquisition of enough units to impact the immediate rental area. The goal is to acquire 100 units in the Duwamish Valley and there has been some work on that third prong partnering specifically with Habitat for Humanity on some some probation work there. I want to just also in closing, thank the Office of Housing for pioneering this innovative approach to addressing displacement. And of course, I think Muskat up for her leadership in allow in sponsoring the legislation that allows for the lifting of the cap for acquisition.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Right. I don't see any other customers of their hands up, so consumers get it. You cannot close out this discussion and then we will take a vote.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much. I just want to echo Councilmember Herbold comments and appreciation from the Vice Chair for Office of Housing for the Community Coalition that has brought this legislation forward, very excited to follow their lead on what they'd like to see there, and wanted to take this chance to thank Aaron House in my office, along which we stressed the central staff for their work on this as well. Appreciate it. Thanks. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay, so debate on the bill is now closed. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: So on. Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: For both. Ah, yes, thank you. Whereas as.
Speaker 2: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. Yes. ROSQUETA.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Peterson, I. Council President Gonzalez I and I'm in favor and oppose.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Is there any further business to come before the Council? Hearing none. This does conclude the items of business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled City Council meeting is on July 19, 2021 at 2:00 PM. I hope that you all have a wonderful afternoon. We are going to stay.
Speaker 1: I.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Office of Housing; authorizing the acquisition of two parcels in South Park for the purpose of development of affordable housing and community ground floor space; placing the property under the jurisdiction of the Office of Housing; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06282021_CB 120098
|
Speaker 2: 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 two into the record? Agenda Item two Council Bill.
Speaker 0: 120098.
Speaker 2: An ordinance relating to the Board of Park Commissioners changing the name to the Board of Park and Recreation Commissioners requesting that the code revise or revise the Seattle Municipal Code accordingly, amending the Board's composition and processes. Authorizing an amendment to the Inter.
Speaker 0: Local Agreement between the City of.
Speaker 2: Seattle and the Seattle Park District, and amending sections 3.26.012 and 3.26.030 of the Seattle Municipal Code. The amount of work I moved to pass. Council Bill 120098. Is there a second?
Speaker 3: Second.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much has been moved and seconded. Councilor Peterson I understand that you are going to in councilor was his absence address this item?
Speaker 3: Yes. Thank you. Council president, colleagues, do you recognize this item? Because it's a companion bill to the Metropolitan Parks District, Resolution 43 that we approved last week. Councilor 1 to 0 098 merges the two official volunteer run organizations that oversee the activity of our Parks Department and the Metropolitan Parks District. That's the Board of Commissioners, the Park Board and the Park District Oversight Committee. Piddock In order to more efficiently utilize the time, knowledge and expertize of volunteers and address ambiguity and overlap between the Park Board and Peter, the co-chairs of both organizations requested that the two entities be combined. Doing so will allow all members to consider resources in the full context of overall funding policies and needs for Seattle Parks and Recreation. The newly combined board will retain the representative 15 member structure of the Park District Oversight Committee, and this body will be responsible for the traditional duties of the Park Board and oversight of programs, policies and reporting specific to the Seattle Parks District. The combined board will also be renamed the Board of Parks and Recreation Commissioners. This is the companion bill to Resolution 43 that we reviewed and unanimously approved in last Monday's Metropolitan Park District Governing Board meeting. The city council being the partner in this Interlocal agreement also needs to take parallel action. Current term appointments will not be interrupted by this action. Chair of the Committee Forest and I recommend City Council adopt this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing on what the critics call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 4: Must get a. I. Peterson, I so want. Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 4: For bold, yes. Lewis Yes. Morales That's. President Gonzalez I didn't favor none of those.
Speaker 2: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will. Please read item three into the record. Item three. Appointment 1951. Appointment of Jeffrey Earle.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Board of Park Commissioners; changing the name to the Board of Parks and Recreation Commissioners; requesting that the Code Reviser revise the Seattle Municipal Code accordingly; amending the Board’s composition and processes; authorizing an amendment to the Interlocal Agreement between The City of Seattle and the Seattle Park District; and amending Sections 3.26.010 and 3.26.030 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06282021_CB 120106
|
Speaker 0: The Report of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item 11 Council Bill.
Speaker 2: 120106.
Speaker 0: An Ordinance relating to Historic Preservation Imposing Controls upon the BORDO House, a landmark designated by the Landmark Preservation Board under.
Speaker 2: 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 Missile Code. The committee recommends the bill pass. Great. Thank you so much, Councilmember Strauss. I'm going to hand it over to you to walk us through this committee report.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council president, colleagues, this is a landmark designating ordinance for the BORDO House, which is located on 14th Avenue near Volunteer Park on Capitol Hill. The Bordeaux house was built in 1903, altered in 1913. The Landmarks Preservation Board recommended designation based on two criteria one that the structure embodies a distinct characteristics of an architectural style, and that this is an outstanding work of a designer or builder. Controls would apply to the site, the building exterior and the entry and stairwell on the interior and on the main entrance. We had the building owners present with us in committee who spoke about the desire to steward this in a historic way for future there themselves. Guests within the home, even though they own it and they have done immense historical research on all of the past residents of the home and are even in contact in communication with the descendants of the Bordeaux family. So I recommend you vote on this landmark designation today. Thank you. Council president, colleagues.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Strauss, are there any additional comments? Hearing on will the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 4: This better? I. I want. Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 4: Bold Yes. Lewis. Yes. Morales. S notes of President Gonzales. I didn't favor the menopause.
Speaker 2: The bill passes and the chair will sign. It will propose to fix my signature piece of legislation on my behalf. Will the clerk please read item 12 into the record and you can read the short title?
Speaker 0: Agenda Item 12 Council Bill 120081. An ordinance relating to affordable housing on properties owned or controlled by religious organizations.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to historic preservation; imposing controls upon the Bordeaux 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_06212021_CB 120102
|
Speaker 1: The Report of City Council Agenda Item one Council Bill 120102 An ordinance relating to City Employment authorizing the execution of a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Seattle and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 77 to be effective January 23rd, 2021 to January 22nd, 2023. Amending Ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 budget by increasing appropriations to Seattle City Light for 2021 payments therefor and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts all by a three quarter vote of the City Council.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Madam Clerk. I moved past Council Bill 1 to 0 102. Is there a second? Thank you so much. It's been moved and seconded and as sponsor of this bill, I will address it first and then happy to open the floor to comments from any of you colleagues as the title States Council Bill 120102 would authorize the execution of a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Seattle and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 77. This collective bargaining agreement is a two year agreement on wages, benefits, hours and other working conditions for a term from January 23rd, 2021 through January 22nd, 2023. It affects about 565 regularly appointed city employees, and its terms include a cost of living adjustment of 2%, 2.5%. There is also an additional one time base wage market increase of 10% to certain job titles as listed in Attachment eight to the collective bargaining agreement and an increase to the cable slicer and electrical constructor classifications for parity with the corresponding line worker classification rates of the pay. The terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement do meet the negotiation parameters set by the members of the Labor Relations Policy Committee, of which five members of the City Council sit on and participate in actively and colleagues. After the Labor Relations Policy Committee process, I do as the Chair of the Labor Relations Policy Committee on behalf of the City Council, I do recommend that my colleagues support the passage of this legislation. Are there any additional comments on the bill, Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President. Appreciate your hard work on this and the hard work of the members of the Labor Relations Policy Committee. I'm not one of the five council members serving on the LRP C, which which also includes the mayor's executive team. Essentially, the combined council members and mayors executive team represent management arm of city government that negotiates these labor contracts with city government employees. So when this proposed Labor contract appeared on the interaction referral calendar last week was the first time I was able to review it. I'd like to take this opportunity to explain my vote today to my constituents and how I'm able to get to a yes vote on this. First, I want to express my gratitude to our electrical workers who dedicate themselves and their skills to our city. And thanks again to the hard work of the members of the RTC, who members of the public may not know that you spend hours upon hours outside the spotlight working on all of these labor contracts. As I understand it, this proposed contract would increase compensation for many of the workers by 12.5%, which appears to be unusually high in just one year. This is an increase of $7.5 million, and most labor contracts with city government employees recently received an increase based on the Consumer Price Index plus 1%. This 12 and a half percent increase today, as I understand it, is comprised of, as you said, the CPI of approximately 2.5 plus another one time 10%, while the 10% one time it does create a new baseline of compensation for these city employees. In other words, the higher costs will continue into the second year of the two year contract. So that's about $15 million increase over the life of the contract. And while this 10% bump is significant, I have the benefit of chairing the committee that includes Seattle City Lights. I have additional opportunities to witness the important work conducted by these workers who go out into the field under dangerous conditions to use the skills of their trade to benefit our city. I understand there's been increased attrition within this group of workers leaving Seattle City life for other utility enterprises in the region who have been offering compensation at these higher levels. So this proposed increase in compensation appears to be an appropriate adjustment to reflect our realities. This is both public sector and private sector utilities. That's what's special about the utility industry's public sector and private sector. Utilities were competing against our skilled field workers. Satellite data also seems to show higher attrition rates among women and people of color. So I hope this increase in compensation can help our utility attract and retain skilled staff to meet its race and gender equity goals. Another important consideration is how this cost increase might impact utility rates for everyone in Seattle. As we know, utility rates are regressive, with lower, lower income households paying a larger percentage of their household income. And in a city where many of us are concerned about affordability for our long term residents, we want to be mindful when increasing costs. And this case, Seattle City Light, under the leadership of Deborah Smith has been working, has been making so much progress to control other cost drivers that the overall electricity rate increases in their strategic plan have come down. And as we've learned in our committee just two weeks ago, our electricity rate increases will average no more than three and a half percent, close to the rate of inflation, rather than four and a half percent increase previously projected. And this proposed increase in pay for these highly skilled workers is already built into that 3.5% average rate increase. In other words, this proposed increase in compensation for these highly skilled professionals will not increase overall electricity rates further. Another important consideration is that we're emerging from the pandemic, which should help with overall city revenues. This is relevant because our general fund takes money from Seattle City Light and Seattle Public Utilities every year with what's called a utility tax. I'd like to see city government tax on our publicly owned utilities reduced over time to further reduce the regressive, regressive rate pressures on low income households. I appreciate having the past week to review this contract. I know it's not always possible, but I look forward to an allocation of even more time to review labor contracts , especially when we're reviewing multiple ones. This was just one, so it was manageable. Our current council rules require us to vote yes or no on legislation at the full council, and some more times are always welcome to make a well informed decision. Thank you for the space to make these lengthy comments and I will be voting yes.
Speaker 0: Not a problem. Thank you, Councilman Peterson. Appreciate you digging in and taking a closer look at that. Okay, colleagues, any additional any other additional comments on the bill? Hearing that will the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: Morales. S. Whatsoever.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 1: Petersen.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 1: So one. Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold. Yes. Suarez, I. Lewis. I think council president Gonzales. I need a favor. And then opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the court please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay. Reports of the Finance and Housing Committee. Will the court please read the short title of 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 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 77 to be effective January 23, 2021 to January 22, 2023; amending Ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 Budget, by increasing appropriations to Seattle City Light for 2021 payments therefor; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06212021_CB 120093
|
Speaker 1: The Report of the Finance and Housing Committee Agenda Item two Council Bill 120013 An ordinance relating related to the city's response to the COVID 19 crisis. Creating a new fund in the City Treasury. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Appreciate that. Montclair Councilmember Macedo, you are the chair of this committee and I'm going to hand it over to you to provide the reports.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much, Madam President. And I am honored to be able to kick off a summary of this legislation that you and I have the chance to coauthor together, along with the mayor's office and all of the council members that are here today who provide a tremendous input along with community members. So I will do my best to get us kicked off and I really just want to say thank you. I'm excited to be able to be here today as we look to pass the Seattle rescue plan. And I will note that this is the first of three acts that you can expect from us over the next few months as we seek to respond to the crisis that COVID not only created but exacerbated in many cases, when you look at the inequities in our previous system that were just exposed by COVID. So first of three acts to come. We have before us with this proposal in the Seattle rescue plan, one in front of us, the first tranche of the American Rescue Plan Act dollars. This represents the first tranche that the city of Seattle is receiving that will total 232 million over the course of this year and next year, which means that half of that 160 million is being passed today. We are adding to that $12.2 million from the Home Investment Partnership Plan. These bills together, these investments together represent an incredible opportunity for us to move forward on the commitments that this council made when we first passed Council Resolution 31999 back in March. Since then, we've had five subsequent meetings. We've had a public hearing completely devoted to hearing from the public about what community members need and where they would like these dollars prioritized. We've had the chance to talk to city councils from Austin to Minneapolis to Denver and so many others, to hear where other progressive cities are looking to invest these dollars. And most importantly, we've heard directly from community partners, from organizations, from those most impacted by COVID and from all council members where you would like to see these these dollars invested so that our city money can be coupled with state and federal investments to truly make an impact now and to lay the groundwork for a more equitable economy as we seek to recover and respond to COVID. Two weeks ago, we had the chance to introduce this legislation again in partnership with the Council, President's office, and with the mayor's office. And we kept in mind all of the recommendations and the priorities that each councilmember added to the Council resolution. Since then, we've made sure that among within our finance and housing committee members, we heard from various community members and community and Community Council participants about their priorities. And we had a chance to have discussions about where we would like to see dollars invested so we could address the most urgent needs in our community and lay that more equitable framework. The priorities we centered in this bill are similar to the priorities we've been talking about since the beginning of the onset of COVID. We included these priorities when we passed the Jumpstart Progressive Revenue proposal back in June and July of last year, we included them again, centering our values around equity and making sure that we are putting funding directly to those most impacted in our budget last year, these bills in front of us today respond directly to the crises exacerbated by COVID, by investing in housing and homelessness, economic resiliency and small businesses and the arts and culture, and directly into making sure that those who've been most disproportionately impacted and often left out of previous federal assistance under the Trump administration, administration were first to receive dollars, and that we centered investments not just in ensuring that those individuals were thought of, but that the organizations who work directly with those individuals and who have trust and come from and have deep ties and roots within those communities are receiving those dollars . There's only a few areas that I'll highlight because I know a lot of folks are excited about highlighting various commitments that they've included. But one of the things I'm most excited about is $25 million in direct cash assistance specifically to go into the hands of working families and individuals, our elders and folks who have been really struggling by the impacts of COVID to make sure that we can have a direct infusion into our local economy, recognizing that those who are experiencing hardship know best how to use that cash assistance. I'm most excited about the childcare assistance of $8 million combined, going directly to support childcare providers and 5 million of that going to create greater access to affordable childcare throughout our city by making sure we have capital investments to build more affordable childcare in King County and Seattle, we know that somewhere between 7 to 10% of our childcare facilities have closed and some looking like they're going to unfortunately stay permanently closed unless we do something and act with urgency now at a city council level. We know that this is a critical investment for us to make because across our nation and right here in the city of Seattle, if we don't invest in childcare, it hurts our local economy as well as hurting local families. The closure of childcare across our country is resulting in billions of dollars lost to employers each year and over. 500,000 children without childcare in our country. Childcare workers have found themselves out of work during this pandemic, with a net loss of around 170,000 childcare worker positions opened between January of 2020 and January of 2021. But we can do something about that right here. And our investment of $8 million into childcare, specifically attempts to make sure that we're encouraging the creation of additional childcare and recognizing and honoring and appreciating those childcare providers who helped us during this last year. We've talked about the need for this rescue plan to respond to the C section, not the recession, the C section, recognizing that women were much more likely to have to have left the workforce because of lack of access to childcare and also recognizing that it's been disproportionately women and people of color who've been on the frontline more exposed to COVID, if they've been able to keep their job as essential workers in the service sector in many cases. I'm really excited about the ways in which we've tied in care for the trauma that people have been through in the last year by investing funding into the Domestic Violence Prevention and youth services, senior services to care for isolation and neglect. And I know that there's much more that we need to do. But I want to also see these investments paired with what the county has offered. King County is of that investing about 38 million, specifically for behavioral health responses and recovery, to help identify ways in which we can make sure that those who've been hardest hit even before COVID, but especially those who have their behavioral and mental health needs exacerbated during COVID, that they have the services they need. And I want to applaud King County Council and the executive for the passage of their Rescue Plan Act just a few weeks ago. Our proposal is going to be package and complement many of the areas that King County invested in and investments in. Behavioral health is one area where I'm excited to see the complementary funding streams align. I want to note, as I'm sure Councilmember Lewis may speak, to the importance of the five of over $5 million, I should say $7.5 million that I remember from recollection that's going in to match the King County just cares like program. So services like just cares that are responding directly to the need for homeless folks or those that are experiencing homelessness to have access to appropriate shelter during this time of COVID, recognizing we're not out of the storm yet and the variants continue to show increasing concern in our area. We want to make sure non congregate shelter options like hotels are invested in and that we match the county's effort of around $7.5 million to bring programs like Just Cares to Scale. We said a countless times throughout the pandemic, we know that the exacerbation of the inequities that were present before have just been made worse by COVID. But those especially are true for the racial inequities that we see. We see rates of communities of color who've been contracting COVID and dying from COVID, the exponentially higher than white residents . And this pattern follows many other social inequities that put racial and ethnic minorities at increased risk and an increased risk of health disparities, educational attainment disparities, wealth and income gap disparities, and so much more. And that's why we have centered our investments today on making sure that we're looking at near and long term investments for the Seattle Rescue Plan Act through the lens of what is just just for our racial and ethnic commitments to making sure that folks who've been disproportionately impacted by COVID have the assistance they need and that we're creating greater opportunities for economic stability and opportunity in the out years. I'm very excited about the language that we also included that makes sure that community based organizations are culturally relevant and historically rooted in and founded by communities that have been disproportionately impacted by COVID and have organizational leadership, staff and board composition that reflect the communities they serve. For the purposes of direct grants and allocation of grants to communities. We built this community, this language with community partners. We heard a manager call in and others talking about it's not just important to talk about where the funding goes, but how the funding gets allocated. And that language was intentionally written in and expanded actually as well into both this bill and the cash assistance bill that we will pass as a follow up to this legislation. I will stop there with just noting those few areas and my excitement around the $28.5 million going into housing and acquisition and building more homes, that we're really creating affordable housing and stability for folks as we seek to recover from COVID. And I'll say with the rest of my comments from the President for wrap up at the end of this discussion.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Customer Musketeer for that. Customer Louis I do see that you have your hand up, so I'm going to calling you first. And colleagues, for those of you would also like to make comments on this particular council bill, do let me know by raising your hand. Councilor Lewis, please.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I do just briefly want to lift up the really critical homelessness and public safety investments that are being made in this package today. All of the conversation that we have been having in this council in regards to the dress care model. My comments this morning at briefing some of that is going to come to reality through the very real investments that we are making here, by joining forces with King County to do this joint procurement for a just care like approach and just hair like strategy to extend the benefits that we have seen in the Chinatown International District in Pioneer Square neighborhood to neighborhoods throughout the city and really start to see a very the very tangible improvement and benefit that that model brings. And I'm really looking forward to voting for this package for those investments alone, let alone all the other great investments that Councilmember Mesquita just gave an an overview for. I do want to just briefly address that. Over the last week, working with central staffs, city departments and downtown stakeholders. We were able to get a go ahead from the people we've been working with on downtown programing and reopening and support that they will be able to achieve their programmatic ambitions within how this package is currently being divvied up. So there was no need to bring an amendment to seek additional exclusive appropriation for downtown recovery. So I just want to address that, since I had indicated that I would potentially be bringing such an amendment. My understanding from talking to downtown Seattle Association, Department of Economic Development and our various arts partners is that there is enough resource that can be allocated under the current provisos and budget line items to accommodate the plans that are being made. And so there's no need for any kind of additional authority in the package. So I just wanted to acknowledge that. And with that, I don't have any additional comments. I'm looking forward to voting on this today.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilor Lewis, for that. Morales I see that your hand is raised. Please.
Speaker 2: Q Thanks so much, colleagues. I do want to just talk about a couple of the amendments that were included in this bill. Our office, after lots of conversation with small business, with arts organizations, grassroots activists and even other elected officials, worked really hard to gather their ideas and input on how to use this sort of once in a generation investment to build a more equitable economic recovery. And I'm excited to have two amendments that were developed in partnership with them included here. So the kinds of conversations we were having included an acknowledgment that there just isn't enough economic opportunity for folks in the city. 46% of the workforce in greater Seattle is either unemployed or stuck in low wage work before COVID. And we know that a problem has only gotten worse. We know that there is also an equitable access to opportunity in the city, particularly for black and Hispanic folks in our community. And that Seattle ranks in the bottom third of large metro areas for black and Hispanic representation in technology and in managerial roles. So I'm excited that with this bill we can really begin to address some of these disparities and the commitment of $22 million into this bill to create good jobs, to begin developing skills that are relevant to good jobs, supporting firms with technical assistance, increasing access to wealth building strategies. These are the kinds of investments that we need in order to really begin building an equitable recovery for folks. The other thing that I want to acknowledge is that and I do want to thank Councilmember Lewis for your comments. You know, a big part of the inequity that we've experienced is because our neighborhood business associations, neighborhood commercial districts just don't have access to the kind of resources that a downtown BIA might be able to generate. And so I do think it's important that a five and a half million dollars of the of the funding will is specifically for neighborhood business organizations and associations. And then the last thing I want to say is that the bill also addresses or begins to address the challenges of our young people who are trying to get the skills that they need to have a pathway to a good union, paying union wage jobs to career paths, and especially for those who may be taking care of family members or may not have an opportunity to go to college. I'm excited that our office has been working with the Port Commission to expand the current Opportunity Youth Initiative by adding $1,000,000 to the existing program. So as I mentioned before, I know an important strategy that can help lead young people into good union jobs, includes expanding internships, and this million dollars will go a long way toward expanding that program, not just for the summer, but expanding it to a year round program that can really support, support our young people. So I want to thank the members of the Finance and Housing Committee for their support of these amendments that I offered and look forward to passing a bill that is really rooted in the principles of an equitable recovery.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilman Morales, for those comments. Next up is Councilmember Herbold. Please.
Speaker 6: Thank you so much. I just want to really recognize that there's just been actually some good news recently about the pandemic. King County hitting 70% vaccination rates, hospitalizations and cases down. Families and friends reunited, reuniting and state wide reopening right around the corner. And, you know, the work that we've been doing here at the city council and that the county has been doing at the county council is really making that this concept of building back better, something that is seems like a realistic thing to to strive for from addressing the harms and traumas of the last year and a half , which have taken a toll on each and every person in our community. As always, those harms have not fallen equally on our communities. And we know that bipoc communities, immigrants, refugees and those without technology, access or mobility have been the hardest hit. And so to truly build back better, we have to have we have to target these precious recovery funds to those who need them most. Those are the parts who are the furthest from recovery. So, you know, we know that families are still struggling to meet the basic needs of their children and keep food on the table. Survivors of violence have been cut off from their network of support and crisis services. A year of isolation and insecurity has taken its toll on the mental health of so many people in our community. I've talked a lot before about the shadow pandemic, how the restricted movement, social isolation and economic security has increased our vulnerability to violence and self-harm. But the Seattle rescue plan includes more than 35 million focused on trauma informed well-being services to address the shadow pandemic, including investments in senior isolation, mental and behavioral health, gender based violence, diaper distribution and free meals. With these investments, more families who have been the most impacted over the past year will have what they need to emerge stronger and healthier. I really want to thank our partners for their strong advocacy for these investments, including Tony, Sarge and Sara Cody Roth at West Side, baby Mary Ellen Stone at the King County Sexual Resource Center , Merrill Cousin and Merritt Marin Thea Torres at the Coalition for Ending Gender based Violence. And in areas where the proposed version of the bill didn't quite live up to the promise of the Council's intent resolution. Councilmember Muska to help right the ship so that we could fulfill all of our commitments. Thank you. Councilmember ROSQUETA, the package now also includes critical investments in Samantha in Seattle's creative economy, as we promised to do in the council's intent resolution, the city's 2029 Creative Economy study found that the creative sector drives 18% of Seattle's GDP. That's four times the national average. So that means that this sector is so critical to Seattle's economic recovery, as well as being vital to making Seattle the unique and special place we love. Artists and musicians have been uniquely hardly hit, and many are struggling to hang on while still contributing to our communities. I want to thank you to the councilmembers who supported these amendments that ensure that artists hardest hit by the pandemic are eligible for direct cash assistance from this package and for also creating a fund within the Office of Arts and Culture to focus target assistance on small and bipoc led creative organizations so that they can reopen and bring back their staff. This investment will help ensure our extraordinary creative communities are not yet another victim of the pandemic, like I did for the advocates working for funding to address the shadow pandemic. I want to also thank you the advocates who have worked to ensure that these critical cultural economy investments are included. Thanks to Seattle Arts Commission co-chairs Sarah Wilkie and Dr. Quentin Morris. And thank you as well to Seattle Music Commission chair Tanner Marra and the many musicians and artists who provided public testimony to help council understand how they've been uniquely impacted. And thank you for their extraordinary advocacy. When also give a shout out to some of the work of my constituents in District one who have organized over the past year to preserve one of the positive legacies of the pandemic, the keep moving streets. This package ensures that the city will continue its work to consider making moving streets such as Alki point permanent. Thanks as well to the Seattle Neighborhood Greenways and many community members who have been involved to make this available. As part of this this package. And just we know that building back better means investing in those furthest from recovery. And I'm glad to have had the opportunity to work with all of you to do that today and to underscore it with my vote.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Herbold, for those comments. Are there any additional comments on the bill? I'm not seeing any other hands raised, but I would like to take an opportunity before I allow Councilmember Mosqueda to close out debate on this bill. I would, as one of the co-sponsors, like to take an opportunity to make my own comments about this particular suite of bills related to these federal funds. Council colleagues, again, thank you so much for the opportunity to comment on this legislation and for your strong collaboration and unification around the Seattle rescue plan. I am going to try not to duplicate many of the comments made by others, including the Budget Chair, Teresa Mosquito. But I did want to underscore some of the key highlights of this legislation. From my perspective, I'm proud of the hard work that went into creating a collaborative path to developing the Seattle Rescue Plan in the first place. I'm grateful to Budget Chair Mosqueda, Mayor Durkan, as well as a number of council and executive branch staff that spent weeks drafting this plan in a way that addresses the most pressing priorities and objectives that were raised by council members, public commenters and community based organizations. The fact that budget legislation of this size received so few substantive amendments, I think is testament to the good work that was done to build a consensus back package for us to consider in committee and subsequently in today's full council meeting. Although $128 million is not sufficient to meet the various critical needs facing our city's residents, we have a unique opportunity with this funding to make a difference in the lives of countless Seattleites and set our city on a path towards a more equitable economic recovery from the COVID 19 public health and economic crises. I am truly excited about the resources being provided in this legislation to do some of the following expand affordable housing opportunities and homelessness services. Provide direct support to small businesses, workers and neighborhood commercial districts across the city, increase childcare infrastructure and enhance wages for childcare workers. This infusion of resources will help. Home based and daycare centers reopen or expand, which will ultimately grow our city's childcare network and allow parents to get back to work. We'll also invest in the reopening of cultural and arts institutions. We will reactivate and enhance our public spaces like parks and streets for outdoor recreation, commercial opportunities and socially distant activities. And this package offers direct cash assistance to those who have been most impacted by the pandemic. These critical investments made in the Seattle rescue plan could not be possible without the hard work of our state's congressional delegation as well, particularly Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell and Representative Pramila Jayapal. Well, I want to thank for Pat for their efforts in passing the American Rescue Plan Act to begin with. I am very grateful to our federal representatives and President Joe Biden for ensuring that these needed resources were made available to local government and, of course , our residents. Finally, in closing out my comments, I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the fact that this Council, led by Councilmember Mosqueda and a broad coalition of stakeholders, have this Council not passed the Jumpstart Seattle Progressive Payroll Tax in 2020? We would not be in a position to be making any of these investments without the roughly $200 million in revenue expected from the Jumpstart Seattle Progressive Payroll Tax. We would have been forced to lay off hundreds of city of Seattle employees and drastically reduce city services. Without that revenue, we would be using all of the funds from the American Rescue Plan Act to plug holes in the city's budget and simply restore spending and services to pre-pandemic levels. Fortunately, thanks to the tremendous work that was done to pass Jumpstart Seattle and to defend its legality in court, we are in this position today to use these federal dollars to greatly expand the services and resources our city is able to offer as we look towards rebuilding equitably across our city. So I want to say thank you to all of you, my council colleagues, and in particular to our budget chair, Teresa mosqueda, as well as all of our community partners that have helped us to set a course towards a robust and equitable recovery from the COVID 19 pandemic, both in the economic context and in the public health context. So thank you so much for the opportunity to make some comments. Again, I really want to lift up the tremendous amount of work that our legislative staff and our city budget office staff and mural staff have done to bring. This package for. That is a good moment for us as a city family. And I especially want to thank Councilman Mosquito's Partnership and Angel for reaching her office and Cody writer in my office. For all of the countless amount of hours we have spent together working on these on these issues with Allie Pucci, Jeff Sims, Yolanda Ho, so many others to mention. Thank you, everyone, for all of your important work on this really, really important piece of legislation. That being said, I'm going to hand it back over to Councilman Mosquito, who's going to close out debate, and then we will be able to vote on this bill.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Council President, thank you very much for your remarks as well, especially about Jumpstart. It's been tremendous to be able to work with you and your team as we've crafted this legislation in front of us. So thank you very much. Colleagues, this is our chance. This is our chance to build back better and it's our chance to build back more equitably. The Seattle Rescue Plan Act here today. Again, the first of three acts to come this year helps to ensure that the critical dollars are going to where they're most needed in attachment number one that you found from Ali, financially, it summarizes $49.2 million and the housing and homelessness, $41 million and the community well-being to address the trauma that so many have been through and are still dealing with, $23.5 million in the community and small business recovery and 40 over 14 million going into community assistance, city programing and city services and our critical city workers. This is a package we can all be proud of and a package that we can build on for the future. Tranche two will be discussed later this year when we consider the 2022 budget and we'll have a chance in just the next few weeks, starting in July, to look at Seattle Rescue Plan two, which will be a combination of funding that comes from the federal government, that relates to the Older Americans Act funding, rental assistance, transportation funds from the federal government, and so many more pieces to help us center our recovery efforts. Again, thank you to our congressional delegation, as the council president rightly mentioned, for helping to free up these much needed dollars to cities across the country and especially to the city of Seattle, where we continue to deal with five and six years now of a crisis in housing and homelessness that has only been made worse by the COVID pandemic. And so this is truly an incredible opportunity to set the course to right our investments now and begin building on those in the upcoming months. I want to thank every council member who offered amendments, as you all discussed in your summary of your amendments. And Councilmember Strauss, I heard you this morning say some great comments and folks and get a chance to see that. I hope you get to see Councilmember Strauss's Amendment summary as well, because every single one of those amendments truly helps to strengthen and clarify language in this final proposal. Especially, I want to thank the work that councilmembers Morales and Herbold noted on the work to extrapolate more details out of the $23 million that's being allocated to business recovery efforts, making sure that we're centering investments into black, indigenous and people of color, community organizations and businesses specifically focused on small and micro-businesses, neighborhood economic hubs in our downtown core by making sure that youth employment and paid internship opportunities help folks get into good living wage jobs, and that we're investing in the recovery and vibrancy of our arts and cultural organizations and those workers. This package is something that I'm proud of and I continue to look forward to working with you as we build on these efforts in the summer efforts again for Seattle Rescue Plan Act number two and for the fall budget activities, which will include tranche two in our Seattle Rescue Plan Act. Number three, no rest for us because there's a lot to make up for here in terms of needs and investments in our community. And as we do so, I know we'll continue to center homelessness, response, economic resilience and direct assistance to those who need it most. And that will continue to draw direction and leadership from communities who've been writing in and helping us craft this bill together. I want to thank as well central staff led by Allie Pantry and her incredible team. I'll try to list a bunch of them, but I know that there's so many more involved you want to hold. Tracy Ratcliff, Brian Goodnight and Justin's principal and so many others. Folks in the city budgets office, Julie Daley, led the conversations along with director Ben Noble. Thank you very much. And to Mayor Durkan, it's been really good to see this proposal come together so that we can jointly make sure that folks who are most in need get a direct assistance as soon as possible so that we can release these federal dollars. I appreciate your partnership on this. I want to thank the executive team and the council teams, communication departments who have jointly been working to get the information out and again to Council President Gonzales for the co-sponsorship on this legislation. To your team member, Cody, writer who's been working on this on a weekly basis, along with several pretty chief of staff in my office and the entire team within our office, Aaron Sigal and Ari along with Lori, but especially to say for their work in coordinating the effort in front of us. And I'll end with that quote from Aaron Hite, a child care provider union at SEIU 95. Every parent deserves a safe, nurturing place to spend their day while their parents are at work. But quality care is expensive, and a workforce made primarily of women has been women of color, has been underpaid and undervalued in the past. The. Pandemic made it clear to parents and employers that affordable, accessible childcare is critical to our economy and our recovery. When schools shut down. Childcare professionals stepped up caring for kids and facilitating online learning for school age kiddos. Today's legislation, the Seattle rescue plan, is one step in rebuilding a child care system that works for everyone, whether you're black, white or brown. This bill will help everyone and make us have a more equitable recovery. Thank you very much for all of your work. Look forward to building on this with your efforts in the future.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Musketeer, for those closing remarks. Debate is now closed on the bill, so we're going to take a vote. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 1: What else?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Russia. Hi.
Speaker 4: Peterson I.
Speaker 1: So want. Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold. Yes.
Speaker 3: SUAREZ Yes.
Speaker 1: Lord. LEWIS Yes. And Council President Gonzalez I nine in favor and in a post.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Well, the clerk please read item three into the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE related to the City’s response to the COVID-19 crisis; creating a new Fund in the City Treasury; amending Ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 Budget, including the 2021-2026 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); accepting funding from non-City sources; changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various funds in the 2021 Budget; revising project allocations for certain projects in the 2021-2026 CIP; modifying or adding provisos; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06212021_CB 120101
|
Speaker 1: General item for Council Bill 120101 An ordinance relating to housing for low income households. Adopting the Housing Levy, Administrative and Financial Plan for Program Years 2021 through 2023. Adopting Housing Funding Policies. For the 2016 housing levy and other funds sources authorizing actions by the Director of Housing regarding past and future housing loans and contracts and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Mr. Mosquito. This bill comes out of your committee as well, so I'm going to hand it over to you to provide the community report.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much. Council President. Colleagues, this legislation updates the city's affordable housing funding policies, also known as the NF plan, and it makes some important updates building on the deep changes that were rooted in community needs and suggestions that we took in my community, in my committee back in 2019. Those changes included expanding upon and clarifying the city's intent to use community preference and affirmative markets marketing policies as a framework, as a policy framework for ensuring that those who've been most disproportionately impacted by displacement had a strong opportunity to remain in our city and have access to affordable housing. At that point, we included stronger labor standards to make sure that our new housing that was being built had opportunities for greater labor standards, and that we looked for opportunities to strengthen our commitment to good living wage jobs as we built housing. Language on that should be forthcoming in a report on the case site and other work that we did as well. We also at that point increased Office of Housing Acquisition Authority up to a cap of $30 million at the time. And a lot of that work that we did in 2019 was really rooted in a number of community roundtable discussions that we had, specifically with Bipoc led housing development groups and communities who are most in need of affordable housing in the city. So fast forward to 2021. This is an opportunity for us to expand upon some of those really important changes that we made and make some important and make some small sort of tweaks to really allow for some of those important policy changes to come to fruition. But this does not include major policy directive changes, given that this is a proposal that I think was really well crafted as it was sent to us and included some of the previous work that we had done just two years ago. There's a few things that we should be really excited about in this legislation that we haven't had a chance to hear me say this before. This is a really great opportunity for the Office of Housing to increase its home ownership subsidy, to make sure that we're adequately funding the construction of permanent, affordable homes, to make sure that our very competitive and hot housing market has actual chance of having competition and being able to have more for folks access first time home ownership opportunities. We are in this legislation removing that cap. Previously we had upped the cap on the acquisition authority and now we're removing it. So the Office of Housing has the authority where needed, when there is new revenue available to quickly move and seize opportunities to acquire property for the creation of affordable housing. Given the changing market conditions we're seeing, and why is this important right now? If we see multifamily structures going on the market or derelict buildings that could be used for affordable housing now or in the future, we want to be competitive and to bring in more publicly owned housing options and create public opportunities for folks to have access to good, affordable housing within the city. And removing this cap is a smart way for us to make sure that we're seizing those opportunities. With the onset of COVID, we've also seen a huge demand and acquisition. We built some of the acquisition language into our Jumpstart legislation from last year, and with the money now coming in January of this upcoming year, we'll have the chance to spend those dollars. We just put a portion of the $28.5 million for acquisition and development that you all just voted on in the Seattle Rescue Plan Act Bill. Acquisition acquisition. Acquisition is the theme of the show when it relates to affordable housing right now. And we have made sure that the state is a priority in this plan as well. And there's already several products projects that have given notice to the city to apply for acquisition from funds directly rooted in community organizations and communities that are working. Community organizations that are working on building, building affordable housing have already submitted their notice to apply for acquisition funds in this year's notice of intent to apply around. And we know that there's much more opportunities needed on the horizon. So really excited to have these important changes included in the NF plan and look forward to having your support. And just very quickly, want to thank Emily Alvarado and her team at the Office of Housing, Tracy Ratcliff from Central Staff and Erin House from my office, who've been working closely on getting this legislation ready for us to go out today. I hope you'll support it.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much because.
Speaker 0: We're almost there for those comments. Are there any additional comments on the bill? I don't see any hands raised for any additional comments. So I'm going to ask that the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Palace. S Macheda. Hi, Paterson.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 1: Sergeant.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Strauss. That's Herbold. As Juarez as Luis?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: And Counselor, President Gonzalez. I need a 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? All right. Item five, will the clerk please read item five into the record.
Speaker 1: Report of the Transportation and Utilities Committee Agenda Item five Council Bill 120100 An ordinance relating to Seattle Public Utilities authorizing the general manager CEO of Seattle Public Utilities to enter into a water quality combined financial assistance agreement between the State of Washington, Department of Ecology and the City of Seattle Public Utilities Department to partially finance costs related
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to housing for low-income households; adopting the Housing Levy Administrative and Financial Plan for program years 2021-2023; adopting Housing Funding Policies for the 2016 Housing Levy and other fund sources; authorizing actions by the Director of Housing regarding past and future housing loans and contracts; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06212021_Res 32008
|
Speaker 1: Adoption of other resolutions. Agenda Item nine Resolution 32008a resolution setting the public hearing on the petition of Seattle City Light for the vacation of a portion of diagonal way south west of Fourth Avenue, south in the Greater Duwamish Manufacturing Industrial Center of Seattle, according to Chapter 35.79 of the Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 15.62 of the Seattle Municipal Code and Clark File 314451.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Park. I move to adopt resolution 32008. Is there a second?
Speaker 4: Second?
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution. Jasper Petersen, you are the sponsors. I'm going to hand it over to you to address this item.
Speaker 4: Thank you, councilor, president, colleagues, as I mentioned at council briefing this morning. This is resolution 32008. It simply says the time of a public hearing at our Transportation and Utilities Committee for Wednesday, July 21st at 9:30 a.m. to discuss another small property transfer associated with work on Seattle City Lights facilities and associated with the south parts of Georgetown Bike Trail. If approved after the July 21st public hearing, our Seattle Department of Transportation will be authorized to vacate the right of way of the 13,000 square foot parcel and provide that Seattle City Light, which owns the adjacent properties at Diagonal Way south just west of Fourth Avenue, south in the Greater Duwamish Manufacturing Industrial Center of Seattle. Clark File 314451 is associated with this resolution and is Seattle City Lights official petition to City Council for the vacation of Stotts Right of way. The occasion of the right of way will be handled in a manner that does not negatively impact Seattle Public Utilities. Again, this resolution simply sets the date of the public hearing and will get more information on the substance of this proposal before and during the July 21st public hearing at our committee. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. Are there any additional comments on the resolution? Hearing, none will please call the role on the adoption of the resolution.
Speaker 1: Alice?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Let's gather. I hear your son's.
Speaker 4: High.
Speaker 1: School want. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbals. S Juarez? Yes. Lewis.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: And counselor. President Gonzalez. I nine in favor and and opposed.
Speaker 0: The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay, folks, we are at other business colleagues. I do have one matter of other business that came up after council briefing that I just want to read for the record.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION setting the public hearing on the petition of Seattle City Light for the vacation of a portion of Diagonal Way South, west of 4th Avenue South in the Greater Duwamish Manufacturing/Industrial Center of Seattle, according to Chapter 35.79 of the Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 15.62 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and Clerk File 314451.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06142021_CB 120096
|
Speaker 4: Agenda Item one Council Bill 12009 6,000,002 Appropriations for the Human Services Department amending ordinance 126 237, which adopts the 2021 budget, modifying a proviso imposed by ordinance 126 298 and ratifying confirming certain prior acts.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Park. I moved past Council Bill 120096. Is there a second?
Speaker 1: Second?
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Governor Lewis. You are the prime sponsor of this bill, so I'm going to hand it over to you to address this item.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Madam President. And I want to thank the folks that called in in support of this bill. I particularly Jerry Dearborn, who just called in, who really has been out in the field doing incredible work in moving our neighbors, experiencing homelessness into well-resourced and supported hotel based shelters that have been making a difference for the folks who are receiving that kind of shelter and care, as well as the house residents and business owners of those neighborhoods who have had problematic experiences with some of the unsanctioned encampments. This legislation gets us one step closer to continuing to hold up those folks who are doing this work by giving them the resources they need to get it done and to to accomplish a lot of resolutions in these complicated areas to the benefit of all parties and really making sure that we're centering that fundamentally. We all have the same interests. And that's really the core, I think, of the justice care model and why it has been so successful is really leveling that , you know, someone experiencing homelessness and unsanctioned encampments, business owners and residents that concerns about the encampment ultimately all have the same interests at heart, which is actually being able to move folks inside to get the care and assistance they need. And this is the model that we are essentially committing to front loading more resource toward in the run up here to the reopening of Seattle's economy and the reality that during COVID, as we've seen in countless news stories. The resources to provide health care, to provide shelter, to provide care to our most homeless. Our homeless neighbors have been the most impacted to a large extent by the reality of the COVID emergency and that rebuilding and building back after COVID is going to require filling a lot of these service gaps, which means leaning into models like the justice care model. I want to thank the downtown Seattle Association for the very strong support of this measure and Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, in addition to the service providers who are that who have been doing this work, particularly the Defender Association. Obviously reach Seattle Club, Asian Counseling Referral Service, among others. And you know, I hope that we can get the support out the door to continue to build on the progress that we've been making together and have that impact be felt in more parts of the city instead of just in the Chinatown ID and Pioneer Square neighborhoods. So with that, I will turn it over because I think there's some amendments that need to be considered as well. And I appreciate the opportunity to do to this.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Lewis, for addressing the bass bill. There are. There is at least one amendment that I'm aware of. So we will go ahead and address that amendment. And then once we've addressed the amendment, we can open up the debate in discussion to the bill as amended. So I'm going to recognize Councilmember Herbold, who has Amendment one, in order to have her make her motion.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much. I knew two men come bill 12 0096 as presented as Amendment one on the agenda.
Speaker 1: Second.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded that the bill be amended as presented on Amendment one. Caspar. I'm going to hand it back to you as the prime sponsor so that you can walk us through the amendment.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much. As I mentioned at this morning's briefing, this amendment provides 3 million of the 12 million to expand the city's contract with league. This expanded contract will allow lead to respond to the increase in community referrals as a result of COVID and the increased costs of operating during the pandemic. The expanded contract is consistent with Council's vote last year to require lead to accept community referrals without prior law enforcement approval and Council's adoption of Resolution 31916 in 2019, which declares the city's commitment to ensuring that law enforcement pre-arrest diversion programs receive public funding sufficient to accept all priority qualifying referrals citywide. Why is the removal of the barrier to referrals requiring prior law enforcement approval relevant to this amendment? It's so important because our community stakeholders want to use lead. We've gotten rid of the barrier that limited non law enforcement referrals. Now we need to address the capacity limitations. Otherwise, lead will not be able to take direct referrals from as many neighborhood groups. Neighborhood watches, precinct advisory councils and business improvement areas that are interested in using lead. So I want to thank Councilmember Lewis and Councilmember Morales for their co-sponsorship of this amendment and urge it support. Thank you.
Speaker 0: And it's so much because of our world, because we're morals. You have your hand raised.
Speaker 2: Should we vote on this first, or can I just address the amendment?
Speaker 3: What's that?
Speaker 2: So do you want to vote on the amendment first, or is this the time for me to address it?
Speaker 0: No. Now. Now would be the time to address and make any comments related to the amendment.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Well, first, I do want to thank Councilmember Herbold for allowing me to co-sponsor this suit to the punch on actually drafting this amendment. There's so much interest in this, you know, sponsoring this, because we know that lead works. It is providing the organization that the effort is providing consistent, valuable diversion services. You know, the lead program, partners with organizations who know our communities and understand the different points of view that our neighbors feel about how to best address the challenges of our homeless neighbors. But they are also trauma informed and they are trusted by my community members, by our unhoused neighbors, by business owners. So it's really important, as Councilmember Herbold said, that we increase the capacity of this group to respond and provide the kind of service that we need. Constituents in my community are regularly asking how we can expand lead in places like Mount Baker and Beacon Hill. So I'm really excited to be able to co-sponsor this amendment and look forward to our ability as a city to make the kind of investments we need to really begin addressing the challenges that are homeless neighbors are facing
Speaker 0: . Thank you so much, Councilmember Morales, for those comments. Any additional? I see that Councilman Peterson also has his hand raised. I'm assuming he wants to make a comment on Amendment one. So, Councilman Peterson, please.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President I strongly support the lead diversion program and will continue to fund lead. I would rather see 100% of these housing funds go toward housing people experiencing homelessness. I'll be voting no on this amendment, which would redirect, essentially redirect 25% of the of the $12 million. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Peterson. Any other comments or questions on Amendment One? I don't see any other hands raised. So with that being said, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment One?
Speaker 3: Lewis, I. Where else?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: PETERSON No.
Speaker 3: So. Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: HERBOLD. Yes. Whereas I. Council President Gonzalez I seven in favor one of those.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much the motion carries the amendment is adopted and the amended bill is now before the council. Are there any additional comments on the amended bill? Councilmember Morales, please.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I am really excited to see this bill. So I do want to thank Councilmember Lewis. My office consistently hears resounding support for just care. In fact, just care is the model that my office looked to last year when we fought to eliminate the navigation team and replace it with the Hope program. I will admit there's still some work to do to make sure that the Hope program is implemented as intended. But just CARE has proven to be successful at sheltering people in safe non congregate settings at providing intensive 24 seven case management and in finding people long term stable housing. They are not perpetuating trauma to unhoused people and we know that to truly meet each individual's needs, we need this kind of service, this kind of option for folks. That's why my constituents are regularly asking for programs like this to be extended. That support comes because people are seeing rapid results and they're seeing real results. Whether we're talking about small business owners having fewer encounters with folks who are experiencing a crisis or service providers who are seeing a real collaboration payoff. We know that house neighbors are seeing folks committing crimes of poverty or crimes related to a state of distress, getting the kind of help that they need. And we see unhoused folks able to get into a safe space, receive intensive services that meet their needs and find housing. So small business owners, business associations, service providers, house neighbors, the King County Council, the majority of the city council, and most importantly, our unhoused neighbors themselves have all applauded the work of just care. I was recently in a public safety meeting in the city where a representative from SPD said that they too welcome the work that just does. So I don't know who who isn't on board at this point, but I think this is really important work that goes beyond traditional outreach. This is public safety work that doesn't involve the police. It's substance abuse treatment work. It's crisis intervention work. And it's housing connection and support work. There's a real appetite for us to do something on all of these fronts. That is a big part of the conversation we've been having in the last year in Seattle. I've heard it over and over again that folks want this work done without police intervention and without punitive consequences that move people from one place to the other but don't actually accomplish anything. People understand that that doesn't work, and showing up with a truck, a bulldozer or a dump truck is inhumane. So this is an option that really provides a model of care that has acute impacts for our community with minimal funds and support from the city. With the able, they've been able to create a system that really has huge support across the city. So I'm excited by the funds that we've appropriated and excited to see this work continue. And I'll just close by thanking both lead and just care for the work they've done in my district and thanking Councilmember Lewis once again for highlighting the needs of these programs and council colleagues who have co-sponsored this. I think it's our strong advocacy that is contributing to this work, and I look forward to having a strong partner in the executive's office so that we can distribute funds allocated for just care in the future. And as we all know, we can appropriate these funds, but we need to get the money to the providers. And my hope is that we'll be able to do that once we get this signed. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, customer and one of us really appreciate those comments. Councilmember Strauss.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President and thank you colleagues and the sponsors of this bill for bringing it forward. I'm excited to vote yesterday and had hoped to see this bill sooner and I'm glad to see it here today because we know that just care works. It is a proven solution to address homelessness with lasting results rather than time limited results. This is a program that we need throughout the city, and I'm excited to see how we and how quickly we can expand these services because we need these services. We need the Just Care program in Green Lake and Fremont and Ballard and throughout the city. Thank you to everyone who's made it a success so far, and I look forward to continuing to work with everyone on bringing just care throughout the city. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 0: A so much casmir strauss. Just remember, Louis, I see that you have your hand raised. You're the prime sponsor, so you'll get last word. So let me. Let me see if any one else has any comments. Kazmir Peterson, please.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council president had a question about the. Based on some comments I just heard, that's a question for the sponsor about the bill. And then I quit comments just a few sentences. The question we talk about just care. I just want to make sure what we're talking about is the model and not a particular vendor or provider. Is that is that correct? Well, that that could be one way, that it could be interpreted because that I mean, we can't be too too prescriptive. I mean, the bill is not does not pick a particular vendor. Right. So I think not necessarily, but the people that have been bidding on this work have been the same consortium of providers. So I would anticipate that it would probably end up being the consortium that the Defenders Association has convened. But it would it doesn't necessarily have to be. It's. Thank you. Council president. Just a quick comments to close out. Thank you. I'll be voting yes on this ordinance. Recognize the urgent need to house people experiencing homelessness. Placing them in hotels and other non congregate shelter during the COVID pandemic. This is a promising, albeit temporary, solution during the current crisis. And so I'm supporting this investment of public dollars to make sure the investment in these public dollars is ultimately effective, regardless of which service providers receive the funds. Manage the program since this is not a sole source award. I would ask our Human Services Department to track the key metrics such as the cost to house each person and the key outcomes, such as the number of people exiting to permanent housing. I'll be voting yes on this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. Any additional comments before we close out debate? I'm not seeing any other hands raised. I also wanted to echo thanks to Councilmember Lewis for leading the charge as the chair of our homelessness committee. Really appreciate the leadership in this space and the opportunity to collaborate with you. Councilmember Lewis, as one of the sponsors of this really important piece of legislation. We know that the model related to meeting the needs of people experiencing homelessness that allows us to be nimble and not pursue strategies that are law enforcement focused first are really critical to our ability to successfully end homelessness. And while this is a temporary solution, it's still a very important one to begin to connect people to the services and the housing that they need. So I'm really excited about the opportunity to continue to invest in a model that that really seems to have broad community support among constituencies that don't ordinarily agree with each other. And and I think that that the results that we are seeing from housing placements and service connection are very promising results. And, and I'm excited to be able to continue to support investments, strategic investments in this area, to continue to make a meaningful difference in the area of homelessness. And with that being said, I am going to hand it over to Councilmember Lewis, who is going to close that debate, and then we're going to vote on this on this bill.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I'll I'll be brief here in closing it out, given everyone else's comments. I mean, you know, I've said a couple of times that, you know, I predecessor, Sally, she used to refer to things as passing the C test or that the C test is an important component of what we do. Like people that can see the tangible difference that something that we fund is having and then draw conclusions about, you know, whether that is is making a difference in their lives or not. And you know, unequivocally that's just care consortium during the pandemic has passed the C test. I received more positive communication from from provider advocates, from small business owners, from neighborhood residents who are involved in this and who have really changed some of their core convictions and perceptions about how to solve the homelessness crisis through their experience of working with and interacting with just care and seeing how this approach and this model can work. I just wanted to add a couple of more sort of logistical things at the top. There are many ways that this investment can be squared with our ultimate budget. I know that this has been a little bit of a bit of a hiccup in funding this effort over the past over the course of the past few months, based on interpretations of the FEMA guidance and based on schedules of potential reimbursement for some of these dollars. We have new information now that we didn't have when we initially passed this legislation. We know that the general fund is recovering at a faster rate than we had initially anticipated when we did our last budget. We have the benefit of a $10 million FEMA reimbursement insurance program. The State Representative Macri passed in the last legislative session. We have the benefit of knowing that there's going to be another big tranche of federal money coming down the pipeline in 2022. That gives us some extra flexibility even since crafting this bill. We also have a little bit more assurance that Jumpstart is going to survive its legal challenges and be part of the fabric of our city budget. There are ways we can square this obligation of $12 million that can be spent upfront at the beginning of this summer to make a noticeable difference in impact, both for people experiencing homelessness and people who have concerns about the unsanctioned encampments. There are multiple ways we can remit this money. The legislation allows, if there's capacity issues for this money to be remitted through the contracts that King County has, you know, that would still be subject to the same reporting requirements. But to take advantage of our relationship in partnership with King County, to remit those dollars faster, to get them out into the community. From my conversations with our counterparts at King County, that arrangement would be possible if it's something the city needs to pursue to avoid administrative hurdles with our, you know, greatly appreciated and considerably overworked Human Services Department contractors, King County stands ready to be a strong partner, and I look forward to helping to establish that relationship, if necessary, to get this resource out into the community. I do want to just finally thank the coalition that Councilmember Gonzales alluded to earlier. This effort has led to a letter that is now out in the world, in the public record, where the Chamber of Commerce and the downtown Seattle Association are praising Councilmember silent for her leadership. So it is clear we can do great things when great ideas come forward that can transcend some of the divides we have in the city. And I want to thank the coalition that includes the downtown Seattle Association and the Seattle Chamber of Commerce. In addition to organizations representing arts organizations, representing tourism and service providers who have been clamoring for this kind of investment for a long time. So with that, you know, I think there will still be some additional work on the other side of passing this bill to hammer out some of the details and implementation. I look forward to those conversations and I am looking forward to voting on this. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Lewis, thanks again for stewarding this bill through the legislative process. All right, colleagues, but that debate is now closed. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the amended bill?
Speaker 1: LEWIS Yes.
Speaker 3: Morales Yes.
Speaker 1: Peterson Yes.
Speaker 3: So what? Yes. Strauss. Yes. Per bold. Yes. Whereas I. Council President Gonzales was high eight in favor nine oppose the bill.
Speaker 0: Passes as amended and the chair will sign it. Will clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read items two through six into the record?
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to appropriations for the Human Services Department; amending Ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 Budget; modifying a proviso imposed by Ordinance 126298; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06142021_CF 314476
|
Speaker 4: Agenda item 745314 476. Finance conclusions and Decision of the City Council of the City of Seattle and the matter of the final assessment role for Local Improvement District number 6751 and the appeals and multiple appellants.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. I move the adoption of the findings, conclusions and decision of the council as presented in clerk filed 314476. Is there a second look? It's been moved and seconded to adopt the findings, conclusions and decision of the Council. I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Juarez, who's the sponsor of this item, this clerk file, and looking forward to being walked right them.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Council president colleagues, we have item seven.
Speaker 3: Eight.
Speaker 2: And nine that all have to do with the lid. So Kels question, I guess I'll just do each individual.
Speaker 3: As we call them in.
Speaker 0: Okay. Yeah. Yeah. If your comments are divided up in a way where we can do that, that'd be great. Otherwise, I can have the clerk read the next two items into the record if if you planned on addressing them all at once.
Speaker 3: Can we do that? Would you mind?
Speaker 0: Sure. Madam Clerk, can you also please read item eight and nine into the record? The short titles are fine.
Speaker 4: Thank you. The Report of the Public Assets and Native Communities Committee Agenda Item eight modifying, approving and confirming the final assessments and assessment role of Local Improvement. District Number 6751. The Committee recommended the bill pass and Agenda Item nine Council 1200 73 relating to financing public improvements within local improvement district number 6751 authorize and providing for the issuance and sale of local improvement district bonds. The committee recommended the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Great. We will take an individual vote on each of these items. But for purposes of the discussion, I consider, whereas you may now address all three items as part of your comments related to the subject matter. Take it away.
Speaker 2: Thank you. So Council, council colleagues and.
Speaker 3: President. As you know, we've been working on the list for a while.
Speaker 2: So I'm just going to go ahead and briefly touch on item seven, eight and nine, starting with, of course, agenda item seven. And that is the clerk filed the finance conclusions, the decisions, and this document is the written record on the matter of the waterfront with six.
Speaker 3: Seven, five one.
Speaker 2: The Council's adoption of the findings and conclusions decision would approve the final assessment role with the local improvement district, with revisions recommended by the hearing examiner, which also denied each of the appeals and confirmed the hearing examiner's recommendation for each.
Speaker 3: The what I should say.
Speaker 2: That is also on the clerk's file is all of the appeals, the hearing examiner's decision, the initial report, the final report, and also a chronology dating back to 2000th November 2011, I believe.
Speaker 3: So the whole history is there. So we made sure.
Speaker 2: That that was in the clerk file.
Speaker 3: For everybody's reading and recommendation and which all of our.
Speaker 2: Colleagues got as well as the public. And we had a hearing on that. The second item and item number eight, Council Bill 120072 approves the final assessment role. Again, this would establish the final assessment role for the construction of the improvements of the list numbering six, seven, five one. That's the number of the list.
Speaker 3: And the third is the bill that authorizes the city. It's the financing piece to issue bonds to pay the cost for the improvements to the waterfront lit.
Speaker 2: So Council President, this all came out of committee unanimously. And so I as the chair, I would ask.
Speaker 3: That the.
Speaker 2: City council adopt the clerk file item number seven, which is clerk file 314476. Agenda item number eight that I ask the committee or the full council to pass council bill 120072.
Speaker 3: And I ask that full council pass council bill 120073. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Council President Thank you so much. Council Members and thanks for addressing all three items at once that it's going to make it much more efficient. So colleagues. Any additional comments on any three of these items? So we're talking about items seven, eight and nine related to the live customer. Lewis, please.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I just want to take a moment to really thank Chair Waters for her transparency and accessibility throughout the process and her committee. I am not a member of the relevant committee, but certainly this is an area of intense interest in District seven and I really appreciated the opportunity to be able to drop by the committee, be able to ask questions of central staff and and other relevant analysts on these various bills and get clarification on things that I was unclear about. Just speaking generally to the entire Waterfront Land Project, which I'm free to do here in this open session and in this context. I did just want to share some of. The takeaways from that hearing and from the questions that were asked. You know, I do think fundamentally it is appropriate to seek the use of local improvement districts for significant, significant infrastructure changes that are going to have the benefit of the entire neighborhood as a whole and part. And we know that there's going to be considerable improvement to the core of downtown, to the waterfront and to the area around the Pike Place Market from some of the investments that are going to be paid for partially through this list. I do want to say, you know, I I know that there are cases out there of folks who are going to get caught in. The boundaries of the local improvement district where payment could be a hardship and that the residential portion of the list as a whole is a fee is a fairly small portion. This was useful information from the hearing that I attended that it's about 20% of the $174 million, just to remind the general public. The lid is assessed to pay for about 49% of the improvements involved in this project. 51% of the improvements to be paid for with other taxes and with private philanthropy. But I think it is important to flag that the residential portion of the land is a fairly modest part of the overall project. I would certainly be interested in pursuing in the future, especially as we go through implementation and assessment, that if there if there are people reporting significant hardship over the course of the period where people are expected to pay into the lit under the council, explore some kind of mitigation for the residential portion of the LED folks that are assessed based on a hardship to pay or based on on other extenuating circumstances. But that said, having reviewed the clerk's file and having reviewed the rest of the process that the hearing examiner and that the relevant committee and indeed a lot of the outreach work that has gone into the overall waterfront project, I cannot say sitting here in the in a quasi judicial capacity that this that this to lead has or and I have to agree that this led has been conducted in a way that is squaring the law and the rules around how a lead assessment is carried out and implemented. For those reasons, I am going to vote today on all three pieces of legislation to move forward on this project. But I do want to flag that going forward, the residential portion of the land is something I would be interested in exploring future ways to mitigate over the pendency of the assessments in cases where there is real hardship, particularly for people that are on fixed incomes. With that, I don't have any other comments. Madam President, I do just want to once more express my appreciation to the Chair for for being very accessible throughout this process and allowing ample opportunity for me to engage.
Speaker 0: If you come from our Louis any any other comments on the bill. Right. Because there was any closing remarks before we close out debate.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 2: I want to thank Councilmember Lewis. I'm glad you had an.
Speaker 3: Opportunity to read the Clarke file and that the law aligns itself with the state law. Thank you for that. Yeah.
Speaker 2: This led the number 675 one means that we've had 6751.
Speaker 3: Leads since the turning of the century, which.
Speaker 2: Aligns with state law. So that's great. I'm glad you had a chance.
Speaker 3: To look at that and that you approved.
Speaker 2: So with that council president, I'd like us to take a vote on that.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Waters. Thanks for closing our debate. Hearing no additional comments, will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the findings, conclusions and decision of the Council as presented in clerk? File 314476.
Speaker 3: Lewis.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Morales Yes. Peterson.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Silent? Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Verbal. That's. Whereas s council president Gonzalez I it in favor and then oppose.
Speaker 0: The motion carries and the findings, conclusions and decision of the Council as presented in clerk file 314476 as adopted. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the findings, conclusions and decision of the City Council on my behalf? We have already read items eight and nine into the record and have debate, so I'm just going to call each of these items up individually for a vote at this time. Well, the clerk, please call the roll on the passage of item eight, which is one minute squirrel here. Council Bill 120072.
Speaker 3: Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Morales. Yes.
Speaker 1: Petersen Yes.
Speaker 3: So want. Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Purple? Yes. Whereas. Yes. Council President Gonzales. Yes. Eight in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it with a quick. Please fix my signature on the legislation on my behalf. Okay. Moving over to item nine, which again has already been read into the record, described and debated. So I'm going to go ahead and just call this one up for a vote now. So will the parties call the roll on the passage of Council Bill 1 to 0 073, which is item nine?
Speaker 3: Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Morales.
Speaker 2: As.
Speaker 1: Peterson Yes.
Speaker 3: Swan Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Verbal? Yes. Whereas s council President Gonzalez s eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will this affect my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Well the quick please read item ten into the record.
|
Clerk File (CF)
|
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision of the City Council of the City of Seattle In the Matter of the Final Assessment Roll for Local Improvement District No. 6751 (Waterfront LID) and the Appeals of Multiple Appellants.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06142021_CB 120032
|
Speaker 4: Agenda Item 11 Constable 1200 32 relating to weapon park transferring jurisdiction of a portion of Whitman Avenue north for the sale department transportation to Seattle Parks and Recreation for open space park and Recreation Purposes. The committee recommends that the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Because mirrors this one is also an item from your committee. So I'm going to hand it back over to you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 2: Yes, this has to do with parks and stop. It's basically a land swap. So this allows for a land swap from Seattle Parks and Recreation to the Seattle Department of Transportation. It would transfer three feet of land, the same parks along East.
Speaker 3: Green Lake, way between Northeast 50th Street to.
Speaker 2: Northeast 57th Street to escort, which is Seattle Department transportation.
Speaker 3: Which it was inadvertently included as park property.
Speaker 2: So we want to right that wrong. The legislation clarifies that the land is the property of Esther. You also see in your materials the bill passed committee as amended to substitute two technical corrections to the base legislation. It passed unanimously, and I'm asking that council.
Speaker 3: Pass this bill as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmembers. Are there any additional comments as members stress, please?
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President. Thank you, councilmember suarez, for bringing this forward. This is a highly technical piece of legislation that is required, the parks department and that work together in great partnership around many of the aspects of the paving project around Green Lake Way. This is one of those small details that needs to be ironed out. I'll use this moment to again make my pitch to the Seattle Department of Transportation and the Parks Department to do something similar along West Green Lake, way north, where we have a two way bike lane and a two way traveling street for cars. Thank you. Council President. Thank you. Council Memorial's.
Speaker 3: I mean, a lot.
Speaker 0: Despite her worries. Any closing remarks?
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Strauss, for making a pitch for a bike lane. Appreciate that. So anyway, I know that city council president.
Speaker 3: I think. All right.
Speaker 0: We're debate is closed down on this bill now. Will the clerk please call roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 3: Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: MORALES Yes. Peterson.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Yes. Sprouse.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Verbal? Yes. Whereas I council President Gonzales I would in favor and then oppose.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay. Well, the clerk please read item 12 into the record.
Speaker 4: Agenda Item 12 Council Bill 1200 69,000,000,002 Independent Contractors in Seattle Establishing Labor Standards Requirements for Independent Contractors Working in Seattle. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to Woodland Park; transferring jurisdiction of a portion of Whitman Avenue N from the Seattle Department of Transportation to Seattle Parks and Recreation for open space, park, and recreation purposes; transferring a portion of Woodland Park adjacent to East Green Lake Way N from Seattle Parks and Recreation to the Seattle Department of Transportation for transportation purposes; and finding, after a public hearing, that the exchange of property meets the requirements of Ordinance 118477, which adopted Initiative 42.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06142021_CB 120069
|
Speaker 4: Agenda Item 12 Council Bill 1200 69,000,000,002 Independent Contractors in Seattle Establishing Labor Standards Requirements for Independent Contractors Working in Seattle. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Colleagues, as we all know, Councilman ROSQUETA is excused from today's Fall City Council meeting. So in her stead on item 12 will be council member Herbold, who is going to provide the committee report. Councilmember, please.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much. So in Councilmember Mascots Stead, I'm reporting out this bill from the Finance and Housing Committee for your consideration. As it happens, the bill is sponsored by me. This is Council Bill 12 0069. The committee unanimously recommended passage of the bill as amended with a vote of five zero. If the chair permits, I will now move to address the bill as the sponsor.
Speaker 0: Please do.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much. As mentioned this morning and council things, we addressed many of the concerns of stakeholders and the Office of Labor Standards through a substitute bill and an amendment that were both adopted in committee. Just moving backwards a little bit for some context. First, before I get into the the details of that substitute bill in amendment misclassification is a high priority of of our of our labor standards advocates, myself included. Back in February 2019, after working with the Office of Labor Standards, the Council passed Resolution 31863. In part, that resolution requested that the Labor Standards Advisory Council work with the Office of Labor Standards on the issue of misclassification and provide input on effective strategies based on their experience and existing worker and business associations. In May 2020, the Council received final recommendations from SAC. However, due to the pandemic, we were not able to take up the recommendations. And early this year, when my staff and council central staff presented to our SAC on on on the plans to take up their recommendations, again, that that policy deliberation began, I believe was back in February. The Finance and Housing Committee proceeded to have several committee discussions on the legislation, which led to additional conversations and other stakeholders. Finally, on June 4th, the committee adopted a substitute bill to address the concerns that we've heard throughout the process. Again, very broadly, the bill includes a timely payment obligation for for folks who are considered independent contractors. Not every person who is considered an independent contractor has been misclassified, but the timely payment obligation should be obligations that all workers receive, whether or not they work for an employer or are independently contracted. But then also the other obligations in the bill, obligations that require advance notice to a contract employee about what the conditions are for which they will be receiving payment on the front end. And then on the back end, an explanation of, of of why your payment is what it is. These are decent labor standards that I think regular employees take for granted. But in the area of independent contracting, it's these are not standard obligations. And they're the kinds of kinds of information that an independent contractor look at, help them determine whether or not they are being misclassified as they as an independent contractor, and it allows them to advocate for themselves as a worker. The changes in the bill that were in the substitute that we discussed last week clarifies that director of class has authority to issue rules for the enforcement of this legislation. There are some categories of independent workers that have this rule. Issuance authority will allow us to take a look at it clearly, as was always intended with the bill, not cover independent contractors when the only relationship between the contractor and the hiring entity is a pretty rent agreement that is intended to deal with concerns that we've heard from independent contractor hairstylists who only relationship with a salon is renting a workspace and moves the effect date of the legislation to 2022. At best of labor standards requests. It adds a non codified section related to the standard that exists for the Office of Labor Standards to request funding through the budget process directly of the Council. The this is a special authority that the Director has, unlike many departments of of the city, to establish their authority so that they can directly identify what their budget needs are and not have to go to the mayor's office and use this office as the way that council and the mayor will. Elaborate on on the enforcement costs associated with this bill. It removes platform workers from many aspects of the bill, although not for timely payment. Those obligations still exist. And this was a was an amendment that member Strauss requested that I add I raise in his absence in committee last weekend in committee last week which I did so and was included in the substitute on his request. And finally, in line with the removal of PI from gig workers from many of the aspects of the bill, it also states our interest as a Council on establishing minimum compensation and other protections like transparency for firms gig workers from late September to the end of 2021. And that covers the bill. I ask if there are other comments about it. Madam Chair. Happy to open it up. I would like just some closing. Thanks. Before. Before we call the vote.
Speaker 0: Absolutely. Okay, colleagues. Any other comments any additional comments on the bill as described by Council member Google's. I don't see any hands raised, so it looks like we headed right back to you. Councilmember her votes for those thank you's.
Speaker 3: Thanks so much. Yeah. I just want to again underscore my thanks to the Labor Standards Advisory Council for bringing these recommendations forward in the first place. The the collaboration of the Office of Labor Standards, as well as all the external participants that gave input to this bill over the last several months. And a special thanks to central South Korea, both for her deft analysis and patient policy shepherding and special thanks as well to Marty for his diligent work communicating with many stakeholders and tying up all the other loose ends.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Herbold, with that debate is now closed on the bill. And I'm going to ask the clerk, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: LEWIS.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Morales Yes. Peterson.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Excellent. Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Bold. Yes. Whereas I. Council. President Gonzalez I voted in favor and then oppose.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it will a quick please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Well the quick please read item 13 into the record.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to independent contractors in Seattle; establishing labor standards requirements for independent contractors working in Seattle; amending Sections 3.02.125, 3.15.000, and 6.208.020 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and adding a new Chapter 14.34 to the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06072021_CB 120080
|
Speaker 5: Agenda Item one Council Bill 120080 an ordinance relating to land use and zoning extending for six months. A moratorium established by ordinance 125764 and extended by ordinances 12006126090 and 126241 on the filing, acceptance, processing and or approval of any application to establish a new principal or accessory use or change in principal or accessory use for any site currently used as a mobile home park, as defined in sections 23.8 for 8.032 of the Seattle Municipal Code and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Madam Clerk, I will move to pass Council Bill 120080. Is there a second?
Speaker 4: Second?
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. It's been moved and seconded and I am assuming that Councilmember wise, you are going to report out on this item, is that correct?
Speaker 1: It is.
Speaker 0: All right. I'm going to I'm going to hand it over to you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council president, as I shared this morning and I've been sharing for probably the last two years, as you know, Councilmember Strauss is not here today. So I will speak to this item since we've been working on this. We've introduced legislation that would create a long term resolution to the issue by establishing a manufactured home park overlay to preserve the last two existing manufac manufactured home parks in Seattle. Both are located in District five. This that legislation this legislation is currently on hold pending a challenge to its SIPA determination. The current moratorium is set to expire on July 10th. We hope to extend this moratorium for the final day, for the final time today, to allow for the CPO appeal to be resolved in for counsel to consider our legislation to preserve these parks for the long term. And we've obviously been in discussions with legal on this as well.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Great. Thank you so much, Councilmember Suarez. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Carry no additional comments on the bill. Will the quick please call the vote on the passage of the bill? Whereas I.
Speaker 1: Lewis.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Morales. As. Mascara. I. Peterson.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 1: So what? Yes. Council President Gonzales was.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Seven and seven unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the caucuses affect my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read item two into the record?
|
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, and 126241, 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
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06072021_Res 31998
|
Speaker 5: Agenda item two Resolution 31998. A resolution urging Mayor Durkan and Governor Inslee to extend the city and state emergency moratoriums on evictions through no earlier than the end of 2021.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 0: So much. I move to adopt resolution 31998. Is there a second?
Speaker 1: I get back in?
Speaker 0: Great. Wonderful. Okay. Councilmember Sawant, you are the sponsor of the resolution. I'm going to hand it over to you to address this item.
Speaker 3: Thank you. And God surprise. And I will make the general comments I have and then move the amendment. Is that okay? On the U.S. amendment.
Speaker 0: No, let's let's address the base the base bill, and then we'll have you do the amendment, and then we can have a conversation about the amendment and do the vote on the amendment.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. This resolution urges the mayor and governor to extend the moratorium on evictions through at least the end of this year. This resolution last came for a vote to the city council on March 15th, two weeks before the city and state eviction moratorium were poised to expire. At that time, renters were terrified that they could lose their homes in two weeks, and housing activists and organizations demanded that the mayor and the governor extend the eviction moratorium to the end of the year. Minutes before the city council meeting on that day where the resolution was going to be voted on now, Durkan relented and extended the moratorium for an additional three months. And later, Governor Inslee did the same. As we said at that time, this was a victory for the renters rights struggle, but it was also only a partial victory because it was extended. The moratorium was extended to only three months. I proposed at the time and the council unanimously agreed to delay the vote on the resolution until today, June 7th, because the eviction moratoriums are now. I'm going to expire on June 30th unless they're extended. Like in March, if the eviction moratoriums are permitted to expire at the end of this month, it will spell a real disaster for renters, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's Household Pulse survey. 270,000 Washington state renters have little to no confidence that they will be able to pay rent next month, which is 18% of all state renters and 98,000 Washington state renters think it is very or somewhat likely that they will be evicted in the next two months. And already, as a public comment, testimonials have stated, and as I have said in my comments and previous weeks, the data from the real estate industry in Seattle itself shows that rents are starting to skyrocket starting in January already, and that they are projected to increase at a greater rate than the rents were going up in the pre-pandemic period. So renters are facing a dire situation, both in terms of keeping up with the current trend, not to mention the debt that they are being forced to accumulate. We have fought for and won the right to a lawyer for renters facing eviction. Eviction. Defenses for renters and rental assistance. Money. All of those are extremely important, but none of them are an excuse to fail to extend the eviction moratorium when the eviction moratorium ends. Literally thousands of Seattle renters. Could be served with eviction paperwork, which is also known as unlawful detainers. An unknown number will evict moving before they are formally served with eviction paperwork. Then, statistically, half of those actually settled with formal eviction paperwork will be evicted by default because they are unable to respond to the paperwork or appear in court. And only those who make it to the eviction hearing can avoid eviction using Seattle's eviction defense, the right to counsel and rental assistance funds. I oppose evictions because housing should be a human right at the least. At the very least, however, the housing emergency renters are facing due to the economic shock of COVID 19 needs to be resolved before elected officials even consider lifting the eviction moratorium. This is a resolution. It's a resolution urging Mayor Durkan and Governor Inslee to extend the eviction moratorium to the end of this year. I want to move the amendment and then I have specific comment about the amended version. So I move Amendment One, which updates this resolution to account for changes over the past three months since it was last discussed. Can I get a second.
Speaker 0: Second I It's been moved in second hand. So as a result you may address your.
Speaker 3: Thank you. The amendment adds up to date statistics and also language on recent community organizing. For example, a quote from a Washington Community Action Network outreach letter. Quote, We are calling for an extension of the eviction moratorium to the end of this year, end of the year to make sure renters have time to access rent relief programs , get back to their normal incomes, and can get caught up on rent. We want some important policies in the state legislature, but to make sure those policies are effective, we need to ensure rent don't have time to catch up on rent and code. The amendment resolution also quotes from my Washington Low Income Housing Alliance letter stating, quote, Incredible numbers of renters are applying for rent rental assistance and it will take months to get the funds distributed. Lifting the moratorium and allowing landlords to proceed with evictions a month from now would be grossly irresponsible. And quite frankly, it is. I agree with them. It is not acceptable that elected officials would even consider lifting the moratorium before renters are able to get caught up on their past rent and stabilize their lives after this unprecedented emergency. The amendment also account for the provision in Senate Bill 5160 that shamefully ends the eviction moratorium statewide on June 30th. But to be clear, while the statewide moratorium is scheduled at this moment to end on June 30th, according to Senate Bill 5160, there is nothing legally stopping Governor Inslee from issuing a new moratorium proclamation. And Senate Bill 5160 says nothing about the city's moratorium. So I urge councilmembers to support this amendment. Updating the resolution language also urge council members to support the resolution as a whole. But at this time, I think we have the first vote on the amendment to update the language and then the vote on the resolution as a whole. And I'll just have some closing comments later on. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Perfect. That's exactly how we're going to handle this. So before we call the roll on proposed amendment and one, I would like to offer other council members an opportunity to ask any questions or make any comments about proposed Amendment one as published on the agenda. Hearing no comments or seeing any hands raised for questions. Will the clerk please call the will on the adoption.
Speaker 4: Of amendments one.
Speaker 1: Whereas. I. Lewis.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Morales.
Speaker 0: Mystery. I.
Speaker 1: Peterson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: So on. Yes. Council President Gonzales. I seven and seven. None of those.
Speaker 0: The amendment passes and the motion carries the amendment as adopted, and the amended resolution is now before the City Council. Are there any additional comments on the resolution as amended? And of course, Councilor Arsalan is the prime sponsor. You'll get the last word. All right. Scanning the zoom room for any hands. And I'm not seeing any hands raised. So, Councilmember Charlotte, you get the last word. You can close out debate and we'll call this to a vote.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I just wanted to add, the New York Times editorial board recently wrote an editorial with the Orwellian title To Prevent Elections and Moratoriums. This editorial advocates for ending eviction moratoriums around the country by making the neoliberal bootstraps argument that poor renters need the threat of eviction to be motivated to access rental assistance money. We know that such neoliberal arguments have no truth. And when you look at overwhelming statistical evidence, but we also know that this is the new line of the corporate establishment now. And we are seeing it being used around the country to erode renters rights from Philadelphia to Olympia. And it is being used as a cudgel against any any advocacy of extending eviction moratoriums nationally. The reality is that rental assistance agencies need time to distribute rental assistance funds. Renters do not need the threat of eviction. Renters need some guarantees that they will not lose their homes. And as progressives, we have a duty to push back against this neoliberal narrative. Housing should be a human right and not used as leverage. Like The New York Times editorial board proposes. So I would urge that we send a clear message to the governors and the mayors offices that the Seattle City Council supports renters and community organizations in demanding that the moratorium be extended to at least the end of this year. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember and Salon, for those closing comments. We are not going to call this resolution to a vote. So will the clerk please call the will on the adoption of the amended resolution? Was I. Lewis.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Morales. That a.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Peterson. I so want.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council. President Gonzalez. I wasn't in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The resolution is adopted as amended, and the chair will sign it. Well, the piece that fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Okay. Moving on to item three, will the clerk please read item three into the record?
Speaker 5: The Report of the Sustainability and Renters Rights Commission Agenda Item three Council Bill 120046 An ordinance relating to termination of residential rental tenancies, providing a defense to certain evictions of children, their families and educators during the school year, and amending Section 22.206160 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
Resolution (Res)
|
A RESOLUTION urging Mayor Durkan and Governor Inslee to extend the City and State emergency moratoriums on evictions through no earlier than the end of 2021.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
SeattleCityCouncil_06072021_CB 120046
|
Speaker 5: The Report of the Sustainability and Renters Rights Commission Agenda Item three Council Bill 120046 An ordinance relating to termination of residential rental tenancies, providing a defense to certain evictions of children, their families and educators during the school year, and amending Section 22.206160 of the Seattle Municipal Code. The committee recommends the Council pass the Council bill with a divided report with council members Swamp Morales and Lewis in favor and Councilmember Peterson opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam. Councilor. So on. As chair of the committee, you are recognized in order to address. I am sorry. In order to provide the committee's report.
Speaker 3: Thank you. President Gonzalez, this is the legislation from my office banning the eviction of schoolchildren, their families and educators during the school year. It is common sense, but there are also mountains of research showing that when children are evicted, it has devastating impact on their academic achievement and their development and mental health. For example, the Losing Home Report found that code of evicted respondents with school age children 85.7% said their children had to move schools after the eviction, and 87.5% reported their children's school performance suffered very much because of the eviction. And in 2018, the state found that nearly 4200 Seattle public school children were homeless at some point during the school year. That is a staggering 7% of all public school children. And in practical terms, it means that in an average of 30 students, two will be homeless at some point during the school year. This is a racial justice and Black Lives Matter issue as well. Just as Seattle landlords evict black tenants at much higher rates than other tenants, we also see that black students and other students of color disproportionately face homelessness. And we should make sure, of course, to understand the causal link between evictions and the likelihood of ending up homeless. We know the Losing Home report also found that nine times out of ten evictions result in homelessness. The 2018 state data found that fully 40% of homeless students were black and 23% of homeless students were Latino. Even though those communities constitute only 14 and 12%, respectively, of Seattle's public student population. Preventing school year elections will reduce at least this one form of systemic racism that is affecting our students. In the class of 2018, for example, 55.2% of homeless students graduated on time, compared to 85 or 84.5% of students who were housed. So we see a dramatic impact of homelessness and evictions on children, graduation rates and the academic research into the impact of eviction and housing instability on students and children is also revealed, for example, the negative effects of instability on child development. The report, published by the Urban Institute, found that children experiencing residential instability demonstrate worse academic and social outcomes in their residentially stable peers such as lower vocabulary skills, problem behaviors, grade retention, increased high school dropout rates and lower adult education attainment. And similarly, research shows that turnover in school staff significantly harmed the school's effectiveness. And that is why this is such a strong bill where it includes not only school children but all educators, staff in public on public school campuses. And as I've said in the past, the eviction of children from their homes in one of the richest cities in the richest country in the world is a damning indictment of capitalism. But at the very least, the city has the power right now, just drop evictions during the school year and should do so immediately. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Sawant, for that initial report. I do know that there is an amendment that you would like to bring forward, and there are I think you see at least one other amendment. So I'm going to go ahead and ask you. Councilors want to make your motion for proposed Amendment one.
Speaker 3: Thank you. A move Amendment One, which is a purely technical amendment, adding a severability clause. It was sent to the council offices last Friday. This amendment was developed based on the suggestion of Council President Gonzales. And I really appreciate your help on this, and I don't have anything more to add, but of course, I need a second
Speaker 0: . Yeah. Is there. I will second that motion. So it's been moved and seconded to adopt proposed Amendment one. Are there any additional comments or questions on proposed Amendment one? Hearing and seeing no additional questions. Will the Court please call the role on the adoption of Amendment One?
Speaker 1: Whereas I Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Morales. As. Muslera.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Peterson.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Salon.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council President Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Seven and seven unopposed.
Speaker 0: Emotion carries the amendment as adopted and the amended bill is before the council. Interstate Councilor Mosquito You have another proposed amendment. Proposed amendment to someone many go ahead and handed over to you to make your motion and and we'll see and then have a second and we will then allow you to address your proposed amendment. Thank you very much. Madam President, I move to amend Council Bill 1 to 0 046 by adding language from amendment number 2/2. It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment two. Councilor must get him to hand it back over to you to address your amendment. I thank you very much. First, I want to start with a thank you. I want to thank council members, want for all of the work that she and her team and the committee as a whole have done to bring forward this legislation for today. I'm very supportive of the underlining bill, and I want to thank her for her work with me as I brought forward a potential idea for amendment. We had some other ideas that we would have liked to include that we will continue to work on, and I'll make note on that here very soon, but wanted to do everything that we could to address some of the potential concerns that had been coming up for a very small sector of the community that has raised some concerns about potential unintended impacts to housing stability. In the very rare situation that there is a homeowner who has a financial limitation or other life circumstance that necessitates them to potentially move back into their homes. Colleagues, this is a very similar to the very narrow situation that we have included in the just care statute that's already in effect. And the amendment that I have circulated for your consideration today, which is outlined in amendment number two, is trying to make sure that we are addressing those very narrow concerns and applying an owner move in as an exemption during the school year moratorium. This has been discussed with housing activists, tenants, rights organizations and members of the labor community. And I think overall there is a broad understanding and desire to make sure that, A, this bill moves forward and is passed today, which I'm strongly supportive of, B, that we continue to address the concerns that are coming up about potential misuse of any of the exemption statutes across the board, which I'm very committed to and council members want. And I had extensive discussions about. And we will continue to work on and see that if there is a situation that arises for these individuals who happen to be very small landlords with, you know, one of these housing units that they do need to move back into, given their financial limitations or other hardships and life circumstances that we apply the very same language that we already have included, and the other two pieces of legislation in front of us today and that we've already included in the just cause legislation as well. I want to be very clear that this just cause additions here that we're talking about is not is just is just for the owner move in as they just reason for eviction. This is not a loophole, as there are many reasons that many owners may need to move into their homes, including life changes like the birth of a child, the loss of a job which so many folks have experienced, illness or relocation. These cases, which we expect to be very few, have meant that some of the owners who have some of these rental units are concerned about their own ability to have housing stability. The amendment would add in the owner move an exemption for owners to to require them to give the 90 days notice and to make sure that they are adhering to the requirements within the justice cause language. This narrow amendment is intended to be a response to those concerns that we've heard about possibly having instability in the housing market in those very few circumstances where some of these small, very small landlords are income restricted with one single residence, that maybe they can't depend on that residents anymore and they they're sorry their income any more and they need to move into their own families home. We know that Seattle's high cost of housing, there are a few circumstances where the owner residents may not have the financial means to line up other housing options for the length of time potentially required in the legislation as currently written. And so in these very narrow circumstances, we are hoping that this helps to create greater housing stability for folks in this specific situation. I really appreciate that there is a ongoing conversation that we have begun to address here today with the legislation in front of us through the other ordinances that we're continuing to pass today, and that there's a clear understanding that we need to make sure that our language around owner move ins is strengthened, that we make sure that there's penalties for people who are violating any of these narrow exemptions that we have written into statute. I noted earlier during council briefing, I am very interested in treble damages, making sure that renters are receive triple the amount of their rent that would otherwise be paid to in the form of rent had they stayed in the place. If there is any violation of the ordinance and also that we seek to enhance the enforcement statute by requiring a private right of action that includes any damages as well be paid to the renter. I think that many of these things are on the horizon for us to work on and they will apply broadly to the other tenant protection bills that we're considering today and just because language is already on the books. So I know that there's much more work to be done. And I am hoping that in. The case of this piece of legislation. Unfortunately, we were not able to include some of the stronger enforcement provisions that council members want and I had been working on due to the time limitations. But I am very committed to voting on this bill today. Did not want to hold it up. Greatly appreciate that it's in front of us today, know how urgently needed it is and an effort to move forward this narrow provision. I am asking for your support on amendment number two with the commitment, with the full throated commitment that we continue to make sure that there are stronger enforcement standards related to the department's ability to make sure that folks are adhering to our just cause language. I do want to thank Aaron House for the work that she has done with Councilmember Swann's office and a broad swath of stakeholders, including from the tenants, rights groups, labor organizations, housing rights groups as well. I think there is broad understanding that alone this is not enough that this moratorium, including language from this amendment, needs to be coupled with rental relief and repayment for small landlords. One memo that we received said that this more trans important. It's nice, but it doesn't stop it doesn't stop rent debt from accumulating rent relief and other forms of monetary support will definitely help and is much needed. And that colleagues who are providing assistance for Seattle Public School students with immediate health, safety and housing and educational needs show that rent and housing support is one of the highest requests where most of their money goes. So excited to pass this legislation. I'm hopeful that we can include this narrow addition here today, and we know that there's much more to do, both in terms of improving enforcement standards from the department and also making sure that we do more with rental assistance, which were teed up to do in the rental excuse me, which were teed up to do with the federal relief dollars. And we know we will continue to address in this fall's supplemental and budget process. So thank you very much for your consideration today. Thank you, Councilmember Mesquita, for the introduction of proposed amendment to. Are there any additional comments or questions about proposed amendments to. Councilmember Salam, please.
Speaker 3: Thank you, President Gonzales. And thank you, Councilwoman Mosquito. I really appreciate Councilmember Mosquito talking through this amendment with me in a very thorough manner. And I really appreciate the commitment to not holding up the vote because obviously, overall, I would say on renters rights, the city has a real work to do in terms of making sure that the laws we pass in favor of and protections are actually enforced. And so that's a larger conversation that I would really be interested in having and something that I've been most often and I've been discussing with renters and renters and rental activists over the years. But as I've informed Councilmember Mosquito, I'm not going to be supporting adding this loophole to the schoolchildren eviction ban that would allow landlords to evict children in the middle of the school year in order to move themselves or their family members into the property. I agree that this is a very likely only a very narrow issue. And I also agree that if it's applied in such a way that only small landlords who are facing this specific, difficult kind of situation, then it's then it's not that you cannot characterize it as a loophole, but the reason I would be concerned about it is twofold. One is that I don't think it is needed because with little foresight, with a little foresight, landlords should be able to arrange to move in over the summer so that they don't force a child to move during the school year, because it often also entails having to move schools in the middle of the school year . And that's the that's an onerous burden to put on a child. And so so in that sense, I probably this may not arise very often, but I would also be concerned that it may not be used by genuine landlords. And again, that brings up the overall question of enforcement and the concern that an unscrupulous landlord might, you know, use of also just saying that they intend to move into the unit and they have no and but that they are actually no intention of actually occupying and that after the fact, it's impossible for the renters or nearly impossible to figure it out and then follow up and and get reparations for it. And also, I think this amendment would allow any building on or not just small ones, to move themselves or their family members into the unit. So I still agree that it is probably not going to be very damaging, but at the same time, I would hesitate to be party to opening the door. And so that's why I would not support this amendment at this time. I really appreciate Councilmember Mosquito's interest in improving the enforcement in the future. And as I said before, my office has been eager to look into renters rights enforcement overall. So this is something that we would really be happy to follow up with you, Councilman, was get in any other council member who wants to look into this. And I also wanted to share with members of the public that I have discussed with the small landlord who is facing a specific situation, which sounds extremely problematic. It is an outlier situation, but nonetheless, it seems like a very troubling situation. But the landlord also themselves agreed that it is an outlier situation. And I also wanted to express publicly appreciation for this small landlord saying that they really support renters rights as a whole and that they had some specific concerns and that they would be willing to speak speak out in favor of renters rights as a whole, because as a small landlord, they they understand and appreciate the need for renters rights to be strengthened. So stop there.
Speaker 1: Thinking.
Speaker 0: Any other comments or questions on proposed amendment to. And looks like there are no other comments from other councilmembers. Their concern was getting you have the last word. If you could close out debate on proposed Amendment two, that'd be great. We can call it to a vote. Thank you very much. And I just wanted to thank council members want for her comments as well as we look forward to strengthening overall enforcement monitoring and and really compliance with legislation that's already on the books, I think that's important as we also look to expand the moratoriums that are in place because we want to make sure that folks are adhering to the existing laws and that as we allow for greater protections for tenants, that everybody knows both their rights and the responsibilities. So I look forward to that future conversation. Thank you, Councilmember Swan, for continuing to push, for broadening the enforcement elements of this, which I will be there with you to further those discussions. I really appreciate also that folks are acknowledging that this is a very narrow situation that we're talking about here in infrequent situation. But there have been a number of emails that we've received. There's a few stories. One example of a correspondence that we received was a family who has been living with other family, but they've since welcomed a new baby and has always intended to move back into the home that they've purchased and don't have the means to both pay for mortgage and take on additional debt or housing costs. And I want to reiterate that this is intending to try to find stability in the overall market, though we are very, very clear that the overall intent of this legislation is tremendously impactful, very strongly in support of the folks who have been advocating for this and the housing and tenant folks to see sell education. And Martin Luther King County Labor Council really appreciate the strong coalition that's supporting this legislation today. And so this very narrow amendment is, again, from our perspective, not a loophole. There's lots of a language that we already wrote that has already included this type of this type of allowance, which also includes the two other bills that we're talking about today, that look specifically at just cause reason for ending month to month agreements, which is included in Councilmember Silence and Morales right to refuse the legislation. That's also up for a vote this afternoon, which I'm very supportive of. And we're going to be working towards a greater, I think, broader swath of making sure that all of our enforcement mechanisms are properly in place so that if there is any of these situations in which a lease moves automatically to a month to month conversion, that the just cause ordinance and other protections are applied, apply it appropriately , and that we are strongly enforcing who is using any of these standards, because this is paramount that we get this right and we send a strong message to landlords that they are going to be watched if they are using any of these provisions. And overall housing stability is absolutely the goal of the legislation and the other narrow amendment in front of us. So with that, look forward to supporting the overall bill and bills in front of us today and think think very much councilmember support for your comments. All right. Thanks so much for closing out debate on proposed Amendment two. With that being said, will the court please call the roll on the adoption of the amendment?
Speaker 1: Once I. Lewis.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: MORALES Yes.
Speaker 0: Mosquito I.
Speaker 1: Peterson.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Want?
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 1: Council President Gonzalez high six in favor one of close.
Speaker 0: Emotion carries the amendment as adopted, and the amended bill is now before the Council. I am not aware of any other amendments being brought forward on this particular bill. So I am going to open it up for general comments again. Customers want you are the primary sponsor of this particular bill, so you'll get the last word to close out debate on the bill as amended. But before that, just want to see if any other council members have any comments that they'd like to make on the bill as amended. House member Peterson, please.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Council President colleagues, for those of you who are not on the Ranchers Rights Committee, I offered several amendments which I believe would make this legislation better. I wanted to offer those amendments, then debate those amendments, then that committee, rather than rehash them here. But I do want to explain my vote on this. I agree with the sponsor of the legislation that evictions present hardships for children and families. And no one wants to have this disruption that leads to learning, loss and instability for children. I voted in favor of numerous tenant protections during the past year, including the winter ban on evictions for low and moderate income residents. Free legal counsel for those in need and facing eviction and the payment plans for those negatively impacted by the COVID pandemic. Today, I supported the resolution to encourage another extension of the eviction moratorium to provide more time to have more rental assistance, money flow from the federal and state governments to both housing providers and tenants. Before joining the City Council, I helped to build and preserve tens of thousands of units of low income housing, and I worked at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, helping to allocate billions of dollars to address homelessness throughout the country. However, I believe a more targeted, direct and efficient solution is to fund tenant and landlord assistance for those in need, rather than adding another regulation that could be legally challenged because it leaves one party, the providers of the House, bearing the brunt of the cost regulating rather than funding the solution on a permanent basis is more likely to have a negative, substantial impact, not on so-called corporate landlords that can absorb these costs imposed by the council, but on the smallest landlords in our city. So for the three ordinances before us today, I had offered amendments that would have exempted small landlords owning four or fewer units in Seattle. Regarding this bill, 120046 this permanent bill that singles out educators or special rental protections. One of my amendments would have targeted the bill to assist teachers and substitute teachers and curriculum specialists, rather than every single employee at the school who might not be involved in the direct education of children. My amendment would still have kept the special new protection for the school children and their families. Another amendment would have made the bill more like the law from San Francisco, which limits the eviction protections to one. It is no fault of the tenant who is an educator. But my amendment would have been broader than San Francisco's because it would have still banned the evictions for school children and their families. Another amendment would have changed this permanent alteration of landlord tenant relations to an 18 month pilot program to determine whether it's effective or what its impact is. It's important for the general public to know that this bill is different from recent COVID relief bills because it would be permanent. I believe we should focus on getting targeted funding to those in need rather than permanently altering the contractual relationships. That puts the burden entirely on the housing provider. So to be consistent with my votes at committee, I'll be voting no on this council. Bill. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Peterson, are there any other colleagues who would like to make comments on this particular bill? I'm not seeing any other hands raised. So I did actually want to just add a little bit of context for the bill that we're about to be voting on. I want to signal that I am very supportive of this particular piece of legislation. And as a reminder, we have I have personally sponsored legislation, and we have all supported multiple pieces of legislation over the last year and beyond to provide additional rental assistance to people who who need it in this space. So, again, I think it's important to understand that in particular, some of these bills have identified funds, very much needed funds for to address the issues related to students experiencing homelessness. And of course, keeping students house has been something that I have personally championed additional resources for during the last three years. Now, for example, our families education preschool Promise Levy includes for the first time ever dedicated funding to the tune of $600,000 a year to address the experience of student homelessness. We've also provided funding for child care, for families experiencing homelessness, and we have added language. We added language the Jumpstart spending plan to require work with small landlords in addition to language focused on families with school age children. Our 2020 budget process ensured that there were additional dollars specifically designated for rental assistance to go to families with school age children of overall rental assistance for overall rental assistance resources. So my support of this bill is recognizing that there is a holistic way for us to continue to support the needs, the housing stability needs of our families and kids. And yes, more rental assistance is needed and yes, more dollars to allow for an invest in investment in the families. Housing stability is absolutely needed, but that isn't enough. We also have have an obligation as policymakers to fix regulations when regulations are part and parcel of one of the causes for why that housing instability begins and continues to pervade within our communities. So I'm excited to support this legislation and I look forward to future conversations with all of you who have expressed interest in identifying additional resources to support families experiencing housing instability. One of the things that my office has been following very closely is spending on the families, education, preschool and Promise Levy. And one of the things that we have begun to learn is that many of the dollars that we have identified to support specifically students experiencing homelessness, have not been able to be spent at the level that we expected, in large part because of at home learning. So there will be an opportunity for us to potentially work together as a council to reprioritize some of those dollars, to still meet the needs of students in our public school system, but be very nimble and quick with some flexibility as it relates to existing revenue resources. So I look forward to having those conversations with you all into making sure that we address those concerns. So I'm excited to vote on this bill. And with that being said, I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Su want to close out debate and then we can vote on this bill and move on to the other suite of bills.
Speaker 3: Thank you, President Dallas, and I appreciate your comments on this bill and your support of it. I just wanted to thank the committee members, council members Morales and Lewis for standing with renders in the committee and voting against the amendments that Councilmember Peterson brought forward because they are not in the interest of renters specifically. I wanted to note that one of the amendments which would have divided public school workers into, you know, well-paid employees, better paid employees who would have access to this eviction protection and others who would not. It was important that the committee rejected that amendment, among others, and it reflected the the ideas and the sentiment of many rank and file workers and union members who stand for solidarity among all public school workers. And I really appreciate the Seattle Education Association, among the many other unions representing workers in the public school district who have taken such positions in the past. For example, the Seattle Education Association having public actions in solidarity with the ongoing strike at the time of the Teamsters 174 public school bus drivers. And overall, I appreciate the organizing of the Seattle Education Association. I have spoken out again and again in defense of their students and fellow workers in public schools. Every day, educators see the devastating impact of housing insecurity on young people, and they are organizing. Actually, as he is organizing was crucial also for passing the cap on movement fees that my office developed in 2016 alongside the Washington Community Action Network. And their support for today's legislation is also greatly appreciated. Now, I wanted to especially thank the leadership of the Seattle Education Association, including Jennifer Matter and Judy Hawkins, the president, the vice president, and also all of whom who made time to meet with my office to discuss the legislation and also rank and file union activists from Seattle , like Bruce Jackson, who brought the resolution to the ACA representative assembly supporting this legislation, which passed overwhelmingly, and Matt Neely, who presented to our sustainability committee also as an ACM member. Now I also wanted to thank the Martin Luther King County Labor Council School Board Director Zachary DeWolf, who brought this legislation to our notice in the first place, El Centro de la Rosa Sound Alliance and Seattle Council, Parent Teacher, Student Association, Socialist Alternative and the organizations in the State House, Healthy Coalition, all of whom who have advocated for City Council to pass a strong bill protecting students and educators from school year evictions. And most of all, I want to thank all the rank and file renters, working people, union members and socialist advocates for this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Conversant for those closing remarks. All right. That does close out debate on this particular bill. So I'm going to ask that the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the amended bill.
Speaker 1: Whereas I.
Speaker 2: Lewis I.
Speaker 1: Morales Yes. Well, Sarah, I.
Speaker 2: Peterson No.
Speaker 1: Silent.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Council. President Gonzales.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Six in favor one of those.
Speaker 0: The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Right. Close. We're going to move to item four. Will the clerk please read item four into the record?
Speaker 5: Jan the item for Council Bill 120077 an ordinance relating to the termination of residential rental tenancies providing a defense to eviction for rent due during the city's COVID 19 civil emergency. And amending Section 22.20 6.160 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
Ordinance (Ord)
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to termination of residential rental tenancies; providing a defense to certain evictions of children, their families, and educators during the school year; and amending Section 22.206.160 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
|
SeattleCityCouncil
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.