missing title

Greetings, everyone.

The December 9th, 2025 meeting of the Seattle City Council will come to order.

It is 2.05.

I'm Sarah Nelson, Council President.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Kettle?

Here.

Council Member Linn?

Here.

Council Member Rink?

Present.

Council Member Rivera?

Present.

Council Member Sacca?

Here.

Council Member Strauss?

Here.

Councilmember Hollingsworth?

Councilmember Juarez?

Here.

Council President Nelson?

Present.

Nine present.

Thank you very much.

Colleagues at this time will open the hybrid public comment period.

Public comment is limited to items on today's agenda, the introduction and referral calendar, and the council work program.

How many speakers are signed up to speak today?

We have 24 in person and nine remote.

Okay, we will get- Speakers will be, excuse me.

I will, let's give everybody one minute and start by with 10 in person, then the remote and then go on with the in person.

Thank you.

Speakers will be called in the order in which they are registered.

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left of their time.

Speakers mics will be muted if they do not in their comments within the allotted time to allow us to call on the next speaker.

Okay, we'll start with the first 10 speakers.

We have in the orders, Pete Manning, Mike Asai, Amira Zadei, and Gabriel Jones, and Matt Pasaki, excuse me if I mispronounce your name.

Oh, yeah, it's Peter Manning.

Okay, we'll start with Peter Manning, just thank you.

Peter Manning.

Yeah, it's been a while since I've been here.

I'm president of Black Excellence in Cannabis.

I've come here before, I've stressed the fact that the city of Seattle helped strip the opportunity from black pioneers that were in the cannabis sector.

That kind of message went, it never got any response from this committee or this council.

I even went so far as to meet with Bruce Harrell.

And you know, my statement I want to make today is, I never really understood how this process works, but now that I have, I figured it out.

When someone, a politician, doesn't do what we ask, then what we do is we work against them.

I helped lead a party in the south end of Seattle to vote Katie Wilson in.

We really did a great job because a large majority of Seattle in the south end voted for her, and now she's our mayor.

I'm asking the black council members here today to start recognizing period because you guys aren't.

And if we can't get a response from you guys, then we're going to do what we get.

We have Mike Asai.

Good afternoon.

Micah Sy with Blackness and Cannabis, also Emerald City Collective.

First downtown dispensary in 2010. Many of you know me.

I echo what Peter says.

It's unfortunate that we're back here again.

And Ms. Juarez, I haven't met with you personally, but know of you.

You probably know of me.

Good to see you back.

Mr. Lin, congratulations.

Good to see you.

The deal is there was money from FAS to go to social equity.

When it got across the street, it was gone.

Joy, we have respect for you, but I feel disrespected by you in a lot of different ways.

You reached out to me in early 2022 when it came to social equity, but now that you've been here, it's been quiet with you.

You never said that you had to recuse yourself.

I find that disheartening.

Ms. Nelson, I reached out to your office several times in regards to our last meeting.

I asked for the documentation back.

I asked for a copy of it.

Went crickets.

Gave me the grandfather clause that had David Mendoza's city of Seattle.

And you know, this is the stuff that we're dealing with and we're upset with.

Something's gotta change.

We're gonna stay here and keep coming back because we are not bad people.

We're here to advocate for blacks and brown in the city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have Amara Zadia.

Okay, I'll move on.

And we have Gabriel Jones.

And then following Gabriel will be Matt.

Howdy folks, my name is Gabriel Diaz and I'm here to speak today about the SPOG contract.

Now, I got to be part of the Sentinel Review, where we reviewed the massive unjust force of police brutality against citizens in Capitol Hill in May.

What I saw shocked me.

Almost 30 people arrested because they wanted to arrest three people.

One, who let go of balloons, and two, who destroyed a bubble machine.

That caused massive use of pepper spray, punches being thrown, people who can't work anymore because of untying balloons.

I know people can't work, I know people's lives turned upside down, because those officers decided ahead of time they wanted payback for 2020. That is outright what officers said was, we wanted payback for 2020. We had a quote from officer Matthew Didier, who was the head of the CRG at the time, who said, we're going in heavy and we're gonna put some fucking work in on these guys, while no crimes are being committed.

And unsurprisingly, OPA sustained no allegations against these officers.

We have Matt, and then after Matt will be Quincy.

Apologies for the mask if it's kind of muffling me.

I'm a proud Seattle, South Seattle resident, actively engaged in my community.

I'm here to demand that you hold SPD accountable and not reward them so handsomely in this contract for their abhorrent conduct, conduct I have witnessed firsthand.

I won't go into the events of May 24th.

I was there and many people here will already be speaking on that.

a case of a close friend of mine who is an indigenous trans woman was having a medical emergency.

We called for some medical responders.

SPD showed up to proceed to manhandle her out of her own home.

And it's luckily she didn't become a statistic, a murder statistic that night, like many other indigenous women in North America.

I just want to frankly just say that Our budget is a moral document of where the city stands.

So please put our money where our mouth is, invest in affordable housing, invest in tackling the issues that are the root causes for addiction, and just please don't give them such a handout right before Christmas.

They're on the city's naughty list.

Give them a fucking chunk of coal.

We have Quincy and then Ray Mitchell.

Hi, I'm a resident of Seattle and a member of the community.

I actively engage in mutual aid and recently have been helping our trans and immigrant communities.

I'm also the victim of police violence, and I'm here to inform you of what the Seattle Police Department did to me and others on May 24, 2025 in Cal Anderson Park.

I was grabbed, pulled to the ground, and punched several times in the head by Officer Callie Hinesman.

SPD calls them non-compliance strikes, but I call them multiple MRIs and months of concussion symptoms.

I never received medical care for my concussion while detained, not until three days later after I was finally released from jail.

For almost 24 hours, I was puking my guts out, but instead of care, I was placed in the solitary cells.

No one came to my cell while I was suffering from the effects of what SPD caused, and I didn't even get a cup for water until the next day when I was moved to the general population.

Imagine being all alone, laying on the floor next to a metal toilet in a cell because you're too sick to move, all because SPD wanted to go in heavy and put some fucking work in, according to Lieutenant Matthew.

Thank you.

We have Ray.

Following Ray would be Dawson, I believe.

Hello, my name is Ray Mitchell, and I'm a Seattle resident, and I'm here demanding that you do not pass the new SPOG contract.

This city already coddles its cops so much that I'm surprised their uniforms don't come with pacifiers and a warm bottle of milk.

When Officer Kevin Dave, a man with no valid Washington State driver's license and a history of DUI convictions, hit and killed Genevieve Kundula while going three times the legal speed limit, it took a full year for him to be fired.

A full year for a blatant case of vehicular manslaughter, and he never faced any actual legal consequences.

He hit her with his car so hard that her body flew across the street and dented the door of a car.

And yet, despite the fact that she was walking through a lit crosswalk, he demanded, when other officers showed up, that they spend some of the last few moments of her life drug testing her.

Disgusting!

And no real consequences other than losing his job.

Seattle police officers have already shot two people since the federal consent decree was lifted in September, including one just last week.

Please, I don't feel safe with these people having this much power.

Do not give them any more.

We're not safe with them.

You have Dawson and then Jonathan.

It's clear from the constant harassment of our houseless neighbors from the gleeful abuse from SPD on the 24th of May when out-of-town disruptors came to our gay neighborhoods and put on a hateful and homophobic show with protection of SPD.

It is clear that you don't value the lives of Seattle citizens if they're going through a crisis.

SPD would rather take lives, disrupt lives, endanger lives than they would save them.

They would rather abuse their neighbors with no oversight than be held accountable by the civilians they are supposed to serve and protect.

If SPD doesn't think they need civilian oversight, then why are you so scared of it?

Why, over the past eight years, when you've had the full power to do so, never establish a 12-seat civilian oversight council that will hold them accountable for what they do to the citizens of Seattle?

How do you expect us to trust when you don't give us insight?

We have Jonathan, then following Jonathan will be Olive Lacey, and then we'll move into remote public comment.

I am a member of the Seattle Alliance Against Racist and Political Oppression, and I'm here to say that SPD does not protect the interests of the communities they patrol.

We can see this when they racially profile citizens in Othello, and with the two recent murders in the aftermath of the federal consent decree being lifted.

When SPD murdered Jack Pillayley, they showed no interest in de-escalating the situation.

And when SPD murdered Christian Nelson, they shot up the whole neighborhood and shut down the light rail, traffic, and buses for upwards of 12 hours.

They refused to de-escalate and used military-grade weapons to shoot over 24 bullets which ended up hurting someone who lives in the UW Commons and sending them to the hospital.

SPD is occupying our neighborhoods and terrorizing us in order to repress us when we want to do basic things like walk to our grocery stores when we want to fight for decent job pay and when we just want to come home and rest after a long day out.

And despite all of this, now you want to come to reward them with more power with this contract.

We don't need the police to have less accountability.

What the neighborhood of Othello that is being terrorized by SPD demands is real de-escalation usage by SPD to identify- Thank you very much.

...that murdered Jack Delaney and Christian Nelson and for Civilian Police Accountability Council

This person is...

With this power to be able to make these changes and bend SPD to the well of the people and because this contract is in direct contribution to...

Your time has expired.

...to approve this contract must not go through.

Vote no on the spot contract.

Implement real de-escalation usage from SPD.

Identify the cops that murdered Jack DeLaylee and Christian Nelson.

So we have Olive and then we'll go into remote public comment.

Hi, I'm Olive.

I live in Othello and it was terrifying what happened last week with the murder of Christian Nelson.

I live in the area and I was terrified to come home that day because someone being murdered so close to where I live It's just insane that we want to give the police more money so they can do more things like this.

It breaks my heart for Christian Nelson's family, for Jack Palalie's family.

I don't think this contract should go through.

I don't think any of us should let it go through.

Sounds like a terrible idea to me.

I think we need community control of the police.

We need control of the budget.

We need control of hiring and firing.

We need control of the police.

Community control now.

We'll now move into remote speakers.

Our first remote speaker will be Tiffany McCoy followed by Castile Hightower.

A reminder to our remote speakers to please press star six after you've heard the message that you have been unmuted.

Go ahead, Tiffany.

Thank you.

My name is Tiffany McCoy.

I'm the co-executive director of How's Our Neighbors.

I'm calling today about the 2026 state legislative agenda.

I'm calling to thank Council Member Kettle for putting forward amendment S, which would allow the city's legislative lobbying body to also advance social housing access to benefits that housing authorities and non-profit affordable housing developers have.

And thanks to Council Member Lynn for also saying that you supported this yesterday in the council briefing.

Just asking that amendment S be added to the overall council bill.

Social housing has won twice now with voters.

It's overwhelmingly supported and we're seeing across the nation different social housing developers pop up from Chattanooga, Tennessee, Atlanta to Boston.

So thank you very much.

I really ask you all to vote yes.

Thank you.

Our next speaker will be Castile Hightower and following Castile will be Kate Rubin.

Go ahead Castile.

My name is Castile Hightower and I am the sister of Herbert Hightower Jr. who was murdered by Seattle police while experiencing a mental health crisis.

Similarly to how yet another black man, Christian Nelson, was murdered by SPD just a week ago today.

I am urging you, the Seattle City Council, to vote no in the proposed FOG contract which gives SPD less accountability, less transparency, and higher wages while the city continues to refuse to create resources for victims of police brutality or their family for things such as burial and funeral expenses, medical expenses, mental health care and more.

The community deserves resources, accountability and repair.

Not more violence and less accountability which is what this contract will lead to if approved.

Now is the time to do the right thing and reject this police contract.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kate Rubin and following Kate will be Alberto Alvarez.

Go ahead Kate.

My name is Kate Rubin.

I live in Deacon Hill and I urge the council to reject the SPOG contract.

This contract still does not meet the baseline set by the 2017 accountability ordinance eight years later.

Some council members use the terms permissive environment and accountability to justify expanding surveillance and punishment.

But approving a contract without real enforceable accountability creates a permissive environment for police misconduct and violence.

Cops should not investigate themselves.

Investigations must remain within the OPMA and be led by civilians.

The city must also expand the care team's scope with civilian-led responses to mental health crises.

Rushing this contract through now, just weeks before newly elected officials take office, prevents the leaders Seattle just elected from having any say over a contract that will govern police accountability and harm our communities for years.

Councilmember Saka said in The Stranger this morning that he will reject this contract I urge the rest of you to do the same.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Alberto Alvarez followed by Amy Summers.

Go ahead, Alberto.

Thank you.

The police contract.

Trust and accountability were negotiated away during a time when two unelected members sat on this council.

along with an openly unethical landlord, Maritza Rivera.

When it was clear that Mayor Harrell would be ending his term this month, he saddled our city with a deadline for this contract, a pressure cooker timeframe that sidesteps the results of this past election.

Vote no on this contract to say that Seattle values were not upheld.

Vote no to say the people hold the power.

to vote no to say we pay for safety and trust and accountability.

Thank you all and have a great day.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Amy Summers.

Amy will be followed by Leonard Harrison Jerome.

Go ahead, Amy.

Hi, this is Amy Summers from ProAdsistent People for Progress.

in the Seattle area that has long engaged on police accountability issues.

We too, like many of the speakers so far, have grave concerns about the negotiated contract, and we would urge the Council to take heed to the excellent letter produced by the Community Police Commission dated December 2nd, which lays out a full range of the concerns and points that remain to be addressed to promote police accountability.

I will just mention three right here.

One is we need to have subpoena power for OPA and OIG to really get to the bottom of some of these misuses of power.

We also need to have a police union and police forces fully subject to the 2017 accountability ordinance.

And we need to have a care team that does not require dual dispatch.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jerome Leonard Harrison, followed by Joe Kunzler.

Go ahead, Jerome.

Hi, my name is Leonard Harrison Jerome.

I live in District 3. I'd like to start off by thanking Councilmember Saka for standing against this SPAAD contract for the reasons he laid out and all the other Councilmembers planning on voting no.

I'd also like to address Councilmember Hollingsworth, and apologies if you were planning on voting no, but I'd like to remind you of the commitments you made on the campaign trail.

When it was at the view, do you oppose SPAAD contract that doesn't give the Office of Police accountability and the Office of the Inspector General subpoena power?

You said yes.

Do you oppose a spot contract that doesn't remove limitations as to how many of OPA's investigators must be sworn versus civilians?

You said yes.

You gave your word on the campaign trail that you would not support a contract that doesn't give civilians and good cops on the department recourse when abuses occur.

In addition, the ability of care in unrelated departments and overwhelmingly popular with voters should not be prevented from doing their jobs just because the police union says no.

We should not be negotiating away alternative response.

Vote no, vote no.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Joe Kunzler, who will be followed by David Haynes.

Go ahead, Joe.

Good afternoon, Seattle City Council.

Joe Kunzler here.

First, I want to say goodbye and good luck to President Sarah Nelson.

You will be missed and you've kind of, you've kept the faith with all the Heidi Willis Wing alumni.

Second, I ask that you please approve both the Seattle Police Sergeants and the Seattle Police Officer Guild contracts.

They were negotiated in good faith by unions.

And if you believe in collective bargaining for some, you must believe in collective bargaining for all.

This is a matter of keeping faith of collective bargaining and supporting our brave law enforcement, who just the other day had a monster pointed gun at them and had to take the monster out for good.

Our police also have to deal with various traumatic incidents that most of us don't.

That is domestic violence, violence against women, anti-Semitism and so on.

So it's really important to support the police, back the blue, and pass this contract unanimously, please.

Thank you for your public service.

Goodbye.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is David Haynes, who will be followed by Riley Avron.

Go ahead, David.

Hi, David Haynes.

Is sobriety negotiated into this police budget?

because those cops would not be shaking so bad from dehydration and brain shrinking that they missed and took so many shots when they shot that guy.

They could have only taken one or two.

And it's truly unconstitutional to continue exempting drug pushers from jail and then pay the cops overtime to not fight crime.

It's like you're going to pay them $250 to show up at a Seahawks game for like three hours, dressed like the opposing team, trying to entrap Seahawks fans.

And they're gonna be making time and a half.

And then they're gonna be too tired to fight crime in the streets.

And the police chief is on record as conspiring a desire to create an easier payday that is boosting the morale of cops.

And the cops are starting to hate the poor people sometimes as if that's the nexus of crime because they don't want to delve into the repeat offending criminals that you

Thank you.

Our last remote speaker will be Riley Avron.

Go ahead, Riley.

First, thanks to my council member, Council Member Prusaka, for your intention to vote against this contract.

I've heard a lot of interest from this council in expanding our alternative response team, but this contract would forbid primary care team dispatch to calls where any of the following things are true.

A person is in a car or a business or a residence.

A person is in a homelessness or a homeless encampment.

if there is any report of aggressive behavior, if drug use is suspected, if a minor is present, and the list goes on.

This would force these responders to set out almost every call.

If they never go out, the care team cannot possibly be successful.

Please vote no.

Thank you.

We'll now move back to in-person public comments.

All right, we're gonna start with speaker number 11. So we have, last name is Carol.

Thank you.

And then after that will be Henry Keane and then Dan Howes.

So I think we all know that speeding the police contract process up now is an attempt to go around the will of the voters and make it Impossible for the new mayor and council to make the kind of modest reforms they would like to start with until at least 2027. We all remember in 2018 when the police contract at the time was approved against our objections that stripped away and many of the reforms that had been previously won over the decade before.

And lo and behold, in 2019, City Council went far to the left in reaction.

And I would like to think that Mr. Saka is not the only one of you who is up in 2027 who does not want to make by Mayor Wilson's midterms, a referendum on the police contract that would expire at the close of that year.

Please listen to the people and do something.

Make the police a little closer.

Everybody else.

Henry and then Dan.

After Henry will be Dan.

Well, one minute, huh?

Hi.

Good afternoon.

My name's Henry Keene.

I'm a physician living in Eddie Lynn's district.

I wanted to speak against the SPOG contract, specifically focusing on what it does to the care team.

For the reasons that were outlined by a previous speaker just a couple speakers ago, care team is designed specifically to deal with circumstances that the police are not deeply trained to respond to and that they themselves will usually say are not the sort of best use of their time.

The problem with this current contract is that although there are of course a lot of situations where you need the so-called dual response with police, The decision needs as often as possible to be with the care team themselves, not the police, about where their need is.

This contract puts the police, not the trained crisis response staff, in charge of determining the nature of the response in such a wide variety of spaces and other socially complex situations that it destroys their usefulness almost entirely.

Reject the contract for this, among other reasons.

Thank you.

After Henry, we have Dan.

Sorry, you are Dan, correct?

Yes.

Thank you.

After Dan, we'll have Nathan Wall.

Good afternoon.

My name's Dan Howes.

a member of UOCW 3000. We've endorsed many of you.

So I've been on a number of bargaining teams, and cops are not like other workers.

In fact, they have often been the enemy of the working class, and the SPD is no exception, and this year has and we've proven that more and more.

I, along with other working class people, responded to calls to go to the federal building to protect our immigrant workers, our immigrant neighbors, and SPD showed up and brutalized us and allowed ICE to escape.

And also this summer, Hundreds of working class people in Capitol Hill came out to defend their neighborhood against hateful bigots from out of town, and SPD sided with the bigots and brutalized dozens of working class people right here in Seattle.

So I urge you to reject this contract.

We have Nathan and then Howard Gale.

I think we deserve more than one minute today, but that's okay.

I'm here today to echo the words of other people in encouraging you to vote against the SPOG contract.

I really appreciate Councilmember Saka's op-ed.

It was a very well-written op-ed, and I agree with every word of it, so I appreciate that.

So I want to echo your words as well.

Something I want to point out about the recent police murders of Mr. Pulele and Mr. Nelson.

Mr. Pulele was killed after dropping his knife, as the officers ordered him to.

And Mr. Nelson's body was left on the ground for 12 hours.

This is unacceptable.

Additionally, I want to point out, over the weekend, our criminal fascist president referred to Somalia, its citizens, its culture, and its diaspora as garbage.

Somalis are part of our community.

It's just completely offensive, disgusting, and unacceptable rhetoric.

And anyone living in District 2, District 1, or District 5 especially, I think, would agree that Somalis are wonderful people.

Then ICE shows up in our neighborhood.

We need SPD.

Thank you After Howard we have Andrew Olson

Hi, Howard Gale.

So this is part public comment, but it's also part correcting the gross disinformation that was spewed from this dais yesterday.

So there's four points out of the 12 false claims made here yesterday.

I'm gonna go through them.

One, contrary to what was repeatedly stated yesterday by Greg Doss, Council Member Juarez, and Council Member Rivera, it is not state law that negotiations with public employees are confidential, that is specifically and only a Seattle Municipal Code.

That's number one.

Number two, there's a claim made that we have to negotiate in good faith that it would be an unfair labor practice.

Well, tell that to Washington DC, to Newark, to Nashville, to many cities in New York that have actually challenged.

So for example, New York has a Taylor Law, which is very similar to the state of Washington's labor law.

very similar for public employees.

We can reject this contract and demand that we have accountability measures.

Almost finished.

Thank you from Mr. Gale.

Thank you, Mr. Gale.

Thank you for your four points.

Thank you for your four points, Mr. Gale.

Following your comments this morning at Public Safety Committee.

9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Thank you.

Mr. Gale, you said 10 seconds.

There you go.

Thank you.

We have Andrew.

Andrew and then following Andrew will be Cleo.

There's been a lot of bemoaning of the cops, so I just wanted to say I respect order, and that's why I will respect my time restrictions.

And I just want to say that with the incoming coming mayor, who's already said she will defund the cops, you'll have plenty of disorder on your hands, and given chop, jazz, chode, whatever it was, we had plenty of that stuff, and it wasn't pretty, so I wish you all luck.

And then we have Cleo, and the following Cleo will be Nicholas.

My name is Leo.

I'm a member of the Seattle Alliance Against Racism and Political Repression and a South Seattle resident.

The Seattle Alliance was formed in 2020 after thousands of people took to the streets in response to the killing of George Floyd by Derek Chauvin.

And five years later, our demands remained the same for real accountability of the police to put the power back in the hands of the people and I'm here to echo what my community has been saying as we demand accountability and not a SPOG contract that fundamentally does nothing to hold the police accountable after they have been terrorizing the residents of South Seattle and to demand immediately that the officers who killed Jack Pilelli and Christian Nelson are identified so that they can be held accountable by the people.

Thank you.

We have Nicholas and then Jordan.

Great, thank you.

Thanks for your service, members of the City Council.

I'm a Seattle resident of District 7 and I'm a commissioner on the Human Rights Commission and the Appeals Chair.

I urge you to vote no today on the SPOG CBA.

And I'm with the Community Police Commission on their letter from December 2nd that echoes many of the same sentiments.

The CBA draft falls below the 2021 Washington state standard, and it's lower than many other major US cities that Seattle consider itself to be a more wonderful, prosperous, and lovely city to be.

The agreement does not fully resolve issues that meet the 2017 accountability ordinance and federal court monitoring standards, such as civilian over-strike restrictions, arbitration reform, issues around minor misconduct, as well as the OPA and OIG power.

We have sent you a letter detailing these.

We hope you have a chance, you've had a chance to read it, review it, and I hope you vote no today.

Thank you.

Jordan and then Kate.

Hi, my name is Jordan Pomeroy.

I'd like to start by recognizing this is unceded Duwamish territory that we are all entitling ourselves to right now.

I'd like to also address that I am a parent, the SPOG issue is what I'm here to address.

I'm a parent of three kids.

And so the best way I know how to talk to you is not in your coercive language the way that you do, but to say that the way that you're doing it is not working.

Enabling cops is hurting black, brown, indigenous, marginalized communities.

And we are shedding blood for you to sit here and get paid.

Think about that for a second.

I have had a police officer personally put a gun to my face.

Think about what the likelihood of that might happening to you.

Probably not so much, right?

Think about the entitlement that you're sitting with.

Think about your impact on your community, your family members.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you for my time.

We have Kate and then following Kate will be Yvette.

Good afternoon, council members.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Kate Garvey, and I am the CEO of the King County Sexual Assault Resource Center, or KSARC.

We provide legal, medical, and general advocacy, clinical therapy, and prevention services for survivors of sexual assault and child sexual abuse, services Seattle residents use every day.

I'm here regarding today's amendments to the city's 2026 state legislative agenda.

While it covers many public safety priorities, I want to lift up one piece that is especially important to survivors we serve, the city's commitment to funding organizations and programs that support survivors and victims of crime.

I also want to thank Councilmember Kirk for keeping this amendment on today's agenda.

We noticed that and we appreciate that.

Keeping this commitment in the legislative agenda underscores that survivor services are essential to the city's public safety strategy.

State-level decisions on funding and system capacity directly shape whether survivors can access timely therapy.

Thank you again for keeping this commitment and focus and your partnership in ensuring these services remain available.

After Yvette, we have J.C.

and then Bennett.

Good afternoon, council members.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

And on the subject of law enforcement, I'm following up on the council approved having more surveillance, public surveillance camera installed.

And I'm asking when that's gonna happen.

And particularly, I see, I take the daily paper, I see on the news on the daily, there's serious crimes being committed and law enforcement constantly asking if the public see anything to let them know.

And it breaks my heart that all too often, People being harmed are teens, young men, as young as 14. And in my opinion, having public surveillance cameras would be a valuable aid in helping law enforcement do their job.

Thank you.

I'm a victim of Seattle police violence that has yet to even be investigated.

On May 19th, I joined a demonstration outside of the Seattle Convention Center.

The march moved along sidewalk, which flowed through an underground passageway.

Once in this area, the demonstration was kettled with Convention Center private security streaming pepper spray onto demonstrators from the front.

and SPD spraying pepper spray into the crowd from behind.

As the sidewalk was partially blocked with a temporary barricade across half the width of it, I moved this barricade to allow safe exit of the crowd around me who were blinded by chemical agents.

I too suffered burning eyes, burning skin, blurred vision, and breathing difficulties.

Upon moving the barricade, I was immediately tackled, lifted off my feet, thrown into the air, and jumped on by several Seattle police officers.

Here you can see that an officer is kneeling on my neck.

I was arrested and charged with burglary on the public sidewalk of a public building that I never even entered.

I spent 24 hours in King County Jail and suffered injury.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Please finish here.

After Bennett, we'll have Noah Williams.

Good afternoon, counsel.

My name is Bennett Hilton.

I've told you all this story before, but I was arrested with a bunch of people back in 2020, where the police said that I was part of a riot outside the police station that had set fire to a dumpster.

And in real life, at the time the riot was going on, I had credit card receipts proving I was at Pagliaggi Pizza about two miles away.

I swear to God I had nothing to do with the riot or the fire or any of that and I was held in jail for two days because they arrested me because they said I was at this riot.

We later found out that what happened was that one of the women who was arrested, her arrest report had my name in it.

In other words, we realized they had taken a list of us that were known to be involved in protests and they had just copied and pasted the same statement into each person's arrest report and then did control F to go and change the names regardless of whether it was true or not and apparently they missed one.

Now, this is far from the worst thing that SPD has ever done, but if you can't handle accountability in a clear-cut situation like that, what hope is there for murkier situations?

We need more civilian oversight, more accountability for the police.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, council members.

Noah Williams speaking from West Seattle, and I am also a member of the Transit Riders Union.

First, thank you to council member Saka for your vote on no.

I wanted to address the provisions chipping away at the care team and the issue of police reckless driving and the overall need for civilian oversight.

I have seen SPD's recklessness firsthand.

I have also seen officers beat peaceful protesters in 2020, and I regularly see them drive many times over the speed limit, far exceeding other emergency responders and abandoning their duty of due regard.

Jandavi Kandula's life mattered.

She didn't have limited value.

Prohibiting care from responding to situations within their discretion is outrageous and deeply counterproductive.

If you let this budget pass, vulnerable people will not get care because good people who see their struggles day in and day out, like our transit operators, won't call 911. They have a conscience and they don't want to see their passengers shot or beaten.

A 40% rate of the cops with no oversight, I don't even know what to say to that other than vote no.

Thank you.

That was our last in-person speaker.

Thank you.

Are there any further on?

No registered, no further registered speakers.

All right, thank you very much.

Public comment period is now closed.

We will now consider the, let's see, if there's no objection, the introduction and referral calendar will be adopted.

Seeing no objection, the introduction and referral calendar is adopted and if there's no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing none, the agenda is adopted.

We'll now consider the proposed consent calendar, and the items on the consent calendar are the minutes of December 2nd, 2025, Council Bill 121-136, payment of bills, appointment from the City Council, one appointment from the City Council, four appointments from the Finance Native Communities and Tribal Governments Committee, and 21 appointments from the Transportation Committee.

Are there any items that council members would like removed from the consent calendar?

All right.

Hearing none, I move to adopt the consent calendar.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to adopt the consent calendar.

Will the clerk please call the roll.

Council Member Kettle?

Aye.

Council Member Lin?

Aye.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Aye.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council Member Juarez.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you very much.

The consent calendar passes.

All right, moving on the, well, yeah.

Okay, the consent calendar items are adopted.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the minutes in the legislation on the consent calendar on my behalf?

And will the clerk please read item one into the record?

Agenda item one, Council Bill 121132 relating to city employment authorizing execution of a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Management Association to be effective from January 1st, 2024 through December 31st, 2027.

Okay, I move to pass Council Bill 121132. Is there a second?

Second.

All right, it's moved and seconded to pass the bill.

I am, as sponsor of the bill, because I am chair of the LRPC, I will address it very, very briefly and then provide the opportunity for Council Member Kettle to who is chair of the Public Safety Committee to address it more.

This bill is to adopt the Seattle Police Management Association contract, and it was negotiated in tandem with the SPOG contract to adjust leadership salary levels in alignment with what the officer salaries do in their contract, and those represented in this contract include sergeants, lieutenants, and captains at SPD.

Councilmember Kettle, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Council President.

Colleagues, obviously the SPMA is the one for our senior officers within the police department.

This is separate from the police officers' guild.

So this one relates to our captains and our lieutenants and the like.

And this follows pretty straightforward.

It has similar time periods as the SPA contract, but the SPMA, a lot of the pieces are built in here as as we've noted yesterday.

And so my recommendation is to support this bill, and I'll save my comments for the SPOG bill, because I'm assuming that's gonna be the one where there's more questions.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you very much for that committee report.

Are there any questions or comments on this piece of legislation?

Looking for hands.

Council Member Lynn, please go ahead.

Thank you President Nelson, thank you Councilmember Kettle.

I will be voting yes on the SPMA contract and I just want to point out I'm very thankful that the contract includes a provision that they are fully agreeing to the implementation of the 2017 accountability ordinance.

And they are reserving the right to bargain the impacts of the accountability ordinance, which I support.

But I just think it's, and we'll have further comments on this later with the SPOG contract, but I think it's an important contrast for us.

And with that, I just want to say I will be supporting the SBMA contract.

Councilmember Rink.

Thank you, Council President.

Actually reflecting the comments just expressed by Council Member Lynn, just for the listening public, we are taking up two separate actions today, one for SBMA's contract and the other for the SPOG contract.

And on the SBMA contract, I do think there were meaningful measures in terms of some accountability, being able to increase accountability in some of those measures, and I will be supporting.

Thank you.

Before I call on Council Member Osaka, I see your hand raised.

I do have to make a correction to what I said.

The Seattle Police Management Association contract does not apply to sergeants.

That was my mistake, only lieutenants and captains.

Please go ahead, Councilmember Saka.

Thank you, Madam Council President.

And I too will be supporting the SPMA contract.

I think it's a good deal for the City of Seattle.

It has very robust accountability provisions baked in.

They were specifically negotiated and agreed to by SPMA.

And as Councilmember Lin noted a moment ago, it does bring us into direct alignment with the 2017 Accountability Ordinance, the impacts of which still could be negotiated, which I understand, but for those reasons, I will be supporting this.

Thank you.

Okay, I'm looking for other...

All right, I see no further hands raised.

I will simply say that this did take a while to negotiate and I just want to thank the members of the Seattle Department of Human resources and our labor relations group and also the members of the executive team for coming together with council members on LRPC to wrap this up.

Finally, it did take a while to actually approve in LRPC, but I'm glad that it is finally before us.

All right, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Council member Kettle?

Aye.

Council member Lin?

Aye.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Council Member Saka?

Aye.

Council Member Strauss?

Aye.

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council Member Juarez?

Aye.

Council President Nelson?

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?

Before I ask that you read the next item into the record, I wanted to say that while there is, extending my comments just now, while there is a lot of attention on this BOG contract, it is really important that we have good leaders as well.

So never forget that they not only have of supervisory responsibilities, but setting of the tone is extremely important and sometimes they are a recognition of the actions and the position of leadership is sometimes understated.

So I just wanted to make sure that that is clear that we require excellent leadership at the top of SPD.

All right, will the clerk please read item two into the record.

Agenda item 2, Council Bill 121, 133 related to city employment, authorizing execution of a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Officers Guild, authorizing execution of a memorandum of understanding between the City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Officers Guild.

All right, I move to pass Council Bill 121, 133. Is there a second?

It's moved and seconded to pass the bill.

And as a sponsor of the bill, I will exercise the privilege of extending to Councilmember Kettle, Chair of Public Safety, for the right to make first comments.

So please take it away.

Thank you, Council President, and thank you for your comments that you just made about the SPMA agreement, too, because that's important.

In terms of the timeline for it to be done, it's important to know that the agreement had to be, in a way, paired with SPOC because we created a situation, particularly with the interim agreement, where, for economic decisions, sergeants weren't necessarily looking to become lieutenants.

And so that was part of the process.

So I just wanted to note that.

The two agreements kind of have to go together for that reason and what we do definitely want to do is look for the best amongst the sergeants in terms of promoting to lieutenant and then captain and beyond.

Moving to the SPOG agreement, the agreed to labor agreement with SPOG is an important step to achieving our objectives with public safety.

This agreement will aid our ability to attract new SPD recruits, assist in retention, also further implement truly an alternative response capability with care, and make progress on accountability aims, an effort that will continue.

We have our strategic framework plan for Safe for Seattle.

One of its six pillars is SPD staffing, since our seriously understaffed police force is a contributing factor to our public safety challenges that we face today.

Our strategic framework plan also focuses on that link between public safety and public health, for as you've heard before, we cannot succeed in public safety if we don't succeed in public health.

Care is crucial to provide an alternative response to those in crisis, whether because of substance use disorder, behavioral health, or mental health challenges.

It is also important for our city to step forward in alternative response.

This agreement is crucial to make progress in our public safety reform, and specifically with alternative response.

Now I know the focus is mainly on accountability, and I will say accountability is key to our police and public safety reform efforts.

We have furthered our support for our accountability partners.

We've done this on a regular basis, whether the Officer Inspector General, the Office of Police Accountability, and the Community Police Commission.

Now, there are many factors impacting aspects of our efforts to gain more accountability measures.

And I say aspects because somebody can always come back from a different angle, but state labor law is part of this.

The labor relations process to include arbitration within the PERC, the Public Employment Relations Commission, is very important.

and I recognize there are disagreements on aspects mentioned in this, but this has been part of a two-year process to get here.

Two years for us on the LRPC and the Select Labor Committee, the SLC.

This is not a rushed process.

As I mentioned yesterday, I have echoes of Council Member Moore's words in my ears.

We pushed and pushed to get an agreement and here we are today.

It took two long years.

And I will be frank, it's been an incredibly frustrating process.

You know, accountability is key.

And I've said this to the men and women of the Seattle Police Department.

I've been to all precincts last year and coming back around again.

One of the things I said to them is that when you're the best, you have the highest standards, you should look to welcome accountability.

That's what we did when I was serving the United States Navy.

You know, this is important and I truly believe that we're going to continue our accountability efforts and to further our achievement of the aims that we have.

I've been working this again for over two years.

I have the accountability ordinance here.

I have my notes from reviewing the accountability ordinances and I see what we've done with our SPOC parameters, where we have furthered what we've done here.

And I'd like to point out specifically OPA, the Office of Police Accountability, and the measures impacting that beyond the Chief of Police Investigations bill that we passed earlier this year, which helped OPA.

There's the civilianization piece for OPA.

It's so important.

And there's that also for SBD.

We have the 180-day trigger simplification because that was causing problems.

That was a step forward.

And I know some may say, you know, frontline investigations is not important and that everything should be seen at OPA.

But you know what?

If we're going to develop our leaders of tomorrow, as I mentioned with SPMA, our lieutenants and captains tomorrow, we have to develop our junior sworn office today, our sergeants.

and we cannot do that if those sergeants are not able to lead for those minor things.

If you look at the ordinance, only the major serious items are supposed to go to OPA.

By the frontline investigations piece, this helps OPA focus on those very important pieces and not get bogged down.

One of the things I'm constantly looking at is to create a functional criminal justice system, a functional public safety system.

And this is what we're doing with this agreement.

This is what we're doing with this agreement.

We're helping OPA.

All these pieces help OPA.

It's really important.

And they're a key piece of our accountability process, accountability partner.

Then there's the subpoenas.

I'll be blunt.

I noted that it was said that the most glaring failure of this contract is the refusal to grant subpoena power to OPA and OIG.

I will note first, OPA and OIG do have subpoena power.

There's also a city ordinance, Ordinance 126264, that sets a process for the issuance and challenging of those subpoenas.

The limitation on that subpoena power is around the officer's personal records, i.e., personal texts, emails, and so forth, and those family members associated with those officers.

Otherwise, both entities can and have subpoenaed records.

Let me say that again.

Otherwise, both entities, the OPA and OIG, can and have subpoenaed records.

Second, both OPA and the OIG do have the authority to order officers to cooperate with investigations, including taking part in interviews and providing documents.

This authority flows directly from the Chief of Police, Chief Barnes.

If officers fail to cooperate and comply with these orders, they are subject to discipline up to potential termination.

So, yes, there is the issues related to third-party records, but hey, this point that was made needs to be essentially corrected to note that OPA and OIG do have subpoena power, and they do have the authority to order officers to cooperate in investigations.

No.

Pause.

When you walk through these different pieces, when you talk about the, you know, when you talk to the Sri Jeevuk Fam for, say, for Seattle, talking about SPD staffing and all the pieces that we're doing there, we talk about alternative response in terms of really pushing forward public safety reform, When we talk about accountability, as we continue our march forward on accountability, and we will continue that march forward on accountability, just as we will continue reform in this post-consent decree world that we're in.

But these pieces are facts.

and for those that were serving on the LRPC, we've been working through these things.

It's a two-party process, these negotiations, and we've been working through this.

And these pieces that are part of the accountability and operational parameters of our agreement do push us forward in terms of accountability.

And I recognize some don't agree with that, but that doesn't change the fact that we are still marching forward and we'll continue to march forward.

And I say that these pieces that I've just laid out do justify a yes vote.

So, colleagues, I ask for your support for this bill.

Thank you very much.

Council President.

Thank you very much.

Are there any other comments before we take a vote?

Council Member Rink.

Thank you, Council President.

Colleagues, I am voting no because Seattle deserves both safety and accountability.

and this contract doesn't deliver on accountability.

And before getting started on my remarks today, I wanna thank the members of the public who came to provide comments today, people who have directly experienced use of forks from SPD, people who serve on our commissions, people who take care of our neighbors, Thank you for giving comment today.

Government is better when people are allowed to, empowered to express themselves and use their voices, so thank you.

And as mentioned in a letter from the Community Police Commission to City Council, there are still significant accountability concerns with this proposed agreement.

To quote, ultimately the CBA retains the requirement that officer misconduct be proven with an elevated standard of review.

This contract doesn't make progress on the issues related to subpoena authority, and colleagues, as I stated yesterday during my line of questioning to staff, it appears to me that the requirements of having a sworn officer as a lead or co-lead of investigations of misconduct within a department is at odds with the accountability ordinance, as it may not be a configuration that best supports public trust in the complaint handling process.

This is before even getting into the fact that this CBA still significantly maintains tight restrictions on the types of incidents that the care department can respond to without SPD officers in a solo dispatch scenario.

This contract provides significant pay increases but fails to include meaningful accountability provisions that our community has been demanding for years.

It doesn't strengthen civilian oversight.

It doesn't make it easier to remove officers who cause harm and violate public trust.

It doesn't include transparency measures that build confidence between law enforcement and the communities they serve.

In short, this contract asks Seattle taxpayers to invest more in policing without requiring more accountability in return, and that's not a deal I can support.

I believe in public safety.

I believe people deserve to feel safe in their homes, their neighborhoods, and their city.

But I also believe that real sustainable safety requires more than just officers.

Real safety requires the right responses for given public safety scenarios, for violence prevention.

Real safety comes from economic opportunity, stable housing, and support systems that prevent crime from happening in the first place.

and this contract invests in one piece of the equation and it does so at the expense of others.

So I will be voting no today and I support improving public safety.

I understand the difficulties of police work but this contract simply does not include the accountability provisions that Seattle needs and it represents budget priorities that I don't believe align with investments that make us safer.

We can do better.

Thank you.

I believe that was Council Member Saka, did you have your hand up for a second?

Okay, go ahead, please.

Thank you, Madam Council President.

So, the badge earns trust, not from its shine, but from the conduct behind it.

The proposed SPOG CBA is a bad deal for the City of Seattle.

The accountability provisions contained in that contract are too lightweight and do not at all close the gap between what's set forth and our accountability ordinance, our city values, and the terms and conditions in the final agreed upon contracts.

For those reasons, I will be opposing and voting against this deal.

But first and foremost, colleagues, members of the public, before we talk a little bit more, there's a lot of nuance here.

And just hearing at least one of my colleagues speak a moment ago, I would 100% agree, there is a lot that needs to be corrected.

But before I talk about some of that and correct the record, I wanna speak as Rob.

Just me, not as a council member, but as Rob, as a father, as a son, and as a black man in America.

My experiences in this country is not something I can shed or put aside if it's not convenient for me.

It's the lens through which I see safety, justice, and yes, accountability.

It is the compass that guides my public service.

I have lived through encounters where the actions of an officer cross the line, where I felt fear rather than protection.

I've experienced police brutality firsthand.

These moments have shaped me and I carry them with me every single day.

not with resentment or animus, but with responsibility.

No person in Seattle should ever feel powerless, unseen, or vulnerable to unequal justice in an encounter with law enforcement.

Not one more resident, not one more child, yours or mine.

Guided by these experiences, I have spent more than a decade pushing for police reform, stronger civilian oversight and better community safety systems.

If you've been paying attention for more than just the last two years, you'll know that.

Before taking office, I served on the King County Charter Review Commission and helped champion and pass some voter-approved police accountability measures and reforms that were ultimately enshrined into the county's charter including subpoena power — let's correct the record in a minute — for the county's civilian — emphasis civilian — Office of Law Enforcement Oversight.

It has been over five years since many of these reform measures were approved by voters in 2020, including subpoena power for Oleo.

Since then, in the intervening five years, The county's police guild, our SPOG equivalent, if you will, has even agreed to that subpoena power in their contract.

Some form of subpoena power is in their contract today.

Somewhat limited, but it's there.

I think that's the new standard.

That's the new high watermark from which we should measure our success when we talk about accountability.

That's what our local market, that's what others in our local market are doing.

Why not us?

So this contract also gets some things right, and I don't want to dismiss or trivialize those.

With respect to accountability, the CBA would allow civilians to work on serious misconduct cases with sworn investigators.

Civilians may even co-lead the investigation alongside a sworn investigator.

The CBA also provides much needed clarity around the 180 day review period and tolling that begins for officer misconduct reviews.

I think there's some cool things in there to help drive the culture change internally within the department that we all want to see and ultimately improve the community experience.

Those include things like language bonuses, higher education bonuses, The education or the research and data is crystal clear on this point.

Officers who are more educated use less force.

These are good things.

There's some also solid reform of the department's dispatch practices and policies, namely our care department expansion.

That's a good community win.

It's a big deal.

It allows our city to start moving away from a strict dual dispatch model that is highly unworkable when applied broadly.

It means more trained social workers responding to crises, more people getting help instead of cuffs, and fewer unnecessary encounters between armed officers and residents in distress.

Those are good things, especially and including the care piece.

That is a strong reform.

The proposed contract moves in a direction, but it does not move boldly enough.

Care expansion, good.

But make no mistake, care expansion and reform is not accountability, not.

It does not strengthen oversight or prevent misconduct.

It does not bring this agreement into closer alignment with our 2017 accountability ordinance.

You heard me talking time and time and time and time again about my fundamental belief and approach to avoid the one or the other.

I'm a yes and person.

Seattle needs reform and accountability.

The CBA gives us one important thing, one, but it does also sidestep the other yet again.

And yes, with emphasis, the single most egregious failure, there's a lot, but the number one thing, in my view, is someone who's worked on this as an attorney and advocate for a decade.

That's why I need to correct the record, because I have more knowledge about this than many others.

The single most egregious failure is the continued refusal to grant subpoena power to our civilian, emphasize civilian, underline that, Put an exclamation point at the end, civilian oversight authorities, the Office of Police Accountability and the Office of Inspector General.

Everyone's work records are subject to inspection, review by anyone as a city employee at a bare minimum because of our open public disclosure laws and requirements.

There's no reasonable expectation of privacy with comms, for example, on your work computer or work device.

We ain't talking about work computers and work devices.

Personal records, bank records, phone records, social media content.

Not all social media content is public, obviously.

Distinction one.

Distinction two, yes, again, no reasonable expectation of privacy for our own things that we do on our work computers, work devices, et cetera.

For us personally, what about third parties?

That's the second important distinction.

The subpoena power must be broad enough that it covers third parties, banks, so bank records, social media platforms, friends of the people subject to the investigation.

Maybe it could be a police officer at another agency, for example.

These distinctions matter.

There's some confusion about Well, if the chief requests some records, of course, same thing.

If our bosses request records today, we don't comply, yes, we're gonna have to deal with disciplinary consequences.

We ain't talking about that.

This is not about that.

Remember what I said earlier, civilian oversight of law enforcement.

Last time I checked, the chief of police is not a civilian.

Civilian oversight of law enforcement.

So thank you for allowing me to correct the record in part, not the one.

But without this subpoena power, we could talk all day.

I could educate some all day.

All that is to say, without this important power, investigators cannot require officers or witnesses to participate.

Access all key records and evidence that they need to carry out the investigation or independently verify statements, the accuracy of the statements.

They cannot gather information that would reveal misconduct patterns or verify claims made by the officers.

Investigations cannot be complete without those tools because oversight essentially becomes guesswork.

and when investigations are incomplete, trust erodes, misconduct festers and communities suffer and will continue to suffer.

That alone for me justifies a no vote Further community disappointments include the retention of loopholes that allow unnecessary delays in investigations and keeps disciplinary rules inconsistent and vulnerable to arbitration rollbacks.

Accountability cannot function under those conditions.

This agreement carries a massive price tag as well.

According to the central staff estimates in the analysis memo, it would add tens of millions of dollars above baseline over four years, 12 million in year one over baseline, 22 million in year two, 42 million I think in year three and 50 something million in year four.

Millions, tens of millions of dollars.

Our officers within SPD today are already the highest paid in Washington state.

and it's a hard job to work here in Seattle.

I don't care what you do.

And I think irrespective of your core job or function, if you're a city employee, you should be at the higher or the highest end of salaries compared to what other local jurisdictions offer.

So I do think Seattle police officers should be at the higher end of the spectrum, but they're already there today.

And if this contract is not approved, that will remain true tomorrow.

Let's be honest, I think there's also some really important pressing community needs as well.

We're taking this vote here today, but everything we do is not taken in, we can't take everything in isolation in a vacuum.

We recently passed our 8.9 billion dollar council budget.

Today, there's working families that are facing crushing housing costs, escalating childcare costs and related childcare shortages, homelessness, food insecurity worsened by federal snap cuts and rising behavioral health needs.

Every single dollar matters.

I cannot justify spending so much more on officers right now who are already earning the most in the state, while essential accountability tools remain missing.

Just a few weeks ago, colleagues, and I don't harbor any bad feelings or it's not sour grapes at all, but does bring up a good opportunity to provide some contrast with some very recent votes we just took on the budget.

In the budget, I propose an amendment of $125,000 for the West Seattle Food Bank.

Another amendment for $35,000 for the Center for Active Living to help seniors in West Seattle.

I proposed an amendment for $70,000 for Cultivate South Park.

They wanted to provide and distribute free meals occasionally in the heart of the South Park community.

I propose an increased investment to support critical community projects for a new international public market to add an additional $500,000 on top of the baseline amount of $1 million that we were able to ultimately offer them, an additional $250,000 for the Highland Park Improvement Club, $1 million for traffic safety along a dangerous blind stretch along Admiral, specifically to address some pedestrian safety.

People have died at that very dangerous blind stretch that was subject of my amendment.

And within a week, something was in the West Seattle blog, there's another big major crash.

We failed to show up there.

And I think those were very modest and reasonable investments.

and more worthwhile in the moment than the tens of millions of dollars we're being called upon to invest in officers today who are already paid the highest.

This moment also demands more vigilance.

The cruelty and encroachment of the Trump administration has triggered widespread fear, particularly with our immigrant and refugee communities.

when federal power feels unpredictable, strong, the strongest local oversight, civilian oversight becomes essential.

Our city cannot claim on the one hand to resist and clap back against federal overreach while on the other accepting a contract that weakens oversight here at home.

So in short, the CBA offers progress, some of which should be celebrated, but not the level of clarity and accountability that this moment demands right now, today.

We need transparent processes.

We need a fair and consistent set of consequences.

We need a structure that empowers the department to thrive and the community to trust.

Until we reach that, I can't support this contract.

and I appreciate your patience and grace.

This is important.

This is a very complex, nuanced topic of which is very personal to me, from my personal experiences and my professional and volunteer experiences.

We need to address the root cause of these continuing bad contracts.

Today's vote obviously engenders a very candid conversation, Let's continue down that path towards transparency, talk more about the root cause.

Our system is fundamentally broken.

Our state law keeps it broken.

It is past time to address this root cause.

Washington's system is built to produce weak oversight.

State law prevents cities like ours from unilaterally strengthening police disciplinary rules.

That means anything and everything tied to misconduct must be specifically negotiated, bargained for, and agreed to by both parties.

Under current state law, even police misconduct matters are considered routine or standard, quote, unquote.

Here's a legally operative set of words.

Terms and conditions of employment.

Even misconduct matters are considered terms and conditions of employment that are therefore subject to the collective bargaining process.

That is backwards.

Community protections become bargaining chips and transparency becomes something that is frequently traded away in exchange for raises and staffing concessions.

The whole system treats police misconduct rules like it's a perk or a benefit.

That is a design feature.

That is a design feature that shields institutions.

But it's not at all a bug.

Our city is empowered to fix from the inside.

Police, and here's why it's different.

Here's why it's different.

Police officers carry the state's authority to use deadly force.

To use force and including deadly force.

Nothing about this solemn authority is routine or standard.

This authority to use force and potentially take a life requires a stronger set of oversight, not oversight designed to collapse during negotiations.

The legislature must act.

The legislature must change this law now so discipline and misconduct rules cannot be bargained away.

Without that change, Seattle will continue to face contracts that undermine our values.

Lives are literally dependent on it.

I'm not done.

Thank you for your patience and grace.

To the advocates, organizers, and residents pushing for stronger accountability, I hear you.

I see you.

I carry many, not all, the same experiences and concerns.

Accountability is not a progressive wish list item.

It is a moral imperative for a city that wants safety with dignity, protection with fairness and justice and compassion.

We need systems that hold all of us to high standards and that treat our communities with care.

Anything less erodes trust and harms both officers and civilians.

to members of police, law enforcement, anything tied to public safety, let me be absolutely clear.

I hold deep respect for the men and women of the Seattle Police Department who serve with integrity.

I know their jobs are hard, not at all easy.

I know the sacrifices they make, and I value their service.

I've sat with officers who are proud of their work and who want a department that reflects the best of what policing can be.

My call, my demand for stronger accountability is not a criticism of those officers.

It is a statement of faith that a stronger department is possible and that accountability is the path to get there.

SPD leadership is working hard to rebuild trust Many officers want a culture that lifts up the good and addresses the bad.

And I'm committed to working with them, not against them, to achieve that goal.

Bottom line is this.

We strengthen public safety when we strengthen accountability.

The two rise and fall together.

To my colleagues who served in the LRPC, learning a lot of important things about nitty-gritty internal policy committee here within the Seattle city government.

I don't happen to serve on it.

I wanna thank you for your service.

My opposition to this contract that's before us today is not at all an indictment of your work and your efforts and your contributions to our city.

I would ideally have liked to sit on the LRPC, but I'm not here to cast aspersions on you or your work or SPOG.

They are functioning within the system that is designed, that we all operate in.

but for LRPC related concerns, please don't bring a contract back before me that does not include stronger accountability provisions, but at a bare basic minimum, subpoena power.

I stand ready to continue doing this work.

I appreciate the...

This is a passionate conversation.

And we're having it on the fly, in real time, in the public.

And I think some things were said earlier that in the moment I probably should have done a better job of assuming better intent.

but words matter as well.

And we also need to be clear not to undermine or impugn people's motives, people's background, experience and expertise and familiarity with the underlying subject matter.

So I ask for grace for my colleagues.

If I didn't live up to the value I just stated in terms of assuming good overall intent, but I am gonna ask you to extend that same courtesy to me.

Thank you.

Health Member Lynn.

Please be quiet at the house.

Order.

Stop clapping.

We have to continue.

Do you want us to just sort of take a recess here or anything?

Councilmember Lin.

Thank you, Council President Nelson.

Thank you to all the members of the public here today.

Thank you to my colleagues for your comments.

Thank you, Council Member Osaka for your heartfelt comments there.

Fully support your comments today and your opinion article in The Stranger today.

And as you mentioned, Nothing I'm saying here is meant to impugn any of the hard work that went into this contract or to question the integrity or values of any of my colleagues here.

But I will be voting no today on this contract because this agreement would mean further delays to full implementation of the accountability ordinance.

that council adopted in 2017. And I just want to point out that it was a diverse council that adopted the ordinance in 2017, and it included Council Member Juarez, included Council Member Burgess, Council Member Bagshaw, and many others.

And here we are eight years later, and if we approve this contract, it will go through 2027. That will be a decade that we still have not implemented the accountability ordinance.

and as my colleague, Councilmember Sokka said, this is about pro-accountability, pro-civilian oversight and really pro-public safety because we do know that those accountability and public safety go hand in hand.

and I do want to recognize the incredibly difficult work of our officers who too often are put in positions where they are dealing with the failures of our society, the failures of electeds to address basic needs of our society as we have seen and economic equality grow as we have seen homelessness and mental health needs grow.

And those are the fault of us as electeds, not the fault of our officers.

And so I think we need to take accountability ourselves for many of our failures to address the root causes of our public safety needs.

I also think that it's important to recognize that the grief and the anger and the frustration that led to the nationwide protests in 2020, those are just as real today as they were then.

We have never addressed the root causes, the generational trauma that was inflicted upon our communities.

It continues to be inflicted upon too many.

We can't just sweep it under the rug, we can't just ignore it or move past it, although many people would like to, because it is a festering wound that will continue to impact our communities, continue to impact our ability to provide true public safety.

I would like to talk a little bit just about a personal story, just to help shed light on how this might impact our communities.

Because I think about when I was 20 years old and I was living in St. Paul, Minnesota, I was in college.

and I was spending time with some friends on a Friday night and one of them had too much to drink and was acting inappropriately and the police officers were called and I ended up handcuffed in the back of a police car.

The officers were upset because my friend ran away and resisted arrest and hurt one of the officers and so they wanted me to give up the name of my friend and I was refusing to do so and when I was in the back of the police car with handcuffs this officer was pretty upset and angry at me and I understood the anger because his friend had been hurt and another officer had been hurt but he ended up putting his hands around my throat while I was handcuffed in the back of the police car and threatening me, and he did it more than once.

And, you know, he was trying to teach me a lesson, teach me a lesson that he was in control and that he could harm me.

This was before body cameras, before cell phone footage.

And...

and then ended up driving me around town for 30 minutes, continuing to tell me how they were gonna ruin my life and ended up taking me to the drunk tank where I spent a few nights.

I did blow up .04, which is about one drink, and he stated misinformation to keep me in the drunk tank.

So that was one.

and I reached out to the police accountability and submitted a letter and I don't remember any response.

But what I do remember is a couple months later, getting pulled over by a police officer, had a broken tail light, and it was the same officer.

And I remember being extremely frightened because, and I should say also at the time it happened, I had long hair and the officer had made some racialized comments about, you know, am I Indian or something?

And so when I got pulled over months later, you know, I was thinking to myself, he knows what I look like.

He now knows what my vehicle looks like.

Probably knows that I submitted a complaint about him.

and I truly felt unsafe, not because I felt worried about my neighbors or anything else, but I felt unsafe in my own neighborhood because of the police.

Too many, unfortunately, feel that sense of fear.

And that fear creates mistrust and that causes a lack of faith in the police, a lack of faith in government.

And so that's for me, you know, there's one harm when misconduct occurs, there's another harm which is just as serious when that misconduct does not get addressed.

And if we really wanna move toward a more positive relationship between the community and the police towards a comprehensive approach towards public safety, accountability has to be our priority.

And as we look at these two different contracts, I think about a couple things.

I think about the SPMA contract where we were able to bargain much greater accountability measures.

And that says a couple things.

One, it says to me that we should be able to bargain strong accountability measures into our SPOG contract.

And I understand that they are in different positions, but there's no reason for us not to stand firm to insist upon the same strong accountability measures in the SPMA and the SPA contract as we were able to achieve in the SPMA contract.

and I also believe that we should not be bargaining this accountability in the first place as my council member colleague Saka said.

And so when you think about accountability, again, I think about our accountability as electeds to hold firm on insisting upon accountability.

I also think about our state legislators who, you know, there was a bill back in 21, 22, to take accountability off the bargaining table and it did not make it very far in that legislative session.

And so I think it's incumbent upon us to push our state legislators to take accountability off the table from bargaining.

So thank you for allowing me that time.

I do just wanna make a couple other comments.

You know, I think we also, there's a couple things that are not included in this contract that I think we need to keep our eye on the ball.

Things like our 30 by 30 goals.

If we're gonna change the culture from a warrior culture to a guardian culture, I think we have to make progress on the 30 by 30 goals.

And that needs to be priority, I believe, in our negotiations with SPOG.

We don't have our eyes on outside employment and that was not part of this negotiations and I think we need to make sure that's a priority as far as any future negotiations.

And finally, I do just want to talk about the process.

I know that there are rules and requirements around confidentiality and if we need to be pushing for changes in those laws or rules but I do think there are steps that we can and should take as part of any future negotiations to have greater transparency, greater community input as part of any future contract negotiations.

Thank you.

Quiet in the house, come on you guys.

Is that an old, let's see, Council Member Rivera, please.

Council Member Rivera.

Okay, Council Member Kettle.

All right, you guys are fighting over who's gonna go first.

No, my hand's not up.

Oh, your hand's not up anymore.

Okay.

Oh, I thought it was.

Okay.

Oh, go ahead.

Yeah, sure.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Council President.

Colleagues, this contract is better than the system we are operating under today, and the accountability measures within the contract are not good enough, plain and simple.

This contract is better than what we have today, and while better is better, better isn't good enough.

The way to move forward is by taking stronger accountability measures to interest arbitration.

This contract does provide that pathway to do so.

Current state law requires us to bargain with the police unions on what police accountability measures we can implement, which essentially means that we need SPOG buy-in, we need their sign-off, to strengthen police accountability, and without their sign-off, it doesn't happen.

This system doesn't work for Seattleites, and I along with others argued that this should not be the case.

Accountability should be non-negotiable.

Expanding police alternatives like sending mental health professionals to crisis calls should not require negotiations.

People wonder why it has taken so long.

The evidence is in this contract.

Unfortunately, the state law has not changed.

and we are stuck in the same position.

Today we find ourselves in a position where the only way to expand CARES community response teams or our other police alternatives is through this contract.

And the only way to move accountability provisions forward into arbitration today is through this contract.

I agree with many of the people who have spoken today and that we need to be doing more to ensure that we have an accountable police force.

Because of state law, our options to do that are incredibly limited, and without this contract, we would be delaying our ability to expand care indefinitely.

We have few options, and we know that expanding care isn't accountability, and it can't wait.

Getting mental health professionals on our streets to respond to crisis calls can't wait.

Moving forward on a pathway to arbitration on stronger accountability pressures can't wait.

This is why I will be voting in favor of this contract today.

While continuing...

Order.

This is...

This behavior constitutes a disturbance.

Please stop.

There will be order.

Jail, killer, cops!

Jail, killer, cops!

Jail, killer, cops!

Jail, killer, cops!

Jail, killer, cops!

Jail, killer, cops!

Jail, killer, cops!

Jail, killer, cops!

Jail, killer, cops!

Jail, killer, cops!

Jail, killer, cops!

Jail, killer, cops!

Jail, killer, cops!

Jail, killer, cops!

Jail, killer, cops!

Jail, killer, cops!

Jail, killer, cops!

Jail, killer, cops!

Jail, killer, cops!

Jail, killer, cops!

Jail, killer, cops!

Jail, killer, cops!

Jail, killer, cops!

Jail, killer, cops!

Jail, killer, cops!

Jail, killer, cops!

Jail, killer, cops!

Jail, killer, cops!

Jail, killer, cops!

Jail, killer, cops!

Jail, killer, cops!

Jail, killer, cops!

Disturbing behavior, please.

Let him keep going.

I'm fine.

I haven't finished.

Madam President, may I make a point of order?

Make a point of order, Madam President?

Oh, there you are.

Okay, excuse me.

I ask that we take the vote in our offices.

Let's do that.

Can we recess and go to our offices if people can't behave?

Go ahead and I will call a five minute recess for us to- I'm just gonna finish, can I just finish my statements?

Oh cool, I'm sorry, go ahead.

Thank you, thank you.

So as I said, that we have few options before us and we know that expanding care is an accountability and it can't wait.

Getting mental health professionals on our streets to respond to crisis calls can't wait.

Moving forward on the pathway to arbitration on stronger accountability provisions can't wait, which is why I will be supporting this contract today while continuing to push for more police accountability provisions in our city and to make the changes to state law that block us from strengthening accountability in our own city.

Better isn't good.

Better is better, but better is not good enough.

We've got more work to do here and in Olympia, and I'm here to do that work.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

With respect, I will call I will call the vote and I will allow for people to, and then we will continue with our agenda.

Have you finished your remarks?

I did.

Thank you, Council President.

Okay.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Council Member Kettle?

Aye.

Council Member Lin?

Council Member Lin?

No.

Council Member Rink?

No.

Councilmember Rivera?

Aye.

Councilmember Saka?

Councilmember Strauss?

I cannot hear what you are saying.

Point of order, Council President, I think we need to finish this vote in chambers because we've afforded folks the respect to listen, and we need to be able to conduct our business.

Yes.

And I am happy to be here, but we've afforded the ability to speak, and now we've got to finish our business.

Keep doing the vote.

Just keep doing the vote.

This is what you want.

Great.

Let's go.

Let's just keep doing the vote.

Keep going.

Let's go.

Councilmember Strauss.

Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Who's next?

Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Councilmember Juarez.

Who?

Juarez.

Who's next?

Councilmember Juarez Yes, I vote yes Council President Nelson I vote yes Six in favor, three opposed Thank you very much The bill passes and the chair will sign it Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf

I think it was 6-3.

We will recess for five minutes.

Counsel is now in recess for five minutes.

you

Councilmember Saka.

Councilmember Strauss.

Here.

Councilmember Hollingsworth.

I'm present.

Councilmember Saka.

Councilmember Saka's here.

Councilmember Juarez.

And I'm present.

Councilmember Hollingsworth is present.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council President Nelson.

Council President Nelson.

Council President Nelson.

I see she's there.

Six present.

Are we all present?

Yes.

Council President, I am here.

I apologize for the difficulties.

I'm finally here.

I apologize.

I'm finally back online.

I'm here.

I am not able to hear.

I am going to call.

It is impossible to hear each other when we are speaking, so I am going to ask that we repair to our offices and continue this meeting there.

Okay.

So, okay.

Okay, well that's unfortunate.

We do have items still left on our agenda and we will continue this meeting.

We do not have enough time the following week.

We are having difficulty conducting our business because of the disturbance in the chambers.

Will the clerk please call the roll again now that some other people have returned to chambers.

Council member Kettle.

Jody, we're not able to hear you at this moment.

I cannot hear the clerk, and so let the record show that we are having difficulty continuing our business, so we will return to our offices to finish this meeting.

I can't hear you, Council President.

so that we can continue this meeting from our offices.

Councilmember Lynn Councilmember Lynn Councilmember Rink Alright, well I do see that Councilmember Lynn and Councilmember Rink are in the chamber and present Councilmember Rivera Councilmember Saka Thank you Councilmember Strauss Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Present, present, present.

Councilmember Juarez.

Here, I'm here.

Council President Nelson.

Present.

Eight, present.

Thank you very much.

I would like to call for another vote on the last item before we go on, and then we will move on to item three.

Roll call for agenda item two.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Councilmember Lynn.

Councilmember Lynn.

Councilmember Rink.

Councilmember Rivera.

Council member Saka.

Well, we're not going to have a quorum for a vote.

Point of order question.

We've already taken the vote.

Yes.

We have.

I got a good item.

Yeah, please read item three into the agenda.

Agenda item 3, council bill 121131, an ordinance relating to city employment commonly referred to as the pay zone ordinance, adjusting the pay zone structures for 2026 for the city's discretionary pay programs and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts, the committee recommends council pass the bill.

Colleagues, this bill is a standard fee.

No.

Colleagues, those who have chosen to stay in chambers can't really speak to that.

We are now on item three.

This bill is a standard HR bill that comes before council every year.

It manually adjusts the pay zones for certain leadership roles across the city.

Most employees in the city automatically receive inflationary adjustments every year, which for 2026 is 3.6%.

And this bill will replicate that inflation adjustment for the lower and upper bounds of the pay zones, which would otherwise not adjust with inflation.

Are there any questions or comments?

Okay, I am not seeing any questions or comments.

Just a second, was I supposed to move?

I did not move the bill, but that was in committee.

Okay, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Councilmember Rink.

Councilmember Rivera.

Aye.

Thank you.

Councilmember Saka.

What bill is this?

Sorry.

Number three.

Council Bill 121131.

This is the HR bill.

Oh, aye.

Councilmember Strauss.

Yes.

Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Yes.

The next bill.

Councilmember Juarez.

Aye.

Councilmember Lin.

Councilmember Rink.

Yes.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?

Alright, there were no items removed from the consent calendar and now we are on item J on our agenda, which is the adoption of other resolutions.

I suggested that we repair to our offices so that we can hear one another.

Some members have decided to stay in chambers.

Will the clerk please read item 4 into the record?

Agenda Item 4, Resolution 3-2-1-8-7, Resolution 7-4 at the City's House, 2020 legislative agenda.

I move to adopt resolution 32187. Is there a second?

Second!

Second!

It's been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution.

As sponsor of the resolution, I will address it before opening it up for discussion.

We have 11 amendments to vote on, so I will keep this brief.

This legislative agenda used to be 14 pages long, 15 pages long, and over the course of this year and last year, we have been able to reduce that number to a couple pages so that it is a useful tool for our lobbyists to use in Olympia to convey, communicate the priorities of the City of Seattle.

So that is what we will be voting on today is a resolution that endorses the legislative agenda that will be before legislators when the session starts in January.

So that is what's on our table, and so we've got many different amendments, and each council member will address their amendment in the order that they appear on the agenda.

Are there any comments before moving on to Amendment A?

You've got Amendment A through K.

Colleagues, the reason that we are continuing with our meeting and continuing with this item is because next week's agenda is also quite full, according to our clerk.

So I move to amend.

All right.

Who is the council member?

Lynn, you are recognized.

Council President, my hand's been up.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I did not see that.

I know that it's blending into my painting here.

Can you see it now?

Apologies.

May I proceed?

Yes, you may proceed, Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Council President.

Colleagues, I want to thank you all for relating your priorities.

via these amendments.

I respect that everyone has priorities that they feel strongly about in supporting our city.

I know that in the past our legislative priorities list has been pages long and we settled on prioritizing our collective legislative efforts in Olympia to better make an impact and to give our staff in Olympia the ability to focus on the items that have the most support and best chance of passage in that particular current legislative session.

I can tell you that we go through a similar exercise in the same priority setting on our Legislative Committee of the Association of Washington Cities.

This year we focus on just four priorities.

I mentioned them yesterday, I believe, so I know what they are.

I can tell you they're enhancing indigent defense.

increasing housing supply.

As a second point, the third priority is transportation and traffic safety, and the fourth priority is preserving shared revenues.

Of course, there are many more priorities that all the cities care about.

We're just trying to focus in and we had to engage in this compromise and really focus the agenda due to the short legislative session, which for this year, as you all know, is 60 days.

I think there's value to focusing our yearly legislative agenda to items that have a better opportunity of actual passage in Olympia in that year.

It does not mean we do not have many more issues we care deeply about, and in fact, there are many items in these amendments that I also care deeply about, and I remain available to work with you all individually as colleagues on figuring out how we may do some work together on an individual basis in Olympia.

So for these reasons I'm going to be abstaining from all the amendments except for Council Member Lynn's amendment related to food banks and school meals because I know There is support in Olympia for school meals since last session and that can roll over to this session and also will be supporting Councilmember Juarez's amendment because I support our commitments to our tribal partners but otherwise I will be abstaining from all other amendments for this year but like I said I remain available to individually work together to advocate in Olympia on all many of the other things that are contained here.

Please do not take my strategy point on Olympia to mean I don't care for many of these things that are in your individual amendments.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you for those comments.

Are there any comments before we proceed to the next item?

Now would be the opportunity to move Amendment A. Hi, President Elson.

I'd like to move to amend Resolution 32187 as presented on the recently distributed Amendment A, Version 2.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the resolution as presented on the recently distributed Amendment A version two.

Council Member Lin, you're recognized in order to address the amendment.

Thank you, President Nelson.

As mentioned yesterday during the council briefing, there's a number of amendments here, but really the top priority is to address the growing affordability crisis.

And the only way we're gonna be able to do that is to fix our upside down tax code to make sure we are not only taxing the wealthiest in our community who currently pay the least, but that we also provide tax relief to our lowest income, to our fixed income seniors, to our working families.

And so that is the thrust of this amendment.

You know, I know that there's going to be a lot of discussions down in Olympia this coming legislative session.

And just believe it's critically important for us as a council to express our priority for progressive revenues and then also to provide tax relief to our working families.

That was the top issue I've heard over the past 10 months and would love your support.

Thank you.

Councilmember Kerrell.

uh thank you council president I just wanted to ask um at this point do we have the option to um abstain I was uh basically what can I ask that question because I was going to vote my understanding is we have yes and no votes correct abstention is allowed on resolutions okay well colleagues um I'm going to be abstaining for the first three amendments because I do not believe that we should have omnibus amendments covering different topic areas.

And so only for that reason, I'm going to be abstaining for the first three amendments.

Clearly, we need to move forward on a lot of the issues contained in those amendments.

But for that reason, in terms of having, you know, topic specific amendments, I'm going to be abstaining.

So thank you.

Heard your comment.

Thank you very much.

Could you please, Councilmember Lynn, repeat the difference between Version 1 and 2 of Amendment A?

Yes.

The only difference was to delete one provision, which was already covered largely by a bill that did pass last year.

So, I deleted the entire section related to incentives to comply with the Growth Management Act housing requirements.

So that whole section got deleted.

Okay.

Are there further questions on the amendment, questions or comments on the amendment?

All right.

Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of amendment A.

Councilmember Kettle.

Abstain.

Councilmember Lin.

Aye.

Council Member Rink?

Council Member Rivera?

Epstein.

Council Member Saka?

Council Member Saka?

I can't hear you.

I just saw him, he disappeared.

Council Member Saka, Amendment A. Okay, I see that.

Councilmember Strauss.

Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Councilmember Juarez.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Yes, I'm voting yes on this amendment.

Thank you.

I have four in favor and three abstentions.

Okay, so does that mean that it fails because it needs five or does it win because it's got one more than abstention?

Council President, a majority is in favor, so therefore the motion is adopted.

I do want to ensure though members in chambers have been able to vote.

We did not hear from Councilmember Rink.

Is that correct, Jody?

That's correct.

I did not hear from Rink.

I don't believe I heard Strauss either.

Yeah, we can't hear Rink or Strauss.

All right, I will say that council members have the opportunity to be heard more easily from their desks as we proceed with these votes.

amendments or something like that.

And so I am not going to wait around for re-voting if you can't hear us.

Yes.

Yes.

Council President, I am trying to.

I responded yes to Amendment A. I want to make sure my vote is counted.

Can you please call the roll again on Amendment A and include my vote as yes?

This is the last time that we will call the roll again.

Please call the roll again and then we will move on to amendment B.

Whoever sponsors that needs to move it.

Go ahead, please.

Yes.

Council member Kettle.

Epstein.

Council member Rink.

Yes.

Council member Rivera.

Epstein.

Council member Saka.

Aye.

Council member Lin.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Aye.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council Member Juarez.

Yes.

Council President Nelson.

Abstain.

See, I believe I have six in favor and three abstentions.

Okay.

The motion carries and amendment A version two is adopted.

Next steps.

Council President.

Yes.

I move to amend resolution 32187 as presented on amendment B.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the resolution as presented on amendment B.

Council Member Ring, do you recognize an order to present it?

Thank you, Council President.

I spoke to many of these areas that are included in this proposed amendment.

This amendment adds to the affordability and workforce section by adding an inclusion of the exploring of a revenue neutral swap for sales tax while also pushing for us to allow for collective bargaining matters as it relates to AI intelligence on employee wages and performance evaluations and investments in the workforce and development for the maritime industry.

It includes elements that are encouraging for reducing liability requirements to encourage development of condos, while also changing city and county elevator standards to match global or North American standards.

I won't bop through the rest of these areas.

I discussed them yesterday, but the one point I want to say, since many alluded to this during our discussion from the contract, this amendment does include on within here to add to our public safety section of the agenda to include updating police accountability and arbitration rules and procedures.

This is the important measure when we're talking about state-level changes in order for us to address the bargaining of accountability in a number of these measures.

So I ask for your support, especially reflective of the discussion we just had related to the SPOG contract.

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion on this amendment?

Seeing none, would the clerk please call the roll on amendment B.

Councilmember Strauss?

Yes, Councilmember Rivera?

I do have a comment, sorry.

I don't know.

I was waiting for Council President to pipe in.

We don't know where she went.

okay sorry it's a little confusing with people in chambers and not I will say I'll repeat what I said earlier is I'm abstaining because of on all these amendments except for the two I said because of the narrowing of the legislative agenda but given council member Rink's comments just now please do not take my abstaining on all these amendments as thinking that I don't care about police reform.

I do on accountability as well.

I sit on the LRPC and will continue to work with my colleagues on the LRPC.

I expect arbitration.

I didn't get to make my comments because it was loud in chambers, but next steps are, I expect we're gonna go to arbitration on a number of measures, including on the accountability side, and we'll continue to work as we negotiate and future these accountability pieces because they are really important.

There isn't a council member that I know that does not care about police accountability and that is just the fact of the matter.

So thank you.

Council Member Saka.

Thank you, Madam Council President.

I want to thank Council Member Rink for bringing this forward.

I'm looking at the public safety language, relevant public safety language right now on the fly.

It says update police accountability.

or excuse me, yeah, update police accountability, arbitration rules and procedures to ensure discipline for misconduct is fair and consistent.

I think that's a good start.

It doesn't go as far as what I was calling for earlier in terms of a more sweeping change to specifically exclude anything tied to discipline and misconduct.

Arbitration is only one of many aspects and so this speaks solely to arbitration rules in disciplinary matters I'm talking about anything and everything under the sun the more sweeping reform I think is needed to fix some of these systemic changes that we're seeing here and being frustrated by locally in Seattle, and so rather than sort of wordsmith and propose an amendment on the fly here, I think this is good enough, but I just wanna caveat by saying I support an even broader set of reforms that impact more than just the accountability provisions, so thank you.

Council Member Kettle.

Yes, Council President, thank you.

I just wanted to note, I said earlier for those that may not have heard my position regarding these omnibus amendments, but I do support and I appreciate the point of Council Member Rink's amendment related to the bargaining piece.

and the comments of other colleagues because it goes to the point that I said in my remarks ahead of the vote for the SPOG TA and it's important because there's so much being written and distributed out to the city that is creating confusion so I really appreciate it and I'll take the opportunity now to note too, because the civilian oversight is really important to this.

And out of respect to Natalie Walton Anderson, who I work with closely on all the public safety challenges that we face in our city.

She is the chief of public safety.

She is the civilian oversight to include our uniformed chief, Chief Barnes and Chief Sparks.

So I just wanted to note that.

Thank you.

Are there any further comments?

All right, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of Amendment B?

Council Member Kettle?

Abstain.

Council Member Lin?

Yes.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Council Member Rivera?

Abstain.

Council Member Saka?

Aye.

Council Member Strauss?

Aye.

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Thank you.

Council Member Juarez?

Yes.

Council President Nelson?

No.

That is six in favor, one opposed and two abstentions.

The motion carries and Amendment E is adopted.

Council President?

Council Member Strauss?

Thank you, Council President.

I move Amendment C Version 1 to Resolution 32187. Is there a second?

Is there a second?

Second.

Thanks.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the resolution as presented on Amendment C. Councilmember Strauss, a sponsor of the amendment, be recognized in order to address it.

Thank you.

As I discussed yesterday, this does three things.

One, it adds the provision to provide local municipalities with more revenue options.

It does a second thing, which requests the state legislature to make stronger regulations regarding metal recycling.

And most importantly, I'd say, is to support the policies and investments to fight climate change, assist in climate adaption, and assist local governments in the removal of fish passage barriers.

I request your support.

Thank you.

Are there comments from colleagues?

Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment C. Council Member Kettle?

Stain.

Council Member Lynn?

Yes.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera?

Abstain.

Council Member Saka?

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss.

Aye.

Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Councilmember Juarez.

Yes.

Council President Nelson.

Abstain.

Six in favor, three abstentions.

The motion carries and amendment C is adopted.

the person who is...

Councilmember Saka has amendment in number D.

Yes, I was waiting for him to raise his hand to move his amendment.

Okay.

Councilmember Saka.

All right, thank you, Madam Council President.

I move to amend resolution 32187 as presented on amendment D on the agenda.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the resolution as presented in amendment D.

Councilmember Saka, as sponsor, you're recognized to address it.

Thank you, Madam Council President.

Colleagues, this is the universal free school lunch meal program and investment that we were bringing back to life after last year and super cool opportunity for us as a state to address some of the the systemic needs regarding food access and food security across our entire state.

And so I ask for your support on this.

Thank you.

All right.

Are there any questions or comments?

I have a question.

and then I do see your hand, Council Member Rivera.

It was up and then it was down and now it's up.

Okay, I'll call you in a sec.

I asked yesterday if there was a dollar amount that was presented in this year's session about the universal free lunch in the time that intervened.

Do you have that information?

Yeah, the estimates we were able to pull together in the last 24 hours or less, I guess, is about $100 million for the state per year.

But, yeah.

Thank you for that information.

Councilmember Rivera.

Thank you, Council President.

So this one is similar to Councilmember Lin's which includes the food banks so I was signaling my support for E but it's so we're if we vote I guess my question is why do we not combine these two rather than vote on them individually because one contains what the other one has I suppose if people don't want to support food banks they could just go with this one is that thinking?

You recognize to answer that, please.

Who, me?

Or the other amendment author?

You, Council Member Saka, this is your amendment.

Oh, yeah.

So, yeah, I don't know.

I would have been absolutely open to consolidating them.

We talked a little bit about this yesterday.

The differences are that council member lens is a little more broad and inclusive.

So much going on.

Look, I'm pulling this one because we just passed it.

So thank you for the feedback.

I withdraw my amendment.

I don't know what procedural language I need to do.

Could the clerks please advise it has been moved and seconded.

Is it possible to remove an amendment after it has been moved and seconded or is a vote required?

If there's no objection, Council President, it can't be withdrawn.

All right, I am looking to see if there is anybody that objects to this amendment being withdrawn.

Please make that known now.

Okay, I don't see any hands raised, so this amendment will be withdrawn.

Appreciate the feedback, thank you.

Didn't think of that beforehand, not a parliamentary expert, but great feedback, so thank you.

Noted.

Okay.

Amendment D has been withdrawn.

Will the author of Amendment E please move the amendment?

Yes, hi, Council President Nelson.

I have moved to amend Resolution 32187 as presented on Amendment E on the agenda.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the resolution as presented on Amendment E. Council Member Lin as the author of Amendment E, you're recognized to present it.

Thank you, President Nelson.

So this amendment is to include support for increasing healthy food access through support for food banks, universal free school meals, and other ways to address food deserts.

And there is some similarity there for universal school meals with Council Member Saka's amendment, which I fully support and appreciated you including that, but then also withdrawing.

In terms of universal school meals, many states have found a way to do this.

It is possible.

In a state with abundant agriculture, as we do here, there's no reason why we can't provide universal school meals.

It also destigmatizes when we are able to provide it universally versus only to some or trying to do means-based testing.

for students.

So I would appreciate your support on this critical issue around healthy food access.

Thank you.

I have a question.

Do you know the extent, do you know how much the state is already supporting food banks and what it, and therefore one can infer the, you know, the cost to, if this amendment were to go forward, what would be the dollar amount?

Yeah, I don't.

And there's no specific dollar amount related to increasing food or support for food banks.

And that's really because we don't know what's going to happen with the federal level.

Again, as I mentioned yesterday, very supportive of the action Council took last month in response to the potential cuts to SNAP.

I think it's very possible that we will see future cuts to SNAP or other just issues around growing needs for food insecurity.

So until we sort of know what those needs are.

I think it's hard to predict what, but just this statement is really just to make it a priority to support the food banks.

Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Council President.

I'm going to support this amendment I do know the state does support food banks and I will say that to me it's just about letting them know we continue to care about this so I don't necessarily read it as saying we're going to add more money but as you are having to make the hard decisions we're saying we really care about food banks and as to the meals, the reason why I was saying I was gonna support this one was because it is a holdover from last session in terms of, and even the governor last session was really in strong support of doing school meals and we know that other states that have done it have had positive outcomes on the back end in terms of less, I have heard this, I just actually heard Governor Walz say that in their state, they have less folks, kids drop out and they're attributing it to just food access in the schools, et cetera.

So anyway, just wanted to offer that part.

Okay, thank you very much.

Are there other comments?

I'm not seeing any other hand.

I will simply explain why I'm abstaining from this amendment is because I do, My vote means something to me at least, and I want to make sure that when I vote on something, I am voting with the fullest knowledge possible as to what I am recommending that our legislators prioritize.

And so, lacking the a lot of knowledge about what kinds of cost benefit analysis will go into the support of all of these items.

I do know that food banks need support as well as in our kiddos need food at school.

We do have a dollar cost that was just mentioned that that item was removed.

And so I will be abstaining from this simply because I like to have more knowledge of the of the priorities that I am backing with my vote.

So that is why I will be abstaining from this.

If there are no further comments for the clerk, please call the roll.

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Council Member Lin.

Aye.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Aye.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council Member Juarez.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Abstain.

Eight in favor, one abstention.

The motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

Amendment E is adopted.

Council Member Kettle.

please move your amendment.

Yes, I move amendment F to resolution 32187.

Second.

Second.

All right, it's been moved and seconded to amend the resolution as presented on amendment F.

Council member Kettle as sponsor, you're recognized to present it.

Colleagues, as stated yesterday, what this does, this is working with efforts by Representative Julia Reed, Liz Berry, and others to basically, it's not related to funding, but it's related to allowing social housing to be have the same options relative to other housing things when it comes to local jurisdictions, when it comes to the actions that they take to promote housing.

And so this is just adding social housing to the mix.

And as part of the idea that now that we have social housing and the construct that we have, that we set it up for success, and this is a means to do that.

So I ask for your support.

Thank you very much.

Are there questions or comments on Amendment F?

I will simply say that I did go ahead and read, I believe it was HB, 1687 and it simply provides for the authority for local governments to assist should a social housing PDA be authorized or formed in their jurisdiction.

And so I will be supporting this amendment because it is essentially allowing for other cities to do what Seattle has done.

Council member Rank.

Thank you, Council President.

I will be supporting this amendment and I wanted to thank Councilmember Kettle for bringing it forward.

I think it makes a lot of sense if we were talking about setting up social housing for success and I encourage also a yes vote.

Thank you.

Okay, seeing no further hands up, will the clerk please call the roll on Amendment F. Councilmember Kettle?

Aye.

Councilmember Lin?

Yes.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

Abstain.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Aye.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council Member Juarez.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Eight in favor, one abstention.

Council President.

The motion carries and amendment I hear you.

Did you have a comment on it on emotion on amendment F?

I had on G.

No, I do not.

Sorry.

I'm out of order.

Back to you.

Yep.

The motion carries and amendment F is adopted.

Council member Strauss.

Sorry, I'm waiting for item H.

I will wait till item H.

all right now we are on amendment g yes council president yes I would like to move amendment g version 1 to resolution 32187 second it's been moved and seconded to amend the resolution as presented in amendment g councilmember kettle is sponsored you're recognized to present it

Thank you council president colleagues clearly we went over these yesterday in quite detail this is just a public safety priorities and there's a slight reordering to put those specific pieces up top but they're all you know going to the points that we've been championing here on council through the committee on the various pieces and then it lines up with some of the efforts that are being undertaken in in Olympia to include, since I already mentioned Representative Barry, I'll say it again in terms of secure storage and the like.

It also brings what we've done in comprehensive committee, the select comprehensive committee into this in terms of the public safety element and some other practical things new too.

And this is really to highlight this to Olympia because most people wouldn't realize what was happening with WSDOT and its impact on our fire department.

so this is about raising awareness and colleagues I ask for your support thank you are there any questions or comments on amendment g well I will simply say Council Member Kettle I'm very appreciative that you're bringing this forward and I also appreciate the reordering because I do believe that your reordering does it signifies a reordering of the priorities.

And it is very important that we present our legislative intent clearly in our legislative agenda.

So I just wanted to thank you very much for your amendment.

Are there any other comments?

All right, seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on amendment G.

Council member Kettle.

Aye.

Council member Lin.

Yes.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

Abstain.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Aye.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council Member Juarez.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Eight in favor, one abstention.

The motion carries and Amendment H is adopted.

Okay, Councilmember Osaka.

All right, thank you, Madam Council President.

I move to amend Resolution 32187 as presented on Amendment H on the agenda.

Second.

Are there any, go ahead, was there a second?

Second.

Excuse me.

All right, it's been moved and seconded to amend the resolution as presented on Amendment I, Councilmember Saka, as the sponsor and author you're recognized to present it.

Thank you, Madam.

Council President, point of clarification, we're talking about Amendment H right now, the juvenile access to attorneys.

Colleagues, most of you will recall in January 2024, Seattle's first homicide victim was 15-year-old Mubarak Adam, a Chief South International High School student who tragically was lost to gun violence at the Southwest Youth or Teen Youth and Life Center directly across the street from Chief South International High School.

He was in the restroom with, by the way, a facility that I currently have my office hours in regularly.

He was in the facility with a few other teens.

Investigators to this day don't know what happened to him.

Even worse, his family doesn't know what truly happened in the circumstances surrounding his untimely demise.

And so this clarification bill revives an effort from last year when it was on our legislative agenda from last year.

And thank you again to the leadership of State Senator Jesse Solomon, who brought forth a bill to offer much needed clarity to law enforcement on when those circumstances, when the underlying bill is actually triggered versus not in terms of victim and witness.

scenarios and so this balances, this clarification would do a better job of balancing all the various needs involved and bringing justice broadly and inclusively defined.

So I ask for your support for Mubarak Adam.

Thank you.

Are there questions or comments from council members?

Councilmember Rank.

Thank you, Council President.

I want to first start by just saying that I respect Councilmember Saka's advocacy for the family in seeking justice.

This death is absolutely tragic, and I think that's important to center in this.

And I am unable to support this amendment today as I have concerns, however, about violation of juvenile civil liberties and constitutional rights.

This legislation could prevent juveniles from accessing an attorney by creating exemptions for law enforcement when detaining juvenile suspects.

I do not believe there should be exemptions for anyone accessing an attorney.

In conversation with members of the House Democratic Caucus, they voiced lack of support for it and advised against its inclusion into the city's legislative agenda, so I will be voting no today.

Thank you.

Are there any further comments?

I'll simply repeat what I said.

I believe it was yesterday when this was presented.

I do appreciate that you bring this forward.

Council Member Saka, you've been extremely clear in your legislative intent around this issue for a very long time.

All right, seeing no other questions or comments, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of Amendment H. Council Member Kettle.

Councilmember Lin Yes Councilmember Rink No Councilmember Rivera Abstain Councilmember Sacca Aye Councilmember Strauss Aye Councilmember Hollingsworth Yes Councilmember Juarez Aye Council President Nelson Aye Six in favor, one opposed, one abstention.

The motion carries and amendment H is adopted.

I'm sorry, Council President.

Jody, really quick.

Seven in favor, one opposed, one abstention.

Excuse me.

Yes, you're right.

Seven in favor, one opposed, one abstention.

That's nine.

I missed one.

I was trying to do that math in my head.

Okay.

All right.

Councilmember Saka.

Thank you, Madam Council President.

I move to amend Resolution 32187 as presented on Amendment I on the agenda.

Now would be a good time for a second.

Second.

Second.

All right.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the resolution as presented on Amendment I. Councilmember Saka as author and sponsor.

You're welcome to present it.

Thank you, Madam Council President, colleagues.

This is a friendly refresher.

This proposed amendment governs automated noise enforcement cameras.

So today, under state law, we are authorized to deploy a defined and expressly defined set of, well, deploy cameras to address a expressly defined by statute set of challenges or behaviors, speeding, block the box and intersections, bus zone violations, et cetera, et cetera.

So this would add loud and excessive noise to that punch list and therefore allow and enable us to get a better hold of some of these loud and excessive vehicle noises on our streets impacting and traumatizing neighbors and residents and businesses and turning neighborhoods into sideshows and the other type of S word show and so vital technology ask for your support hugely important to my district especially neighborhoods like Harbor Avenue and Elkai but they're The list is replete with others where the same underlying challenges occur.

And again, this is just one other tool.

Thank you.

Okay.

Seeing no hands raised or any other comments.

All right.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of amendment?

Aye.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Councilmember Lin.

Abstain.

Councilmember Rink?

Yes.

Councilmember Rivera?

Abstain.

Councilmember Sacca?

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss?

Abstain.

Councilmember Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Councilmember Juarez?

Aye.

Council President Nelson?

Council President Nelson?

Aye.

Six in favor, none opposed, three abstentions.

The motion carries and the amendment I is adopted.

Now we are on to J.

Thank you, Madam Council President.

I move to amend resolution 32187 as presented on amendment J on the agenda.

Second.

All right.

Second.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Third.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the resolution as presented on Amendment J. Councilmember Saka as the sponsor and author, you're recognized to present it.

Thank you, Madam Council President.

One quick learning that I had from all this is at the end of a very long set of amendments, on top of when there's already busy substances stuff before that, it's not the best place to be positioned in the agenda.

So I need to work more closely with our committee chairs and our central staff experts to make sure I'm not always buried at the end.

In any event, this, colleagues, is the Camp Long Amendment This amendment simply adds that the current capital budget priority for the Red Bar Ranch, which is already on the proposed, the executive proposed punch list for Olympia priorities, and it would just add the historic Camp Long Lodge to enable youth programming and regional outdoor recreational learning access and opportunities, good environmental programming and empowerment camp.

Long is a treasure, especially the facility that burnt down almost a little over a year ago now.

And so this just asks for state support.

As I mentioned, my office is currently working with our parks department, who is coordinating a walking tour with me and our 34th LD delegation to visit firsthand.

But I ask for your support.

Thank you.

Are there questions or comments?

Is it too late to add Judkins Playfield?

Just kidding.

I'm just kidding.

All right.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of amendment J.

Council member Kettle.

Aye.

Council member Lin.

Yes.