Governance, Accountability and Economic Development Committee 7/24/2025

Good afternoon.

It's Thursday, July 24th, and the Governance, Accountability, and Economic Development Committee will come to order.

It is 2.02 p.m.

I'm Sarah Nelson, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Rivera.

Oh, I'll note that Councilmember Rivera will be joining us here shortly.

Councilmember Solomon.

Here.

Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Here.

Councilmember Kettle.

Here.

Chair Nelson.

Present.

For present.

Thank you very much.

So first I want to put this on the record and I put out a statement earlier today.

I'll just, never mind, I will, well, I might as well go ahead.

I just want to acknowledge the frustration my excused absence contributed to the lack of quorum yesterday at the Housing and Human Services Committee meeting and apologize to the people who took the time to show up for the committee vote.

on their appointment to a range of boards and commissions, including the renters commission.

And I'm grateful for their willingness to serve our city and delays in the appointment process serve no one well.

To maintain the schedule for the final council action that would have occurred had committee votes been taken, The appointments will be included for final consideration on next Tuesday's City Council meeting agenda.

And the same is true for the legislation regarding federal grant funds for housing and community development programs to meet the federal deadline of August 16th.

Just wanted to get that public information item out there.

All right.

Approval of the agenda.

If there's no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Clerk, how many people are signed up for public comment today?

Chair Nelson, we have seven in-person public commenters and we have five remote.

All right, let's go ahead and start with the in-person please.

We'll do all seven and people can have two minutes and then we'll have the remote speakers please.

I'll call on speakers in order they sign up to speak, starting with in-person commenter.

Speakers will have two minutes.

When you hear the chime, you will have about 10 seconds left.

If you exceed that time, your microphone may be cut off so that we can move on to the next speaker.

If you're offering remote comment, please make sure to press star six to unmute yourself.

And with that, the first speaker for the in-person public comment is Alex Zermanman.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'm ready.

Zeheil, my dirty damn Nazi Gestapo, fascist pig, map and bandita.

My name Alex Zimmerman, and I want to speak about absolutely critical what has happened right now.

Fascism, local fascism got bigger and bigger and bigger.

We need stopping this.

We cannot accept fascism for 30 years.

No one European fascism exists for 30 years.

Here it's got bigger and bigger for another 30 years.

I bring you classic example.

Mayor Harrell, 16-year work for government.

How is this possible?

And for last four years, she never had one Q&A in seven floor clause.

I don't understand why he's doing this.

To me, he's looking like a typical Führer with Nazi Gestapo principle.

It's a nightmare.

I don't understand why the 700,000 idiots elect him.

They like fascism?

Who are these people, 700,000?

A slave?

A cockroach?

Why they scarce stand up and make Seattle nice and beautiful what I see 40 years ago when I come here?

It's a normal, nice, beautiful city.

What do they make right now?

It's a total fascism.

It's not about this fascism because fascism is better than democracy.

Yeah, absolutely.

Churchill talked this 100 years ago about this.

Make last life miserable.

Is this a problem, what is we have?

So I right now speak to everybody who listen to me.

You know what this mean?

Stand up, guys.

We need a new regime.

30-year fascism, what is we have here, need be stopped.

It's exactly.

Why?

I doing this for every day?

Yeah.

And I support Trump.

Viva Trump.

Viva new American Revolution.

Because there's only one chance to bring America back to Constitution, what we have for 200 years ago, stopping King Country fascism.

Stand up, America.

Viva Trump.

Next, we'll have Jeff Tau.

Following that, we'll have Brandy Osborne.

And my apologies in advance if I've mispronounced your first or last name.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm here today to talk about co-lead and the housing, temporary housing that I'm in right now.

I've spent a lot of time in other shelters around the county, a lot of time which isn't a good thing, but I've seen all the goods and the bad and the uglies of different shelter systems and I have nothing but very good things to say about co-lead.

I've been here before and spoke to you folks with Basically duct tape over my mouth and say things to you that I was supposed to say.

Now I can come up here freely and actually talk freely, which I really appreciate from them.

And they have made my life a whole lot better Since I was living in your jungle for five years, and my life has extremely gotten better since I've been living there.

I have blood clots in my legs, and I've been able to make all my doctor's appointments and getting the paperwork rolling on all my stuff I need to do with Social Security and stuff like that.

These guys helped me out with all that stuff, which has been great.

Because living in a tent, I would never be able to get this stuff done every day.

Where I live, the building I live in, the people that work there, the roles are kept very, they run very good.

And it's been a definite improvement in my life.

Thank you for listening to me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we'll have Brandy Osborne following.

Brandy, we'll have Christopher Archibald.

Thank you.

Hello folks, good afternoon.

My name is Brandy.

I'm a current participant in the LEAD program and I'm here today in regard to the newly proposed safety sales tax.

If this tax is passed, I urge you to consider allocating a significant portion of the funds to support and stabilize the work of the LEAD program and allowing them to continue to provide services and support to those of us in need.

With the assistance of their program, I've been able to establish very much needed medical care, primary care physicians, obtaining important documents like birth certificates and IDs, and just providing many things for me to be able to continue to make a path through this life.

Most importantly, though, because of the LEAD program, I'm finally indoors inside with stable, supportive housing, working on getting permanent housing.

After 15 long, lonely years of being homeless, sleeping outside, wondering where my next hot shower will be or how I can wash my laundry.

Finally, after 15 years of attempting to maintain any self-worth, struggling to survive and struggling to exist, I'm indoors.

I no longer have any of these worries because of the LEAD program.

We cannot afford to let what's working fall apart.

We need to stabilize the LEAD program and continue to fill in the gaps that remain because it's important that this level of support be provided to people who are continuously working to better their lives.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we'll have Christopher.

Following Christopher, we'll have Chloe Gale.

Come on down.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Members.

My name is Christopher Chipoli, and I'm a Senior Project Manager for LEED in the North and Southwest Precincts in Seattle.

I'm here because of the proposed Public Safety Sales Tax.

If the sales tax is passed, I urge you to ensure that a significant portion is used to support and stabilize the work of the LEED program in Seattle.

We engage participants' unmet needs using an evidence-based, long-term case management approach.

We do not do this alone.

We coordinate with law enforcement and other criminal legal system partners to ensure that our work contributes to improvements in public safety and order while reducing the overall costs of the criminal legal system.

In 2019, a University of Washington study showed that LEAD participants had 1.4 fewer average yearly jail bookings, spent 41 fewer days in jail per year, Had 88% lower odds of prison incarceration.

Showed a reduction in legal costs of $2,100 compared to an almost $6,000 increase for comparison participants.

An independent analysis by the Arnold Foundation showed that LEAD participants are 58% less likely to be arrested for any crime in any jurisdiction compared to a control group.

Recovery is not one size fits all, and neither is LEAD.

As a person in long-term recovery from substance use disorder, I know that I am alive because of approaches such as LEAD that model core values of building connection, understanding each other's worldview, fostering mutuality, and moving towards goals collaboratively.

LEAD plays a critical role in the public safety ecosystem in Seattle.

We cannot afford to let what's working fall apart.

We have to stabilize the LEAD program while adding new components to remedy unaddressed gaps in the system.

Thank you for your time and for your consideration.

Thank you.

Next, we'll have Chloe Gale.

Following Chloe, we'll have Simone Walcott.

Come on down.

Thank you.

Hi, good afternoon, Council President Nelson and other committee members.

My name is Chloe Gale, and I'm representing Evergreen Treatment Services, the REACH program, as a VP of Policy now, but a long-term outreach worker.

We worked with PDA, the Seattle Police Department, the King County prosecutors to design the LEAD program over a decade ago, and we've continued to adapt and improve it to respond to street disorder, homelessness, and addiction in Seattle.

I'm here to support the proposed public safety tax and urge you to dedicate a significant proportion to stabilize the LEAD program and other proven front door recovery programs.

Our team meets law enforcement in the field and then provides the continued street engagement, legal system navigation, the ongoing case management and housing placement necessary to move people with complex needs and powerful addictions off the street.

Our persistence work is often what allows public safety officers to be available to respond rapidly to violent crime.

Today, some of us have seen the headlines from the federal government about the new executive order which will abandon support for some of our low barrier front door recovery pathway programs.

Without persistent relational outreach workers and case managers on our streets, our emergency systems will become overwhelmed.

Please fund programs like ours with a proven track record to move people into recovery care.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we'll have Simone Walcott and the last in-person public commenter will be John Bouquet.

Come on down.

Thank you.

Hello?

OK, is that good?

Awesome.

Good afternoon, Council President Nelson and council members.

My name is Simone Walcott, and I'm the Senior Lead Project Manager for the West Precinct and Third Avenue Project.

I'm here today because of the proposed Public Safety Sales Tax.

If this sales tax is passed, I urge you to ensure that a significant portion is used to support and stabilize the work of the LEAD program.

Real public safety means having the right tools to respond to people with complex behavioral health needs, especially in our public places.

This requires humane, consistent, and effective responses.

If this tax passes, it's crucial that the funding supports programs that are already delivering results, Like CoLead, for example, over 95% of participants accept services, 70% transition to permanent housing, and 100% of eligible participants are enrolled in Medicaid.

Medicaid is the backbone of this work.

Without it, people lose access to critical supports like mental health, substance use treatment, primary medical care, and even housing.

Many housing and stabilization services rely on Medicaid-funded care coordination to keep people housed.

LEAD case managers do more than connect people to services.

They help participants who are Medicaid eligible and are unable to work through the Medicaid enrollment process.

A 2016 evaluation by the University of Washington's Harm Reduction and Resource Treatment Center found that 18 months after enrolling in LEAD, Participants were 89% more likely to obtain permanent housing, 46% more likely to be on the employment continuum, and 33% more likely to have income or benefits.

This is compared to a month before they joined the LEAD program.

We cannot afford to let what's working fall apart.

We have to stabilize the LEAD program and add new pieces to address the gaps that remain.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you.

And the last in-person public commenter will be John Bouquet.

Come on down.

Good afternoon, City Council members, City Council President.

My name is Johnny Bouquet.

I'm a participant support specialist supervisor at Co-lead with PDA.

And I also am strongly recommending if this bill is passed that we do allocate funding to this program.

We've heard my colleagues and some of our participants talk about some of the evidence on how taking a holistic approach is a catalyst to supporting people to navigate their way out of these systems.

And first of all, I just also want to thank you for your commitment to public safety and Evidence shows that taking a holistic approach and supporting people to find out how they can get better helps them to get out of these systems, and I am evidence of this In 2014, I was a lead client and have since been able to be stably employed for the last seven years, recently celebrated 7.5 years of uninterrupted sobriety and have been working my dream job at PDA for the last four years.

I also want to thank Council President Sarah Nelson for Initiating the opportunity for participants to be able to access treatment that's really quality and not just a one-size-fits-all because we've been able to see people utilize these resources and get better and get healthier.

And on that, what does that look like?

That looks like Recidivism going down, public safety increasing, public health increasing, and without access to these resources, people, our brothers, our sisters, our community members, some of our most vulnerable community members, are gonna die alone in these streets.

And I know that we're all committed to increasing public safety, and I know the key to that is money.

So we're humbly asking you to please support this work that we do, and thank you.

Thank you and congratulations.

Now we'll go to the remote public commenters.

Just a reminder, I'll call on the speaker in order they signed up virtually.

Speaker will have two minutes.

When you hear the chime, you'll have 10 seconds left.

If you exceed that time, your microphone may be cut off so that we can move on to the next speaker.

And as a reminder, please press star six to unmute yourself.

Our first person we'll have is Daniel Godfrey.

Please press star six to unmute yourself, Daniel.

Good afternoon, Council President Nelson and committee members.

My name is Dan Godfrey.

I work at Evergreen Treatment Services as a lead supervisor.

I'm speaking in support of the proposed public safety tax and imploring you to designate a significant portion of this revenue to maintaining the lead program.

My social services career in Seattle began in 2021. I worked as a rapid rehousing case manager in one of the hotels leased by the city to house the unhoused during COVID.

As we worked to rehouse acutely vulnerable individuals in the market rate housing, it became evident that many folks in the hotel required more care and that private market housing was not going to serve them.

In that same time, I became aware of a small subset of clients who were receiving comprehensive care and access to more appropriate housing.

They were all working with leads.

After six months, our stats made it clear that we could not execute the requirements of our contract, and my original employer elected to return most of that funding and disperse our team to other sites.

I took that opportunity to apply for work as a lead case manager, and I still see clients from that hotel on the street every day.

Now, four years later, the lead program continues to provide the exceptional wraparound care that I witnessed in 2021. I've seen new and different programs come and go, outreach contracts change hands, new substances hit the street, but LEAD is more critical than ever.

Our collaboration with law enforcement, dynamic street outreach work, and clinical infrastructure fill a gap in our city services that saves lives and allows public safety officers to respond where they are needed.

In my experience collaborating with our social services, law enforcement, and EMS, There is no alternative program to serve our exceptionally vulnerable clients.

Please maintain funding for programs likely so that they can continue to serve our community both on and off the street.

Thank you.

Thank you, Daniel.

Next we'll have Bridget Lopez.

Bridget, please press star six to unmute yourself.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Council President Nelson and committee members.

My name is Bridget Lopez.

I'm a supervisor with Evergreen Treatment Services who have been a primary provider for the LEAD program since its inception.

I'm here to support the proposed public safety tax and encourage you to dedicate a significant portion of the revenue to stabilize the LEAD program.

I'd like to take a moment to highlight one of the cornerstones of the LEAD case management package, which I believe makes our work uniquely suited to address public safety and promote pathways to recovery.

That's our legal system coordination work.

As an example, I'll share a client story that's unfortunately all too common in our line of work.

Take Susan.

Susan enrolled in a LEAD program with a number of low-level warrants for misdemeanors that are all related to substance use and homelessness.

These warrants cost five different municipalities.

That means that when Susan is booked on one of those warrants, she has to go to four different jails in order to clear up all of her different holes.

That's talking to five different defense attorneys, five distinct prosecutor's offices that ask for each different thing, all when Susan just wants to go to treatment and get well.

The worst part is that none of the different jurisdictions talk to each other.

So Susan is highly likely to get a new warrant for the first case that she was booked on while she's in another jail trying to clear up her fourth or fifth matter.

This is where lead legal system coordination comes in.

We break down the silos across the jurisdictions Get defense attorneys talking to each other and help Susan to work on her lease to treatment so that she can get the much needed path to recovery.

I'm happy to share that Susan just celebrated her three-year SOFR date and recently became a house manager at a clean and SOFR home.

This system work is only one of the many approaches that we take at LEAD to address public safety, but we need to be funded to scale in order to do this work well.

Please find programs like ours so that we can continue to do this evidence-based work that we are known for doing so well.

Thank you.

Thank you, Bridget.

Next we'll have Chad Vaseline.

My apologies.

Please press star six to unmute yourself.

Chad, please press star six.

Chad, please press star six to unmute yourself.

Sorry about that.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Chad Bakulin, and I'm here on behalf of Evergreen Treatment Services and REACH, where I'm the Associate Director of Housing.

And for over 50 years, we've provided substance use treatment and outreach services in Seattle, helping people facing severe behavioral health needs and homelessness.

Find stability, housing and recovery.

And if the proposed public safety sales tax moves forward, I strongly urge you to dedicate a meaningful portion to evidence-based programs like LEAD and REACH.

These programs are embedded in a really holistic public safety system, working with law enforcement to divert people from jail and emergency rooms into care, housing and recovery.

And as a real-time example, literally right before calling into this meeting, I was in another meeting with a lead client's care team helping to navigate a complex situation with multiple entities and trying to figure out how a client could keep their housing while they were away at inpatient treatment.

And without that kind of support, there's little to no way that this person could really focus on their recovery and still have stable housing to return to upon their exit.

So this is just one example of the kind of support that LEED routinely provides to our clients and that ultimately benefits not only that individual, but our community as a whole.

So as you know, public health and public safety are deeply connected.

And when people have what they need to live with dignity, we have healthier communities.

And when we have healthier communities, we have safer communities for everyone.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And the last virtual public commenter is David Haynes.

David, please press star 620 yourself.

Thank you.

Hi.

LEED should be investigated for Medicaid fraud and violating the Constitution within proper police reform.

Resolutions are non-binding, like a politician's promise broken.

Spare us another public safety virtue signal that doesn't have the proper legislation to force proper policy.

The mayor is going to raid the tactics for the general fund again to hide his mismanagement of the budget and his same bad spending priorities that have exacerbated the problems with public safety crisis, the homeless crisis, the small business economic crisis, and the workers crisis.

Yet you're still appeasing the devil's advocates that make it impossible to stop the implosion.

In order for the new public safety tax to be effective with the 25% earmarked for drug treatment, you have to build the capacity of shelter.

You can't put these people into the housing first.

They have to go into an authorized encampment that could be built within 72 hours by the National Guard, saving money on labor.

And then you force them to break their addiction.

But you cannot let them out of jail, And then roam around.

You have to send them to the low security encampment after they get out of jail.

But they have to be met at jail.

They're not allowed to voluntarily make a half-hearted effort.

But like when Evergreen kicks them out, you're not supposed to allow them to continue roaming around with serious mental and behavioral crisis problems, still dehydrated and hungry.

They have to go to an authorized encampment.

But the housing needs to be used for the innocent houseless.

that have been racially discriminated against by the previous councils who defunded the police and created all these spending priorities where Lisa Dugard wants to run interference for repeat offenders that are connected to the criminal underworld and literally put them in housing and services first while purposely discriminating and denying and gouging the homeless crisis for innocent houseless.

Thank you, David.

We need an investigation

Council President, that concludes public comment.

Thank you very much.

Would you please read item one into the record?

Public comment is now closed.

Oh, and I want to recognize that council member Rivera has now joined us.

Thank you.

Of course.

Agenda item number one, a resolution setting out public safety related funding priorities in anticipation of a proposal that the city imposed the additional one tenth of one percent local option public safety sales tax authorized by the 2025 state legislature for briefing discussion and possible vote.

Thank you very much.

So colleagues, I don't know if you've noticed, but this council has gotten a reputation of being fairly strong on public safety and largely to under the leadership of Councilmember Kettle.

And this resolution is, the goal of this resolution is to target one of the major drivers of our public safety problems, which is substance use disorder.

Because for too long we have watched people suffering from untreated addiction on our streets, in our affordable housing, while our neighborhoods become less safe for everyone.

And so this is a, This is an effort to get at that a little bit.

I've been fighting from, since when I first got onto Council, I've been fighting to put treatment at the center of the city's agenda.

And I've had some successes.

There was the, starting with the public, I mean with the pilot program that I got into the 2025 budget.

I think, no, it was 2024 budget.

I can't remember which year it was, but which offered a different funding model for in-person treatment.

But this has been something that I've been focused on for a long time, and I know that you also have been very, very supportive and have come up with your own initiatives as well.

But anyway, what I'm doing with this resolution is preemptively staking a claim to a portion of the revenue that will be generated by the 0.1 percent increase in the sales tax that was authorized by the state legislature this past session.

is called the Public Safety Sales Tax, that it is anticipated that Mayor Harrell will bring forward for implementation using that authority granted by the state legislature.

So I'm basically coming out and saying, if that happens, A portion of that funding should be used for these purposes.

Now, a little bit about the context of that legislation.

House Bill 2015 was sponsored by Representative Intamin and advanced by the Legislative Black Caucus.

To get at, to broaden, well, to allow municipalities to, and also counties, to increase measures for public safety.

But it was very clear from the get-go that public safety was envisioned as much broader than simply And I want to read a quote that was picked up by the Seattle Medium.

Representative said, this bill makes it clear that public safety is not about more policing, but about creating strong, thriving communities.

It's about smart investments, bold policies, and ensuring that every community, especially those most impacted by systemic injustice, has the resources and support they deserve.

So please note, I want everyone to recognize that this resolution does not call for an increase in the sales tax, but Mayor Harrell has expressed interest in implementing it because it would raise approximately between $35 and $40 million per year.

So, if we're going there, I want to allocate up to 25% of those funds to create treatment pathways, which to me is among one of our most critical needs, and the people that have spoken in public comment have echoed that.

I want to first thank the coalition of people, but especially Lisa Dugard of the PDA, for being my partner in this, and I recognize that Existing services are also very important to maintain as well.

So just to back up a little bit, when I proposed this concept to many of these service providers that I worked with for a while on this, We had no idea the level of cuts that the Trump administration would be throwing at us, but now after the big ugly bill has passed, we're starting to see a clearer picture of what we as a city will have to do step by step to increase the resources to protect our most vulnerable.

So, as we heard in our previous committee discussions on this topic, these treatment and recovery programs are more important than ever.

Seattle has an obligation to support our residents even when they're abandoned by the federal government, of course.

And adding dedicated funding for innovative and evidence-based treatment and recovery programs is just one area we can shore up what we stand to lose coming up.

So we'll get into the details of this legislation and the items that it would fund, but that it would propose to fund should we implement a 0.1% public safety sales tax increase.

We have Central Staff Director Ben Noble here to give a brief outline, a reminder of this legislation and answer any questions about it.

Thank you, Council President.

You've done a great job of summarizing the resolution yourself.

I'll try again, and then, again, as I said, I'm happy to answer any questions and potentially, I think, could put stuff on the screen.

So, as described, the resolution makes two policy statements.

And, again, as described, the resolution is anticipation of the potential, if not the likelihood, that the mayor will propose that the city authorize the new 0.1% sales tax for public safety that the state has given the city authority for.

By way of some context that's occurred since you last discussed this, yesterday the county, actually the county council voted to support, to authorize the same 0.1% countywide.

The state gave both counties and cities that authority.

So what this resolution does, it doesn't move to adopt that tax, but rather it says that if the mayor brings it forward, that the city council should consider it.

Again, in the context of the city's current financial budgetary situation, it would not be a surprise if the mayor were to propose it.

So again, two things.

First is you should at least consider it.

And the second is that if the city were to implement it, That up to 25 percent of the tax be invested in, and this is a quote from the resolution, invested in addiction treatment recovery services and the facilities needed to provide such services.

The resolution then does go on to list, keep going, a couple more slides, keep going, right here.

So the resolution then goes on to specifically list the types of services that up to 25 percent could be used for, and that's the list from the resolution.

So that's really what it does, both not more than that, but exactly that, if you will, and happy to answer questions.

Looking to my colleagues to see if there are any questions.

Well, while they are thinking if they have any questions, I do want to admit and recognize and acknowledge and put it on the record that $10 million is a drop in the bucket when it comes to funding our needs in this space.

But we, and so clearly this list is designed to be a, for example, kind of exposition of the range of our needs.

However, we did speak in detail about some of the relative benefits of some of the things on this list compared to others.

But what I will say is that this is a start.

We have to start somewhere and this is basically getting this body of needs on the map.

Okay, Council Member Kettle.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, Director Noble for the presentation.

For Council President, yes, thank you for bringing this resolution forward.

It's interesting, yesterday I had a conversation with somebody as it relates to permanent supportive housing, and we were walking through a number of different issues.

And one of the things that I said, and I've said before from the dais, is the idea that we cannot succeed in public safety if we don't succeed in public health.

And the resolution and the thoughts behind this go to that point.

And I really care, I'm really interested in that scene where they come together.

And this is where the PDA and the LEAD program are very important because it is that interface between law enforcement and the service providers.

And I think it's important to have that link.

And so I do support ensuring that that is set, cleaning up the lines, if you will, budget-wise to ensure the PDA and that mission area is set, because it's important for that public safety piece, because we have a lot of different bills, and it's important to get the diversion for those eligible and for those in need to get that diversion.

So then we can focus on those that are a true public safety threat, for example.

And so having this process is really important.

And what's really important too, and this is something that's not been talked about until recently, and I talked about this last committee meeting, and I've talked about it at a number of fora, is the PDA and efforts like that are gonna be so important because it's that engagement, it's that documentation of working with individuals in need That you have that record that shows that this person is in need of the services, and oh, by the way, as it relates to Medicaid, is still eligible regarding the different changes that are coming from the federal level, like with work requirements.

Because as everybody in this room here knows, everybody in this room knows, on the street there's individuals in need, and the idea that they're going to be working in a meaningful way is not practical.

And what we can't have is those individuals kicked off Medicaid because the system is so dependent on Medicaid.

And so groups like PDA and others, I don't want to just single out them, but others are important in that fact and ensuring that the system doesn't collapse.

Because if the Medicaid piece goes sideways, I mean, it could be catastrophic for us in terms of our public safety posture, but also our public health posture.

And so this resolution goes to that.

And it's showing some leadership, too.

And by the way, partly because we're showing leadership at the local level because the state needs to do its job as it relates to mental health.

That's a state responsibility.

And as I said before, too, When I moved here after retiring from the Navy, out of 50 states, we were like 46 in mental health spending.

And I've talked to state representatives, and they said, yes, we've increased it.

We've increased it, Bob, with a B.

I'm like, good, because I saw the nexus that I've been talking about as a council member back when I was in Queen Anne, Queen Anne Council.

But still, we're like 32nd.

I haven't looked recently.

We're not even the top half of the 50 states in mental health spending.

Imagine if we were in the top 10, number one.

If we're that way over the last decade, how much capacity would that translate to?

And what would that do in terms of making a difference in terms of the challenges that we see on our streets with individuals in crisis?

It'd be huge.

And the county, too.

We just had a county day, King County Day, with the Public Safety Committee this week.

The county's responsible for public health.

We need to be engaging with them.

And as I mentioned to my counterpart in King County Council, because they're doing a similar piece with the, in fact, they've already done it, the 0.1% public safety tax, you know, They have those public health responsibilities at the county level.

So we should be engaging with them, you know, and ensuring that we're working together to avoid duplication, for one, but to ensure that we get the best answer on the street.

And I just wanted to close by saying, Council President, that I really appreciate the public comment.

Maybe save one or two that we get every day.

And right now I feel like that TV show, Undercover Boss, because like all my colleagues, we're on the streets on a regular basis.

But when I'm on the streets, though, meeting with community members or, importantly, service providers and going out with service providers, I'm just Bob.

And so I just wanted to commend Brandy for your efforts in support of Jeff, because we've met before, and I'm very, very happy that Co-Lead has gotten you to the point where you are.

And I know more details, which I won't say from here, but it shows the efforts that you took, Brandy, and a lot of times that you took in support of Jeff.

Which was a major driver.

And that's what's needed.

And so I just wanted to thank you and encourage you to continue your work with Co-Lead and all those pieces that you were talking about.

All those pieces in terms of getting different things straight, related to medical care, related to all these different pieces.

And I know you're quite proud that you've done more in two weeks at the time than others have done in a longer period of time.

And so I just want to commend you and also for coming up, both you and Jeff, for coming up, giving public comments, so giving testimony.

Because you are an example of people who were in the jungle.

Then had medical issues, to which Brandy, then you stepped up.

And that made a difference for the both of you.

And clearly you're in a different place now because you're down here at City Hall.

You're giving testimony here in chambers at the City Council.

And so I just wanted to thank you for doing that.

And again, you've met me before.

You didn't realize it was a council member, but I'm really happy that you're here today.

Thank you.

Council President.

Thank you for that.

I like making the link between one's real life as Bob or Sarah out in the world and in the role that we play here.

Let's see, looking for other comments.

One thing I do want to note, Council Member Rivera, go ahead.

No, go ahead.

Thank you.

I just wanted to thank you, Council President, for bringing this forward.

I think most of us agree about the need for more services, addiction treatment services in the city.

There are a lot of folks, particularly with this fentanyl crisis that we have, there's so many people that need help fighting this addiction.

And we're not going to be able to provide that help if we don't have the services to do so.

And that impacts, to your point, and many points many of us have said here since we've been here on council is that You know, it impacts ability for people to stay housed and to work and be in positive spaces with their families and with community.

And that is a really big deal.

And so I really appreciate you bringing forward.

I'm supporting this resolution.

Thank you for your leadership on that.

Thank you very much.

I have a question, Ben.

I remember that there was a timing limitation on when the public safety tax has to be implemented by cities.

I think that there was some nuance in the timing.

It couldn't just be at the end of November, for example.

It is my understanding.

The way sales tax is collected is that the State Department of Revenue collects all the sales taxes, if you will, that is to say the ones that are imposed by the city, by other taxing jurisdictions like Sound Transit, for instance, the counties, and the state.

So the Department of Revenue collects all this money and distributes it, so they're responsible for the administration, if you will, of the sales tax.

And they allow changes to sales tax rates on a quarterly basis, because again, one could imagine they need to go tell all the retailers, this is the sales tax you need now to be collecting, so that we can distribute it back to the various taxing authorities.

So again, they do that on a quarterly basis, and they need, as we understand it, as I understand it, 60 days notice ahead of that.

So the tax can go into effect on January 1 of 2026, but only if there's notice been given, as I understand it again, 60 days in advance.

And given the legislative calendar and the implementation timeline for city-approved ordinances, that would imply that potentially the City Council will be considering this early in the fall, potentially before the budget has been proposed.

Actually, the timing on this is something that I personally want to explore more with the executive, but again, it's their prerogative to determine when and if they're going to propose the legislation.

But the timing is growing short if it were to come into effect on January 1.

Thank you for that information.

And that is why this is before us now instead of in association with any budget process or discussion, simply because it's putting a stake in the ground before and until that legislation comes down from the seventh floor.

I do want to read for the record in case people are wondering, well, what are these services?

And I won't read each one of them that's listed in the resolution, but they are Expand access to on-demand residential and intensive outpatient substance use disorder treatment as funded in the Comprehensive Treatment Pilot Project.

That is in reference to the program, the pilot project that was listed, that was reported on in this story about, you know, Our caseworkers can refer someone to an inpatient rehab and then the city just pays the bill when the treatment is done.

Also, enhance access to recovery housing as consistent with the clinically proven continuum of care model.

And recovery-based services within our housing facilities here in Seattle.

Ensure capacity for low barrier shelter, case management, aftercare, and legal coordination as consistent with programs such as LEAD and Co-LEAD.

Coordinate with King County to increase the number of designated crisis responders operating within Seattle.

Fund innovative approaches to addressing stimulant use disorder and expanding the provision of long-lasting buprenorphine injections, enhance access to job training and job placement services, and stabilizing diversion services such as LEAD, et cetera, and capital investments to support the facilities where these treatment services are provided.

As you can see, that's what I meant when I said that 10 million is a drop in the bucket, but in any case, When we talk about our movement throughout the city in the course of our days, I can't express how often I pass someone who is bent over from the impacts of sustained drug use and think, How can we just not do something about this poison that is out there?

And it's a question of, is it the county responsibility?

Is it a city responsibility?

No, it's our responsibility as public servants to do as much as we can.

So I don't see any other hands up here.

I will just add one more thing that when we're talking about money, We're talking about scarcity, and then there are lines surrounding people's turfs.

But I would say that when we invest in getting people off the streets, we are actually making a very sound and responsible fiscal investment in not just other people's wellness, but also in neighborhood safety.

And that is the, it's not just the fiscally responsible thing to do to fund additional treatment services and sober housing and the things that are on this list, but it is also the moral thing to do.

So with that, I will just see.

Okay, I'm not seeing any other comments, so I move that the committee recommend adoption of Resolution 32174. Second.

It's been moved and seconded to confirm resolution 32174. Will the clerk please call the roll on the recommendation to adopt resolution 32174.

Council member Rivera.

Aye.

Council member Solomon.

Aye.

Council member Hollingsworth.

Here, sorry, yes.

Council member Kettle.

Aye.

Chair Nelson.

Aye.

Five in favor.

Thank you very much.

The legislation passes and the chair will sign it.

Colleagues, I will be proposing sending, I propose sending this item to, To the next week's full council meeting, the council rules state that for the items that are voted on after one o'clock on Thursday on, they need to go to the following, not the next Tuesday, but the following Tuesday's council meeting.

So there are a large number of items anticipated on the August 5th agenda, and in an effort to ensure that that meeting can run on time, I don't want to add more to that agenda, and I will be asking for the same thing for the next piece of legislation on today's agenda.

So I will be, because this meeting is taking place on Thursday after one, the rules will need to be suspended to allow it to be considered at the July 29th City Council meeting.

So if there is no objection, the rules will be suspended to send this resolution to the July 29th City Council meeting.

All right, hearing no objection, the rules are suspended and the resolution will be sent to the July 29th City Council meeting for final consideration.

All right, thank you everyone.

Will the clerk please read item two into the record.

Agenda item number two, a resolution adopting general rules and procedures of the Seattle City Council, superseding resolution 32096 for briefing discussion and possible vote.

All right, so we'll wait for those folks.

I understand.

Public comment is closed for now.

Sir?

Okay.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Please have a seat, sir, or you're welcome.

You are now disrupting our meeting.

The Republican is over.

You can write it down.

You need to stop.

You don't have to be rude to me.

I'm American just like you, but you don't have to treat the black people like that.

You know, I am African.

We've been treated as a Muslim.

Very bad treatment.

Are you on the first medical cannabis shop if you put justice for African-Americans?

Please feel free to write it down or leave.

They have me in King 5 News.

Black Cannabis Pioneer speaking with King 5. You see Sami Saad and Jim Buchanan and Jim Buchanan, I want to help, but...

We will have to...

Point of privilege.

Go ahead.

This...

Sorry for this interruption, and I'm glad we had security.

This man has a history of continuing to attack me and my family, and he has shown up here today, and I'm sorry, but he continues to threaten my safety constantly, so thank you.

I really appreciate it, and more than happy to work with him as I have in the last 10 years for cannabis equity.

Thank you.

Thank you for that context.

All right, these 15 rules were generated through months of discussion stemming largely from ideas directly from central staff, our city clerks and the law department.

Every two years we revise, reevaluate our council rules and that's what we're doing right now.

We considered a whole host of concepts, but narrowed it down to what is most needed according to the people that had input into this legislation, and boy did I leave it to mostly the experts to suggest additions to our rules.

We will now proceed with an explanation.

First, I'll move it, and then you can give a brief discussion of the legislation.

I move that the committee recommend adoption of Resolution 32173. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you very much.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend the adoption of the resolution.

We'll now proceed with consideration of the amendments and I will request that the sponsor move their amendment and after a second, central staff will provide an overview of the amendment and then the sponsor will address it.

Okay.

Yes.

Thank you, Council President and committee members.

As we discussed in the last committee meeting, yes, the working group did convene.

Yes.

Be a little bit closer to your mic.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

The working group did convene over several months and proposed for the Council President's review certain amendments to Either clarify the language of the existing rule, propose technical changes, conform the rules to current practices, and in some cases propose substantive amendments.

The 15 proposed amendments that are in Attachment 1 of Resolution 32173 We reviewed at length.

I'm happy to take questions on them.

And I can say a few words about the general areas that they cover if that's of interest to the committee.

Does anybody need a refresher of the legislation or anything in particular contained therein?

Not seeing anybody?

Okay.

Then let's go ahead and consider some amendments, please.

Councilmember Kettle.

Council President, thank you.

I move to amend Resolution 32173 with Amendment 1, Version 3.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the resolution per the language in Amendment 1.

Thank you, Council President.

This amendment comes from the experience that probably all of us have shared over the last year and a half, or at least for the cohort that started in January 2024, longer in your case, Council President, that the challenges of The last second amendments and the strain that this puts on the overall system to include the city clerks, to include essential staff, but really as well us, our immediate teams, staff and ourselves in order to make proper decisions.

We do need that time for at least some reflection and out of that experience that we've had over, in my case, 18 plus months now is that The walk-ups and then the amendments on amendments are not productive.

I think they create confusion.

I think they create some challenges across the board.

So this amendment is to, I don't think is unreasonable to go to 24 hours prior to the start of the meeting.

As opposed to two hours.

I think this would be better for the health of the system.

And it also gives a chance for the public to see it, too.

When it comes two hours before, people have planned their day, that maybe they won't come to public comment or...

And if you only get it two hours before, that may not be possible.

Whereas a 24-hour advance notice, then that might be something.

So that's an additional point that I would like to add in terms of the...

What's driving this amendment and colleagues and my ask for you to support it.

Thank you for that, for providing the rationale behind this.

Could you please, would central staff like to go through the mechanics of how this would work?

Thank you, Council President.

So mechanically, there's three different areas of the Council rules that are addressed in order to provide a standardized 24-hour advance notice system, as Council Member Kettle described.

So the first is an amendment to existing language Found in Rule 3A8, that language is specific to city council business and affords a two-hour window, as Councilmember Kettle alluded to, for amendments to be submitted to yourselves, council members, to the central staff director, and to the city clerk.

So that extends the two-hour deadline to a 24-hour deadline.

So that's in Rule 3. And then the amendment further amends Rule 6H4.

That's concerning standing committees accomplishing the same goal and using the same language.

And then finally, in Rule 7G4, Rule 7 is specific to select committees, and there it uses the same language to establish a 24-hour advance notice rule for an amendment to be submitted to council members, submitted to the central staff director and submitted to the city clerk.

Thank you.

Any other central staff commentary?

Okay.

Are there any questions about this amendment from colleagues?

Council member Rivera.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, Council Member Kettle for your thoughtfulness in bringing this forward.

I do have concerns.

While I think it's advantageous and our goal should be providing 24 hours for an amendment, there have been instances where it necessitated an amendment day of.

For whatever reason, someone may have missed the legislation or misunderstood.

And I worry, since this is a must, and as we're trying to represent our constituents, that if we have this requirement as a must, then what happens when day of you realize, oh, I needed to proffer this amendment or you hear from a constituency in your district that flagged that for you that morning.

I mean, I just, I'm trying to, you know, I appreciate and yes, I agree we should do at least 24 hours in advance and then I'm concerned about instances where If that should not happen, then you are prevented from being able to represent your constituents.

I'd love to hear from the city clerk and Lauren, from our attorney, or even you, Ben, as central staff director, what your thoughts are on this.

I'll open and perhaps Amelia can supplement that this rule, as with most of the council rules, are a self-regulation of your legislative authority.

So it is not that this rule precludes the idea of a walk-on amendment, but establishes a standard practice.

And then via the parliamentary rules, this rule might be suspended or, you know, what's colloquially called waiving a council rule.

in order to allow for that inherent authority that you're talking about, the ability to walk on an amendment.

Amelia, if you wanted to speak to the parliamentary process for that.

Correct, yes.

If the council member did have an amendment that was not circulated 24 hours in advance, it would need to, one, still be circulated, but also a request of the body to suspend the rules, and if two-thirds of the members agree to suspend the rules, then you can proceed with consideration of the amendment.

Or would you like to respond to

Well, yes, thanks, Council President.

Thank you, Council Member Rivera, for your points made.

I understand the points made.

I appreciate central staff and city clerk for that response, because I think that kind of answers that question.

And I would add, too, as thinking about the point made, yes, I understand that.

But if something comes up two hours before, there may be other individuals who have a differing position or have insight That could be germane.

And with the tight turnarounds, then we may not be able to get that.

So I recognize the point.

And I think maybe the way to, as I say, square to circle is the points raised by the city clerk that we use the parliamentary process.

Because generally this is being proffered to basically kind of instill some good governance principles to get in early.

So then for the general The 90-whatever percent time that we have this opportunity for the reasons I said, but for the point that you made, fair point, but it sounds like a way to address that point would be to use the parliamentary procedures options that we do have as council members.

As noted, we're self-regulated and there's different ways to address that point.

And actually, after just consulting with the deputy city clerk, reminded that you could also, a council member could also move to hold a piece of legislation if they thought that it was not, that more time was needed to consider amendments, recognizing, again, in a situation that might not be as viable an option because there may be some There's a lot of time pressure around the overall legislation, but that is another parliamentary option you would have.

It's one that would only require a simple majority.

But again, just to say that those are at least two options.

But the point is also well taken that it does shorten the period or narrows the period.

Yeah, good idea.

Thank you, Councilmember Kettle.

I have immense respect for you and the things that you proffer.

And then full disclosure, I'm just seeing this amendment right now whether that was because I'm a little short-staffed this week, and so maybe no one brought that to my attention, but it happens, and I have an amazing team.

So for whatever reason, it just exemplifies an instance where you don't see something with enough time, because I would have come to talk to you earlier and not had this conversation on the day, is because we have a great relationship, and so I struggle with this in that way, and I appreciate the Ability to, with two-thirds of the council, be able to, or even to request delaying a vote to be able to get those pieces.

So I appreciate that.

I want you to understand where this is coming from.

I appreciate it.

Seeing this 24 hours in advance would have helped.

Yes, exactly.

Yeah, because then it alleviates the awkwardness of having to point out, Council Member Kettle, I would have come to you.

Anyway, thank you, Council Member Kettle.

Thank you all for answering the question.

I appreciate it.

So I have to admit that when this was presented as an option or when it was presented to me in the universe of changes that the people who have to deal with us day in and day out, which is central staff, the clerks, and our internal council, In that universe, this was on the list of potentials and I declined to include it just because I was thinking that that might be too prescriptive and anticipating some pushback from that.

At the same time, there is The risk of unintended consequences of walk-ons that haven't been reviewed by law, and that is a big problem that I think the people that brought this to me as president to put forward were really thinking about, is when walk-ons have not been reviewed by law, then we get into even a stickier situation.

So is there, when we were discussing this, when you presented it as a potential addition, were there any other alternatives that could get at the same purpose but that would not, besides two-thirds of the body agreeing to accept a walk-on, what were some of the other options, if any, that were contemplated to get to this?

I think your policy levers here are the amount of time, whether it's as written in the council rules right now for city council meetings, two hours prior to a meeting versus what's proposed here, 24 hours.

So that's certainly a policy lever is what amount of time is suitable here.

And the other is to your point, the law department is listed as an entity that must receive this in order for the rule to be satisfied.

So the other levers are, Is the same amount of time that's necessary for legal review the amount of time that would be suitable for distribution internally?

That's a separate lever.

And so those are at least a few of the policy choices that I see kind of baked into this amendment here.

Okay.

Council Member Rivera.

Thank you.

I wonder, Council Member Kettle and our team here, could it be end of the End the day before the vote, for instance, because then it would give a bit more time, but still achieve the it's not day of.

But the 24 hours is, you know, if the meeting's at 9.30, you have to do it 9.30 a.m.

the day before.

So you lose that whole day.

As we were discussing this and discussing with the Council President, as I recall, the morning meetings are particularly problematic for you all, potentially, in terms of the turnaround.

But we got to the place at 5 o'clock the day before for a 9.30 meeting the next day is really not particular notice, because if you've logged off and you don't log back on, you're going to have almost no time.

So whether it were 24 hours or perhaps for the earlier meetings sometime in the middle of the afternoon, noon, And ultimately, it was both the simplicity and the directness of 24 hours that just seemed the best way to set this out and to standardize it across the committee meetings, because sometimes there are special meeting times and the like.

But there was thought and given to the dynamic, if you will, between morning and afternoon meetings.

It still came to this place as ultimately the simplest, cleanest way to clarify expectations.

But just to that point, there was some dialogue about that.

So is there any middle ground here that would be workable?

I would say, I mean, Director Noble just made a good point.

I understand, like, the possibility of end of day, but as he noted, particularly as somebody who has a hard time getting to his email, that for those early morning starts, like, you know, my committee is a 9.30 start.

That could be challenging.

I'd like to go back to the point made earlier that there are parliamentary rules.

There's ways to address the situation, even to hold the bill, but to create some exceptions, essentially, in those unique circumstances.

But nine times out of ten, I think this Would be enforcing some good governance behaviors and getting into a rhythm where we're doing this in an earlier process.

And I come back to the point that earlier is better and it would also give time for the staff to do their piece and that puts extra stress on them when it's coming in hot and late.

And I think from...

From a leadership perspective that we could show that in support of the teams and for everybody involved, all the legislative assistant teams to do that.

At the end of the day, I appreciate it, but I do think that we have an answer based on those unique circumstances or You know, to use the processes that, you know, our clerks are so expert on, all of them.

And unlike my colleague, I don't have any favorites.

So thank you, Council President.

Go ahead, Council Member Rivera.

I looked back.

I didn't get an email about this amendment.

So again, that's why I'm seeing it now.

It might have been in the agenda, but I didn't get, and this is requiring an email sent to council members.

So this is like an example of the thing we're trying to avoid, but I understand what you're saying, Council Member Kettle.

I just, things have unintended consequences and I don't want So, all that to say, I think we know where we are with all of this, and I'm not going to be supporting this amendment today.

Maybe if I would have had more opportunity to have conversation about a better, and I understand and respect Councilmember Kettle that our team has said with two-thirds of a vote you might be able to Waive that, et cetera.

But I also just feel a little uncomfortable moving forward with this today.

But I don't want to delete the vote further.

So just to say that I, again, super respect and appreciate you, Council Member Kettle.

And that's all I'll say.

Thank you.

Please don't take this as a negative against you again.

I very much appreciate our working relationship.

Of course.

And I have a question about whether or not this has this kind of amendment ever to our council rules been contemplated or discussed before?

I don't know, but I wouldn't know.

That's not something I've been involved in.

Again, I had priority duty, but I do not recall, and I candidly wasn't heavily involved in council rule processes previously.

I can't say for certain that we've discussed in great detail the advantages of having a council rule, but I do know that the current practice for some committees, when there is legislation with a lot of amendments, do implement an amendment deadline currently.

So this amendment here would kind of help streamline whenever there are amendments to legislation to ensure that not only are deadlines set in advance when central staff needs those concepts submitted, but then as well as streamline as to when is the last notice when amendments can be provided to members to consider at the meeting.

And just to be clear, this would apply to amendments in committee as well as at full council?

That's a little, okay.

It does amend the current city council rule.

Right now it's two hours before the meeting and this would be 24 hours in advance.

Okay, of any meeting, not just the full council meeting.

Okay.

All right, that modifies my thinking a little bit.

I agree with the spirit of this and I also am concerned about what happens with getting agreement with two-thirds of the body to put forward an amendment.

If it did not meet the actual deadline and the deadline again, to meet that deadline would mean that it was one reviewed by law and then after it's reviewed by law, then it's circulated to all council members, the city clerk, as well as the central staff director and the council members.

Okay.

All right.

Any further comments on this?

Council President, I will say that I agree with the spirit of this, and I definitely aim to always, and Council Member Kettle, you and I have talked about this, like always aiming to do things not last minute, so it's not that I disagree.

It's just for the off ones that, you know, it happens.

So thank you.

Was it contemplated that this could apply to amendments that are offered at full council but not at committee meetings?

No.

I think the logic applies in both cases and it's important.

As I'm sitting here thinking about it, I'm thinking about the fact that we have like three select committees.

All of our calendars are blown up.

I got B&O tax amendments.

I've got dis-amendments.

And you're trying to work these pieces and the volume that we're dealing with right now is such that, you know, that 24 hours, you know, so as I'm thinking through this, that becomes even more important and both in committee and in full council.

So I recognize and I appreciate everybody's position on this.

I'd like just to I press forward with a vote, but I appreciate, and I recognize the points, because they're valid points, and I don't take them any other way than valid input to the issue.

But the amendment was submitted for the reasons that I stated, which go from the administrative, the operational pieces, and then just the general policy points that I made.

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

If there are no further questions or comments, I'm ready if everybody else is to proceed.

Would you like any more comments?

Okay.

To proceed to a vote with a clerk, please call the roll on Amendment 1.

Council Member Rivera.

Abstain.

Councilmember Solomon.

Aye.

Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Chair Nelson.

Abstain.

Three in favor to abstain.

Well, we have another amendment.

Council Member Kettle, would you like to move your amendment, and then we can have central staff go through it.

Thank you, Council President.

Colleagues, I move to amend Resolution 32173 with Amendment 2.

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to consider Amendment 2.

Should we start with central staff this time?

Sure.

I'll take it away.

This is a very straightforward amendment, a single sentence added to Rule 6B.

This concerns addressing the introduction of non-committee member amendments and states that amendments by non-committee members do not require sponsorship.

So it doesn't change the procedural rules in any way.

It's still only a committee member that may move an amendment and vote on an amendment, but it would allow for the author of an amendment, assuming they are a non-committee member, to bring their amendment without needing a sponsor from a committee member.

So in that way, it provides an opportunity for non-members to hear and discuss their ideas without seeking a sponsor, bringing more matters into the committee level of business rather than full council.

And the flip side of that, it allows members of the committee to consider an amendment without themselves owning it, if you will, by becoming a sponsor, which we know is a point of—that ownership is a point of pride and or concern for council members, depending on which side of that you might find yourself on.

So the idea is that it's a neutral introduction of an amendment, but it does require two members of the committee to be willing to play, if you will.

Council Member Kettle, would you like to address your amendment?

Thank you, Council President.

Like I said before, this amendment is based on my experience over the last 18 months.

I will note, partly because, Council President, we have passed 20 pieces of regular public safety legislation, plus three confirmations, plus a resolution.

So from those 24 pieces of resolution coming through committee, many of which, particularly those that were a little bit more interesting, controversial maybe, with many amendments.

And the experience of that was such that and to include amendments coming in at full council.

And I've been one to, again, from a personal good governance point of view, that we should be working all these pieces in committee.

For one thing, it gains greater time, going back to the earlier point, to have an issue be raised and then work by the committee to include maybe having members of the executive or the city attorney's office in the case of public safety or other departments and other committees To work these issues and to work them fully because those opportunities don't really happen when amendments come to full council.

And the point here is to get to the best piece of legislation that we can have.

I noted this just recently with the departure of Council Member Moore.

Council Member Moore brought a lot of amendments, very thoughtful, and it was great to work them through committee.

And I know other council members have positions based on their perspective on whatever the topic is that could be worked during the course of committee meetings.

And I just think that's the venue where it could be done so.

And as chair of the Public Safety Committee, I'm happy to work with non-committee members to work this, you know, in terms of sponsorships.

But I think from a point of view for the council overall, And to work the pieces more fully is to do it with this amendment that we have here in Amendment 2. So, Council President, with that, and for our colleagues here on the committee, I recommend and I ask for your support for this amendment.

So, thank you.

Thank you for that.

So I want to talk about how our amendment process helps to inform or inhibits information being provided to the public.

I have to say that when I was considering the prior amendment when it was first presented to me, there was a balance between wanting to make sure that amendments were vetted properly by central staff and law before they were offered to committee members or to full council.

And there was also the benefit of having amendments presented and available for view by the public.

And that adds to, so with the prior amendment, the benefit of transparency does weigh in favor of providing for a 24-hour rule that amendments have to be put forward.

Or you have to do the work as a council member to convince other people that there should be an exception to be made.

But this one I have a stronger feeling of opposition to because we have a committee structure for a reason and most council members really are I really commit to a two-council meeting process to discuss weighty pieces of legislation.

So there is usually a presentation and a discussion in the first meeting, and then the second committee meeting is more discussion and then a vote.

And then with really complex legislation, I just remember, for example, the deactivation legislation In 2023, some of the other really complicated pieces of legislation my first couple years, there were several meetings over the course of weeks and a couple months, in fact.

And one of my concerns about this is that The members of the committee have been at these discussions, presumably previous discussions.

When another committee member who is not on the committee asks for someone on the committee to sponsor a piece of legislation, then it's sort of on that council member who is sponsoring an amendment from someone who is not on the committee to weigh whether or not the person who is actually putting forward the amendment understands the complexity of the legislation.

And so it's and there is no and that and there's more of a there's more security that the The committee member has been at the previous discussion and presentation and understands the nuances and can foresee the potential negative unintended consequences of a particular amendment that's being proffered by a member that is not on the committee.

So that is why I am going to that I am that I can't support this just because I feel that it is the it's the It is the judgment of a committee member to sponsor, to actually put their name on it, or to be the steward of an amendment from someone who is not on the committee, and then perhaps to be in the position of doing the education to the non-committee member of certain things that might not have been considered when drafting the amendment and putting it forward.

So it's simply because we have a committee structure for a reason and that's precisely because we have multiple conversations about legislation and I would be concerned about even though this amendment might have gotten the thumbs up from law and central staff, there are some other intricacies and nuances with other components of the legislation perhaps that would make it problematic.

But I do completely understand where you're coming from in offering this.

Councilmember Rivera.

Thank you.

I'm wondering, Amelia, do you have historical context on why currently it is you have to have someone sponsor it?

I mean, I can think of good reasons why, but I'm wondering historically.

You've been here the longest, Amelia, so...

The longest bit, I'm not the most knowledgeable.

So in the past, we used to have all members who were able to attend a meeting, and Ben can attest to this practice, where all council members were able to attend all committee meetings and vote at all committee meetings.

Now only members who are actually officially members of a committee can participate at that level.

They're the only ones who can move a motion, second a motion, and vote on motions.

And so this proposal here is still retaining that, but what it's allowing is that the members to ask the question, would anyone like to move this amendment if there is not a council member's name listed there as a sponsor?

There's a real distinction here between sponsorship and, if you will, authorship.

Sponsorship is really solely something that a member of the committee can do.

So what this allows is that there wouldn't have to be, so a non-member They might want to use the verb sponsor, but they could only use it with a small s in the context of a meeting.

That is to say it is not a formal legislative sponsorship.

They would be the author of the amendment, and then it would be incumbent.

Incumbent is the wrong word.

It would then be up to the committee Committee members to decide to determine whether there was one of them at least who was willing to move it and another that was willing to second it because as Amelia has described, those are those are actions that are restricted to council members themselves.

Thank you.

Do you have any comments?

I do.

So what are we solving for?

I mean, you still need to have then, it sounds like a committee member be willing to take it up.

You're just saying they don't want their name on it, because as a sponsor, you have to put your name on it.

Is that what we're solving for?

Sorry, Ben.

Just so I'm clear about this, this was not brought forward in terms of addressing a staff concern about processing amendments, but rather A sense that the Council itself had concerns about the number of substantive amendments that were being considered for the first time at full Council, and that given the rules of full Council, there isn't an opportunity necessarily for full dialogue.

And the idea, again, is that You would be able to bring amendments.

So a non-member currently only without a sponsor only has the option of bringing it to full council.

So the notion was that there could be more amendments considered in the committee environment so that the full council would not be burdened with those discussions.

And that's really all it was.

I just want to make clear that it is clear that this is, I believe that this is an amendment that would benefit central staff for the reasons that it would perhaps, it drives more of the work into the committees instead of having amendments come up at full council and I fully support that.

I fully support that effort because last minute amendments, when we're dealing with a full council vote, when central staff is not available necessarily to go through a big long explanation about the impacts of a particular amendment, that leads to bad policy.

At the same time, there are also, then I would say that one would, One would hope also that amendments are proffered with the benefit of many meetings or multiple meetings of legislation.

So I see both sides and I can see the benefit of this.

I also am concerned that You have to be in, the conversation that precedes the meeting where the actual vote takes place is oftentimes the most important because that's when we get the fullest explanation from central staff and can have the most rich meetings amongst council members.

Any, okay, go ahead.

That's the reason.

Again, for me, I'm driven by my experience.

I don't have the long history of elected service, but based on my experience of this term so far, And the desire to work these issues, because I welcome even the hard amendments.

And I said that at committee when Councilmember Moore left, because she worked amendments hard, and she brought in very thoughtful amendments.

And some of them I was in agreement with, some of them I weren't.

But having them engaged in committee, In my mind, it's so much better than trying to do it with a full council.

And the ability to go back and forth and engage is limited.

And that is the reason behind this amendment solely or mainly.

And so part of me, this kind of again falls under the good governance piece.

But I recognize the points you're making.

And so just like I said before, the valid points, fair points, That this is just me, and this is the reason behind the two amendments, and in this case, the second amendment too.

Got it.

Any further comments, questions?

Go ahead, Councilmember Rivera.

I'm going to abstain from this, Councilmember Kettle, only because I did not receive this ahead of time, and so I have more questions, but so I'll just abstain and that way we can proceed with the vote.

But again, like the last time, this is in no way to, I hear where you're coming from and I appreciate your thoughtfulness always to, you know, ensure that we're doing the good governance pieces and sometimes we may see things differently, but thank you.

Okay, I'm not seeing any other hands raised.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Just a second here.

I'm thinking.

Okay.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the recommendation that, well, on Amendment B, please.

On Amendment 2, excuse me.

Oh, has it moved in?

Did you move it?

Yeah, we already moved it.

My apologies.

My apologies.

My apologies.

Council Member Rivera.

Abstain.

Council Member Solomon.

No.

Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Abstain.

Councilmember Cattle.

Aye.

Chair Nelson.

No.

One in favor, two opposed, two abstain.

Okay, the amendment fails.

Are there any other amendments or comments on the resolution as amended?

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the recommendation that Resolution 32173 be adopted as amended.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Council Member Solomon.

Aye.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Chair Nelson.

Aye.

Five in favor, none opposed.

The motion carries and the committee recommendation will be sent to the City Council.

All right.

There we go.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm proposing sending this item to the next City Council meeting on the 29th.

I want to acknowledge that this would differ from previous communications to Council rules, including the schedule memo which was distributed in March and had listed August 5th as the intended date for full Council consideration.

A lot, however, has been added to our plate since then, so I hope you can agree with my efforts to spread out the agenda items to not fall so heavily on one meeting.

This will once again require a suspension of our rules since it is currently after one o'clock on Thursday.

So if there's no objection, the rules will be suspended to send this resolution to the July 29th City Council meeting.

Hearing no objection, the rules are suspended and the resolution will be sent to the July 29th City Council meeting for final consideration.

All right.

I just have to note that every time that rules, that I've listened to conversations about the rules and after my second year here before, maybe it was my first year, It seems really bureaucratic when these are discussed.

These rules, I just want to note, are the end result of many, many, many weeks and months of work on behalf of central staff and our clerks and Lauren, and I just want to say thank you very much because you, of all people, know what is working and what isn't on council because you have the historical perspective and you see how things go down behind the scenes when we are trying to just advance our legislative agendas and so I just recognize that it's something that we go through every couple years and when we sit up here on at the dais and actually vote on these things, it just seems kind of bureaucratic, but then how often have we as individuals gone to the binder of our rules to see what we should do next and whether or not something is legal or not, right?

Okay, so I just wanted to note that that wasn't important, but we just took and we will take it at full council next week.

All right, this concludes the agenda of the July 24th meeting of the Governance, Accountability and Economic Development Committee.

It is 3.38 p.m.

and our next committee meeting is scheduled for Thursday, August 14th.

And if there's no further business, this meeting will adjourn.

It is 3.39 p.m.

Thanks everyone.