Public Safety Committee 7/8/2025

The meeting will come to order.

It's 9.33 a.m.

July 8, 2025. I'm Robert Kettle, Chair of the Public Safety Committee.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Council President Nelson.

Present.

Council Member Saka.

Here.

Chair Kettle.

Here.

Chair, there are three members present.

Yes, we have three members present.

Council Member Hollingsworth is excused until her arrival and obviously Council Member Moore will no longer be part of this committee.

If there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing, seeing, listening, for anything, nothing.

So hearing no objection, seeing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Good morning, everyone.

For chair comment this morning, I just wanted to, oh, do we have Councilmember Hollingsworth online?

I just saw her pop up on my screen.

Hey, Council Member Kettle.

I'm here.

Thank you.

Okay.

We have Council Member Hollingsworth online.

Thank you, Council President, for the pointing to my screen.

I appreciate it.

A lot going on here in the command module here on the committee dais.

So we have four present.

Thank you.

For Chair comment today, I just wanted to note again, I've been having a lot of meetings with communities, including this morning, and I noted the work that we've been doing on the Public Safety Committee, including our priorities for 2025, which is amending, updating, fixing ordinances.

That was the first one.

And we've been doing that.

We've also done it already with Less Lethal Weapons.

We've done it with the Chief of Police Investigations.

And clearly, that is on the agenda for today.

Secondly, it is a functional criminal justice system, all parts of the criminal justice system.

And we really need to be ensuring that it is working across the board, because for all the work that we do, it could be one step forward, two steps back, or maybe two steps forward and one step back.

And we need to work with county and state on this, and there'll be more to come over the course of the summer.

And then finally, community safety, an area that is Kind of new to public safety, it's been primarily in the human services world, but it's another form of alternative response.

It's about community coming together and responding and helping for that community's public safety needs.

But today, I really wanted to talk about emergency preparedness.

I talked about this not too long ago with the LA wildfires and how important it is for a city to be ready.

And there's different ways to being ready.

There's the kind of more strategic long-term being prepared, like through the comprehensive plan.

But then there's the more immediate pieces, the operational pieces, being ready to respond.

And we're seeing again now in Texas and Central Texas with the floodings.

And to the people of Texas, Kerr County, Central Texas, our thoughts, prayers go to them.

We hope for the best that we can in terms of those that are missing.

But also for the communities, not just individuals, but for the communities.

And I think this is important to do.

And so there's lessons from this that we also need to be drawing, not just from the LA wildfires.

We also need to draw lessons from the flooding in Texas.

Tragedies that happen around our country, so then we can incorporate them into what we're doing.

Obviously, earthquakes is our top one.

There's the increasing chances of wildfires, but there's different tsunamis associated with earthquakes.

So we need to be ready.

Separately, and tied to this, I wanted to add that we have had a partner in FEMA.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency.

It has been a partner.

It's been a partner with grants for our city.

So important.

And when I think back and I'm looking at Texas, I'm reading articles, I'm reading reports, you know, engaging with FEMA on grants, maybe on alert systems and the like.

What could have been done in that case?

And so we've been trying to do this here through our Office of Emergency Management.

But we also, it highlights how important that support is from the federal administration.

And I know we have a special committee on federal administration, but I wanted to speak to it directly today in the sense that it is so important for us to have that partner in FEMA that has learned the lessons of past tragedies like Katrina to ensure that they're working well with state and local authorities.

So we as a people across not just the city, the county, state, but the country need to be Demanding that FEMA be supported.

Also, and I recognize and I applaud the President's declaration to Governor Abbott in terms of the disaster that is happening, unfolding, unfolded in Central Texas.

But we cannot have disaster aid, disaster response, disaster declarations be part of some type of new federal spoil system.

A yes to Governor Abbott should be followed by a yes to Governor Inslee or now Governor Ferguson.

We cannot have this federal response.

We cannot have FEMA become part of a new spoil system.

And so I applaud what's happened in terms of how the federal government is responding to the tragedy in Central Texas.

But we need to have that across the country.

We need that in our city, particularly in the recent case, the county and the state, to have that response.

And I think it's important to state that and state it from a very matter-of-fact professional way.

And that's how I approach this.

That's how we as a city government approach this, as mentioned last week with Chief Barnes.

It's about being professional and doing your job.

So with that from chair comment, thank you for indulging me.

We'll now open the hybrid public comment period.

Public comments should relate to items on today's agenda or within the purview of the committee.

Clerk, how many speakers do we have signed up today?

Currently, we have two in-person speakers signed up and there are two remote speakers.

Okay, each speaker will have two minutes.

We will start with the in-person speakers and then go to remote.

Clerk, can you please read the public comment instructions?

The public comment period will be moderated in the following manner.

The public comment period is up to 60 minutes.

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

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

Speaker's mics will be muted if they do not end their comment within the allotted time to allow us to call on the next speaker.

The public comment period is now open and we'll begin with the first speaker on the list.

The first in-person speaker is Theresa Klein.

Good morning.

Thank you for allowing me to speak today.

My name is Teresa Klein, and I've lived in Seattle my whole life.

I'm here today to speak to you about an urgent threat to public safety here in Seattle.

That's the absolute onslaught of posters, stickers, and graffiti that spread lies.

Half-truths and libels about Jews, Zionists, and the state of Israel.

As a result of this kind of content spreading both online and on the streets, I have been accosted, harassed, and assaulted by multiple people on multiple occasions for wearing a Magan David necklace, for wearing clothing, it's a Star of David, for wearing clothing that features Hebrew lettering, And for removing content that is absolutely, dangerously anti-Semitic.

I want to be very clear.

This is not necessarily about what's happening in the Middle East.

What's happening in the Middle East is being used as a cloak to spread this kind of anti-Semitic content.

I'm part of a team of six exhausted Jews who go around the city every week, sometimes at 2 a.m.

to avoid the harassment and assault that we've experienced, removing this content, and it should not fall to us.

This is the city's problem, and the city needs to do something about it before somebody gets killed.

We all know that incitement to violence leads to violence.

We have seen this around the world and here in the United States with what happened in Washington DC and in Boulder.

People screaming Free Palestine while killing or assaulting or firebombing Jews.

We're exhausted.

We're terrified.

I can't be allowed to continue.

I'm begging the city to please educate everyone who works here.

on what this stuff looks like.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next up, Steve.

Physical assaults have not been handled well in this city for quite a long time.

And while it has been economic stimulus for the security industry, private, I think we should be looking at taking care of the problem and at least taking care of the low-hanging fruit.

But today I'd like to remind you that I'm old.

I've been in this town a very long time.

And I do remember a time when Seattle Police Department was pretty much self-correcting.

If you had a problem with the police department, I think I related this to the chairman afterwards.

First, of course, you go to the precinct, and if they tell you that if you don't like what they're doing that you should move out of Seattle, then you go and you have called the chief's office.

Strangely enough, the chief does not answer the phone personally.

However, people on staff do.

And I had an experience when I was chairman of the Green Lake Community Council Where I told the tale of woe.

And they told me that, gee, you sound quite reasonable.

And lo and behold, the police totally changed their attitude.

It appears the chief's office had a certain amount of sway.

And I did get a call.

Later on from the precinct, saying, gee, next time you have a problem, please talk to us first.

And of course, I had to tell them that I did, and I was told that if I didn't like what I was doing, I could move out of Seattle, which was not an option.

But we can do better.

Thank you, Mr. Russello.

We have a third in-person speaker, commenter.

Hello.

Can you hear me?

He's the taller one, yeah.

And you can move it.

I'm used to doing audio.

Sometimes I really don't need my father's funeral.

Trust me, they heard me.

Hello, my name is Chilimboy Washington, and I'm not sure if this is germane to this issue, but I want to discuss the explosives, the bombs that have been going on for the last three weeks.

I'm not sure if City Council actually knows the danger of these bombs.

Some would say they're explosives, you know, just firecrackers.

I've seen two of them almost hit two girls, like two women.

It is not to be vague.

This is not to be...

It's definitely a clear and present danger, really a clear and present danger to our citizens.

As you know, we've been hearing the bombs go off at every single hour.

Sometimes it can be an alarm clock.

I'm not here to complain.

I'm here to offer solutions.

The first one, and I actually went to police headquarters before coming here a couple days ago, he said that city council Denied the use of drones.

I know that it is a privacy issue.

But in this particular case, it's a public safety issue.

That's not to say to belittle it.

This is to say that this is dangerous.

This is really dangerous.

It's gotten to that point.

I heard that this happened last year.

One of the vendors actually got hit by one.

I have her card, just in case.

Okay, I'll wrap this up.

This is also a monetary issue.

If you have vendors, if you have vacationers, if you have all these people coming in, going to Seattle, this is monetary also.

Thank you.

Okay, we have completed our in-person speakers.

Clerk.

The first remote speaker is BJ Last.

Please press star six.

When you hear the prompt, you have been unmuted.

Hello, my name is BJ Last.

I'm Ballard homeowner, former small business owner, I'm calling on this council to reject Council Bill 121006, which would be a massive expansion to the existing nuisance property law.

What this expansion would do is it would hold property owners responsible for actions of others taken in other locations.

This is kind of absurd to think that someone has to be responsible for what someone else is doing elsewhere, like not on their property.

It's not an action being done by them.

It's not an action being done on their property.

And yet somehow this legislation would make them ultimately responsible for it.

That's really just kind of absurd.

There's been a lot of talk about wanting to sort of help small business owners.

There's the proposed, I think called Seattle Shield, the DNO tax revision to help small business owners.

What will this do to small business owners if they're finding out suddenly, hey, anyone that ever comes into our store or our business or anyone who ever even just is near our business, we are now potentially civilly liable if they're then doing anything not even in our business but next to it.

Like, what does this do to them?

This puts a massive target on every small business in Seattle.

And let's face it, we know this will not be enforced evenly.

We know every business, if it was, every single brewery Would be getting declared a nuisance under this pretty much the day that it's passed.

Given the amount that, let's face it, there are people who, lots of liquor violations that come out of the breweries.

Because people, they go in, they get beer to go, and they go and drink that in a park next door.

That would make that brewery a nuisance under this legislation.

Some of them are also allowed, which Councilmember Saka has a proposal to add noise violations.

That would also then make those breweries a nuisance.

These stadiums would be the biggest nuisance ever in the city under this proposal, given what sports fans are like before and after games.

So this really needs to be rejected.

It will be terrible to small businesses and will be used as a target or to target service providers in the city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And our last remote speaker is David Haynes.

Hi, we already have an emergency crisis with criminal drug pushers destroying lives daily, listed non-violent low-level, imploding society, directly correlated to most gun violence.

Seattle is still lacking a trustworthy merit to combat the evil scourge that has imploded Seattle and ruined the sales tax revenue, making it unsafe to shop, justifying a more advanced crime-fighting FEMA to purge the evil predators.

So I got to ask, is the police chief and his propaganda coffee outreach team going to walk the Delridge neighborhood where the criminals live, or is it too unsafe?

That said, we need a more robust, wholehearted response to nuisance properties that need to be torn down and redeveloped without compensating the bank who can just write the debt off.

Because properties such as the slum hotels on Aurora Avenue have been allowed to destroy people's lives and drive down the human and property values.

And the landowner doesn't deserve to say, I want artificially inflated unfair market value.

Just take the property and then have the governor deploy the National Guard and the federal government to pay to redevelop with the Army Corps of Engineers and use their cheap labor and their ability to get things done in three full shifts within a 72-hour to two-week period And you can prop up some authorized encampments for the public safety junkie thieving addicts and separate them from the evil predatory drug pushers and then have the Army Corps of Engineers tear down them slow motels and cut the footers for foundations that would be bigger than the original building to take away a lot of the parking spaces and build back something better to address the trauma and lack of safe, affordable, or emergency housing.

Anyway, there's a lot more to be said.

You guys kind of limit the conversations, but you're always...

Thank you, Mr. Haynes.

Thank you, both our in-person and online speakers.

Okay, public comment is complete.

We will now proceed to our items of business.

Members of the public are encouraged to either submit written public comment on the sign-up cards available on the podium or email the council at council at seattle.gov.

We will now move on to our first item of business.

Will the clerk please read item number one into the record?

Council Bill 120995, an ordinance relating to a new civil cause of action against graffiti taggers for illegal graffiti on public and private property and requiring restitution, adding a new section 10.07.00.055 to the Seattle Municipal Code and amending section 10.07.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

Thank you, Clerk.

Thank you, Ms. Klein, for the comment on this area, but also thank you, Mr. Doss, for joining us at the table.

Obviously, we've had a presentation last week I don't think there's a presentation.

We'll just be speaking to the bill and amendments.

So with that, I will move that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 120995. Is there a second?

Second.

It is moved and seconded to recommend passage of the bill.

At this time, we will consider each amendment.

I recognize the sponsor, which is me, to move the amendments as they come up.

I will recommend the sponsor of the amendments.

And after a second, central staff will provide an overview of the amendment before sponsor addresses it.

I just want to double-check one parliamentary process, but my clerk has given me the answer, so we will proceed.

So I will recognize, in this case, Vice-Chair Saka to move his amendment, and then for central staff, Mr. Doss, to speak to it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move to amend Council Bill 120995 as presented on Amendment 1. Second.

Okay, it's been sponsored and seconded.

Let's turn over to central staff before the sponsor can speak to it.

Mr. Doss.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning, committee members.

Greg Doss, council central staff, here to present the amendments to Council Bill 120995. The first amendment that Councilmember Saka just moved is his amendment, and this amendment would require, for the next 10 years, the City Attorney's Office to include, as part of its annual report to the City Council, Information on civil cases filed against graffiti taggers, including the number of civil cases filed, the case outcomes, the penalties or restitutions ordered by a court, and the number of civil defendants who have been arrested for prior graffiti-related property damage or have been the subject of prior graffiti-related court orders.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Dawes.

Anything additional on this?

Okay.

Sponsor, Vice Chair Saka.

Thank you, Chair.

This amendment is fairly straightforward.

It puts into place appropriate Reporting requirements related to several key aspects of this graffiti enforcement bill.

Given that there is a new civil cause of action, I believe it is generally a best practice to track and monitor the implementation and potential effectiveness given in this piece of legislation.

I ask for a yes vote.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Any comments from my colleagues?

Council President?

I do.

Council President, go ahead.

Thank you very much, Council Member Saka, for bringing this forward because I always say that the more information the better.

And to my knowledge, this graffiti is probably tracked as a pattern, locations, frequency, etc.

But I will say, And I would say this on the record as many times as I have the opportunity, that graffiti is probably the single most common complaint I get from my constituents as a citywide council member.

And so I am in strong support of any legislation that will make it easier to To make people accountable for their actions.

And so I do support the tracking of the reporting on this.

And I have an additional question, and I don't think this needs to be worked into the amendment, but at some point I understand that sometimes graffiti is then filed as or charged as or Combined to form a felony complaint instead of a misdemeanor complaint.

And so how might that be changed in the future with this, either with this, well, with this legislation, but is it anticipated that there's a way to also report on that?

Thank you, Council President.

In this particular case, the amendment and legislation focused on the civil side and on penalties and restitutions.

Brought on the civil side by the Seattle Municipal Court.

So it's not within the scope per se of this bill to measure the criminal activity, prosecutions, successful prosecutions, outcomes.

However, that is something that the Seattle City Attorney does.

And there's some information in the staff report about criminal, both at the misdemeanor level and at the felony level.

Prosecutions over the last year, there was one, as you mentioned, successful prosecution that the PAO did with the assistance of the Seattle City Attorney where 17 individuals were prosecuted at the felony level.

So this is something that the City Attorney tracks and the information they're happy to share with you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

This highlights pillar six, working with the county and the state, in this case the county, because this can reach the felony level.

And in terms of this work, you'll have the opportunity to engage on this in terms of the county and how that plays into as well from the felony level.

Mr. Chair, if I may also follow up.

I should have mentioned that The damage that is caused by graffiti very easily reaches a $750 threshold, which is what is required for a felony criminal case.

It is the case that the Seattle City Attorney, under this legislation, could bring action at the felony level.

So that can be happening separate and apart from any criminal charges that might be brought by the prosecuting attorney.

Okay, well, it's my desire that the council be informed in the future of any cases that move beyond the municipal courts to the county courthouses and so that we are aware of the bigger picture always.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President, and thank you, Vice Chair Saka, for bringing this amendment.

It is important.

I think it's something that's already being collected.

Clearly, as we saw in the presentation, the information is there, particularly the prolific taggers, and so I think this is something to package it and then show to inform future councils, as I noted in And what we're looking at with 2025 with ordinances, you know, to inform future decisions if needed to improve or adjust in any way, having this data set is important.

So, yes, I support it.

Any additional comments?

All right, it's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment 1. Central staff has already been recognized on this, as is Councilmember Saka.

I'm not seeing any further questions.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 1?

Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Sacco.

Aye.

Chair Kettle.

Aye.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Okay.

Amendment number one is adopted.

It is moved.

So we'll move on to amendment number two.

I will defer to my vice chair once again.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Asaka.

Thank you, Chair.

I move to amend Council Bill 120995 as presented on amendment number two.

Second.

It is moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on amendment two.

Central staff is recognized to describe amendment number two.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This one is pretty straightforward.

This takes the penalty that could be That a graffiti tagger may have to be paid from $1,000 to $1,500.

A court may order $1,500 instead of up to $1,500 rather than $1,000.

And I should mention that the city attorney has said that they are in support of this change.

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you, Mr. Doss.

Vice Chair Saka, you are recognized to address Amendment 2.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Colleagues, it is well documented that graffiti remains a serious problem and huge financial burden for a city, small businesses, residents, indeed.

And given the scope and severity of this problem, this proposed amendment, I believe, appropriately raises the civil penalty from $1,000 to $1,500 per violation.

And as our central staff expert noted a moment ago, this is fairly straightforward.

So I am asking for your support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Mr. Doss noted your point regarding City Attorney's Office.

Any additional comments?

Okay.

Mr. Chair?

Yes, go ahead.

One other thing.

I just want to note that it is important for us to crack down on this problem graffiti activity and behavior.

We learned from the demographics analysis presented from the city attorney's office, and I believe the executive, that some of the most prolific violators, they're well healed, or at least they're not struggling.

And we need to make We need to make this hurt for them financially.

So that's why that's underlying the whole goal and purpose of this proposed amendment.

So in any event, still ask for your support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Sacca.

As noted in the previous in the presentation on this bill, yes, it's an interesting dynamic.

This used to be the younger white males, teenagers, 20s, but they've grown up to be 20, 30-somethings, even 40, and as noted, with careers alone and all the us, and so yes.

And I would like to note that at this new level, with Seattle's minimum wage, This equates to approximately 75 hours of community service, so two weeks of community service almost is something that may be warranted as well.

So I recognize community service is an option, and 75 hours, given how this is impacting our city, could be 75 hours well spent.

All right, thank you.

Oh, sorry, Council President.

I just have a question.

Can you please explain, Greg, what is the process for collecting fines or fees generated by civil infractions?

I know how it is with a parking ticket, for example, but then how do people, for other things such as graffiti, If an officer witnesses and then somehow it gets in the books that they're being fined for it, then is something sent to them?

And then if they don't pay in two weeks, then there's an additional...

Just how does it work?

Here's my reasoning.

I don't know how $1,000 was decided nor do I know whether or not $1,500 is within the realm of reasonableness.

I just want to make sure that we're not getting to a point that it makes it more onerous than it needs to be to recover a fine.

Thank you, Council President.

At a high level, which is where I can answer your question, this is going to be very similar to any other civil action.

The city attorney would bring it through the Seattle Municipal Court.

A defendant would be notified and would have the availability to hire defense counsel and show up and defend themselves against the city's accusation that the graffiti was caused by them.

Likewise, if the case goes to the city, if it's found that the graffiti tagger did cause the damage in the tag, then it would be by court order that the penalty would be levied against the graffiti tagger.

So at a high level, it'll follow the same civil processes as any other case might.

I think what you're asking about with the level of penalty and ability to pay, it is the case that if a tagger is able to show financial hardship to a court, then they may request through their defense counsel that they receive community service, as the chair has mentioned.

Otherwise, if they can pay the fine, then they would need to pay the fine via the court order.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Doss.

I do note in the bill it's up to 1500, in this case with the amendment 1500, which is obviously prosecutorial discretion.

And as you noted, as it goes through the process, the judicial discretion and the like, you know, it's very similar to other bills that we've done, you know, in terms of that discretion is in play every step of the way.

And so this would be an up to 1500. So with this considerations in place, thank you for Mr. Doss for highlighting those points.

Okay.

I'm not seeing, it's been moved and seconded.

Recognize all those questions.

I think we don't have any more.

Will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of amendment number two?

Council member Hollingsworth.

Council President Nelson.

I will abstain.

Council Member Sacca.

Aye.

Chair Kettle.

Aye.

There are two in favor and two abstentions.

Amendment number two is adopted.

Okay, we're going to be moving to amendment number three.

I recognize Council Member Hollingsworth as sponsor of amendment number three.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to move to amend Council Bill 120995 as presented in Amendment 3.

It is moved and seconded.

Well, it's been moved.

Second.

Moved, now seconded.

Thank you, Vice Chair, to amend the bill as presented on Amendment 3. Central Staff, Mr. Doss, you're recognized to describe Amendment 3.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

By way of background, this bill defines a graffiti tagger as any person or entity who applies illegal graffiti to public or private property or who assists or encourages another person or entity to do the same.

Amendment 3 that is before you would eliminate the word encourage.

That language, according to the city attorney, was originally added to provide recourse against those who are involved in the online promotion of graffiti art However, it is possible that the First Amendment, the wording could conflict with First Amendment free speech guaranteed rights and that this should not preclude the sharing of images and information online even if that material is found objectionable.

So this particular amendment would strike the word encouraging.

It would retain assistance.

So if someone was, for instance, assisting with the application of graffiti and also making a video of the graffiti, then that would apply.

But if they are just making a video of this graffiti or if they are encouraging online, there would be no recourse under this amendment for them.

Thank you, Mr. Doss.

Councilmember Hollingsworth, you're recognized to address Amendment 3.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning, colleagues.

My intent with this amendment is to make sure that we're protecting Seattleite's First Amendment rights.

I think individuals have the right to interact with art and media online.

Sometimes someone may interact with a cool piece of art that they do not know is a legal Graffiti that is on something, and I don't believe that they should face legal repercussions for that if that word implied it.

So this strikes that word, and thank you, Mr. Doss, for your help with this as well.

Okay.

Any questions or comments on amendment number three?

Colleagues?

Oh, and Mr. Chair, if I may, I'm sorry.

I apologize, I'm logging on to the Zoom online.

And I would ask for my colleagues' support nicely.

Thank you.

Thank you for that, Council Member Hollingsworth.

Absent of seeing any hands raised, I will say, you know, it's important to work through the different angles, perspectives related to this.

And I do know social media, for example, One would not think and I do not anticipate the city attorney's office or the city overall taking any action on that.

However, understanding your point, that could be seen as encouragement and to keep things a little bit cleaner, a little bit simpler.

I recognize what this accomplishes and the reason and the rationale behind it.

And so I do support this amendment.

So thank you, Council Member Hollingsworth.

And with that stating, double check.

Oh, Council President Nelson.

Do you happen to know why encourage was included in the legislation?

Yeah, the city attorney indicated that in the social media environment there are several folks who take videos of graffiti and that by posting those videos they are promoting the tagger who made the art or the tag.

And the idea was that if you could go after those folks and hold them responsible as well you would create You would hopefully create a disincentive for folks to be doing that, encouraging future graffiti tagging.

Thank you.

This just kind of highlights how complex our new online world in which we live in, that we're working and living within.

Okay, any other questions?

Okay, will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of Amendment No. 3?

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council President Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Saka?

Aye.

Chair Kettle?

Aye.

Chair, there are four in favor, none opposed.

Okay.

Amendment number three is adopted.

All right, we've gone through our three amendments as presented and supported by commentary and Mr. Doss.

Are there any final comments on the bill as amended?

Vice Chair Saka.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will be supporting this legislation today.

I want to thank You, Mr. Chair, want to thank the City Attorney's Office for putting this forward.

It is an important first step, but I also believe we have much more work to do.

And on the graffiti front.

And I also think that more comprehensive legislation is warranted to better address this.

This is an important tool and will have undoubtedly some impact.

And I think there's other things we can do that can have potentially even greater impact.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do the little things either.

For those reasons, I will be supporting this bill today as amended, and so I want to thank you and the City Attorney's Office again for putting this forward.

Thank you, Vice Chair Saka.

Next up, Council Member Hollingsworth.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you also for bringing this forward in the Attorney's Office and then our central staff.

I know, Mr. Doss, I gave you a shout-out.

I know Ben helped as well with some of the amendments, so thank you for your explanation and everything.

I just wanted to say for the record and note, because a lot of people think that, you know, The Seattle has a thing that, you know, people do not like graffiti or so forth.

We've invested a ton in art there.

On Capitol Hill, we have, and in Belltown and downtown, and there's a ton that goes through our art department for people to create murals and beautiful things.

I think the side that And one of the things that this addresses that has not been told is that there are a lot of schools that pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to do the abatement of taggers that I believe is different than some type of graffiti or artwork.

And so that's what this is intended I know that I am a big fan of art and graffiti in places that it's supposed to be at, where it's invited, but when it's on the front of businesses or the schools, I'm talking to people all the time, and they spend a lot of money cleaning it up and making sure that they're That their business or their school or their place of worship.

I talk to a ton of black churches that get graffitied all the time.

And they have a lot of people, just imagine, you know, an old congregation out there cleaning graffiti off their church constantly, them being targeted.

So I think there's a narrative here that we have yet to, that doesn't get highlighted enough because it's like Seattle, the war on graffiti and I don't think that's what this is about.

This is about holding people accountable for places that are being tagged and we'll continue to invest and support the art that's in our city all around because we do need to beautify a lot of the empty gray spaces that are around here and make sure that we do that in a way that creates a vibrant neighborhood to our community.

Just wanted to say that for the record, and thank you all for bringing this forward.

Thank you, Councilmember Hollingsworth.

I really appreciate your perspective and adding those points.

Clearly, graffiti's been a challenge for a long time.

That's the reason why it's Pillar 4, the Strategic Framework Plan, and this idea of just letting it go goes to the permissive environment point.

But I'm glad you brought up, by the way, because I was going to say, because I remember this time last year maybe, I can't remember the exact date when you were talking about, you know, the black churches in our city and the CD and getting tagged and some elderly gentleman having to go up there who should not be up that high, you know, trying to address the graffiti.

That's just not right.

Full stop.

Just not right.

And those people need to be accountable and that community, that church community should not have to deal with that.

So thank you for raising that, plus the point about art and the murals, because that is something entirely different.

So thank you for that.

Council President.

Like I said at the beginning of this discussion, this is an extremely important legislation because graffiti is the single most common complaint in my inbox when it comes to groups of issues that interrupt or undermine the livability of our city from the perspective of my constituency.

I also am in strong support for this from the perspective of small business.

And Council Member Hollingsworth touched on this, but the law requires small businesses or the property owner to remove graffiti.

And that is extremely burdensome and can be extremely expensive.

And so this is also very important.

I am very much hoping that this advances the deterrence of graffiti.

Not the prosecution.

And Councilmember Saka, I appreciate, I have to explain why I abstained on increasing the amount from 1,000 to 1,500.

And it's simply because that's a 50% increase and I had to believe that the original amount was set at 1,000 for good reasons that are beyond my knowledge and comprehension.

I will certainly say that this is It's an extremely expensive problem, and if it's on the, for example, I-5 signage, and when do you get people out there to clean that off, et cetera.

So I can very much appreciate that there are instances where 1,500 would be more than warranted.

It's just that I don't have expertise in understanding the patterns well.

I think it's sometimes difficult for Council to make decisions on issues like this when we don't have a lot of, I'll just speak for myself, knowledge about the patterns and the severity and the cases that have been dealt with by the City.

But the bottom line is that We do make a distinction between art and graffiti.

I did double the budget for Uplift Northwest's contract to perform graffiti abatement, and that's also producing jobs, so it is something that Council touches on in our budget process as well.

And so it takes all measures to address this issue and make sure that our constituents understand that it's local government doing its job.

So thank you very much for bringing this forward and I also thank City Attorney Davison.

Thank you, Council President, and thank you for highlighting supporting organizations like Uplift Northwest because they do a lot of important work, which is also a good point to say thank you to the work that's done by the executive, Mr. Jackson, and the team.

That does the city's work in terms of graffiti abatement.

That's really important.

And by the way, we should be advocating, since you mentioned freeways, the state and its role.

And unfortunately, the state's going to be drawing down a little bit Their ability to do abatement on state lands like I-5 and so forth.

And as noted last week in the briefing, or in the comments, graffiti all over a sign is a public safety threat in itself.

So thank you for highlighting those things.

Okay, for me, clearly graffiti has been Part of our efforts, part of my efforts personally since day one, and that's the reason why it's pillar four of our strategic framework plan.

What we do or do not do on graffiti, I know there's others that say, hey, don't do anything, just live and let live and so forth, but it goes to, it makes a statement, it makes a statement regarding the permissive environment, it makes a statement in terms of, What else is allowed?

And that's the reason why it became a pillar of the strategic framework plan.

And we do need to do more work and it's taken arguably too long to get to this point.

And to Vice Chair Saka's point, I mean, there's additional work that can be done and we will look to do that.

And I think it's important to continue the press I wouldn't characterize this bill as little, but we need to continue the press across all fronts related to public safety, and in this case, graffiti.

And I think it's really important.

And since it's been highlighted, thank you to the supporting organizations that support, like Uplift Northwest, but also thank you to those art organizations, because there are some beautiful murals All throughout the city.

And there's a certain respect within the tagger world where, particularly those artists that are respected, those murals don't get touched.

And I love the proliferation of the Henry murals throughout our city too, which I've been seeing recently on First Hill.

These are important.

But overall, it's about, again, bringing it together with the concept that can be built upon to then affect our greater efforts in public safety.

And mindful too, to the public commenter, there's different types of public safety or different types of graffiti.

And we need to work those issues as well.

And we can do it, find it, fix it.

But also thank you to the community's organizations that do that work.

And I just wanted to note too, we have the Community Police Commission in the audience today.

And this is another area where the communities can stand up and highlight this challenge that we're facing moving forward.

Okay, with that all said, will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation to pass Council Bill 120995 as amended.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Chair Kettle.

Aye.

Therefore, in favor and none opposed.

Okay, the motion carries and the committee recommendation that the bill pass as amended will be sent to the July 15th City Council meeting.

Thank you.

And thank you Mr. Doss for your participation in item number one on our agenda.

We now have Director Noble of Central Staff joining us for our second item on the agenda.

Which we will now move to our second item of business.

Will the clerk please read item two into the record?

Council Bill 121006, an ordinance relating to chronic nuisance properties allowing under certain circumstances an off-property nuisance activity to count towards determining that a property is a chronic nuisance amending sections 10.09.010 10.09.030 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

Okay, thank you, Clark.

Also, thank you, Director Noble, for joining us today.

Yes, please get that water.

We had a briefing on this bill last week, so to get the process started, I will move that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 121006. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, it is moved and seconded to recommend passage of the bill.

At this time, we will consider each amendment.

I will recognize the sponsor to move their amendment, and after a second, central staff, Director Noble, will provide an overview of the amendment before the sponsor addresses it.

Okay, with that, we'll go to Amendment 1B, Vice Chair Sacco.

Thank you, Chair.

I move to amend Council Bill 121006 as presented on Amendment 1B.

Thank you.

Thank you for the second, Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Thank you, Vice Chair Saka.

Now to Director Noble.

Thank you, Councilmembers.

This amendment, I think, is pretty straightforward and transparent.

It would add two findings to the Section 1 of the ordinance, and these are designed to provide some additional rationale for the underlying ordinance itself.

And in addition, there is a subsequent amendment that focuses around some nuisances that are generally associated with residential properties.

And these recitals call out the fact that nuisance property in residential zones is also an issue and potentially one of concern.

So that is particularly finding C, the second of the two.

So I'm happy to answer any questions, but that's basically what this does.

Thank you, Director Noble.

Vice Chair Saka is a sponsor of the amendment.

I recognize you to address it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So colleagues, this amendment provides much needed clarity and context for this important piece of legislation, building off the work from this council and this bear that we did last year in expanding the fire chief's ability to take action and specifically abate unsafe public nuisance properties that pose a fire hazard.

I view this as the next sort of iteration of that 2.0, if you will.

And so all it does is expand or clarify as much.

And for those reasons, I ask for your support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Saka.

Okay.

Is there any questions or comments on Amendment 1B?

Colleagues?

Okay.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

I just wanted to note, I recognize, oh, Council President?

Go ahead.

Okay, I was just going to say, As someone who came to the city council from community, where in that sense I was also working public safety, similar to what I'm doing now from a citywide perspective, and we oftentimes had, as noted, active Commercial and residential properties that were contributing to our public safety challenges that we were facing, usually through neglect and then being taken over, oftentimes with the interface with the drug trade.

And as noted, when we have that, oftentimes we have stolen goods, and then oftentimes then we have prostitution, sex trafficking.

And so these challenges are not those simply that are working through, as noted in the vacant building abatement bill, those that working through the SDCI process and then working into the fire department's process, the diligence to work those pieces.

And I would note too that residential properties also get a lot of 9-1-1, repeated 9-1-1 calls.

And, you know, there's the, you know, understanding what is driving that is key.

So I appreciate this piece and highlighting where these chronic nuisance properties may originate from, Vice Chair.

So I will be supporting this one.

Thank you.

Council President.

So this basically allows the city to Declare a residential property and nuisance property, is that correct?

And then take steps to abate?

These amendments, this amendment doesn't per se do that.

The underlying ordinance, actually the existing city code certainly would allow that.

It doesn't distinguish between commercial and residential property.

So if a residential property meets the requirements, and in a moment we can talk about the list of things that constitute a nuisance, that they could be Subject to an abatement, I'm going to say order, if you will, from the police chief that then ultimately can be backed up in court.

So yes, if it meets the criteria, there's no reason a residential property couldn't be purposely targeted in this way.

This just simply says in C, we need more tools to deal with this.

Yes.

But does not define the specific tools.

And this ordinance itself, even in its original form without any further amendment, does expand the list of things that constitute a nuisance.

So in that sense, it does represent an expansion of those tools.

So the finding makes sense even as the base bill is constituted.

Thank you.

It is a finding.

Vice Chair, do you want to add anything?

Yeah, no, I'll just say, yeah, it doesn't as...

And noted that it doesn't expand on that authority.

The original ordinance already doesn't distinguish between residential and commercial properties.

It just clarifies what's possible under a specific finding of fact and declaration of the city and this council.

From my recollection, the executive has reported that since 2009, of the 12 or 13, up to 17 chronic nuisance declarations by the chief, approximately one, maybe two of those were from residential properties.

You can reasonably expect roughly the same, probably, on a going forward basis.

Three, three, three of those 17, of those 17 were residential.

And so this, again, just clarifies what's, I'm looking at Deputy Mayor Burgess in the background, who has confirmed that there is in fact three of the 17 since this original bill was passed.

So again, just clarifies what's possible.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Yes.

And, you know, it's important to note that these properties do have, like Vice Chair noted, there's processes that go behind these, you know, in terms of the calls that come in, the documentation and the like.

And so as a finding, you're just highlighting, emphasizing essentially that.

You don't default to certain types of properties, but it's a broader list.

So that's how I took it.

So thank you, Vice Chair.

Any additional comments or questions?

Hearing and seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 1B?

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Chair Kettle.

Aye.

Therefore, in favor, none opposed.

Okay, amendment 1B is adopted.

Okay, I would like to recognize Vice Chair Saka for amendment number two.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move to amend Council Bill 121006 as presented on amendment number two.

Thank you.

Second.

Looking for the second, thank you.

It is moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on amendment two.

Central Staff, Mr. Doss, Director Noble.

I'm still in the previous item, sorry.

Director Noble, you're recognized to describe amendment number two.

I'm happy to, and I can understand why this amendment has a certain deja vu aspect to it as well.

So this amendment would increase the fines and penalties available, if you will, under existing SMC for violations of the nuisance property.

In particular, it would increase them by 50 percent, and there's a reason for that.

Since 2009, so this bill was first adopted in 2009, and the penalty levels were set then at $500 per day for the person in charge if they do not, if you will, cooperate, and then up to $25,000 for the owner if they fail to comply.

So if you do the math, which I've done, on inflation since 2009, There are varying indices, different measures of inflation, but 50 to 60 percent is a clear band here in terms of the inflation has had impact since 2009. So these increased by 50 percent essentially to reflect the impact of inflation since the bill's original adoption.

I would add as well, and I believe my colleague did too, that these are the maximum fines, so it is still up ultimately to a judge to make a determination of the appropriate level of civil penalty to impose.

And this obviously then would increase those maximums.

Thank you, Director Noble.

Vice Chair Socket.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Director Noble, for providing that context.

I generally would agree that this proposed amendment provides a certain amount of deja vu with respect to some of the penalty amendments that were previously adopted in the prior bill, but I would characterize these as being substantially different, both in the context And the impact.

While they, on the one hand, they both purport to increase the penalty, unlike the last bill where it was just a blanket raise, increase of the penalty, this increases the penalty because of inflation.

So if we're going about the efforts of pursuing pillar number, what is it, Mr. Chair?

Four, under the strategic framework to address the permissive environment, if I'm getting that right, and updating our bills, we might as well go ahead and update the penalty amounts to account for inflation.

Substantially different, in other words, in the whole rationale and goal here.

Just all it is, I wish there were more complicated than this, but just the mere updating to reflect inflation.

So for those reasons, I ask for your support.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Are there any questions or comments on Amendment 2?

OK, seeing none right now.

I will note, Vice Chair, it's interesting.

The vacant building abatement bill is kind of also from a different angle.

Thank you, Director Noble, for your point.

But also from a different angle in terms of that bill gave authorities to the fire chief that got the owner's attention.

And that was really important to the point that he's worked with the owners and was able to get to great effect.

And so we have abated so many buildings that were a public safety threat.

So the point being is sometimes you have to get the owner's attention.

And again, this is up to the 37500 number.

will get the owner's attention in a way better than others.

You know, because sometimes we do have absentee owners.

You know, they could be foreign.

And so we have our challenges here, getting attention to these properties that need attention, these chronic nuisance properties.

And so for that reason, I support this amendment.

Any additional questions or comments on amendment number two?

I just want to say that in case, I will be supporting this, and it is precisely because there is a rational reason, not that the other one was irrational, but it helps to understand the fact that what has happened to these fees, fines, punishments, et cetera, from the past to now.

So thank you very much for explaining the rationale for this.

All right, thank you, Council President.

Seeing no other hands or pieces, will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of amendment number two?

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Same.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Sacco.

Aye.

Chair Cattle.

Aye.

They're three in favor and one abstention.

Thank you.

Amendment two is adopted.

Okay, we're going to move on to Amendment 3. Vice Chair Saka.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move to amend Council Bill 121006 as presented on Amendment 3.

Second.

Thank you.

It is moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment 3. Central staff is recognized to describe Amendment 3.

Thank you, Chair.

Let me take a step back for a moment before I dive into the details here.

Just to reflect, the underlying The Council Bill before you does two things.

The most fundamental thing it does is to expand the definition of nuisance to include potential off-site activities.

It does, in addition, though, add, and there's a list, if you look in the bill itself, there's a list of what those activities are.

It also adds to that list.

In particular, it adds liquor offenses, the idea there not being that those are going to occur off-site, but rather that after hours or illegal serving is another reason That the city might want to declare a property, a nuisance property.

So again, the underlying bill does two things.

Moves to offsite, but then also does expand the definition of activities.

This ordinance would focus on that, excuse me, this amendment would focus on that ladder and add some So, this would add additional items to the list of potential nuisances.

In particular, crimes associated with possession or trafficking in stolen goods could be, again, one of the things that would be – if there are three nuisances within a set period of time or seven within a longer period of time, that's the qualifying criteria.

Again, possession or trafficking in stolen goods is one of those items.

It would also add violations of laws related to cruelty to animals.

It would add violations of City and King County's regulations related to garbage and waste disposal.

Also health regulations related to rodent control and violations of the City's noise ordinance.

So those are five additional things.

Maybe six if you count garbage and waste separately.

The idea again here is focusing on the kinds of nuisances associated with residential properties and that it would add these items as things that could become evidence of a nuisance property.

The city would need to document at least three nuisance activities in a set period of time, and these activities would then be eligible to be evidence of a nuisance property.

I'm not sure what more I can say.

Happy to answer questions.

I guess one thing I would say is this in part was born out of work done to see what other local cities are doing.

So in Shoreline and in Everett and in Tacoma, I can't say that all of these are listed in every city, but they are among the sorts of things that are identified.

Again, I think it's pretty clear the focus here is more around residential properties that fall into some level of disrepair and, in particular, are potentially associated with criminal activity as well.

Thank you, Director Noble.

Vice Chair Sacco.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Director Noble.

Colleagues, this amendment expands the definition of actions and activities that constitute a chronic nuisance, and I believe the current nuisance legislation can be approved by adding in violations to better address the broader ecosystem of problematic establishments in our communities and neighborhoods.

What I have put forward today are additions that are not new or novel in any material respects and have thoughtfully looked at best practices from our own state code, other aspects of our city code, Other peer cities across the state of Washington.

I want to thank Director Noble and the City Attorney's Office, who I worked with closely in putting together all my amendments.

But one thing I learned is in 2009, when the original ordinance was passed by City Council, it was considered pioneering, first of its kind, in the state of Washington at least, and then other cities Across the state, adopted their own nuisance ordinances that, lo and behold, looked an awful lot like Seattle's.

Although they added other features that You know, specific to some of the challenges that their own cities and towns are experiencing.

And so, although Director Noble did not compile the list, I still have a list and I'll just share.

Again, this is not new or novel in any material respect.

You know, other cities, I think the closest, City that these are modeled after that includes the nexus of many, but not all of the additions is the city of Tacoma.

But for clarity, again, other cities have expanded their code into these policy areas, including for the possession or trafficking in stolen goods, that includes cities of Shoreline and Tacoma.

Animal code violations include cities of Everett, Shoreline, Sunnyside, and Tacoma.

Violations related to garbage, waste, and sanitation include Tacoma and Bremerton.

Not limited to, by the way, this is just a sampling.

Rodent control issues includes cities of shoreline.

Noise violations include Spokane.

Again, non-exhaustive list of best practices from other cities.

We were pioneering at the time.

When we passed our public nuisance, chronic nuisance, Property legislation, other cities have passed it and given it some more time and more thought after our own, so we might as well update to reflect, you know, kind of regional best practices and pretty straightforward, fairly benign, just adopting what many other cities have done.

We lead a lot, not always, and And anyways, for those reasons, I ask for your support.

Thank you, Vice Chair Saka.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Council Member Saka, for bringing this forward and putting together this list.

I just had a couple questions, and I don't know if, Mr. Noble, you could answer.

Would a private property owner who might be victim of chronic garbage disposal on their property, would they be considered the nuisance under this?

Could they be considered the nuisance property, even though they're not the ones committing this illegal dumping act?

I suppose in the abstract, yes.

But again, knowing the due process that is provided, I would expect that that's not what would happen.

The illegal dumping is listed here because of accumulation of trash on one's own property is effectively illegal dumping.

That is the offense, if you will, or the violation, because it's not necessarily criminal.

But again, if you're being dumped upon, I think you can explain that.

It seems unlikely that the city would go all the way through here.

What would the appropriate abatement be in that scenario?

I don't want to give a false sense here.

This legislation does significantly empower the executive, ultimately requiring the city attorney to enforce.

There's a lot of discretion inherent in this bill, and that's been the case from the very beginning.

No, understood.

And then, because the one thing that comes to my mind also, too, is the potential of, like, I see the rodent control.

Oftentimes when development happens, the rodents find a new home.

And if you're situated in between two units that have been developed, your property then becomes impacted by that.

And so does that, like, deem that property?

There's a lot of discretion and a lot of gray area is what I mean.

TMI or not, but I've got an alley and I've got, I mean, there are rats in my neighborhood and there are rats in my apartment.

Like, yeah, I mean, this is a reality in a city.

I think it's a question of how these laws are used and implemented, and again, what we have on that front is the city's track record to date, but obviously it'll be different personalities going forward in relative power, so it's hard to know that the past will predict the future, but the city has been, I think by clear evidence, used these powers with discretion.

Understood.

I do appreciate, Councilmember Saka, the nod to preventing cruelty to animals.

That's big for me, too, as well, because I think our laws, and I want to look into that, I think our laws are a little too lax on that in our state, in our city, particularly for animal abuse.

So thank you for putting all that in there.

I will say, and I know I have abstained on two things.

On this one, I'm still having trouble on adding those just because it gives the power of discretion to the executive or to the city attorneys, excuse me, to the executive.

I thought through this.

Ultimately, the executive can take the first actions, but enforcement ultimately requires the city attorney.

Correct.

In terms of discretion, I think that's actually one of the balances inherent in the bill, that the executive alone cannot force an issue.

If there's resistance from whoever's the subject, they have an opportunity ultimately to be in court and to make a case.

Understood.

All right.

Awesome.

Thank you, Mr. Noble.

Thank you, Council Member Saka, for bringing this, too, as well.

Thank you, Council Member Hollingsworth and Council President.

Director Noble, you said a moment ago, quote, a lot of discretion inherent in this bill.

I don't want to put you on the spot and say, do you think it's too much discretion, but what were you trying to get at there?

Well, the way this works is that the police department, if it finds evidence of three nuisance...

The police department, which is an extension of the executive, finds evidence of three nuisance violations, they can proceed to abatement actions.

And now that includes off-site activities.

That evidence, depending on what the nature of it, could be relatively easy to assemble or not, I don't necessarily know.

But it is a decision on the part of the police department to identify what is a potential nuisance and to seek that documentation if they have it in place.

And there is not a requirement that somebody It is that there is a police report.

And again, investigated all that just in terms of doing due diligence, and that makes sense.

The time it takes to get to prosecution, never mind the conviction is such that that's probably not a reasonable standard in terms of trying to address a nuisance property.

But in terms of, it is only a set of complaints and a police report that could become the evidence here.

It's not something that has itself been adjudicated.

And so that's a fair amount of discretion.

And again, the city has demonstrated in the past 10 plus years, actually more like 15 years, that power has been used discreetly, if you will, let's say with discretion.

But that's the notion.

Okay, maybe, Chair, may I direct a question to the sponsor?

Yes, Council President.

How can we expect our officers to know what county code is?

That's the one thing that's getting me here that we're asking for, that some of these, that they will be held We're asking city employees to therefore make...

Go ahead, you're shaking your head.

So clearly I'm not understanding something.

I have a point of view on this.

So I guess first and foremost, I don't think we're...

The passage of this bill as amendment, including my proposed amendment number three, isn't going to shift a huge new compliance burden for our frontline ranking file officers to now all of a sudden understand all the criteria and elements and dimensions of this bill.

That's why there's command staff.

That's why there's lawyers that are embedded within this police department.

That is their expertise and area of responsibility.

I think that this bill would It would empower first the executive, vis-a-vis through the police chief, to make that initial determination.

That is a threshold condition.

That is a prerequisite in order for any action, if any, is taken on pursuant to this new bill.

Then the city attorney's office would have to do...

So there's some checks and balances inherent in this bill.

The intent, purpose, and goal of my proposed amendment, and I think the broader bill isn't to, again, impose some new compliance burden on frontline rank-and-file officers.

That's not how this would operate.

But I would defer to Director Noble for any comments or perspectives that he may offer.

There's some other language in the amendment that might speak to this issue specifically.

Under the very beginning of the section under definition, so nuisance activity, I'm just going to read here.

Nuisance activity means any of the following activities, behaviors, or conduct that result in a police incident report, and that what's being added now with this amendment is in addition to a police report or documentation of the offense that is written and filed by other city departments or public health Seattle-King County.

So the notion here is that if there have been violations of these, I'm going to call them more health code-like things, if you will, That they themselves would have been given some kind of a – there would be paperwork.

Someone would have been given a report that they had violated whatever this particular rule might be.

So within the city, that could be SDCI having engaged in some level of enforcement.

Otherwise, it could be King County Public Health.

And what the police department would be doing, very much in consultation with the city attorney's office, both in practice and actually per a potential amendment to the bill, is the police department works with the city attorney's office and says, OK, we have a property that we think is a nuisance, my language now, that we know is a nuisance.

This is the documentation that we have.

I could imagine that would be like, well, is there any other documentation?

And it's in that process that they would identify whether there had been, again, to quote it here, documentation of the offense that is written and filed by other city departments or public health.

So that's the notion.

Thank you, Council President, Director Noble.

I think it's important to highlight that point.

What do you mean?

When I read this bill, I had noted that stolen goods, I already mentioned once you have a drug market, you have a stolen goods market.

Stolen goods is a definite issue related to chronic nuisance properties oftentimes.

And then the issue was the other pieces related to the other organizations that are not, you know, SPD, like, you know, SDCI in this case, or SPU, Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection.

And then we have outside of city entities in terms of King County pieces.

So I had a lot of concerns related to this amendment, related to that piece of it.

In terms of the expansion of these pieces, because they involve different departments, not just SPD, but in SPU or SDCI in the city's case, or in the county, the Board of Health and basically that side of things as well.

So to the point of the amendment is The key fact is I'm looking for the linkages, like with the vacant buildings amendment bill that we did last year, we had SDCI's process and then a handoff to fire.

So I guess in a question to Vice Chair, so we have similar things here regarding the cruelty, the animals, the health pieces, the rodent control and those pieces.

The link, and this is something I overlooked when initially looking at the amendment, the link to bring it into this is that those pieces have to generate a police incident report or basically a 911 call.

Is that the linkage that you're doing?

No.

They- Like how does it get connected to SPD then in terms of- So that, and I'll let Director Noble comment on this as well is, The various departments within the city that are responsible for enforcing, take rodent control for example, this amendment would capture that, rodent control as a problem, and the opening language for expanding the activity would say any documentation, so ultimately any documentation associated with rodent control in this case.

So ultimately, the call would be made by the executive, primarily through the police chief, but in close consultation with other city departments, whether it's SCCI or other departments that enforce, you know, whatever provision of the expanded list.

Okay.

The reason why I ask that is because, like, in Section 2, it talks about the execution of a search warrant, and then in Section 1, under the definitions, A property on which three or more nuisance activities as defined in 10.09.010, which I have been kind of defaulting to a 911 call, and that may be the challenge that the point that I'm getting to.

Can you speak to that point?

I'm looking for the linkages.

I think just maybe a full step back and the sponsor can correct if I get this wrong.

I think this is still a...

I think the expectation here, even on the residential side, is that there is some criminal level of activity associated with this nuisance property.

The idea is not to target properties that are simply, if you will, civil nuisances falling into the ground and the like.

So in that context, if SPD has identified a problematic location, they're going to meet with the precinct liaison attorney and say, look, this thing is a problem.

And again, abatement here has to do with addressing the issues, right?

It's not necessarily forcing, but certainly not forcing the sale of the property is kind of the first thing.

It's more like if there's a problematic tenant, it's to evict a tenant, whatever that might be.

So I'm just to point that out.

So SPD then would consult, so the precinct captain has identified a problematic location, meet with the precinct liaison attorney, an employee of the city attorney's office, and says, We need to try to get this cleaned up.

We need them, whatever that abatement might be.

And they're gonna then try to, do we have the evidence for that, if you will?

And they then can look at the police reports that have been filed with respect, that have a connection to that location.

For this bill, not necessarily on the location.

But then with these additions, they could then also look to some of these other civil infractions or civil offenses or whatever the language would be and see whether or not these folks have had issues with garbage, this list of things, and that could become additional evidence of a nuisance.

And in particular, just to say it, they've got two They're looking for three within 90 days, or 60 days.

They've got two criminal ones that fit this list, and then they have an additional one that I'm going to describe as a civil, in the sense of it is one of these more health-related things.

That could be the three.

Or alternatively, they've got multiple criminals well beyond three, and some of these, because I've seen these letters, It's a laundry list, and there is a value potentially in terms of persuasion in there being a longer laundry list, if you will.

So what you're saying is, and I don't have this in front of me, section 10.09.010, my default of going to 911 calls and the like is not what's in there.

You're saying that there's additional pieces

In there as well?

It's a police incident report, and then it lists the crimes that are associated, and then this would now add some of these specific—well, it includes one criminal, possession and distribution of stolen property, and actually violations of cruelty to animals is also criminal, but then the others are more in my description of a civil infraction.

I'm not even sure that's the right word.

OK.

Well, thank you for that.

Because on one hand, I support the, because I recognize those violations, those pieces that are included in the amendment.

And my concern was the connections back.

And we haven't had a chance to discuss this, so we're kind of having this discussion in a three-way triangle discussion here.

And would it be helpful then to have, like, I guess number one has that in terms of as defined in section 10.09.01 as I'm reading number one here under the definitions line 22 and 3 of page 2. Would there be a benefit of having a number three to basically emphasize or clarify or to note this connection?

I'm not tracking exactly what connection you would want to add.

Sorry.

To make clear that it's not just 911 calls, that you could also have, as noted, offenses that are written and filed by other departments or public health, Seattle and King County.

That language is added to 10.09010, so the definition of what constitutes a nuisance activity So that's what you're reading here on the bottom of page one and page two of this amendment.

This is the list of things.

This is the definition of nuisance activity.

And so you can see that it calls out conducts that results in a police incident report or, again, if this amendment were approved, documentation of these other types of offenses.

So it's trying to make that connection, I think, that you're asking about right there.

Yes.

I mean, yes.

And it's the scoping of it.

And again, I have not had this discussion.

So I agree with the issues highlighted by Vice Chair.

I was just looking for the connection, the linking, the bridging.

And so what you're highlighting is that my focus on 911 calls is a little bit too restrictive and that the section has that.

And this basically adds that point to it.

Okay.

All right.

Council President.

What's in Chapter 13.04?

Sorry, which reference are you?

General provisions.

Bottom of page two.

The new section five.

Yeah, yeah.

I have to remind myself.

I actually have these tabs open in my computer.

Sorry, what was that number again?

13.04.

I think you just answered my question.

It's a subsection of the King County Board of Health.

General provisions.

Yeah, the connections to public sewer are a requirement under here.

It's more public health code, and it's particularly...

The city had a set of regulations related to garbage and sewer and the like historically, and they were in some sense superseded at some point by the public health code.

So this is a reference to the public health code, and the general provisions are 13.04.

This is all related This is on-site sewerage, so this is appropriate disposal of human waste, not to be But again, the idea here is if you have a house in disrepair, one of the things that might have failed is its side sewer connection, and that that would be a nuisance that under this bill could be evidence of a chronic nuisance property.

And presumably the abatement there would be to reconnect, excuse me.

And that's, again, probably not something that the police chief is actively pursuing, but rather if they have a house that is causing problems, A piece of evidence they could use as part of forcing abatement of issues in general.

Okay, I think I should just say I need to learn more about what some of these sections are, so I'll probably abstain from this.

I can imagine a situation where we're talking about, okay, if you get to three violations or three calls or whatever, but I can imagine a business, for example, a craft brewery that doesn't serve any food, but they're required to have grease traps in their drains.

And then they don't have one.

And then they get a bad inspection, et cetera.

Then that's on the books.

I'm just kind of coming up with things that might not rise to the level of public safety that we think of when we're thinking about why this bill in general is important.

I think you're raising a good point, and for what it's worth, and I'm not an advocate one side or the other.

If that's a scenario, you know, if your only violations are health code violations, it is extremely unlikely that SPD has any reason to make it their business to go after you.

But they could with these provisions, just to be clear.

But then what would the abatement be?

Because, again, the only thing that we can order, that we can ask for, is reasonable abatement.

And you'll see in a moment the language about The party that's been the target can make a case about reasonable abatement.

So in that case, it would be to reconnect the grease straps and the like.

And that's either appropriate or not.

So, again, I think it does significantly expand, you know, the types of evidence that can be used to designate chronic nuisance.

The question, again, would be, you know, is that likely to be used in an inappropriate way, and does it have value in circumstances where, at least from your perspective, it is appropriate.

Thanks.

Thank you, Council President.

I'm thinking that it may be wise if this amendment passes, because I did have concerns, but I understand now the pieces, the connections, but at the same time, to what Council President has just said, It may be worth an amendment, maybe before full council, to be clear that SPU has its responsibilities, SDCI has its responsibilities.

It's when it reaches a public safety concern and it jumps over, just like with SDCI and fire related to vacant buildings, that we have that.

And to be clear, to ensure businesses, like your point about the traps and so forth, that that may be covered.

Does that make sense?

Does that make sense, Vice Chair?

All right, thank you.

I appreciate the indulgence working through this one.

I will support it, but I'm going to be supporting an effort, maybe with Council President or maybe by myself, to ensure those pieces, as highlighted by her examples, are Noted and then there's those off-ramps and that it's those that become Because as you know, we do have these residential properties that do become a public safety chronic nuisance that they're addressed.

I'm a little bit aware of doing this sort of on the fly.

I'm not suggesting we craft an amendment here at all.

But one potential, one thought in this space is that there's a requirement of, I think it's three incidents in six months.

You could further define that requirement to include that at least two of those three be things that are, the way this works is that Anyway, highlight that they would have to be criminal complaints at their core, if you will.

Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Very complex.

The technical aspects of this, the evolution of this, it worked most closely with our central staff experts in our city attorney's office to craft this amendment and wanted to simply say what the problem activity is and cross-reference to the applicable code and then, you know, there's a legal justification that required the current structure, I'll just say.

But agree, Mr. Chair, that, you know, in the final bill, we should work to If this passes, make sure we cross the T's and dot the I's.

And I like that off-the-cuff spitball approach suggested, because that's certainly consistent with my intent.

There are a certain class of these that are clearly criminal in nature, and then two or three now under the proposed amendment that would be non-criminal, at least originating in nature.

And so making clear that at least X amount must be criminal in any event.

I still ask for your support.

Thank you.

All right.

Well, thank you, Vice Chair.

So we will work.

As Chair, I will work with my colleagues all on the committee and particularly with the sponsor of the amendment and Council President to ensure those points are made.

Okay.

With that said, it will be a two-step process.

So I will support Vice Chair, but it's as a two-step process.

Will the clerk please call a roll on adoption of amendment number three?

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Abstain.

Council President Nelson.

Abstain.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Chair Kettle.

Aye.

There are two in favor and two abstentions.

Thank you.

Amendment three is adopted.

Okay.

Vice Chair continues.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I clearly like writing, or at least working with our experts to write on my behalf to help bring to life the policy vision and goal I had for this bill that, again, I was going to write on my own.

So thank you to the executive for beating me to the punch.

So this amendment, first off, Let me move to amend Council Bill 1-21006 as presented on Amendment 4B.

Second.

I was going to come in, but I just wanted to offer the opportunity to my colleagues.

So it is moved and second to amend Bill as presented Amendment 4B Central Staff.

Director Noble, you're recognized to describe Amendment 4B.

Thank you, Chair.

A very simple amendment.

It simply clarifies that any unpaid costs associated with abatement that are incurred that the city incurred can be recovered by a lien on the property.

So it's actually authority that we have now, but this is really designed to clarify this point, that ultimately recourse for any cost that the city has, because again, we can order abatement.

If it's not done, then the city can step in to do it and then try to recover its cost.

This would be a way to do that.

As noted in the text here, it does require a change of the title because it adds a new subsection reference, but otherwise it's quite straightforward.

Again, it is only clarifying authority that the city already has.

Okay.

Vice Chair as sponsor.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yeah, as noted, this amendment makes it explicitly clear that where individuals have not followed through with an abatement order, the city may impose a property lien to recover costs among other possible remedies.

Unlike some of the other, especially the last amendment, it does not represent an expansion of authority in any way.

Anyway, instead, that authority is already implicit, already implied in the underlying ordinance.

And so this just makes that authority explicit and makes it crystal clear what is already possible anyway.

So fairly, very, very, very straightforward.

I ask for your support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Colleagues?

Any comments or questions on Amendment 4B for either Director Noble or Vice Chair Saka?

Okay, hearing and seeing none.

Thank you, Vice Chair Saka.

This also parallels the vacant building abatement bill, this amendment, and as you noted, already there, so I will support.

Thank you.

Will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of 4B, Amendment 4B.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Chair Kettle.

Aye.

There are four in favor and none opposed.

Okay, Amendment 4B is adopted.

Thank you.

And I'd just like to note that the vice chair Saka portion of today's item number two is over except for his votes.

So now we will move to council member Hollingsworth and I recognize you to amend or to present amendment number five.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move to amend council bill 121006 as presented in amendment number five.

Second.

Okay, it is moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment 5. Central Staff Director Noble, you're recognized to describe Amendment 5.

Thank you, Chair.

This amendment focuses on the question of due process.

As you all have been discussing, and I've participated in some of you, the process that is provided in the due process is an important aspect, I think, of the balancing the power and the authority that is inherent in the underlying legislation.

So what this amendment would do, would be to clarify, and it's really more specific than direct, that before...

Sorry, let me take a step back and play again how this process works.

SPD identifies potential property, documents issues of a nuisance, and then essentially sends a letter saying, these are the things that you need to abate, and you need to do it in this timeline.

And if they do not do that, then the city, the city attorney, can go to court to try to force action on that abatement.

And so it's the city attorney's decision ultimately to decide whether or not to pursue that enforcement action if, again, if abatement has not occurred.

So what this does is it adds language to the section that talks about the decision by the city attorney to commence action and adds the following phrase.

The city attorney shall consider any documentation provided by the person in charge or the property owner that contests the designation as a chronic nuisance or challenges the reasonableness of any specific abatement requested by the police chief, before initiating an action in court to abate a chronic nuisance property.

So again, the notion here is that, and again, I candidly was assured by the city attorney that they would do this anyway, but this makes that requirement explicit on the city attorney, that they have to at least look at whatever evidence has been provided by the party that's being, that Babin is being pursued against, if you will.

And again, I don't know what that might look like, but the idea is that if you are so – I'm going to say target.

I'm not sure that's exactly the right word, but if you're caught up in this process, knowing that what you put on the table, if you will, will at least be considered, that's the intent here.

Thank you, Director Noble.

Council Member Hollingsworth, you're recognized to address Amendment No. 5.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So my intent for this amendment is just to make sure that we're upholding due process, basically what Mr. Noble had just said with this piece of legislation.

I had conversations with the Community Police Commission, and I'm just making it clear that The recipient of the chronic nuisance designation has the right to contest their designation before actions of enforcement are pursued in court.

I think that's just pretty straightforward that someone should be able to contest If we are shifting certain types of powers to the executive and to our police department and also city attorney, that someone should be able to contest a chronic nuisance designation that they have received.

So it's just due process.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Hollingsworth.

Yes, I agree, having these checks and balances are important and it can go to whatever eventual abatement process may be.

And also, since you mentioned it, Community Police Commission in your support, I do welcome their thoughts on different pieces of legislation, either directly to me or to the other council members on the committee.

Any comments or questions on amendment number five?

Council President Nelson.

I think this gets to one of the things I've been most thinking about in the course of this conversation, which is how do we as policymakers know that the people enforcing or implementing these rules that we're passing How do we know that they have all the information they need to be able to then either slap down a nuisance violation notification or not?

And so I do think that always hearing from the other side is important, especially when we're expanding the city's powers, because I can just think about A property owner or a business owner saying, but I had a really good reason and here it is or something like that.

Or what if I keep thinking of the example and this is all I can think of is, let's say there's noise complained outside of a business but that it just so coincides that that noise occurs at a certain time because of something that's completely not in control of that business owner.

I just think that it is always a good practice to give a chance for the other side to say their piece and I would hope that maybe there could be some voluntary reporting if it's not actually written into the legislation for how this plays out over the course of this coming year.

But anyway, thank you very much for bringing this forward.

Anybody else?

Yes, thank you Council Member Hollingsworth for bringing this up and to the points raised by Council President.

We do, you know, this is serious just like in other legislation that we've done and the due process is important and having that process, that opportunity in this case to Address the various aspects and get it into the public record and as part of the public decision-making process is very important.

Because, you know, we do have to have this balance and it's really important.

You know, obviously the chronic nuisance properties constitute a public safety challenge and threat.

But at the same time, we do need to step through the various due process pieces and this adds to that.

I think it's straight up makes sense.

All right.

With that, I'm not seeing any additional questions or comments.

Will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of Amendment No. 5?

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Chair Kettle.

Aye.

Therefore, in favor and none opposed.

Thank you, the amendment is adopted.

Thank you, Council Member Hollingsworth.

Okay, we're gonna go to the next amendment, amendment number six, which is the last one, possibly within six minutes, number six.

So amendment number five, so now we're at number six, and I'm gonna...

Refer to myself, since this is my amendment, I move to amend Council Bill 121006 as presented on amendment number six.

Second.

Second.

Thank you for the quick second.

It is moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on amendment number six.

Central Staff, Director Noble, you're recognized to describe number six.

Thank you, Chair.

Turning to a framing I presented before, the underlying bill does fundamentally two things, adds off-site activities and expands the definition.

This amendment speaks to the former, to the off-site issue, and in particular is trying to tighten the relationship that's required between the off-site activity and the nuisance property.

And it does it in a way that is candidly nuanced and hard to define.

For an offsite activity to be, if you will, a relevant nuisance, essentially three things are required.

It's got to be adjacent or in proximity to the property, so it's got to be nearby.

It has to involve a person associated with the property.

Which could be a guest.

And, and this is the important part, and circumstances, excuse me, facts and circumstances establish a nexus between the property and the nuisance activity.

So you got, it's gotta be that there's a, and so nexus is a term of art in law defined to mean a connection implying a causal connection.

But it's interpreted in the context that it's used.

So the effort here is to make it clear that that nexus needs to be somewhat tighter than that.

And the language that's suggested here is a clear nexus.

And again, in terms of a court will understand that That is not just a nexus.

It's a clear nexus, so it wants to be somewhat stronger than if it were a nexus.

But I cannot tell you, and I don't even have an example to offer you of what that distinction would be.

But adding this word does create an expectation of a closer connection, because you could have just used nexus, and you won't have.

You would have used clear nexus, which implies that you're looking for something more directly associated with that property.

So I realize that's a somewhat unsatisfying explanation, but that, as I understand it, is really what the implications are of the words.

Thank you, Director Noble.

And as sponsor of this amendment, I will add yes.

I wanted to say, too, that this chronic nuisance property has been front of mind for me Basically a decade, because it's been a decade since I've been working different public safety challenges, commercial or residential, as noted by Vice Chair.

And as pillar two of the plan, updating ordinances is really key.

And this chronic nuisance property needs to be updated because it needs to be used judiciously, but in order to Improved our public safety posture and one of the big pieces of this change of this ordinance prior to these amendments is the connection between chronic nuisance properties and as noted those nearby and we've been seeing this again and again this this this was tied to our after hours of Establishment bill that we passed earlier and so this comes up again At the same time You know, as we push these bills as part of the strategic framework plan, we're also engaging with community.

We obviously have been engaging with the Community Police Commission, but community, and that includes business owners.

And, you know, there is concern, kind of like how concerns come up, like is noted related to SPU and And some of those aspects in terms of waste and the like, and to ensure that there's the criminal, there's the public safety threat angle to these pieces.

And that's what's happening oftentimes, many times, not often, many times as we've seen like with the after-hours establishments.

It's about creating that clear connection because it can't be just random.

And I know there's people in community, business owners that have this sense that it might be just random, like really quick.

No, it's not.

It's about having a clear nexus to the public safety threat, the challenge that we're facing.

So this amendment in combination with Councilmember Hollingsworth's amendment, the two are kind of paired, I think.

And to ameliorate the concerns related to the adjacent or neighboring or connected in some way property to the base chronic nuisance property.

And so the goal here was to be clear about that and to provide protections and add to the point In terms of the due process, we've already talked about to ensure a better bill and a clearer understanding of what we mean when we talk about a nexus.

With that, any other comments or questions?

Okay, I'm not hearing or seeing any and we're down to basically a minute.

Will the clerk please call the roll on adoption amendment number six?

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council President Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Saka?

Aye.

Chair Kettle?

Aye.

Therefore, in favor and none opposed.

Okay, amendment six is adopted.

Okay, now we're down to our last minute here.

Are there any final comments on the bill as amended?

Colleagues?

I would like to simply say that The action that we're taking today, if my assumption is correct, it's always been a part of your public safety plan or it's been one of the pillars, but it's also been in response to some fairly horrific, serious crimes in this past year.

And so we are trying to identify how can we change an environment so that we can change behavior is sort of the big picture that we're doing.

And I just want to say that, as I alluded to before, we're not experts in how this will play out.

And sometimes when small businesses hear about another law or something, they think, yeah, but they don't understand how it plays out in real life.

I think that we're doing this, the balance of the benefits to the community far outweigh the potential costs, and I do think that with tracking of some of these, and I might support an amendment or ask for one full council, but so that we get a sense of the pattern of The use of this expanded legislation, or this legislation, I think will make us better able to advocate on behalf of the safety of our residents and balance the needs of our bigger community, businesses and non-profits that will be inhabiting these actual buildings and locations.

Yes.

Thank you, Council President.

Any additional comments?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Just to close, and Council President is correct, this, as noted by the Executive and the City Attorney's Office, you know, this has been a challenge.

It's not been used that often, but it's also is needed to address those pieces that are threatening our public safety posture.

And as noted earlier regarding the graffiti bill, you know, that we did, which was a As Vice Chair said, a little one.

But the issue here is it's not little or big.

It's how these different bills, how these different changes or these pieces come together to create a comprehensive approach to our public safety.

And we're doing this from the legislative side, but then we'll work with the executive, like putting in place all the bills that we passed last year to put those things into place and then to carry out with the city attorney A comprehensive One Seattle way to improve our public safety posture.

And these combinations are really important.

And it's with this that we will do that.

And I think that is the underlying point here, is that these bills are not done randomly.

They're not done out of the blue.

It's not the good idea pop in your head.

It is years, months, years in the making, and it's about coordination, collaboration with the various elements responsible, and that's what we've been doing as the committee, and we will continue to do so, and that is how it plays into, from the legislative side, our strategic framework plan.

Now, since I made that reference, I do see the Vice Chair jumped in.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That clearly got you.

That little comment clearly got you.

And look, I was wrong for saying that.

I didn't mean to take a shot at you or anyone for the bill.

We're indirectly taking shots at each other, rational and irrational and all this and that, but I don't hold any grudges.

All good.

I do believe that You know, with respect to the graffiti bill, for example, that there are things that could potentially be more impactful in terms of legislation.

That said, I think this will have some impact.

That bill in particular will have some impact as well.

And rather than, you know, compare I think we can all agree that we need more tools and that's what the graffiti bill does and that's what this bill does and I support every time adding more tools to the toolkit over politics and so proud to be able to support this bill.

Today, now that we're talking about the nuisance property bill, I want to thank the executive for putting it forward, putting forward the original words on paper for me and my office to react to now that we are co-sponsors of this legislation.

It made our job and our central staff's job a bit easier, even though four amendments, many of which are very highly complex and technical, query whether that's any easier in practice.

But in any event, bottom line, this is about adding tools.

This is about adding arrows to the quiver.

And for those reasons, I support it.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you, Vice Chair.

I really appreciate it.

And again, you do highlight the coordination and collaboration.

This is something that I've been quarterbacking and promoting for a long time, and I will continue to listen to the input that we receive from institutions, organizations related to the city or outside, and we'll continue to do that pressing forward.

Council President.

While we're expressing gratitude, I do want to thank you, Chair Kettle, for bringing this forward and for requesting that this legislation be presented to us and put forward because you clearly have a vision and I just didn't want that to go unrecognized.

All right.

Well, thank you.

Appreciate it.

All right.

With that, will the clerk please call the roll on committee recommendation to pass Council Bill 121006 as amended.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Sacco.

Aye.

Chair Kettle.

Aye.

Therefore, in favor and none opposed.

Motion carries and the committee recommendation that the bill pass as amended will be sent to the July 15 city council meeting.

All right, thank you very much everybody for participating in this.

We have reached the end of today's meeting agenda.

Is there any further business to come before the committee before we adjourn?

Hearing, seeing none, there's no further business to come before the committee.

We are adjourned.

Thank you.