Seattle City Council 21020

Well, good afternoon, everyone.

Thank you so much for waiting.

Today is February 10th, 2020. The meeting of the Seattle City Council will come to order.

It is 2.05 p.m.

I am Teresa Mosqueda, acting president pro tem of the council today.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Sawant here Strauss present her pulled here Lewis here Morales here Peterson here President Pro Tem Moschetta here seven present

Thank you very much.

Presentations, I am aware of one surprise presentation today.

Thank you to Councilmember Strauss for the surprise presentation this morning.

Very excited to have you take the floor to talk about the presentation in front of us.

Yes, thank you, Council President Pro Tem.

We have in our office a staff member, Allison McLean, who has worked for Council Member Bagshaw as well, and she will be going on family leave this week, and so we passed a proclamation this morning honoring her work and the amount of time, effort, and change that she's put into the community that she grew up in and the benefits that she's provided our city.

And so I just want to say publicly a big thank you to everything that you've done, Allison.

Thank you for all your work, and we're very excited for the new child in the life.

Wonderful.

And if I'm not incorrect, it's Alison McLean Day is what we're declaring.

That is indeed what we have proclaimed it to be.

Very exciting.

Well, congratulations to Alison and her growing family.

I know she also was part of the effort to call on Swedish to have a final contract bargain because her kiddo is there being cared for and now she gets to go home and take care of her kiddo.

Very excited for her and her growing family.

And thank you to your office and all the council members who signed the proclamation this morning.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The minutes for today, there are no minutes for approval today.

Moving on to adoption of the referral calendar, I am aware of two possible amendments to the referral calendar.

First, I'd like to move that we adopt the introduction and referral calendar to consider possible amendments in a second.

I need a second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded.

Seeing that there are two possible amendments, I'd like to first go to Council Member Herbold.

I understand you have an amendment for our consideration.

Thank you, yes.

And I actually have a second one as well.

I'm sorry I didn't queue up.

We did talk to you a little bit about it, but did not officially queue it up, so however you want to fit it in.

Go ahead and do those two.

All right, thank you.

I move to amend the proposed introduction and referral calendar by introducing appointment 1547 entitled reappointment of Colleen Echo Hawk as member.

Second.

Community Police Commission for a term to December 31st, 2022 and referring it to the Public Safety and Human Services Committee.

Second.

I'll add a comment to this just for the colleague's reference.

This is again just an amendment to the introduction and referral calendar and it's been moved and seconded.

Any additional comments?

Seeing none, all those in favor of amending the introduction and referral calendar to include appointment 1547, please raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

None?

Any abstentions?

Oh, we don't do abstentions.

The amendment has been included and the appointment 1547 will be included in the introduction and referral calendar so that it can be referred to the appropriate committee.

Councilmember Herbold, you're second.

Thank you.

I'm filibustering here trying to get the bill title.

There is a bill on the introduction and referral calendar that I would like to make a motion to add myself as a sponsor in addition to Councilmember Strass and I am Getting there, I would like to move to amend the proposed introduction and referral calendar as it relates to Council Bill 119483, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning.

Nope, that's not the right one.

Okay.

There it is.

Council Bill 119469, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning amending section 25.05675 of the Seattle Municipal Code to establish environmental policies to mitigate the impact of new residential development on displacement of lower-income households in areas with high risk of displacement.

Currently, Council Member Strass is listed as the only sponsor of this legislation.

This is a carryover legislation that I'd worked on last year, and I'd just like to add my name as a sponsor.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

And just for clarification again, colleagues, this is a motion to amend the introduction and referral calendar for Council Bill 119469 to include Council Member Herbold as an additional sponsor of the bill that will be introduced on the introduction and referral calendar.

Additional comments, colleagues?

It's been moved and seconded.

Seeing none.

All of those in favor of amending the introduction and referral calendar to include Council Member Herbold on Council Bill 119469, please say aye.

Seeing the appropriate number of votes, it has been amended and Council Bill 119469 will include Council Member Herbold's name on the Introduction and Referral Calendar.

I believe there's one more suggested amendment to the Introduction and Referral Council and that would be from Council Member Sawant.

Thank you, President Mosqueda.

I move to amend the proposed Introduction and Referral Calendar by introducing a resolution entitled a resolution supporting the taxation of big businesses in Seattle to fund housing and essential services, urging the Washington State Legislature to oppose any preemption or other ban on Seattle's ability to raise revenue through big business taxes or other progressive revenue sources, and requesting the Office of Intergovernmental Relations communicate this resolution to Washington State lawmakers and by referring it to the City Council for adoption.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

I am going to second your motion today.

I will note that I am not going to be supportive of amending the Introduction and Referral Council agenda to include this item, because I think it was included on Friday after the Introduction and Referral Council calendar requirements.

But I will second it so that you can speak to it, and then we'll see if there's a vote.

If not, then it will retain its place on the Introduction and Referral Council calendar for a possible vote in the following week.

Thank you, and I want to speak to the resolution itself and also why I feel like there is a dire urgency to vote on it today.

This resolution states that the City Council supports progressive business taxes rather than taxes on working people.

It states that the City Council opposes preemption and urges Mayor Durkin to publicly oppose preemption, which she has so far refused to do so.

The resolution is specifically referring to what many of you may know now, which is State House Bill 2907. House Bill 2907, if passed, would allow King County to, in turn, pass a maximum tax on big business of $121 million a year.

I just want to make three things clear to all of us.

The House bill does not itself create any new revenues.

If the House bill passes out of the state legislature successfully, it would depend on King County Council to pass a tax, which they may or may not do.

I mean, there's no, we don't have a crystal ball if they will do it or not.

And if King County chose to pass the largest possible tax, which would be allowable under this new authority that would be created, it would generate about 10% of the county's needs.

10%, which means the vast majority of our needs would still remain unfunded.

We are, of course, as a movement, in favor of any big business taxes, even if it is not adequate, even if in best case it would be 10%, because we want every affordable home and we want every possible solution to address the deep crisis in our society.

But it's important to acknowledge that the only reason this bill even exists is because of the pressure of our movement.

The TaxAmazon movement has already built serious momentum this year, and this is a momentum that big business cannot afford to ignore.

And this is coming on the heels of the incredible victories that we had last year, despite big business attempting to straight up do a corporate takeover of City Hall.

This House bill is zooming along, passing out of committee last Friday with some politicians saying that they have brought big business to the table.

But we have to be serious and ask the question.

Big corporations and the wealthy, including Jeff Bezos, fought tooth and nail in 2018 against having to pay even a small amount in taxes.

Then emboldened, they went on to attempt to buy City Hall.

Why would the same rich people now come to the table and accept potentially having to pay $121 million for King County's needs?

because the real prize that they want is something called the preemption clause, which is not in the bill right now.

But as we have seen in the state legislature, it could come into the next iteration or the next iteration or the next iteration of the bill.

And so we have to make sure we understand preemption is a very I'll finish there, wonky sounding term, but it is a very, if it passes, it would be a very serious and historic attack on working people in our city, because it would be a statewide ban on raising any new big business taxes.

That would mean, in other words, that if the preemption clause passes in this bill, Seattle could not, Seattle City Council and, you know, the voters could not raise taxes on big business this year or any other year.

Preemption would be an anti-democratic ban on taxing big business right at the moment that our tax Amazon movement is finally coming to a point where we have broad enough unity that we could potentially have a successful ballot initiative.

And it is all in the context of Seattle and Washington State having the most regressive tax system in the entire nation.

That's why I really appreciate State Senator Joe Wynn for publicly opposing such a ban.

And I thank City Council Member Temi Morales and County Council Member Girmay Zahilay and SeaTac City Council Member Takele Gobena in joining me in authoring an op-ed that was just published in The Stranger.

I think we have copies.

I want to make sure everybody reads it.

I also thank the Seattle City Council members for the joint letter that we have just signed and Council President Mosqueda for initiating the letter.

But as you yourself said, President Mosqueda, we need every tool in our toolbox, and we are facing a potentially egregious and historic attack.

And given the stiff deadline of the House votes, I do not want the resolution that I've brought forward to be postponed.

And it is complementary, the resolution is complementary to the letter we have already signed.

So I would really urge the Council to pass this resolution today.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Council Member Swan.

So I would...

I would encourage folks to remember that the conversation around this bill is happening in Olympia and the message that I think we've delivered as a unanimous body today via the letter that was signed is to support the message that preemption takes away a tool in the toolkit in Seattle here.

I very much appreciate the words that you just mentioned.

I know that we've had conversations at the council table and in morning briefings over the last few weeks about the united message here.

My concern with amending the agenda today is really a matter of process.

We've heard from folks that they need additional time to look at the resolution.

And in the meantime, we've all signed on to a letter that includes all of the council members that were present in this body today, folks who are saying that we are sending a united message.

a conversation about a message for progressive revenue and in opposition to preemption.

This is an opportunity for us today via this letter and in combination with the folks who are here sharing their message in Olympia and with the folks who've supported this effort in the past to raise progressive revenue to ensure that our region gets significant dollars in hand.

And we have said so in a letter that makes sure that we're uniting around the call for millions of dollars in revenue to be brought in to address the problem.

We have a council that unanimously sent a letter asking folks to keep moving the bill forward as introduced, to align against preemption, and to further strengthen the bill as it was introduced.

I absolutely agree that the message that was sent over the last few years has been that there are people who want there to be progressive revenue.

We are tired of using sales tax and property tax.

We need more progressive revenue tools in our toolkit.

And the letter also asks our colleagues in Olympia to, instead of considering tools that take away taxing authority, to give us more progressive taxing options at the local level so we can adequately respond to the crisis in our community.

The good news is that the bill advanced from committee on Friday and it does not have preemption in it.

It creates a progressive revenue that could be a tool that, coupled with additional revenue streams, additional progressive revenue streams, can get us closer to matching the authority.

I want to be clear that this is not the bill that I think the corporations, the large corporations, wanted introduced.

It is a bill that actually helps us with the progressive revenue call, though we all want it to be more.

And I applaud Representative Macri, who's been the prime sponsor of the bill, for her work to make sure that the bill was introduced in a strong way and to continue to solicit ideas and encouragement from the community to make sure that it stays strong.

I also know that there's some business folks who signed in in support of the bill as is, and I think that that's helpful to see that type of leadership.

I want to reiterate that the Council's letter does send a strong message and bullet it out in four points.

The desire to have more revenue that closely aligns with substantial needs of the region as outlined in the Regional Affordable Housing Task Force and the most recent McKenzie report.

calls out clearly our deep concerns around preemption and that we oppose preemption, specifically calls for allocating spending thresholds to make sure that funding is being front-loaded into housing and not into mats on the floor, that we need enhanced shelters, we need housing, and we need mental health services.

and finally clarifies the revenue be allocated based on that need both to the Regional Homelessness Authority and to the county and the city so that we have greater clarity in the legislation for where those dollars go.

So we all stood up here standing behind the call for a regional solution.

We've all been up here standing united as a call for more revenue.

And we've all been united in the call for progressive revenue and against preemption.

That message is clearly sent in the letter and I don't want to make it one versus the other because it's not as you said clearly just a moment ago.

This is about wanting us to be on the record.

There's clear guidance I think in the letter that we have today and that's not to take away from the conversation around the resolution.

If this does not move forward on the introduction and referral calendar today, Councilmember, it's a procedural action only.

And I want to reiterate that for our colleagues and the viewing public as well, that this is a procedural action and it will continue to have the ability to have a conversation in the future.

I know you know that and we've had a chance to have a conversation around it, but in terms of process, I think that We will need to move on and have this has have a vote for an introduction referral calendar.

But one thing I would like to say, did you have one more thing?

Okay, and then I'll wrap it up and go ahead.

Go ahead.

Well, I just I just wanted to say that I am all for unity, but when it advances progressive causes, And I just want to, I feel it's my duty to clarify that while I appreciate all progressive leaders, including Representative Macri, when they do, when they carry out progressive actions, I am extremely concerned that as the prime sponsor of the bill, she has not only not spoken out against preemption, she has specifically told, I'm quoting from a Crosscut article, that she's leaving the door open for preemption and that she's concerned, her main concern is that a business should not be double-taxed.

I'm sorry, our state is dead last, dead last in taxing big business.

Double taxation of big business should not be our concern and I speak as an elected official, myself, no elected official has some sort of guaranteed right to be called progressive if you're not doing progressive actions.

This is not about one bill, as I've said to you also, Council President Mosqueda, and we've agreed, this will be a historic attack.

This is not taking one tool away from our toolbox, this is taking away our only tool to carry out big business.

So, it would be a historic attack, and I am worried that if we don't speak out from the rooftops that this could be a done deal, and I want to be In my conscience, I want to be clear that I have done everything in my power as an elected representative to speak out against it.

That is why I'm urging that we vote on this today and also what we have heard from progressive union representatives who have had meetings with aides of representatives like Macri.

They are worried that there could be things afoot in the Appropriations Committee, House Appropriations Committee, which has a deadline of 5 p.m.

tomorrow.

So given all of those deadlines, given what a threat this would be, for the future of our city and the most vulnerable people, especially the black community, which has been pushed out of the central district.

I feel it is important we do this today.

Okay.

Um, Council Member Herbold.

And then I'm gonna wrap this up.

The last time we had a conversation in this body, I asked people to not chant.

I asked people to raise their hands like this if they agree or to signal otherwise if they disagree.

We are going to get through today's council committee and we have to have a follow-up conversation specifically about homelessness and housing.

If there is another outburst, unfortunately I'm going to have to ask the body to be cleared and I don't want to do that because this is a democratic process.

So please do what we did in the committee last week if you were here.

We had folks do this and it worked well.

People showed their support.

I'm asking for people to recognize the unity that we're sending as a message.

Councilmember Herbold and then I need to wrap us up.

This is a procedural conversation and we are going to move on to a vote on the amendment of the introduction and referral calendar.

Thank you.

Just because the Council President Pro Tem did a really good job of doing the overview of the letter, I want to actually read from a portion of the letter because I don't want there to be any misunderstanding of the strong stance that this Council has taken around the issue of preemption.

We support regional solutions using progressive revenue sources to solve our crises, and we desire a comprehensive solution that does not rely on staggered steps to solve these enormous problems.

But we cannot currently support attempts that preempt us or strip us of our limited resources and make our city's tax code even more regressive.

The city's taxation power is already extremely limited, and as it relates to this taxation tool, in many ways underutilized.

To allow preemption in that context sets up municipalities like Seattle to be on a slippery slope to further limiting our already narrow taxation powers.

In the long term, this would be a mistake.

Instead, We support legislative efforts to the state legislature to provide additional progressive taxation options to municipalities.

This is a strong statement against preemption.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

So we are going to go ahead and vote.

Council colleagues, all of those in favor of amending the Introduction and Referral Council to include the resolution as outlined by Councilmember Swamp, please say aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Any opposed?

Nay, nay.

Any abstentions?

There's no abstentions.

There is not the votes to include this in the introduction and referral council.

So the motion fails today.

I do want to reiterate that does not mean it's the end of the conversation.

This is a procedural action just for changing the agenda.

So we're aware of that and I think that the conversation continues.

Thank you Council Member Herbold for citing from the letter and we are going to move on.

Here we go.

Item number one on the agenda, please.

Oh, let's do public comment.

That'll be fine.

We have folks downstairs as well.

So we have a number of people signed up.

What we have done in the last few meetings is ask people to speak for one minute.

And as a council, we've talked about having one minute for groups as well.

So today we're going to have one minute for everyone.

We're going to read as many names as we possibly can.

And if time allows, then I will extend it.

Again, we have another meeting right after this that starts 10 minutes after.

So we really need to start to talk about the select committee.

Queen B is the first person.

Travis J.L. Johnson and Jessica Frohinch.

Thank you.

Go ahead, please.

Good afternoon, council members.

I'm Queen V. King-Rios.

I'm here as a member of We Are Women in Black.

Women in Black stands silent vigil.

We've been doing this for 20 years and have remembered more than 1,200 women, men, and children.

Without shelter and housing, people die.

That's why we support the eviction moratorium.

Winter evictions push people into unsafe situations and homelessness.

Please, council members, pass this moratorium to help poor people in our sad city.

Please also join us this Wednesday as we stand vigil for James Hayes, Douglas Mayhew, and is dedicated to Tanya Christie Jackson, right across the street at noon.

Thank you and God bless you.

And I've already been to your office and here's another leaflet for you.

I recognize it, thank you.

And please, Make sure Nicholsville North Lake does not get evicted.

Thank you, ma'am.

The end of this.

Travis.

Welcome, Travis.

Excellent.

Good afternoon, members of the Seattle City Council.

My name is Travis Johnson, and I'm with Nicholsville.

We oppose the winter evictions, both for residential tenants and the Nicollville Northlake.

Please remind Mayor Jerkins to keep her word and to let Gift of Grace Lutheran Church operate the camp as a religious enchantment and sponsor.

Shockingly, the mayor last Thursday renewed her threat to evict and sweep Nicollville Northlakes by the end of the month.

We are solving and surviving homelessness.

That's why we are asking you to join the resolution to forbid and predict of the city of Seattle's ability to tax Amazon and other large corporations in exchange for $1.2 million.

That sounds like a lot, but it's really only one-fourth of what is really needed to build enough affordable housing for homeless in Seattle.

Thank you.

Welcome, Jessica Froelich, and I'm a longtime resident of Seattle.

I have faced homelessness myself twice, and I volunteer a lot of my time with the homeless in multiple capacities.

I've even had people living in my own home who had nowhere else to go for short periods of time.

However, I'm also a landlord.

My husband and I took out a loan in order to buy a small six-unit apartment building, and we have a mortgage on that loan.

And when people can't pay their rent, when they have extenuating circumstances, we work with them to try and keep them in their homes.

We want people to stay in their homes.

We do not want our units moving over and over.

However, when somebody consistently cannot pay their rent, we are not a faceless corporation.

We are a husband and wife trying to make ends meet, and we cannot afford to cover people's rent for five, six months.

The current eviction process already takes months and costs thousands of dollars.

We don't want to evict people.

We don't want people on the streets.

But if you pass this today, small landlords like myself will be we will foreclose on our buildings, and then more people will be homeless.

Thank you.

Bruce Becker, followed by Steve Anderson, followed by Jessica Scoslo.

Thank you.

I've been a small landlord in Seattle for many years.

Fortunately, I've never had to evict anyone, but it seems to me that this kind of a bill ordinance is misguided and it actually will create a bigger problem.

In five months, a landlord has bills to pay.

They have a mortgage to pay.

They have taxes that need to be paid.

And in five months, your building goes into foreclosure.

And help is available other than in a situation like for tenants.

The home base through United Way can provide rental assistance.

Landlords like myself also work with tenants.

If they're late, my tenants have called me and said, say, I'm going to be late with my rent this month.

Driving small landlords like us out of Seattle is going to actually be counterproductive for the Seattle rental market.

And it'll also mean that there'll be a lot of evictions in April, it looks like to me, and it will probably overwhelm.

Thank you, Bruce.

Thank you, and happy to take any written comments as well.

Steve, followed by Jessica, then Larry Wyatt.

Welcome.

Thank you.

I don't have any prepared remarks, so I'll try to keep it short.

As introduction, I'm a real estate broker.

I'm also a small landlord, and as such, I'm in contact with landlords every day of the week.

And I am very sympathetic to the cause of homelessness, and I believe we have a societal issue that is critical, as Ms. Mont says, but it should be addressed through a broader means.

This, I believe, is going to result in A lot of landlords moving out of the area are selling their residences, and I know for a fact they are selling them as personal residences to new owners who don't intend to rent them.

So I believe that the ordinance will reduce the amount of housing stock overall.

I hope that there is another solution that you can find that's more broadly based rather than picking one particular asset group to shoulder the burden of homelessness, because I've been homeless myself, and I know what it's like.

So thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

Jessica, followed by Larry, and then Corey Brewer.

Welcome.

Hi, thank you.

My name is Jessica Scalzo and first off I am in favor of Sawant's resolution.

I appreciate the letter that you read, Herbold, and I'm glad y'all are against preemption.

Second is that I am also in favor of a moratorium on winter evictions.

I do think more needs to be worked out with small landlords because there does seem to be a valid concern about them not being able to pay their rent or mortgage.

And that's it.

Thank you.

Larry, then Corey, and then Barbara Finney.

I agree completely with her, and I think that we should vote on this from our hearts.

This is an immoral thing to evict people in the coldest time of the year, and that's how it should proceed.

Don't vote for the rich.

They don't need any help.

It's the poor that need help.

Thank you.

Corey?

Thank you.

I appreciate the hands.

Corey?

We have Corey Brewer, Barbara Finney, and then Calvin Taylor.

Welcome, Corey.

Hi, good afternoon.

You guys have a very difficult job.

This is a wide-ranging problem.

Keeping people housed is the goal here, right?

Landlords find eviction as an absolute last step, last resort, worst-case scenario, by and large.

Ms. Sawant, your newsletter that I receive typically points the finger at corporate landlords, to this woman's point here.

a carve out for smaller landlords I think is important to consider.

The impact here is extremely severe for the small mom and pop landlord versus the corporation, which you seem to make a distinction in your message, but I don't believe that exists here.

I'm asking you to look at this as a supply and demand problem.

Focus your efforts on giving people who are in trouble assistance with making their payments.

We need a win-win solution that landlords can have some buy-in with, cooperative, not the us versus them.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Barbara and then Calvin and Cassandra Armstrong.

Welcome.

My name is Barbara Finney.

I live in District 5, and it's bitter that you're not voting on the resolution today on preemption.

Council members want resolution to preserve Seattle's right of taxing authority.

Big business interests are advocating for a statewide ban called preemption on any future taxes for themselves.

Do not allow Seattle to become a permanent tax shelter for the moneyed interest at the expense of us, your constituents.

Don't abdicate your authority, responsibility, and accountability to the people you represent.

And please follow the recommendations of the Seattle Renters Commission to support a moratorium on winter evictions, because it's the right thing to do.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Calvin?

We have Calvin Taylor, followed by Cassandra Armstrong, and then Tom Friedman.

Okay.

Any of those names here?

Folks might be downstairs.

Welcome up, sir.

We then have Kathy Partida and Caitlin Nicholson.

Welcome, sir.

Hi, my name is Tom Friedman.

I've lived in Seattle for over 45 years.

I have two single-family rental houses, which I plan to use the income as part of my retirement as I'm retired.

I oppose this non-evict ordinance.

Let's start with something we can all agree on, I think, and that is two critical elements to human existence are food and shelter.

If someone can't afford food and shows a need, various government programs are available to help them out.

We don't expect and we certainly don't mandate that grocery stores or restaurants provide that person with free food for even a day or weeks, let alone five months.

Similarly for housing, there are government programs available to help those in need to provide or subsidize housing costs.

It is simply not the landlord's responsibility to do that.

We don't want to evict anyone either and we have worked with tenants to get them through financial difficulties.

If more help is needed, it is the role of government to subsidize housing costs and not expect individual property owners to do so just because they own the property, any more than to expect the owner of a grocery store or restaurant to provide free food.

I'm sorry to cut you short, but we're happy to take your written comments as well.

I appreciate you being here.

Did we have Calvin or Cassandra here?

Hi, welcome.

I'd like to start my public comment today by acknowledging we are on stolen, unceded Duwamish land, and I call on the City Council to include a land acknowledgment.

At the start of all of these meetings, I had to cut my comment down significantly, so please forgive me if I'm a little over my time.

I'm speaking today on Councilmember Sawant's resolution that was going to be on today's introduction and referral calendar, but that was moved against.

I want to highlight how vital it is you vote on it as soon as possible if you care about it as much as your letter claims you do.

I'm calling on you all as a body through a resolution to speak out against this anti-democratic attack by big business on the voters of Seattle.

We, the working people of Seattle, are watching and I sincerely hope you do the right thing.

Thank you very much.

Hi there.

I'm Kathy Partita.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

I'm here to speak out about the no winter evictions.

My mother who's 85 took her money and very consciously invested it in a fourplex apartment because she felt that that was a way she could provide decent clean housing for four families.

But she had to take out a big loan.

And if she cannot, she depends on that rent to pay her mortgage.

If she cannot pay her mortgage, she will default.

And now four families will be evicted, as well as my mother being hurt.

I think you need to take a look at this legislation, come up with a smart bill, because the entire nation is looking at this.

So we need to consider the unintended consequences of people being hurt, especially the small mom and pop landlord.

She does not have big pockets.

And I think that you guys can reward this and take that into account.

Thank you so much.

Okay, Kaitlin Nicholson, followed by Jordan Quinn, and then the Tenants Union.

All right.

First off, I just want to ask how many people in this room believe that postponing the vote on Councilmember Sawant's resolution opposing the state ban?

Ma'am, your comments need to be directed to the Council here, as we've done in the past.

I will face you, sure.

How many people in this room believe that postponing Councilmember Sawant's resolution was purely procedural and not political?

Does anyone believe that it was purely procedural?

Okay, great.

Yeah, because we all know that the ban is intended to be added at the very last minute and then rushed through for a vote before next week when you say the conversation can continue.

We don't need conversation.

We've had plenty of conversation.

We need action.

People are dying.

On that note, landlords in the room.

We would love to fight with you against you losing your property because you can't pay your high mortgages and property taxes.

If you start a movement to fight to tax big landlords to create a fund to help small landlords to prevent them from losing their homes, if they're unable to pay their taxes, we will fight with you.

Fight with us when we are fighting for our lives.

We will fight with you if you fight against big business for your kids.

I promise you, we will all fight with you.

Welcome Jordan.

My name is Jordan Quinn.

I'm an activist with the Tax Amazon movement.

I think it's absolutely shameful today what the majority of the council has done to shut down even a discussion on the resolution to oppose a state ban on taxing the rich.

I think the fact that the housing crisis is super urgent means that it doesn't make any sense to delay a vote on something that you guys supposedly unanimously agree on.

You wrote a letter unanimously signing on to it.

How hard would it be to concretize that with a vote on the resolution?

Over the last 10 years, rents have gone up 67%.

We've needed rent control for the last 10 years and the fact that there's a state ban on rent control has meant that we've been able to take no effective action on the housing affordability crisis.

If this preemption goes through, if the state ban on taxing big business goes through, it will be impossible for us to address the urging crises that we have in this city and in this state.

The tax and Amazon movement's fighting for the next decade to be different.

We want to build thousands of permanently affordable, union-built green housing.

And you can either stand with us to do that, or you can stand against us and with big business.

Which side are you on?

Thank you.

Are you all with the Tenants Union?

Okay, great.

Welcome, Tenants Union.

Hi, Council.

So my name is Lauren Van Wormer with the Tenants Union of Washington.

So seeing the housing crisis firsthand, which we all see daily, we see evictions daily as well.

And I've watched this council, I've watched the old council consistently not vote for things that help tenants.

So I'm asking you to stand in solidarity with tenants today and like take a stand that you're valuing.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, thanks Lauren.

My name is Violet Labatay, I'm with the Tenant Union of Washington and I'm here to support that you see the resolution on passing for winter evictions.

I'm going to tell you why, because we have a lot of people who are just about to be evicted.

They have nowhere to go.

This is in the winter.

We're talking about If I put on my jacket and I go outside, I'm okay because I get to get in my car and go to my house.

People who are staying outside or who are on the verge of being convicted, those are the people that we're fighting for.

I'm going to always say that we're going to take our three minutes.

Or is it five minutes?

Sorry, we were doing one minute for everyone, but I did want to capture your name for the record.

I know one of our council member wants to violate a lot of time with the Tenants Union of Washington.

Thank you very much.

I think everybody knows that by now.

Sorry.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

She was asking for me and I was asking for the first speaker.

Lauren Van Warmer.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And I'm happy to take this up.

We are going to take it up today.

and I'm John Manal, also with the Tenants Union, and just for the record, when you get evicted, you still owe that rent.

No one's living for rent free.

They have to pay eventually, so just, Jesus, relax.

People are dying in the street every day because they get thrown out into it by landlords.

Just stop, you will get your money.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, Reverend Angela Ying, and then Zoe Ammer.

Welcome.

Good afternoon.

Thank you, city council members and the ones that are newly elected, welcome.

I am the Reverend Angela Yang, senior pastor at Bethany United Church of Christ, and I am here today for only two reasons, love and courage.

And I really believe that we can instill love and courage in you.

You can make the choice, and I believe also that when we make wrong decisions, we can turn them around.

You can make a choice to pass Sama Sawant's resolution and put it on record to oppose the undemocratic effort to ban big business taxation today.

The whole country knows that Washington State, not Alabama, not Mississippi, not Arkansas, not even Georgia, we are at the very bottom of the 50 states with the nation's most regressive tax system.

And today, today, you can begin the process of righting this wrong.

You can lead by simply having the wealthiest pay their fair share.

So I invite you to do so.

And here's the thing, you said it's procedural, but in 1960, at that first Presbyterian church, they didn't let Martin Luther King Jr. speak because it was procedural.

And they have been paying that price ever since.

Please vote for Sawant's resolution and no ban on taxation of the big business.

Zoe Amber, followed by Nigel Sperling.

Hi, my name is Zoe Amber.

Welcome.

Members of the Council, today we sit here warm in City Hall while over 12,000 Seattle residents sleep on the sidewalks outside new condos with empty luxury units.

This very sentence brings into question the nature of someone existing unhoused in Seattle.

Are the evicted in Seattle still Seattle residents, or are they suddenly bodies on the street, anonymous and disposable?

Over a third of households in Seattle are rent burdened, which makes it clear that the cost of renting is vastly exceeding the rate at which workers' wages are rising.

A 2017 study found that in Seattle, every 5% rent increase puts another 250 people directly onto the streets.

The last election made the people of Seattle's priorities clear.

We want affordable housing.

We want an end to the cruel treatment of our unhoused neighbors.

While our housing and homelessness crisis has no end in sight, halting winter evictions is the least we could do.

I urge you, the council, to pass this necessary legislation.

Thank you.

And with that, we have gone 20 minutes for public testimony.

Council colleagues, we have a number of folks signed up.

I do want to end public testimony at 3 p.m.

so we can get to the very bill that was just testified on.

Without objection, I would seek to amend the agenda to include a public comment until 3 p.m., giving us an additional 13 minutes.

Seeing no objection, we will continue with the lineup.

Nigest Berhan, Alicia Lewis, and then Aushka Jax.

Thank you for City Council handling this very difficult subject.

My name is Negustamari Hun.

Winter vaccine is very difficult.

I do know people make it a little to do their own fault, and I do know landlord can lower the price, and et cetera.

And the landlord add in the lawsuits.

Knowing or unknowingly, we contributed the landlord's access, Amazon's access, and other companies.

Winter vacation must stop.

On 2017, I sued U.S. government as the Supreme Court of the state of Washington for the King County.

The government did not respond or answer the lawsuit I won.

But for my lawsuit, the judge will not decide by himself.

On 2018, I called meetings, Washington Congress, state and federal, Judge Kyle, executive and others, four times.

The government stopped the meeting.

On 2019, I was Birmingham.

Now I wrote five letters to solve all the problems.

We are happy to take your written comment.

Thank you.

Thank you so much and happy to take the rest of your comments.

Welcome.

It's good to see you, Theresa Muscan.

Good to see you.

Shama and Tammy, thanks for always allowing us intersex folks to be at the table.

It's important at this time because we deserve safe housing that's permanent and affordable and social.

I'm in favor of Shama's legislation to put a moratorium on eviction, winter evictions.

I used to be on House since the age of one.

It's not safe for those of us that are intersex or rainbow out there.

So please pass this resolution.

Thank you so much.

Alicia?

Hi.

Hi, my name's Alicia Lewis.

I am also an activist with the Tax Amazon Movement, and I am here to demand that the City Council amend the agenda and take a vote on the resolution against the state ban on progressive taxation today.

been kicked off in early January.

We have had regular meetings of 300 plus ordinary working people.

They've been rallying.

We've been debating, discussing and voting in the style of true grassroots democracy on a plan to advocate for a big business tax that is designed by and for the real needs of working people.

In contrast, HB 2907, with the threat of preemption looming over every single committee meeting it passes through every day, was not drafted through a democratic process, but in the back room of Olympia in partnership with big business.

We saw in last year's city council elections how quickly and shamelessly big business is willing to act to preserve their interest, and that's why there is no time to waste.

And I'll just say, lastly, hiding behind procedure to delay a vote until it's too late will not be forgotten.

Thank you.

Jax, Ashka Jax.

OK, my apologies.

Oh, sorry.

Eva Metz and Calvin Priest.

Hi, my name is Eva, and I want to ask where was the procedure when in 2018 with less than 24 hours, the city council majority overturned the head to the Amazon tax?

urgently needs to pass a resolution against the anti-democratic attack on progressive taxation threatened at the state level.

Preemption has been a tool pushed by right-wing politicians to disenfranchise poor people, people of color, and other marginalized communities.

And after the real estate lobby succeeded in passing a state ban on rent control, we've suffered under that ban for 40 years.

This threat could not be more serious in a state with the most regressive tax system in the country and an urgent housing crisis.

We need progressive taxation.

And every day that city council fails to stand up and use every tool possible really opens the door to big business, which is rapidly moving in the state.

So yeah, vote on this resolution today.

Also pass the moratorium on winter eviction.

Thank you.

Hi, Calvin.

After Calvin, there'll be Peggy Hates and then Judy Gibbs.

Hi, Calvin.

I'm Calvin Priest from Socialist Alternative.

I'd also like to call for an amendment to the agenda to bring forward this resolution against the state ban.

This is a historic attack on working people.

It will do permanent damage to the ability of this city and other cities to raise the revenue needed to address the affordable housing crisis.

And I don't think anybody here accepts that this is simply a procedural vote.

This is a complete abdication of responsibility on what is a historic attack on working people.

It's not procedural.

What's happening here are politicians giving cover to corporate politicians in Olympia, in particular to Nicole Macri, who is the sponsor of this bill.

This is absolutely scandalous and I don't accept that the letter is enough because being on record is very different to be on record in voting for this resolution than it is simply to send a letter that may or may not be read by most people.

It is extremely fortunate in a great many ways that council members Sawant and Morales won their elections last year since they're the only ones here prepared to stand up for working people.

Peggy?

Hi Peggy.

Peggy and Judy Gibbs and then Angela Gerald.

I'm Judy Gibbs.

I've had a mother-in-law apartment for almost 12 years.

I've had the same renter for 12 years.

And my unit is now a third, more than a third under market value.

And I think that tells you where I stand.

And I don't want evictions in the winter or any time.

But I know other people have spoken eloquently on the expenses that landlords occur.

And somebody basically implied that if the landlord can't pay the bills, then the landlord ends up out on the street.

and the tenants will as well.

And I believe the answer, and I will also add that as a senior with a mother-in-law apartment, I have at times lived on the rent.

I depended on it for my groceries.

I think the answer is to take some of that money that you're going to get by taxing Amazon and other big businesses and using some of it for a mitigation fund.

Continuing to evict people in the winter is not acceptable.

Thank you so much.

Angela, thank you.

Angela, Aiden, and then Emily MacArthur.

Did I miss you?

Did I call your name?

Yes.

Did I call you?

I think so, but we'll do it after this.

Okay.

Hi, my name is Angie.

My husband and I rent two single-family houses in the Finney Ballard area.

I co-authored an op-ed with some other small landlords.

It's in the Seattle Times today, and I hope you all will have a chance to read that.

This winter eviction legislation, even with amendments, is not the way to solve evictions.

Along with other recent legislation, it's creating a more expensive and a more corporate rental market.

I'm hearing a lot of guessworks from council and misrepresentations about what it means to operate as a small landlord in Seattle.

Let me remind you, we're all registered in the RRIO database.

We're easily accessible to you.

In the city's 2018 rental housing study, more than 4,000 landlords responded.

The majority own only a small number of units.

60% of them reported an annual income of less than $75,000.

Why isn't City Council using RRIO to include small landlords in developing healthy legislation and carefully review the impacts of significant changes in recent years?

An upset landlord from West Seattle called me just this morning to relay how she and her husband are good, low-income landlords, and they're selling one of their houses.

Thank you, Angela.

Thank you, Angela.

Happy to take your written comments, too.

And yes, Peggy, we did call your name.

Please come on up.

Good afternoon, Council.

My name is Peggy Hotz, and I'm a Nicholsville founder and volunteer.

I oppose winter evictions for residential tenants and for Nicholsville-Northlake.

Please remind Mayor Durkin to keep her word and let Gift of Grace Lutheran Church operate the camp as a religious encampment sponsor.

The mayor's office last Thursday renewed their cruel threat to evict or sweep Nicholsville-Northlake residents by the end of this month.

Please also join in Councilperson Sawant's resolution to prohibit a preemption of the City of Seattle's ability to tax Amazon and other large corporations.

I was very disappointed to see that you only had a letter.

It would not support the resolution.

Allowing a preemption would be disastrous to the efforts to solve homelessness.

Thank you.

Thank you, Peggy.

Aiden?

Do we have Aiden Nardone?

Okay.

Emily MacArthur?

Okay.

And then after that will be Atlin Orhun.

Apologies for the mispronunciation.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

The Seattle Office of Housing, along with many...

Ma'am, could you get just a little closer to the microphone?

Thank you.

The Seattle Office of Housing along with many other non-profit agencies pulled together millions of dollars to acquire or construct public housing facilities.

These same talented people also know how much money is needed to operate and maintain these assets.

Tenant rents are part of the revenue stream that is needed to fund maintenance and operation expenses.

Less rent, less maintenance.

Our public assets could suffer damage and disrepair.

Tenants could face health and safety incidents.

We have rental assistance funds available that help tenants that might run into a financial emergency and can't make the rent.

An eviction ban would put five months of rent at risk for these nonprofit providers.

Do not pass an eviction ban.

Do not pass mitigation.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Happy to take your written comments as well.

Thank you very much.

And I believe I already called your name.

I think we have two folks lined up, and we'll see where we're at with timing.

My name's Emily MacArthur.

I'm a resident of District 2 and a member of Socialist Alternative.

I was excited today to speak to what's been heralded as the most progressive council ever.

After the procedural vote this morning, I feel a little less enthused.

I think it's quite shameful to appeal the process, but I hope to see all of you in your cars on Wednesday to join us at the Statehouse to stand against preemption.

I hope you're urgently speaking out to all of your constituents and using every tool in your toolbox to scream from the rooftops how dangerous preemption would be.

We have seen since the 1930s that not being able to have an income tax in Washington has put a stranglehold on our cities.

We've seen since the 1980s that not being able to fight for rent control has put a stranglehold on our cities.

You are currently sitting.

You have an opportunity to stop this, and I urge you to speak out against it, and I'm very, very saddened that you are refusing on the basis of procedure to vote on a resolution.

I also urge you to please vote for a common-sense legislation on winter evictions.

basic knowledge.

I think that lots of arguments have already been made for it, but you know people die outside.

We've seen 200 plus people die every year.

Thank you, Emily.

Thank you.

And our last speaker of today, go ahead.

Hi, my name is Altan Orhan.

First, I echo Emily MacArthur's comments and I thank Council Member Shama Sawant as a D3 resident that she introduced the resolution against winter evictions.

Could you just get a little closer for us?

Thank you.

I support banning winter evictions not only because it's compassionate but also because the reports and data from public organizations like the city and UW have shown time and again that the housing crisis is caused by the shifting character of the city, it's exacerbated by climate change, and it impacts people of color and women disproportionately and severely.

Climate change brings more extremes, more variability, and more surprising cold snaps and snowfalls.

You all remember snowpopolips from last year.

And this kind of pioneering legislation will not only be a necessity here in Seattle, but all over the nation who look to Seattle for this kind of political leadership.

And finally, when people become homeless, their entire lives are on the line.

And when you're on the street, it is difficult to go back.

I believe that the protections that are already offered by the many laws.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much wonderful.

Thank you colleagues for allowing me to extend the public testimony.

I understand there's folks downstairs We are going to move on and I do apologize to those who wanted to testify We are happy to take public comment.

We're happy to take public comment.

I know sir We we are happy to take your public comment, and I think that what we'll see is future.

Thank you, sir Please madam clerk if you could read the payment of the bills I

Council Bill 119738 approving amendments based on claims to the week of January 27, 2020 through January 31, 2020 and ordering payment thereof.

Regarding payment of the bills, I move to pass Council Bill 119738. Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Are there any other questions or comments on passage of the bill?

Payment of the bill?

Seeing none.

All those in favor?

Or Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll?

Swan.

Aye.

Strauss.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

Lewis.

Aye.

Morales.

Aye.

Peterson.

Aye.

President Mosqueda.

Aye.

Seven in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The president will sign.

Item number one, please read the report of the Sustainability and Renters' Rights Committee.

Agenda item one, the report of the Sustainability and Renters' Rights Committee, Council Bill 119726, an ordinance relating to termination of residential rental tenancies prohibiting eviction in winter months and amending section 22.206.160 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

The committee recommends that the bill pass as amended with Council Member Sawant Morales and Lewis in favor with Council Member Peterson with abstention.

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

Council colleagues, we have about six amendments that have been proposed to this bill.

Council Member Sawant, this is your bill.

Would you like to open with a few comments before we take the amendments?

Thank you so much, President Mosqueda.

Last November, the Seattle Renters Commission recommended that council take up this urgent issue.

They pointed out that winter evictions are especially cruel and harmful.

In 2018, the Seattle Women's Commission and the King County Bar Association jointly issued a study, Losing Home, the Human Cost of Eviction in Seattle.

This study found that nearly 90% of people evicted become homeless and that people of color were disproportionately, in fact overwhelmingly, were the ones who were evicted.

More specifically, black tenants experienced eviction at a rate 4.5 times what would be expected based on their demographics in Seattle.

So it's specifically affecting the most marginalized in our society.

Most Seattle tenants are evicted for not paying their rent.

in, you know, for being shot on rent and in most cases the study found the evicted tenants owed one month or less in rent.

In one case the tenant was evicted for owing $10 and there was a Seattle Times article, I believe, which showed a tenant being a, you know, she fought her eviction, but she was, there was an eviction notice for being shot $3 on her rent.

You can't make this stuff up.

Eviction also can be a death sentence.

The study reviewed 2017 evictions and found that six Seattle tenants died during or right after evictions, four tenants committed suicide, one died of an accidental overdose the day after being evicted, and one tenant died during the eviction process while receiving hospice care.

The study also found that at least nine people who died homeless on the street in 2017 had an eviction filed against them in the three preceding years.

And this is happening to so many people, you know, I would urge everybody to read Dan Beekman's excellent article in the Seattle Times that was published over the weekend that shows over a thousand people were evicted in King County in this past year.

The data are a brutal indictment of a private housing market that is dominated by corporate landlords who care more about profit than housing people.

I recognize that there are good landlords out there, families who own a small number of rental units or sometimes just one unit, who care about their tenants, who make timely repairs, who don't try to get away with charging the highest possible rents, and who don't exploit their tenants.

But those landlords aren't why we are considering a moratorium on winter evictions tonight.

They are not the problem.

The Renters Commission pointed out in their letter last fall, and I want to just quote from the letter, During winter in Seattle, temperatures regularly fall into the 30s overnight, and according to All Home King County's Count Us In, a report for 2019, 41% of homeless neighbors sleep outside every night with an additional 19% sleeping in vehicles.

Neither of these situations provide much protection from the elements, and both can be deadly, and they have more statistics on how being outside and unsheltered in the winter is a contributor to death.

Obviously, you can't, you know, fully isolate what the immediate causes of death were.

So I really thank the members of the Seattle Renters Commission for demonstrating leadership on this issue, and also wanted to point out that one of the members from the Renters Commission, Devin Silvernail, is now a staff member at TAMI, Council Member Tami Morales' office.

I wanted to commend his work and work of BC as well.

I also want to thank Ali Panucci from city council central staff and also the city attorney's office for fully engaging and develop on this issue and developing the work that we needed, and city attorney's office for developing the precedent setting legislation.

Just to give a timeline of where we came here, the bill was recommended by the Renters Commission in early November.

In December, my office introduced the first draft.

We discussed it thoroughly in the Sustainability and Renters Rights Committee on January 23rd.

And there, the bill that got voted out of committee was an amended version of the previous version, which took into account many concerns that we had heard in a very thorough manner.

And it was supposed to be voted on February 3rd, but the vote was delayed by the council holding it today.

So I hope we are able to vote today.

Just one point I wanted to make in general on the amendments and then on the specific amendments, I'll speak when they're moved.

I am very disappointed to see that many of the amendments that council members are bringing forward will actually, if passed, if these amendments pass, will make it more difficult and more restrictive for renters to be protected by this eviction ban.

The exception is Council Member Lewis's amendment, which I support and was already ready last week.

And I wanted to point out that it is shocking to see how elected officials demand endless data and justification for even the smallest measure to benefit poor or working class people.

But really, there are programs that are pushed forward, policies that are pushed forward with no data at all.

And in fact, like the sweeps of homeless people, there's endless data to show that they don't work, and yet the city continues to spend $8 million every year on that.

I welcome the support of my colleagues on the bill as a whole, but I'm disappointed that the amendments that are coming forward I don't think will help the people who are facing evictions, but I'll wait for the amendments to come.

Okay, thank you, Council Member Swan, as sponsor of the bill.

We appreciate you moving this forward.

I also want to underscore my appreciation for the council colleagues' ongoing conversations with your office and central staff to come up with various amendments, though, because I think it is important that the bill move forward.

This is a really good vehicle for us to build upon.

So if amendments do hang, I think that there is always work to do as with any piece of legislation, but I just want to commend you for bringing this forward and our council colleagues who've I think finesse some ways to make sure that this is going to be implementable, meaningful, and always the first step to continue to get worked on.

I would also like to say for folks in the press, I know if you're used to going to the halls of the State Capitol, they have a press table there.

We haven't had that as a common practice here, but you're welcome to use the table here if you need to use your laptop or if you need to come behind the dais, you're welcome to do that too.

So for the security folks here, if there's any press that need a place for their laptop, they're welcome to have that.

We now have six amendments and we'll take them in the order as they appear on the agenda Amendment number one council members want would you like to speak to this amendment?

Yes, I For sure, I guess I should move amendment one.

I'm sorry.

No.

No, can I double-check?

Do I need to move the bill or are we good?

Okay Great, great.

Go ahead and move it and I'll second it.

I move amendment one.

I second it.

Thank you.

This amendment is a technical amendment.

It does not make any substantive changes.

It adds a just cause to permissible evictions that is identical to one already included in this legislation that regards a time when a landlord is legally required to evict someone and is responsible for relocation assistance and this assistance and this amendment adds a clarifying whereas clause and provides clarifying language at the moratorium on winter evictions is a defense in eviction court.

This was already the case, but the language just makes it more clear.

Are there any other questions or comments on amendment number one as outlined by Council Member Swann?

Seeing none, it has been moved and seconded that the bill be amended with amendment number one, seeing no additional comments.

All those in favor of amendment one, vote aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

Any opposed?

None.

Madam Clerk, it appears that there are 7 votes in favor of Amendment 1. It will be included in the underlying bill.

The second amendment is from Councilmember Lewis.

Councilmember Lewis, would you like to move your amendment?

Yes, I do so move my amendment.

Second.

Councilmember Lewis, would you like to speak to your amendment?

Yes, thank you, Madam President Pro Tem.

So when we discussed this ordinance and committee, one of my takeaways from it, or one of the most salient criticisms, I think, of the ordinance was that there wasn't a mechanism put in place to compensate landlords in the event that there was an economic eviction.

that that potentially put especially small landlords in a position where they would have to face their own hardship, especially households that are dependent on their income that they make as a landlord.

A lot of the comments we heard at public comment today address that very same concern of a lot of landlords in our community where their primary source of income is renting a small number of units.

So under this amendment, we would establish a mitigation fund.

It would only be accessible to folks who establish this defense.

And I think it is important that when we talk about this moratorium, we're really talking about a defense in an eviction proceeding as the way it's applied.

In the case that a tenant facing eviction is able to establish this defense, this would then exist as a fund that could be accessed by the tenant in order to pay rent or access additional rental assistance.

So it would not, the reason I raise that is this is not a fund that would take from existing rental support funds.

The vision of this is that we would fund, hopefully in this fall's budget, an additional rental support fund that would apply in the event that a tenant was not able to receive assistance through existing funds.

I did have central staff come up with some initial ballpark estimates and how much a fund like this prospectively would cost.

The cost estimate varies depending on how many months this legislation today ultimately will cover.

In the event of five months, it would be $1.6 million.

In the event of three months, it would be about half a million dollars in financial assistance.

This estimate is based on the current number of evictions.

for the, from the losing home report in 2017 based on an estimate for the winter period, that eviction's minus the number of people who received home-based assistance.

And then that comes up with a number of an estimated about 169 folks in a given winter that could potentially face eviction in, in the winter months.

So I think it's a doable number to fund a mitigation fund like this.

I think it gets at the core concerns of a lot of the landlords, particularly small landlords who are in a position where they feel like this eviction moratorium would cause them severe hardship in being able to provide in the event that someone is in a position where they can't pay their rent.

We do know that it's all too common in this country right now where a overwhelming number of Americans are within complete homelessness or bankruptcy for an unanticipated $500 expense.

And so a fund like this can provide much needed assistance.

And I hope to revisit this in the fall when we are looking at budget priorities.

And for the time being, I would ask that we move this amendment and incorporate it into the ordinance.

Thank you, Councilmember Lewis.

Any additional comments or questions?

Comments?

Councilmember Swan and then Councilmember Herbold.

Thank you, President Mosqueda.

I support this amendment, which as Councilmember Lewis said, sets up the framework for a mitigation fund to help tenants facing eviction pay overdue rent and avoid the eviction altogether.

And as noted, there are already some funds, most notably the home-based program that is operated by the Housing Justice Project and the United Way, and I support increasing funding to those programs.

I just wanted to point out how much the mayor's office has opposed this legislation.

And in addition to the previous letters that they have sent and memos they have sent, just a few minutes before this meeting started, they sent us another letter opposing this legislation.

And one of the things that they've attempted to do is to counterpose the winter evictions moratorium against mitigation funding and other rental assistance.

I just wanted to clarify that they're both necessary and they both work together, work well together.

And so it's good to have this amendment and and just to echo what was just said that this amendment creates the framework for mitigation funding but to make those funds a reality we will need to push for resources in the budget in November.

Thank you.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

I just have a question about the mitigation fund and how it interacts with the effective date of this legislation.

As I understand it, this legislation as currently drafted, the effective date would be about 10 days before April and Because I am truly concerned about the impact of this legislation on small landlords.

I'm wondering, is there concerns that the mitigation, either this mitigation fund or the capacity of current rental assistance funds will be able to meet the need for those 10 days before this goes into effect?

Do we have information about that?

So, thank you, Council Member Herbold.

My understanding from talking to central staff and executive departments is that we will not be in a position this winter to offer resources through this fund.

That this fund, we're really, this is really a forward-looking resource to next winter.

So when this, whatever window we decide on, we are considering an amendment later to determine what the window would be.

There wouldn't be resources in this until we go through another budget cycle.

Council Member Swann.

Home base currently has funds, though.

I mean, this is additional, so.

Right, right, but this particular fund, I was saying, but that's not to say that there aren't existing.

Just in response to the concern that was raised, I'm saying.

It's my understanding that as it relates to how this legislation would be implemented, the home-based funds, the ability to access those funds is very different because of the timing of how this how a tenant would assert a defense under Just Cause, and it's my understanding that they would not be eligible for the home-based funds, but I might be wrong.

Just shake your head or nod your head.

They are eligible.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Seeing any additional comments or questions?

Seeing none, I also want to underscore my support for this.

Thank you, Councilmember Lewis, for working with our office as well on this amendment.

Given the existing tenant support models such as Home Base Fund, and we know that they have a proven track record of being successful in providing funding for tenants to avoid eviction, I think this makes a lot of sense, and in cases where tenants may not qualify for the support, this amendment creates the fund to meet those needs.

So it's, I think, a common sense amendment.

It really was echoed, I think, by the testimony today, and it also came from some of the calls that we've received in our office, and appreciate you advancing this.

The intent is to create this really as an upstream tool to support tenants and avoid evictions in the first place and to address any concern about impacts to the affordable housing providers, many of which are nonprofits, which somebody else testified on earlier today.

So I'll also be supporting this amendment.

With that, all of those in favor of Amendment 2, please vote aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

Any opposition?

Any opposed?

None?

Wonderful.

The amendment passes with seven votes and will be included in the underlying bill.

Amendment three, Council Member Peterson, would you like to speak to this amendment?

Thank you.

Thanks everyone for coming out today and the people who are watching at home.

I appreciate the desire to address this troubling situation with evictions, and I'm happy the state legislature has made progress on this issue.

Past city councils have made progress on this issue.

I appreciate hearing from one of the tenants who was evicted in the winter, Alicia, who had the courage to come and speak to Councilmember Swann's committee.

I've received many calls and we've received many emails on this legislation and I've considered the various viewpoints and perspectives and this amendment is to exempt small landlords, those who own four or fewer units.

We've heard a lot from small landlords since the legislation was introduced, both phone, email.

They were not invited to our committee table, which was disappointing.

I think when we're advancing a piece of legislation that's ever been tried before, I think it's valuable to hear from all the stakeholders.

We would learn things from that.

And that's the amendment I think is important.

to exempt them because they do face economic hardships as well in terms of being able to provide those units to the housing market.

They do have a mortgage.

They do have utility bills, insurance, property taxes, and five months is a long time if they were not able to collect those.

So I would encourage my colleagues to consider this amendment.

I think that it's important that we recognize the, we'll be able to talk more to the legislation again as a whole, but happy to answer questions about this amendment.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Any comments or questions on the amendment?

Okay, would you like to move the amendment?

Yes, I'd like to move the amendment.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Are there any additional comments?

Council Member Sawant.

This is unfortunately an example of a politician proposing a policy to benefit those who already have more than most at the expense of poor and working class people with really no data or evidence to support it.

And I want to talk about the amendment and explain why I oppose it, but just very quickly because a comment was made on the structure of the committee table.

This is a committee I chair.

I chair the Sustainability and Renters' Rights Committee, and Council Member Peterson is claiming that small landlords were not invited to the table.

First of all, just to be clear, most small landlords we've spoken to, including the ones who oppose this legislation, say they've never evicted any of their tenants.

So, There's a whole bunch of what-if kind of fears that they have, which are understandable on the other hand, but also, on the other hand, are not the basis for policymaking in my view.

What-ifs are not the basis for policymaking.

Hardcore data, which are so overwhelmingly showing that the most vulnerable are the ones being damaged by not having strong laws against eviction, that's the basis for policymaking.

And the people we had at the table were the Tenants Union of Washington State and the most impacted, including Alicia, who you quoted, who was evicted in the winter.

And as a consequence of the eviction, her life took a dramatically devastating turn where she lost family members.

So I don't apologize for the structure of the committee table.

I'm proud that it is one of the committee tables where people who never have an opening in City Hall are invited and we will continue to do that.

We have hard data of thousands of people who are being evicted, and as I said, a totally hypothetical specter of an imaginary landlord who only owns four rental homes and is on the verge of winter bankruptcy.

It's hard for me to fathom that if you own four units, how are you on the verge of bankruptcy?

I don't understand.

I mean, you know, really, I mean, it's possible, but really, what are the statistics there?

My office met with small landlords.

It's not like we haven't met with them who testified about their concerns about this legislation in the committee meeting.

And as I said, none of them had ever evicted their tenants.

We were unable to come to agree on the policy, but I do appreciate their time and willingness to discuss it.

But the point remains the small landlord that this amendment is intended to help is entirely hypothetical.

But the tenants whose lives are being destroyed and for whom this amendment would not help, that's very real.

Those tenants are very real.

The biggest problem though with this amendment is the impact it would have on the renters who are unfortunately renting with the worst slumlords in our city.

Slumlords overwhelmingly divide up their rental properties into different LLCs to hide their common ownership.

So while this amendment technically says that the different LLCs owned by the same person would still count as a large landlord, the practical reality is that it's almost impossible for renters to know what other properties their landlord owns.

Do any of you who are renters know what other properties your landlord owns, and do you have the resources to go and find out?

I'll tell you something.

My office, with all the resources we have from being in City Hall, we attempted to track down all the properties owned by some of the slumlords who we know are abusing their tenants and found that it is extremely hard and actually impossible to do without completely devoting your resources.

We simply didn't have access to that information.

So if we don't have access to that information, how is it that renters facing eviction, who are the most marginalized anyway, how with their world being turned upside down, how are they supposed to find out all this information?

How are they going to know if they're protected by this moratorium or not?

In fact, many tenants facing eviction totally despondent about their power to prevent the eviction, don't even come to eviction court.

The attorneys who help those renters in the court will tell you that they end up helping a fraction of the renters because most renters don't come to court.

So in reality, this amendment will end up meaning, whether it's intended as such or not, that the absolutely worst slumlords in Seattle who are actually evicting people would effectively be exempted from the legislation in the name of protecting good small landlords and therefore I will not support this amendment.

Any other comments or questions?

Any additional comments or questions?

Okay.

So Council Colleagues, I appreciate this and thank you for calling out the intent or versus not intent because the last Council meeting we talked about wanting to make sure we didn't impugn the motives of anyone.

Appreciate that distinction.

Did I see you reach for the microphone, Council Member Herbold?

I was just going to say that I really appreciate the intent of this amendment.

I just don't see how it can be implemented given that it is a virtual unknown which landlords own fewer than four units.

So I appreciate the attempt to exempt small landlords and regretful that we don't have more time to work out that part of the policy.

Thank you, Council Member.

Any additional comments?

Okay, seeing none, I'm gonna go ahead and call for the vote unless you'd like to comment.

I just want to address the concern.

So, is there a concern that the landlords might register under a limited liability company or a limited partnership?

Because that data is available from the Washington Secretary of State.

Are you really saying that the most vulnerable tenants are going to go into Washington's Secretary of State website and look at?

Let's not debate up here, but if there's a question, do you have a response to where the data is specific to that question?

Okay.

Are you looking at me or?

Both of you.

Okay, no problem.

I already said that my office tried to compile such data.

It is virtually impossible to do it with all the resources we have.

I don't know what more evidence you need to show that for the most vulnerable tenants, this is basically an impossible task you're putting on them.

Okay.

Any additional comments?

Council Member Morales.

Well, I will just say that the work that we did shows that of the buildings that are registered, Almost 29,000 buildings are registered with four units or less, which means that this would exclude 87% of the renters in the city.

So I do think that that's a significant impact on what this legislation is trying to achieve.

So, you know, and we know, we've heard most of our small landlords do try to work with tenants to prevent eviction, do offer some kind of assistance or extension.

We now have a mitigation fund that has been put in place to try to make sure that landlords are not affected by this.

But as we've said, those landlords aren't the problem.

The problem are the landlords who do take things too far and are willing to push people out.

So I think that it's important that we consider the scope or how this particular amendment would really limit the scope of what we're trying to do here.

So this is not something that I could in good conscience support.

Council Member, I appreciate you bringing this forward.

I, too, have heard some concerns.

Initially, I was intending to support this amendment because, similar to sort of the argument that was made around some of our labor standards, we never really expect our employers to know how many franchises they have.

And so that argument was sort of used in a similar way, but different here, and we continue to pass labor standards.

Given the statistic that Council Member Morales just shared, I'm sorry I didn't have a chance to check in with you before that.

I unfortunately will be voting no on this, but I appreciate where you're coming from with this, and I'm happy to keep working with you as we think about future amendments, if that sounds good to you.

Future legislation.

Do you have central staff available to answer questions?

You know, central staff is available to answer questions.

Ideally, this could be done in the committee, but what we could do is hold this amendment, if that works, and we could come back and have central staff answer some questions.

Well, I, as a sponsor of the bill, I would prefer that the bill is voted on today, because...

Right, I'm not mentioning holding it off of today, I'm just mentioning it to the end of our amendments, and then we can come back to it and have that question answered.

Oh, look, there she is.

Okay, I see central staff come on in welcome Ali And Ali if you don't mind introducing yourself for the record Welcome good afternoon council members.

I was running down the hall.

So I may have missed the question

So, thank you.

Thank you, Allie.

So, I appreciate that it's helpful to have these statistics.

I just wanted to understand when at committee, I thought you had mentioned a number in the range of 200,000 or so rental units.

Just trying to get the scope of those that are four and under.

Or do we have those?

If we don't have those readily available, that's fine too.

So it is somewhat of I think we're not necessarily comparing apples and apples here the rental registration inspection ordinance I'm not sure if the numbers you were quoting councilmember Morales is the type of structure so if it's A unit, we have units that are in detached buildings, units that are in duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and units that are in multifamily buildings.

Not necessarily all owned by the same people.

So what your amendment would do would exclude units that are owned by a landlord who owns more than, excuse me, like only owns four units or less.

Those could all be in one unit, so the fourplex could be excluded if the same owner owns all four.

But it could be four units spread across for single family homes, for multifamily buildings where they own condos, or that sort of thing.

So it's hard to know exactly the universe of units we're talking about exempting here.

And I'll just clarify that what I was referring to is data offered by SDCI, that we have, that this would exclude 28,882 of 33,000 buildings that are registered through that ordinance, units of four or more.

Yeah, and I'm just not clear because of owners who owns them.

It's hard to know if some of those units in smaller buildings are owned by LLCs that own 25 units.

So I'm just not, I haven't seen the data you're referring to to know if I can sort that out.

But essentially, I don't think, I don't know that we're comparing apples and apples here.

That's okay.

Thank you for that answer.

Council Member Swatt, did you have one more thing?

Yeah, I just wanted to say that, yeah, I was thinking exactly what Ali was saying in terms of the accuracy of the numbers, but I think having clarified that, it doesn't change the fact that it is an almost impossible obstacle to overcome for tenants to know the exact detail of whether their landlord is going to fit this category or not.

In a way, this is kind of a means testing in a sense that, you know, it's sort of, it's putting the burden, it's the same in the sense that it's putting the burden on the detrimentally affected party to figure out whether they are eligible for this protection or not.

It is best to just make the protection available across the board.

And I'll tell you something, the experience of not just tenants but also small business owners with whom we've been talking a lot, who are also facing rent gouging from their landlords, is that sometimes when they're even, and this is, I'm quoting a small business owner, They were being gouged by a landlord in Columbia City, and they started looking for spaces all around the city, and they found that so many of the properties are actually effectively owned by the same exploitative landlord, and they're all spread out.

So I don't know how we can put this burden on tenants and the most vulnerable tenants.

And really, there's a racial component to this also, because black families and black children are the most impacted.

Any other comments or questions?

Okay.

Council colleagues, I think that we have heard a number of concerns about this.

I am interested in getting the actual data.

I'm sorry that that was sprung on you, Ali, and we appreciate you running down the hall.

I think that there is a rational argument for excluding small landlords and I wish that I had that that actual number in front of us.

I also think that there's a reason that we have excluded small businesses in the past when it came to some of the labor standards and we didn't make that distinction for workers.

So today I'm going to support Councilmember Peterson in looking at the smaller businesses and we'll see how it goes and continue to advance the conversation today.

So all of those in favor of including Councilmember Peterson's amendment, please say aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

Opposed?

No.

Okay, so it's four, two, three.

Okay.

And we can continue with the amendments.

Council Member...

Just in terms of process, I'm not sure what you mean by continue with the amendment.

You've already voted for the amendment.

What does that actually mean in terms of process?

There's three more amendments to come.

No, no, I mean on that amendment you said that you We will continue the conversation on that.

What does that say?

Continue the conversation about the amendments to come here.

The rest of the amendments?

Yes, yes.

Having voted on the prevailing side, there is the chance before the end of today to go back and take a look at that.

I'm not sure, Ali, if that data exists.

You're looking at me like it doesn't.

But I do I I would be concerned if it was 80 something percent and if there's a chance for us to go through this and come back I'm happy to do that But would like for us to take a quick second if you have any feedback on that before we move the committee before we move the amendment forward I can

I can try to see if I can get SDCI on the phone to understand that data more precisely.

But I think because the way this amendment is drafted, it includes if you are the owner or you have an ownership interest in any unit.

And so I don't know that we would be able to tell by looking at the rental registration and inspection ordinance data who has an ownership interest in all of the LLCs.

that are included, and so it is difficult.

So essentially, just like the way the ordinance itself, the main purpose of the ordinance provides a defense in eviction proceedings, a landlord would have to claim that they own less than five units, fewer than five units, and that therefore this defense shouldn't apply in that situation, and then if they, were lying, they would be lying in front of a court.

I mean, I'm not...

Obviously this is an oversimplification of how these court proceedings would work, but I don't know that I will be able to in the next...

10 minutes.

What I can instead offer is that, as was mentioned previously, this bill will go into effect, assuming it is, you know, signed within 10 days by the mayor and goes into effect 30 days after that, will really only be relevant for a short period of time.

So what I can do is work on trying to figure out what data we have and is available, and if necessary, the council could revisit this prior to next November or whenever the period starts, because I just, I don't know if I'm going to be able to give you a satisfying answer in the next however long this meeting lasts.

Okay.

Yeah.

Council President Putnam.

Council President Putnam.

I said that, I'm sure.

To the question about this item being included in the bill, let's go through the other amendments and let me see what we can get from SDCI.

And then having voted on the prevailing side, there may be a chance for us to come back to this.

Okay.

So moving forward, I'd like to ask Council Member Herbold, it looks like you have an amendment.

Amendment number four.

Would you like to move your amendment?

I would like to move Amendment 4, please.

Thank you, Council Member Hurdle.

Could you please speak to your amendment?

Did I have a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Perfect.

So this is amending previous language that was added to the bill.

Currently, a reason for termination that is exempt from the bill includes unlawful behavior, And this amendment would expand unlawful behavior to a particular type of lease violation that specifically impacts the health or safety of other tenants or the owner.

This has been brought forward because of concerns from folks who operate non-profit housing, specifically through conversations I've had with the Associate Director of AHA, the Archdiocesan Housing Authority, through CCS, Catholic Community Services.

And again, it's a very narrow exemption, not for any rule violation, but specifically rule violations that have a negative impact on the health or safety of other tenants or the owner.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

Are there any other comments or questions?

Council members.

This is still procedural right?

I'm sorry.

This is on the amendment number four and if you have questions for her amendment specifically.

I would like to speak in favor of it.

I think that this amendment, and I appreciate Councilmember Herbold bringing it forward, also goes a long way to strengthening our case in the event that we do have a legal challenge related to this ordinance.

I think anything that we can incorporate into it that gives more flexibility, is more cognizant of existing rules and existing things that make this look more reasonable in court does bode well for the legislation as a whole and having it survive that challenge.

I think this is a very reasonable addition to make sure that we're not putting landlords in a position where there is some ongoing activity affecting the health and safety of the building, but they are unable to, for a period of several months, enforce an eviction.

So I do support this amendment and hope to see it pass.

Thank you.

Council Member Lewis, any additional comments or questions?

Council Member Morales.

So I just want to make sure I understand.

My concern with this is that these kinds of notices can be used for retaliation, for retaliatory purposes, for discrimination.

And there is already, you know, with the Just Cause laws that we've had, there's already a concern that these kinds of leases, these kinds of tools are being used against tenants and I keep coming back to the fact that the folks who are here have said themselves like this mostly doesn't apply because you try to work with your tenants and small landlords are really trying hard to make sure that their tenants are able to stay and work out the situation that you have.

You know, I question how well we could enforce something that's this broad, and I feel like the legislation that we have already includes criminal activity as a reason that folks can definitely be evicted.

So I'm concerned about this amendment, and I don't think I will be supporting it.

Thank you council member morales council member swan and then council member herbal or actually you want to respond.

Yeah, thank you.

Um, I want to just um highlight that um this language, um Establishes what the legal bar is it's specifically an eminent threat To the health or safety of other tenants in the rental building and substantial detrimental impact.

So this would be um something that uh would have to be proven in court, um in order, uh to um be held up against a tenant's attempt to use the moratorium.

And so a landlord would actually have to demonstrate that it's both a substantial threat and that the danger is imminent.

And again, these aren't just random words, they're words that are established in case law and that I think bound really well the expectations we have for protecting the safety of other tenants.

And again, I just want to say that this request has come from a provider of low-income housing, one of our non-profit partners, that specifically requests for this language.

And it does not in any way expand or extend the existing Just Cause eviction language.

Council Member Sawant.

Thank you President Mosqueda.

I also I mean appreciate the intent of this amendment but I have similar concerns as to what Council Member Morales expressed.

In committee we amended the legislation to make an exception as you were saying Council Member Morales to exception for criminal activity if neighbors or building owners are being put in danger if someone is cooking meth in their apartment or shooting guns.

I mean, you know, obviously something that we would all agree is extremely dangerous.

Then there is an exception already in the legislation and it is written in a way that is relatively objective, citing what counts as criminal.

I understand that the phrase substantial detrimental impact may have case law background, but I still don't think that it really is necessary in terms of the fact that we have already put in protections in place to make sure that if there is any such imminent danger that it will be covered already and that the eviction will go through.

A landlord who wants to evict a tenant will use whatever tool is available to them, but the problem is that, again, the tenants who are supposed to respond to an eviction order How are they supposed to respond to claims that the tenant is having a substantial detrimental impact by attracting vermin with unclean habits or by hanging out with bad people?

And I'm using these words not as hyperbole because this is what some tenants, you know, we hear tenants being evicted because they're accused that they attracted vermin and they have no way to prove that they didn't or hanging out with bad people, how do you decide that?

And in a fair world, that could be arbitrated in eviction court, but overwhelmingly eviction court rules in a tenant's absence, or if the tenant is there, then it's still an extreme power imbalance.

And I feel like this does not express the just cause that we have modeled this after.

So I will be voting no on this amendment.

Thank you, Council Member.

Any additional comments or questions on amendment number four from Council Member Herbold?

Seeing none, all of those in favor of voting to include amendment number four, please raise your hand and vote aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

No.

Okay, the amendment will be included.

Amendment number five, Council Member Strauss, would you like to speak to your amendment and move it?

Yes, thank you Council President Pro Tem.

My amendment number five narrows the no eviction period and I would like to move this amendment at this time.

Second.

Would you like to speak to it?

Yes, thank you very much.

This amendment would reduce the period in which eviction defense applies to three-month period of December through February.

These are the three months that when temperatures are the coldest and I believe that the three months is a more feasible length of time for this defense to apply because again as we've heard this bill will not prevent evictions from occurring.

It is more so used as a defense for the eviction as we've heard from the many small landlords who have come to testify and who have called.

They are not the ones that are oftentimes, most often, evicting people because the small landlords that I've had are always very willing to pick up the phone, have a conversation, and work with me.

So again, this three-month window is a more feasible time for the eviction defense to apply rather than for half the year.

And this three-month period also aligns with the recent changes in state law that allows a judge the discretion to require a 90-day payment plan before an eviction writ is issued.

And so that for those reasons, And that December through March are the coldest months of the year.

And this is a winter evictions bill, and those are the winter months of the year.

It's why I moved this amendment.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

Any additional comments or questions?

Councilmember Swann.

So this bill would reduce the number of months of eviction moratorium from five months to three months.

And right now, keeping in mind there's no winter eviction protection at all, so if all that we're able to do is ban winter evictions for the three coldest and wettest months of the year, that would still be a huge victory in tenants' rights.

However, we worked with central staff, my office worked with central staff to look at average monthly rainfall and average monthly cold temperatures.

And the data shows, again, you know, for a council that says that they want to be data-driven, the data shows that the cold and wet months stretch from November to March.

And also, if you're living in Seattle, do you really need data to tell you that the cold and wet months are November to March?

I also would like to point out that Alicia, weren't you evicted on Halloween or just after Halloween?

So if we reduce this to three months, Alicia and people like her who were evicted in early November would not be covered by this.

So I'm not sure what the logic is.

If we're going to do it, why don't we do it right and cover it for the whole winter?

There's no logic behind it other than pandering to landlords, the landlord lobby.

And so I really think at the end of the day, it comes down to, as you've seen through all the amendments, it comes down to who politicians think that they need to support.

They need to stand for the most vulnerable or the people who have everything and all the power.

So I will be voting no on this amendment.

Any additional comments?

Council Member Lewis.

So I intend to vote for Shortening the window to three months for a couple of reasons one of the reasons that I mean speaking for the same reasons that I spoke to amendment for the more narrowly tailored that the Legislation is the more likely it is to survive a court challenge I like that the three month period is lined up to the 90-day mitigation period that was authorized last session under state law and I think that that's a good argument in favor of retaining this in the case of a preemption or a takings challenge in state court.

I think that it's also important to note that after a year of seeing how a 90-day moratorium operates and how administrable it is, we can entertain extending it to five months.

I think that that would be a natural evolution of this policy.

And for those reasons, I'm going to vote in favor of the amendment.

Thank you, Councilmember Lewis.

Any additional comments?

Any additional comments?

Seeing none, all of those in favor of including Councilmember Strauss' amendment, please raise your hand and vote aye on Amendment 5.

Aye.

Opposed?

No.

Okay, the amendment does hang.

Councilmember Strauss, you have one additional amendment.

Please read that.

Thank you, Council President Pro Tem.

I think with the number of amendments and the substantive nature of each amendment, it demonstrates the need for further work to have occurred in committee.

And so I raise that for the table today.

Amendment number six, I would like to move, which limits this winter eviction prohibition to moderate income households.

It's been moved and seconded.

Councilmember Strauss, would you like to comment on your amendment in more detail?

Yes, thank you.

As a renter, I have a very solid understanding of what making rent looks like every month and what transitioning between units looks like.

and what the economics are.

My amendment number six will allow the eviction defense to be used by only moderate income households as defined by 100% of the area median income or less.

100% area median income is $76,000 for an individual or $108,600 for a family of four.

Data on rent-burdened households supports this 100% area median income threshold.

Nearly half, 49.1% of households at 50 to 80% AMI are rent-burdened.

28.5% of households at 80 to 100% area median income are rent-burdened.

Only 4.8% of households over 100% area median income are rent-burdened.

And so this amendment would Ensure that households making more than a hundred percent area median income Well, this amendment doesn't make sure it is just clear that a hundred the households making more than a hundred percent area median income are also the least likely to become homeless as a result of an eviction.

I think that it is very important to provide protections for tenants who are not at the highest levels of our economic spectrum.

And I want to ensure that this bill will not protect people who have the money, who are high earning but have not followed up on their due diligence.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Additional comments or questions from the council colleagues?

Yeah.

Council Member Sawant, please.

Thank you.

First of all, just on the comment about the readiness of this legislation, I don't agree that the amendments, the slew of amendments demonstrates further work.

What it demonstrates is the corporate landlord lobby still has a lot of pull on the council and demonstrates the need to build even more powerful movements.

That's what it demonstrates.

This is another amendment that will make it far more difficult for renters who need these protections the most to actually use them.

The reality, I mean, this amendment says the tenant, you know, the rent household is a moderate income household as defined and so on.

But the reality is that the renters who are being evicted are very, very low income people as, just to quote the tenants union who were at our committee table, they said, as they correctly said, the evictions, Eviction itself is a means-tested process because it's poor people who are getting impacted.

It's not my opinion.

Go look at the data again.

If you want to be data-driven, find me another 130,000 salary-earning person who is evicted, which is what council members make, you know, we make about $130,000.

I take home only $40,000, but that's the reality.

How many people who make $130,000 are being evicted?

It's just, it's just, it doesn't exist.

This, again, this is all imaginary things that are pulled out of the hat and said, oh, we need to make sure that this doesn't happen.

There is not some great wave of well-off people being evicted.

It just doesn't happen.

And if it did, then the court would order the rich person to make up all the unpaid rents for those winter months.

You know, that would be a fact.

So if this amendment doesn't practically exclude rich renters who are already, or well-off renters who are already excluded by their ability to pay rent, then I'm not sure what it actually does.

And here's what it actually does.

It will, what it will do, and this is what means testing does in general.

This is not the first means testing example.

What means testing really does is it forces poor and working class people to jump through additional hoops to access a protection that was meant for them.

Without this amendment, a judge could use this moratorium to avoid the eviction of someone who failed to show up in court, like so many desperate people who don't show up in court because they don't think the system is going to work because it doesn't work for them.

So even in their apps, if this moratorium is a strong one, then even in the absence of tenants, the tenant could be protected from eviction.

Imagine how much it would improve people's lives rather than sending them into a downward spiral.

With this amendment, how would a judge determine eligibility in a renter's absence?

It would be impossible.

Means tests like this are well documented to severely limit the number of low-income people who end up taking advantage of services.

The Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, you know, there's tons of data to show that people don't end up, you know, the pool of people who are eligible is far bigger than the pool of people who actually take advantage of it.

Again, these are also established fact, this is not my opinion.

And in fact, locally, there was an example.

When I first took office in 2014, we found out that the utility discount program for the Seattle City Light, which is supposed to give you subsidized rates for your electricity, That program has existed for years, but when we came, when we took office, it was very sparsely used.

It was only 18% of eligible people were using it.

Why?

Because it was an opt-in program, meaning you had to show proof that you were eligible for it.

We pushed the mayor's office at that time, Ed Murray, to make it an opt-out program with the help of a wonderful staff like Kelly Enright at City Light.

And from the time we made it opt-out, the rate of people actually being enrolled in the program automatically because they're already poor has gone up tremendously.

To quote LA Times business columnist, not a socialist, business columnist Michael Hiltzik, To quote, a means testing, quote, can allow officials to pry into the most private aspects of applicants' lives.

The process tends to discourage applications, thus serving the goal of making the programs less useful for beneficiaries, end quote.

Again, very systematic.

I know Councilmember Strauss presented a proclamation last week, which I supported to designate February 7th to be International Clash Day.

I cannot help but quote from the Clash song, Know Your Rights, which says, you have the right to food money, providing, of course, you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation.

This is...

This is a reality people also people and because of means testing people who are eligible end up not using the program not only because they don't have the paperwork or they're you know they're despondent but also because they feel humiliated if they're automatically included in the program then it's not a question of self-respect it's a question of your right and so for that reason I will oppose this amendment.

Thank Thank You councilmember Swan councilmember Strauss and then councilmember herbal and thank you for your comments councilmember so one I will also quote from know your rights Which is that you have the right to free speech as long as you're not dumb enough to actually try and use it and so I think that using free speech that's a it is

I do.

I absolutely understand that and appreciate everyone's coming to council today to use their right to free speech.

And so I also, my point of returning this comment is just to say that this is also not an asset means test, it is just simply income.

And I took that comment to be self-reflecting, not on any other council member.

That's the way I took it.

I am going to call on Council Member Herbold and appreciate all the good intentions that are up here being expressed both in the underlying bill and through the amendments.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

Before I get to the substance of my comments about this particular amendment, I do want to speak to something that I'm sure that Council Member Swann did not mean as I heard it, but I just want to clarify it for the public.

She referenced what would happen if a tenant didn't show up to court and how would a judge know what somebody's income was?

Even with passage of this law, a tenant will still have to show up because not showing up and speaking to this as a just cause will limit their ability to use this as a defense.

So even using this ordinance that we are poised to vote on will still require tenants to show up in court if an eviction is filed.

I think that's really important within the context of us all knowing our rights.

Please continue.

I'm going to get on to that next.

As it relates specifically to the question of means testing, the utility discount program has been brought up a few times.

You do have to income qualify to participate in the utility discount program.

And I think utilities are actually a really good example for for an analogous situation.

Some of our largest, most profitable companies are also some of the folks who have the largest unpaid utility bills.

And it's not because they don't have the money to do it, it's just they want to pay it when they're ready to pay it.

And so I am actually really supportive of this amendment because I don't want folks of means to just decide, yeah, I can pay this in five months if I want.

And in the meantime, members of our small landlord community are left holding the bag, yeah, they might eventually get the money.

They might get the money after five months.

But I think that will actually have a really negative impact on some small landlords.

Because sometimes people with a lot of money don't pay their bills also.

And we know now from the analysis that the council member has done that there are very few people Um who um who would be above this income threshold for that reason?

I support the amendment.

Thank you council member hurrell council member swan Just one uh sentence to talk about the utility discount program The making it opt out did make a huge difference because we were able to auto and for example I'm just giving you one example because I don't have time to go through the whole thing But we were able to, because of changing it from opt-in to opt-out, we were able to auto enroll Seattle Housing Authority residents.

So that's a big example of how, you know...

Yeah, exactly.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Thank you all for the explanation here.

Any, thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Any additional comments or questions?

Okay.

We're going to call for the vote on this.

All those in favor of amendment number six by Council Member Strauss, please say aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

All those opposed?

Nay.

Okay, the amendment does hang and we will now look at the bill as amended.

Council Member Sawant, I do appreciate you both having a robust conversation in your committee and the process that you went through and also engaging with the council colleagues as folks brought forward amendment.

My desire, Council Colleagues, was that we make sure that this got on the agenda today and that we got it passed out, because this will be a significant policy win for the folks that you've been working with, the Renters Commission and tenant rights folks.

I know that this bill has been amended, and I appreciate the Council Colleagues for their work to include various amendments, but I think it's important for you to close this out as you talk about what this will mean to working families.

Thank you, President Mosqueda, and I agree with you.

This is going to be historic legislation, and I have not disguised my disappointment with the loopholes that have been put in.

And I think ultimately what it demonstrates is, as I said, the need for even more powerful movements of ordinary people.

But I just wanted to also highlight the fact that the fact that we're even discussing this legislation and having it voted out does show how much advocacy people have done.

And I wanted to thank everybody who's here.

and also everybody who spent months advocating for this, the Renters Commission.

But I also wanted to mention, you know, among the people we have here are also the activists who were involved in the India Resolution.

And I've decided that they can't be involved in just one thing, but that they have to be involved in our community as a whole.

And I think that's very important that we're bringing immigrant communities together.

I also specifically wanted to highlight the Washington Community Action Network and the Housing Justice Project for all the work that they've been doing for years.

because of whom we are at this stage and I think that at the end of the day what we will have achieved if this legislation is voted through is landmark legislation that has no precedent in the country and in fact very little precedence in the world because as far as we know only the country of France has something similar.

So this is huge and I think we should be proud of our movement for this and I thank council members for I'm assuming that council members will be voting yes.

So I'm speaking a little in advance.

I just very quickly also want, you know, just, we should also be sober about the limitations of the legislation.

It will not end evictions, it will delay them.

And we know that delaying will provide a real lifeline and could potentially completely prevent evictions.

But on the whole, this won't be enough.

We also do need rent control and we need a major expansion of social housing so we can't stop fighting.

Thank you Councilmember Sawant and for process wise we have now adopted amendments one through six in the base legislation.

I would like for us to take up the amended bill as discussed today.

Ready?

Here we go.

Council Bill 119726 as amended is in front of us.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the passage of Council Bill 119726 as amended?

Sawant.

Aye.

Strauss.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

Lewis.

Aye.

Morales.

Aye.

Peterson.

Aye.

President Mosqueda.

Aye.

Seven in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

So, Council colleagues, there are a number of items that are still on our agenda today.

Thank you for hanging with us.

We're just a few minutes over 4 p.m.

and we just have a few more items.

Madam Clerk, would you please read into the record Let me just say this officially, the bill has passed as amended and the chair will sign it.

And at this time, the bill is not ready for presentation of the signature, but I will announce when the bill is here so that I will sign it in this full chamber before we leave today.

Thank you, council colleagues.

Madam Clerk, would you please read into the record item number two from the Public Safety and Human Services Committee?

The report of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee, agenda item two, resolution 31930, a resolution reaffirming the city's good faith intent to consider raising in the collective bargaining process for the Seattle Police Officers Guild 2021 contract renewal police accountability proposals that have been identified by the public and the city's police oversight agencies.

The committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended with Council Members Herbold, Lewis, and Morales in favor, with an abstention for Council Member Peterson.

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

Council Member Herbold, this is your resolution.

Would you please comment on it?

Absolutely.

So in late 2018, the City Council voted to approve a collective bargaining agreement with the Seattle Police Officers Guild.

The contract runs through the end of 2020. So in March, just a little bit more than a month away, negotiations for a new agreement will begin for a new contract.

The Municipal Code requires the City Council to hold a public hearing in advance of the commencement of negotiations with the Police Officers Guild and requires the City to consider in good faith whether and how to carry forward the interests expressed at the public hearing.

This does not exist for any other bargaining unit in the City.

nor for any other contract requirement in the city as it relates to other city employees.

It only exists for police accountability and for the Police Officers Guild because a prior council has identified this as being such an important issue that we need to hear from the public.

before we enter into negotiations, and it's intended to bring an amount of transparency to the process before we actually begin the process.

So we all have heard you both in the public hearing, but we've also acted and we're about to act on a resolution that identifies what the priorities are.

And by us identifying what the priorities are, you all can hold us more accountable when we're on the other end of the negotiating session.

So, specifically, the resolution summarizes the comments made by the public at the December 5th hearing in the Gender, Equity, Safe Communities, New Americans, and Education Committee.

It includes letters from the three accountability bodies, the Community Police Commission, the Inspector General, and the Office of Police Accountability regarding collective bargaining.

The resolution is designed to meet the intent of the Municipal Code, and it summarizes comments made by the public at the December 5th hearing in the Gender, Equity, Safe Communities, New Americans, and Education Committee.

Specifically, the resolution states that we will consider in good faith what we heard about the needs for enhanced police accountability, and we call out specifically the needs to not only facilitate continued community police dialogue, but also identifies some of the primary priorities of each the CPC and the OPA and OIG.

I believe that the legislation itself speaks for itself as far as what those priorities are.

I'm happy to take a minute to talk about them, but otherwise, I don't believe we need to talk about them because they are memorialized in attachments to the legislation itself.

That's correct.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

Are there any other comments or questions on the resolution in front of us?

Seeing none, all those in favor of resolution 31930, please vote aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

Any opposed?

None.

It is unanimous.

Thank you, sir.

The aye votes have it, and the motion carries.

The resolution is adopted, and the chair will sign it.

Madam Clerk, could you please read into the record item number three from the Transportation and Utilities Committee?

Agenda item three, the report of the Transportation and Utilities Committee, appointment 1527, appointment Kevin Werner as a member, levied to move Seattle Oversight Committee, returned to December 31st, 2021. The committee recommends that the appointment be confirmed.

Thank you very much.

Council Member Peterson, I believe this comes from your committee.

Would you like to speak to it?

Yes, thank you.

We met Kevin Werner in our committee.

He is applying for the Move Seattle Levy Oversight Committee, and he is highly qualified.

He was voted unanimously by our committee.

And he, interestingly, has a science background and not an advocate, but a scientist, and that'll be a good addition to the Oversight Committee.

Excellent.

Thank you very much, Councilmember Peterson.

Any other comments or questions?

All of those in favor of appointment 01527, please vote aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

Any opposed?

No.

Seeing none, the motion carries.

The appointment is confirmed.

Thank you very much, Councilmember Peterson.

The Finance and Housing Committee, Madam Clerk, will you please read into the record item number four?

The report of the Finance and Housing Committee, agenda item four, appointment 1544, appointment of Judith Blinder as member of Seattle City Employees Retirement System Board of Administration for term to June 30th, 2020. The committee recommends the appointment be confirmed.

Council colleagues, this is from my committee on the Finance and Housing Committee.

In November of last year, the employee who was elected as one of the two City of Seattle employees to serve on the Seattle City Employees Retirement System Board of Administration left the city.

In the circumstances, the City of Seattle has the authority to appoint a board member to fill the vacated seat by the council.

until regular elections are held in June.

Judith Blender came as a nominee from the CSRS board and she was an excellent candidate.

She happened to be second pick from last year and now we're lucky enough to have her ready and willing to serve.

She is currently at Seattle City Light and has vast experience in financial analyst roles and she did a great job when she came to our committee.

We asked her a number of questions and We unanimously recommend her confirmation on to the board.

Are there any questions for me as the chair of that committee?

Seeing none, all of those in favor of confirming appointment 01544, please vote aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

Any opposed?

None?

Okay, it is unanimous.

The motion carries and the appointment is confirmed.

Madam Chair, could you please read agenda number five also from my committee?

Agenda item five appointment 1150 appointment of Betsy McFeely as member of Labor Standards Advisory Commission for term to April 30th 2021. The committee recommends that the appointment be confirmed.

Wonderful.

Thank you so much.

So Betsy McFeely also came to my committee on the Finance and Housing Committee, and she is a mayor appointee.

She serves as the Director of Community Relations at Seattle Goodwill.

Betsy is an engaged member of her community.

She is a member of the South Park Neighborhood Association, Rainier Chamber of Commerce, volunteers at the Seattle Art Museum, and is, I think, going to be a great asset to the Labor Standards Advisory Committee.

We have given them a lot of work to do in the upcoming years, so appreciate her participation.

Any comments or questions for me?

Okay, seeing none.

All those in favor of a confirming appointment 01150, please vote aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

Opposed?

None.

Excellent.

The motion carries and the appointment of Betsy McFeely, appointment 01150 is confirmed.

Council colleagues I have in front of me the amended council bill 1 1 9 7 2 6 as discussed and amended today by the six amendments It has been presented and is ready for me to sign for the public record.

I will now sign council bill 1 1 9 7 2 6 as amended Excellent.

Okay.

We are wrapping up here.

Council colleagues, are there any other resolutions or items to come before the council?

Seeing none.

Okay.

Is there any other future, is there any additional business to come before the council right now?

Okay, seeing none.

Thank you to our clerks for helping us manage the various amendments today.

And I just want to say a special thank you to central staff, if they're still watching, both for Allie for coming to the table to answer some questions for us.

And I understand that between this meeting and the one we're about to have, Council Member Lewis, as chair of the Select Committee on Homelessness, our central staff was really busy working over the weekend.

So appreciate all of their time and expertise.

And one day we will have a situation where no one has to work on the weekend, so we can have those weekends acknowledged and recognized.

Hopefully one day soon.

Hopefully one day soon.

Council colleagues, thank you for bearing with us as we got through that important discussion today and appreciate all of the amendments and dialogue that we've had.

With that, today's council meeting is adjourned.