Good afternoon.
Good afternoon, everybody.
Thank you for being here for City Hall.
I'm going to ask that we quiet down a little bit so I can ask some order.
Thank you for being here.
I can't hear me either.
Thank you for being here.
The August 12, 2019 City Council meeting of the full City Council will come to order.
It's 2 o'clock p.m.
Actually, it's 2-0-6 p.m.
I'm Bruce Harreld, President of the Council.
Will the clerk please call the roll?
Sawant.
Here.
Bagshaw.
Here.
Herbold.
Here.
Juarez.
Here.
Mosqueda.
Here.
O'Brien.
Here.
Pacheco.
Here.
President Harrell.
Here.
Eight present.
Thank you very much.
So the council rules are silent on providing council members an option to participate and vote by electronic means for regular meetings for the city council.
Council Member Gonzalez, who you see is not here, had previous commitments and is not able to be present physically here and has requested, however, an opportunity to participate and vote until after consideration of agenda item one, or I should say for agenda item number one.
the reconsideration of Council Bill 119551, which was vetoed by Mayor Durkan.
So after consideration of agenda item one, Council Member Gonzalez was excused, absence will be reinstated.
So at this point, I would like to make a motion to allow Council Member Gonzalez to participate and vote.
And I will move a motion for Council Members to consider.
That is my motion for her to present.
It's been seconded by Council Member Gonzalez.
Any discussion or comments?
All those in favor of the motion vote aye aye opposed The motion carries and councilman gonzalez will be participating and vote until the conclusion of agenda item one Now that I said all of that gobbledygook.
Let's see if it's actually working councilman gonzalez.
Are you able to hear us?
And we are afternoon evening on my end.
Yes, I can hear you just fine.
Thank you.
Okay, and uh Beautiful audience could hear you as well.
Thank you for participating.
At this point, if there's no objection, the introduction and referral calendar will be adopted.
Hearing no objection, today's introduction and referral calendar is adopted.
And similarly, if there's no objection, today's agenda will be adopted.
Hearing no objection, today's agenda is adopted.
There are no minutes for approval today.
I have a ton of paperwork here.
Just one moment.
Presentations.
Do not believe we have any presentations today, so at this time we'll take public comment on items that appear on today's agenda, the introduction and referral calendar, or our work program.
And public comment is accepted for 20 minutes.
It may be appropriate to extend it.
What we're going to do, I think we have over 60 people that have signed up to speak.
I don't think we'll get through all 60, but we're going to take it down to one minute so we can hear as many people as possible.
So get your notes ready to speak for one minute.
And I do believe, as is our practice, we do have a commissioner here.
Is Commissioner Felleman here at this point?
He is, and so we're going to start with Commissioner Fred Felleman on an agenda item.
We'd love to hear from you, and then we'll go down the order with which people have signed up.
So, Commissioner Felleman, the floor is yours, sir.
But I prepared two minutes.
Oh, no.
All right.
Well.
I'll run through it, okay?
I tell you, we see if you could shoot for a minute.
I think that we are aware of your written position.
And concision is good.
Thank you, Council President Harrell and members of the Council.
I'm Port of Seattle Commissioner Fred Felleman here on behalf of the Port of Seattle and Port Commission.
I want to thank Council Members O'Brien and Mosqueda personally for your action at the Planning, Land Use, and Zoning Committee last week to ensure that our docketing amendment before you today did not include the potential zoning changes on industrial lands.
I'm also here to lend our strong support for the amendment Councilmember O'Brien has put forward.
It calls for the mayor to convene a panel charged with conducting a comprehensive review of the industrial lands across the city.
There are so many competing demands on the city and port's lands, many of which are adjacent to working waterfronts.
These properties provide diverse economic opportunities for our growing city, the value of which cannot be viewed in a piecemeal fashion.
also provides opportunities for like our T5 tent city at Cebota and that these sort of land deals need to be conducted in a comprehensive fashion.
We also appreciate the resolution being put forward by Council Member O'Brien today, setting aggressive goals to combat climate change through an equity lens.
Upon election to the Port, I chartered the Energy and Sustainability Committee, yada yada, and we also appreciate the support of the efforts of the Council to address this through an equity lens in the most disproportionately impacted communities.
In fact, I invite you to attend tomorrow's introduction of Bukta, Gishir, our new equity, diversity and inclusion staff member at the port.
And I'm sorry I took this long, but thank you for your attention.
I really do appreciate the leadership you've all shown.
Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner Feldman.
And Commissioner Feldman did demonstrate to all of us how tough it is to try to get into a minute, but I have faith we could do this.
I have faith.
So I have faith in Carl Alex Pauls.
You are first.
And Mark Hannan, you are second.
Again, Commissioner Felleman, thank you for those words.
I'm here in support of the Green New Deal, as expressed by Ocasio-Cortez and Markey, as I believe it represents the best science that we have available, this report on 1.5 degrees warning.
Now, this morning, Council Member Mosqueda, I believe you referred to a move to put Seattle City Light under the energy imbalance market as part of the Green New Deal.
It is not.
On June 20, 2017, spot prices for electricity in California rose to over $300 per megawatt hour.
That's 10 years after Enron.
Seattle City Light management cannot be alleviated by rate payers.
For the Green New Deal to serve more people, more jobs, we can't let the horse out of the barn.
We need a condition to track carbon and greenhouse gas prices before we enter the energy imbalance market.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
Following Mark, I'll call three members out.
Just one moment, Mark.
Kathy Dawson and Johnny Ficaru.
Mark, Kathy, and Johnny.
And we could use this mic over here, Kathy.
There you go.
I'm Mark Hennen, author of the saddest quote is death.
Four years ago, I advocated here for sending Seattle's elephants to sanctuary.
Well, I was right.
Now one of those elephants is dead.
The other one suffers in a cruel Oklahoma cage.
I'm here today for the trees and the Green New Deal.
Please don't compromise our lives.
Global warming threatens and more corporation pollution will doom us like the elephants.
You can be as green as we want because corporations will come here anyway because the rest of the country is flooding or drying up.
Don't compromise our lives.
In 20 years, Seattle will be one of the few places in the United States able to grow food.
We must stop all pollution because reducing it is really adding more poison.
We need the Green New Deal because without it, the ones to suffer and die young won't only be Seattle's elephants.
It'll be you, me, and everybody in this room, and all our children.
Don't compromise our lives.
Don't compromise our lives.
Don't compromise our lives.
Oops.
There.
Honorable Council Members, I'm Kathy Dawson, a program assistant at Earth Ministry, a statewide faith-based movement for Earth care.
Faith values motivate our support of the Seattle Green New Deal resolution before you today.
Values that include the inherent worth of every person, love as the basis of justice, and care of the Earth as a primary duty of all people.
We urge you to pass the resolution and take the next necessary, logical, moral step towards Seattle showing cities around the world how to reverse the 70% of climate change that cities like ours cause.
Thank you.
Before you begin, don't start the clock yet.
After Johnny, it'll be Robin Schwartz, Johnny Mao, and Margaret Kitchell.
That'd be Robin, Johnny, and Margaret.
Hey, council members.
My name is Johnny Fikaru, and I'm an organizer with Got Green, and I'm part of the Seattle for a Green New Deal campaign.
So, point blank period, I'm here to say that we support the Green New Deal because it's the right thing to do.
We know what we're up against, we know it's scary, and so we need to take these situations, we need to take drastic actions for a better world, and we know a better world is possible, and we know that all this community over here is showing a lot of care and importance, and so we're here to support the Green New Deal.
Thank you.
Hi, thanks.
My name's Robin Schwartz.
Thanks for giving me this opportunity.
I work at the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition, and I'm active in the community, especially at Concord Elementary in South Park.
75% of kids at Concord qualify for free and reduced lunch, and South Park, and especially Georgetown, have few grocery options and are not well served by public transportation.
I'm sure you saw the news today about the public charge rule.
I anticipate that having a negative effect on immigrant and refugee kids in South Park.
Food justice is a big concern for us.
As well, coming from a community with a high proportion of people of color and people living on low incomes, we are worried about environmental degradation and the effects of climate change.
I strongly support the Green New Deal and the food justice component is crucial.
This resolution could be life-altering for my community.
I urge you to pass it and to ensure that it is community-led.
Thank you, Robin.
Hello, I'm Margaret Kitchell, and I'm a member of the Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility and the Climate and Health Task Force.
We agree with the World Health Association that climate change is our greatest health challenge, and we've been joined with 73 other health associations in a call to action on our climate emergency.
We need to take bold steps because what we've done so far is not nearly enough, and our emissions keep rising.
We have a report available online, fracked gas infrastructure, which has background details.
And the city of Berkeley has a new ordinance to require all new buildings get heat and power from electricity.
Gas has climate effects, including indoor air pollution with nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide.
But we need to build with all electric and renewable resources.
And the technology for electricity has greatly improved, and it will greatly improve our health.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Greetings and good afternoon.
My name is Johnny.
I'm an organizer with Got Green, centering communities of color and the green movements.
I live in Lake City.
And so today I want to speak in support of the Green New Deal resolution, and I want to speak to the economic benefits of the Green New Deal.
And the city has actually already done this research.
The Office of Environment and Sustainability has commissioned a report on this topic.
And so the Green New Deal, the green economy, is a $500 billion industry.
And with intentional policy starting here, generate cost savings in the trillions of dollars.
And so, and not only is the Green New Deal, not only are energy improvements a good idea to save our planet and everyone living in it, but it's also a good idea for the city of Seattle.
And that with more energy improvements comes greater efficiency, and more greater efficiency comes with more bang for the buck.
And so this means a greater competitive advantage, more demand, and more businesses coming to work with us in our city.
And so that means we can establish ourselves as a global leader in climate change solutions.
How does that sound?
Sounds good.
Thank you, Johnny.
Thank you very much.
But most importantly, it's a question of where those savings can go.
And that's, would it go towards equity?
and that it's an opportunity to put our money where our mouth is.
If we care about investing in the environment, then we should care about the people living in it.
Thank you, Johnny.
And communities of color, working class families, and people who need housing.
Thank you so much for agreeing to the deal.
Thank you.
Thanks for coming.
The next three speakers are Anne-Marie Dooley, if you take any mic, and Polly G would be next, and then Emma Nixon.
Anne-Marie, Polly G, and Emma.
I'm Anne-Marie Dooley, and I'm here again with Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility.
You know, the first weekend of August, I spent 80 hours covering the hospital, and one 2 a.m.
phone call I got was a man whose lungs were filled with fluid.
You know, that I can fix.
What I can't fix is the person who comes in whose lungs are filled with wildfire smoke, or the 50-year-old whose lungs are damaged from chronic indoor and outdoor air pollution.
But you can.
You can set policy that benefits all of Seattle, and not just those people with money.
For too long, private money has dominated public policy, with arguments that somehow a climate policy costs too much.
But the costs we're looking at are a climate-fueled public health crisis that will affect everyone in this room.
But here's the good news.
We invent things in Seattle.
We invented Medic One, which is a publicly funded emergency response system, which I trained as a Medic One doc.
we need a publicly funded Green New Deal that cleans our air of fossil fuels and sets Seattle up as a leader again in a climate policy that actually saves lives like Medic One.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Is Polly G here?
If not, we'll move to Emma Nixon.
Hi.
I'm Emma Nixon.
These are my kids.
This is Roland and Wallace.
They're four and one years old.
I'm speaking for myself, but I'm also speaking for a group of more than 200 families in the Seattle area.
We call ourselves green families because we're trying to do anything that we can as individuals to live greener and save the planet.
It's completely obvious that there's nothing that we can do as individuals to save our kids' lives.
We are terrified that they will die, and honestly, an early and terrible, tragic death because of the impact that we as humans have on our environment and the destruction of our environment.
We need to do something drastic.
We need to do something now.
You guys have in your power to do something drastic.
You guys have in your power to do something now.
And I please hope that you will for the sake of all of our children.
Thank you so much.
Paris, Flo, and then Arista Chen.
Alina, Flo, and Arista.
Is Alina here?
And after Arista is Randy Gustafson.
Hello, my name is Elena Perez, representing Puget Sound SAGE in support for Seattle's Green New Deal and also the Green Janitor Pilot Program.
We know that the promise of green jobs, economic prosperity, and climate justice has not yet reached those most impacted by climate change.
Residents of South Park and Georgetown have an expected lifespan that is eight years shorter than the average Seattle resident.
And 58% of the people living within a mile of the lower Duwamish Superfund boundary are people of color.
By passing Seattle's Green New Deal, our city can be a national model for how we transition our economy to one centered on regenerative industries while confronting racial and health disparities in our communities.
And we can do it in a way that lifts up the rights of workers to fair, safe, and healthy workplaces through a voice on the job and a real path to joining and organizing unions.
We can ensure a just transition for workers who are currently in the fossil fuel industry and dedicate resources to our communities of color.
The Green Janitor Pilot Program is also an important step in this direction, and I just ask that you please support both.
Thank you.
My name is Florence Sum, also go by Flo.
I work at Rainier Valley Corp.
I'm the Green Pathways Fellowship Program Manager.
Y'all have already done some good work in terms of endorsing the Green Pathways Resolution and giving funding for entry-level living wage jobs.
And here is just to really endorse the Green New Deal.
It's just to continue to invest in the economy of workers, right?
We need living wage jobs to continue to do the good work that we are doing here and how that could also have rippling effects to our community if they have the resources they can to make right decisions and to contribute to a green economy, right?
And so I fully endorse that and continue to do that good work.
Woo!
Thank you.
Alyssa Chin, Randy Gustafson, and Tanika Thompson.
Hi City Council, my name is Arista Chen and I'm the Organizing Director at FEAST, a food justice organization led by youth of color in South Seattle and South King County.
FEAST is here today in support of the Green New Deal and to advocate for keeping the sweetened beverage tax money in the SBT fund.
As community members and food justice advocates, we've been part of the community process and listening sessions for the Sweetened Beverage Tax, advocating for the systemic food justice changes we want this money to be used for in our communities.
One of the main reasons our communities voted to pass this tax is because we believed this revenue would go back into our communities.
Taking the excess money and putting into general funding completely undercuts the purpose and the integrity of this tax and our communities are now having to fight for the money that is rightfully ours.
In fact, in the community process meetings, we were asked to narrow and cut our priorities for this money drastically based on the idea that there wouldn't be enough money to fund all the systemic solutions we need.
This extra money should be put towards funding other changes we wanted and were forced to cut from our list of priorities.
I know Mayor Durkan has argued that she'd use this money to fund other social services like Meals on Wheels that are supported by the general fund.
But this strategy of trying to pit long-term social service providers against food access workers who receive money from the sweetened beverage tax is not going to work.
We want all organizations and social services doing important work to be funded and that doesn't get to come from SBT money.
You need to find the money to keep funding your general fund services.
It was in the budget last year.
Find it for this year without trying to take funding away from other community work.
And finally, there's no guarantee that Mayor Durkan would give us money for other social services if it's put into the general fund.
It could also be used to fund departments that are violent and abusive to our communities, like the police.
Security, I'm asking you politely, and please have her removed, because I find her disruptive.
Cut her for Mike.
Okay.
I would ask that she be asked to be removed, please.
I got to be consistent on their rules.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
I don't think that's necessary, President Harrell.
I don't think it's necessary.
So I actually agree with everything she said.
However, it doesn't make any difference on the content.
I'm trying to keep order.
We have 65 people, and if everyone does that, we're going to cut it down to 20.
But I don't think it was in any way egregious.
I don't think she should be removed.
So your point has been made.
I think she actually doesn't mind leaving, so she's, if you, I gotta be honest with you.
This is not, I have zero.
I understand your request.
You can make a formal motion if you want.
I have zero desire to have you.
I do make a formal motion.
I make a motion that the speaker who just spoke not be removed from chambers.
So actually, it's exempt from the motion.
I misspoke.
It's actually within my purview.
Dear, I'm not trying to embarrass you, but I will ask you...
But I did make a motion.
Let me speak, please.
Is somebody willing to second me?
Let me speak.
Feel free to stay, okay?
Feel free to stay.
But I will say...
I will say to someone that's been in the city a few, this is, I'm fairly collegial and kind when I try to share these meetings, but we've had bad people say bad things.
And I try to, if good people are saying good things, I just try to stay consistent in the rules.
And so I hope you at least respect that.
It has nothing to do with the person or the content, but I would actually respect the rules.
And so with that, I'm asking everyone to comply with the one minutes.
Thank you very much.
And quite frankly, Commissioner Felleman, that's why I started off with trying to make sure that that was in order.
So I'd love to grandstand and be everyone's hero and let everyone stay too, but that's just not going to happen.
Please proceed.
Hello, my name is Randy Gustafson, and I'm not undaunted by all that.
Kind of scared though.
I did bring a prop.
I worked for the Seattle Metro on the streetcar for 11 years, just retired.
And I want to talk about one of the worst decisions for its rust.
It was passing back in 1968, but General Motors didn't want rail, and Bellevue Developer did not want all the rail going over to Seattle.
So they mounted a program and it lost.
But we are still paying for it, basically.
Actually, I should mention that when this Seattle Center Connector whatever was first brought forth, I was against it.
I came here and spoke against it.
But now that I understand more about it, I know that it's an urban circulator and that it is up on the surface street instead of below street.
I think it's much better than I originally thought.
I changed my mind and I think you guys can too.
Thank you, sir.
Good afternoon.
My name is Tanika Thompson and I am the food access organizer at Got Green.
I am here in support of your vote to override the mayor's veto to create a separate fund for SBT revenue.
This tax was implemented to prevent childhood obesity and diabetes and impacts low-income communities of color the most.
God green with partnering organizations of volunteers have doorknob to inform Seattle residents that this tax is not regressive due to the fact that the revenue would be redirected to them.
by way of healthy food and early learning programs.
When a portion of the revenue was put into general funds last year, not only did it challenge our accountability, but it also limited the ability to fill the need of healthy food for so many families in Seattle.
The Fresh Bucks program is amazing and is helping so many families, yet there is still a wait list of over 3,500 individuals.
The wait list has to be closed down after one week and I'm gonna stop there.
Well, thank you.
John Waller, or Wallen, or Waller, I think it's Wallen.
John?
John, are you here?
And as John makes his way, Zoe Sherman could use the next mic, and then Isabel Sherry.
So you've got John, Zoe, and Isabella.
Hello, my name is John Waller.
I'm the Secretary of the Seattle-Cuba Friendship Committee.
I'm speaking in support of Council Member Mosqueda's resolution on Cuba.
A similar resolution against the U.S. embargo on Cuba has been passed in about 12 cities in the U.S., and it's going to go to a number of other cities, major cities, very soon.
Ending the embargo on Cuba would enormously benefit the Cuban people.
That's the main reason.
But also it will benefit the U.S. people.
It will enable U.S. people to freely travel to Cuba in ways they currently aren't allowed to.
It would promote trade between the U.S. and Cuba, trade agricultural sales to Cuba, but also enable the U.S. to purchase some of the advanced medicines, treatments against lung cancer, against diabetes that Cuba has developed.
And finally, this policy has been condemned by 189 countries in the UN General Assembly in recent years.
It's a piece of total insanity.
I note that when Engage Cuba asked US Democrat candidates for the president whether they supported normalization of relations, 25 out of 26 said they did support normalization of relations.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hi, my name's Zoe Sherman, and we need you to support the Seattle Green New Deal.
We, my generation, we, future generations, when I look to the future, I know we need to see zero emissions by 2030. I know that we need to be able to exercise our rights to breathe clean air and drink clean water.
I am going to need clean land to grow my food on.
I want my children to be able to experience the joys of life.
I want them to be able to see the stars and be able to go outside without a mask.
I don't want them to have to give up their childhood to fight the climate crisis.
Do you want that for your children?
I know I won't get all of this, but you have some of the power to decide how much.
I'm doing this for my children, for my family, for the city I want to live in with them.
Will you help us?
Will you fully fund and implement effective climate policy and a Seattle Green New Deal?
I believe that we should take responsibility for our actions.
I made a mistake on Friday and intend to make it right.
Can you implement effective climate policy and help us make this right?
Hello, Honorable Councilmen and Councilwomen.
Thank you for your service.
My name is Isabella Blue Sherry.
I'm one of the lead organizers of Fridays for Future here in Seattle.
I'm 16 years old, filled with anxiety, and nothing more than terrified with regards to how we will all survive on this planet.
The UN said we have until 2030 to make immediate drastic climate action.
In 2030, I'll be 27 years old.
I will be deciding if I can bring children into this world.
It will be the year where the climate crisis will be irreversible.
2030 will be the year with no real future.
It is up to you to do your part in stopping this.
You are just as crucial as any official around this world in stopping the largest genocide in human history.
Seattle has to do their part in saving this earth, our only home.
So I plead you to do, as a fellow human, make this city green.
Don't just pass, but fund and implement serious climate action now.
We're out of time, and we deserve a future.
It is time we work together, hand in hand, and support Seattle's Green New Deal.
Thank you.
Actually, gone 10 minutes past our allotted time for public comment.
We listened to 18 speakers.
If there's no objection, I'll extend it for another period.
I did assure the audience I don't think we'll get through all 60, but if there's no objection, we'll continue and listen to some more speakers.
I don't see any objection.
So we'll start with number 19, B.
Elliott, and then following, B.
Elliot is Bex Lips.
And then Erica Lundahl.
Hi.
So the next six people on the list after me were part of a group called the People's Echo.
And we decided to combine our time here to share something special with all of you.
OK, so just so I understand, so I can know where to pick it up.
So it's B, Bex, Erica, Alex, Brody, and Eric.
Are those the folks?
Yes.
Gotcha.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Seattle, it's time to heal.
A green new deal, a green new deal.
Reclaim the future that they steal.
A green new deal, a green new deal.
Jobs that pay a wage that's real.
A green new deal, a green new deal.
We all deserve those healthy meals.
A green new deal, a green new deal.
Housing for all is not unreal.
A green new deal, a green new deal.
Prisons, pipelines, walls of steel.
A green new deal, a green new deal.
Buses, trains, and bicycles.
Green New Deal, Green New Deal.
Meat, pork, salmon, and cheese.
Green New Deal, Green New Deal.
Water, air, and energy.
Green New Deal, Green New Deal.
People, power, and history.
Green New Deal, Green New Deal.
Let's say yes.
Let's say yes.
Let's make it happen.
Let's say yes.
Let's make it happen.
Let's say yes.
Let's make it happen.
Remini, is it Remini Reap and Two Raging Grannies?
Am I saying it right the first time?
I got that, and Two Raging Grannies.
Is it Remini?
We got a Raging Grannies.
Yeah, so we're kind of on the other side of the life cycle here from all these beautiful young people and middle-aged people, but we want to say we're on the right side of history and we know about history.
Come on, folks, we'll change the world.
Activists with flag unfurled, we're on the right side of history, the Green New Deal.
Coal and oil are toxic fuels.
Now it's time to change the rules.
We're on the right side of history, the Green New Deal.
Wind and solar will pave the way.
The Green New Deal will make the day.
Corporate polluters will have to pay.
Don't see another way.
We're on the right side of history.
The Green New Deal.
We're on the right side of history.
It didn't be a mystery.
The right side of history.
The Green New Deal.
So Dre Sey and Ali Vekic.
Dre Sey and Ali Vekic.
Please.
Hello, council members.
I'm here, I would like to speak about how Seattle needs a Green New Deal.
Based on my specific experience speaking with over 200 youth, elders, and workers in the International District, we need a Green New Deal and not just gradual legislation.
Based on my conversation research, the major issues in the International District include pollution from I-5 and I-90, hundreds of thousands of cars every day, pollution from major polluters in Soto, including the biggest one in Seattle, lack of green space, the biggest green space 1.7 acres, And biggest of all, I think, when everyone speaks to me, is gentrification and displacement.
A lot of elders' income is around $750 a month from the government, and they cannot afford supposedly low-income apartments being built in the international district.
That's why we need big systemic changes.
We need air cooling and filtering centers.
We need low-income housing.
We need free public transit.
And we need education and green jobs.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hello, my name is Ali Vekic representing ILWU Local 19. I'm a dock worker in the port of Seattle.
Thank you members of the council for allowing time for comment on the comprehensive plan docketing legislation.
I speak in support of Resolution 31896, which would allow for a study of our city's maritime and industrial lands before pursuing any removal of land parcels from the manufacturing industrial center overlay.
I would like to thank Mike O'Brien and Teresa Mosqueda in particular for their work in putting together this resolution.
These lands support one-sixth of the jobs in our city, which pay 20% more than the median wage of Seattle.
70% of these jobs do not require a college degree.
Jobs in the maritime industry support the missing middle incomes which enable people to be able to afford to live in the city in which they work.
Our union is committed to these discussions so that we may keep good union jobs in our city while recognizing the land use demands of a growing city.
Thank you.
Thank you.
As I did earlier, Councilmember Larry Gossett, King County Councilmember Larry Gossett, I believe you are here, and I believe Cindy Domingo is here as well to testify on an issue.
We'd welcome you up at this point.
And I'll presume to go back.
Now, just so you know, before we get started, I'm public enemy number one because I'm trying to keep it down to a minute.
But I've been pretty flexible on that one minute.
Do what you can, and we love to hear from you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Chair Harrell.
I appreciate having the opportunity.
I appreciate being called up early.
I understand the time limits.
The main thing that I would like to say I need to say up front, I'm hopeful that the Seattle City Council passes this new Seattle Green New Deal, but I'm here to tell you, When the county council returns from its recess in a week or two, I'm putting together legislation to have a Martin Luther King, Jr.
County Green New Deal.
before the members of the King County Council, I just want to respectfully say I hope the City Council gives due consideration to this.
If y'all pass it, it'll be a great foundation for me to pick it up and spread it throughout the entire King County Council.
of the King County based moratorium on fossil fuel infrastructure, travel and development.
But this is much broader, this is much bigger.
They took into consideration of impact on workers, keeping wages high, involving people of color.
So I'm definitely on board for this whole issue.
Thank you very much.
playing tag team.
So first, I want to thank Council Member Teresa Mosqueda for sponsoring the resolution to lift the blockade against Cuba that the United States has had in place for 60 years.
And as well as her father and mother, Larry and Patty Mosqueda, who traveled with me on my last Bay Day delegation and brought this idea to the Council Member.
I'm sorry that they couldn't be here to testify on behalf of this resolution.
I have been going to Cuba since 1999, and as a feminist have brought, and as a person who cares about Cuba, have brought almost 200 people with me to Cuba.
What has driven me to my commitment to bring people to Cuba was the commitment of the Cuban government and the Cuban women to push forth a women's rights agenda which has enabled women to achieve higher status in their society in just 60 years.
Women's rights are embedded in the Cuban Constitution, Article 44, quote, the state guarantees women the same opportunities and possibilities as women, as men, in order to achieve women's full participation in the development of its country.
And as a result of that, Cuban women in 2017 represented 66.8% of the professional and intermediate level technical jobs, 68% of the university students, 81% of the medical students were women.
And in 2017, Cuba ranked third place worldwide for the highest percentage of women members in parliament with 48.6%.
The US ranks 80. Lastly, today you are hopefully passing- Can you wrap up, Cindy?
About to wrap up, please.
Okay.
Legislation on the Seattle Green Deal.
And Cuba has been at the forefront of the battle against climate change.
I hope you will pass this resolution.
We have much to learn from Cuba and exchanging visits from both of our countries.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Emma Jean Williams.
Jeannie
My grandson and his family live downstairs.
The little girl is six.
She can read really well.
The little boy is one and a half.
He gave me a name.
He calls me Mommo.
They got me a button.
It has a picture of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and it says dissent.
We love our kids, but our love is tested by the realities of climate change.
In City Council District 3, Shamus Awant has been saying that the Green New Deal is imperative And it is because we have to be fossil fuel free by 2030. Fossil fuel free.
My name is Jenny Kowalczyk and I'm the Communications Director for the Alliance for Pioneer Square.
We manage the business improvement area and represent over 850 businesses.
I'm here today to ask you to support the Center City Connector.
With an ever-changing city landscape, there are changing transportation needs.
Pioneer Square and the surrounding neighborhoods need an efficient, reliable, environmentally friendly mass transit option.
Connecting the existing streetcar lines will give us a zero emission downtown circulator that completes this network and allows thousands of people to get around our city efficiently.
Please support this project.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Before you begin, let me call Terry Flynn and Claire Richards.
My name is Matt Remley.
I'm Lakota, a resident of Beacon Hill, and I would like to first thank Council Member O'Brien and his staff for the work on the Green New Deal and bringing together folks over the past couple months to really bring some powerful things into this resolution.
I'm expressing my support for it and encouraging the council to take bold actions to be fossil fuel free by 2030 and following up on those bold statements with bold action and ensuring that Seattle becomes a leader in addressing climate change.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
President Harrell, members of the council, I'm Terry Finn, I'm a board member of the Washington Federation for Maritime Services, and I am here to support the recommendations of the Planning, Land Use, and Zoning Committee to withdraw the proposed amendment to impose a stadium district in the comp plan, and also to remove three other parcels from the manufacturing and industrial designation.
I want to thank directly council members O'Brien and Mosqueda for helping to pass that from committee.
And we really hope that the full council will support a call upon the mayor to have a comprehensive review and study of industrial lands as part of the overall comp plan review process.
We need much more detail about the benefits of the industrial area, its function, and the different industries involved.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Claire Richards, and I was here on Friday, and I choked up crying, and this time I'm a little bit stronger.
I am a mom of a three-and-a-half-year-old, and this is him.
I thought, you know, I'd share his picture with you because he's not here right now.
I am a scientist.
I'm a nurse scientist, and I have heard about climate change since I have heard about climate change my whole life, but I did not realize it was going to come so soon.
And it is happening right now faster than scientists ever predicted.
The fires and smoke events will only increase in their frequency, in their duration, and affect the way our children's lungs develop over the course of their lifetime.
we have a narrow window in which we can change.
This is a picture of my son picking tomatoes.
And if we do not change, climate change is affecting the bees, they are going extinct.
And if we do not have bees, we will not be able to live because we need bees in order to grow tomatoes or any other kind of food source.
And we need plants in order to slow climate change down.
So it is a double whammy.
And I brought you some tomatoes that my son picked from the fresh.
Thank you, Claire.
Alex Conin, Rich Voget, and Jolie Simone Barga.
Alex, Rich, and Jolie.
Good afternoon City Council, if you remember on June 25th you all signed on to the Seattle for a Green New Deal community endorsement letter, and recognizing that anything I could say in my minutes is going to be nothing compared to what we've heard from many people already today, and I'm certainly not going to sing, I'm just going to read the names of many of the other community leaders that have endorsed Seattle for a Green New Deal.
I include organizations Scott Green, El Centro de la Raza, the Tenants Union of Washington, the Wing Luke Museum of the Asian Pacific American Museum, Mazaska Talks, Family of Color Seattle, the League of Women Voters Seattle, King County Chapter, Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Washington Healthcare Alliance, the Rainier Valley Corps, Real Change, Nicholsville, Mazaska Talks, the Delridge Neighborhood Development Association, Women's Rights Group, Legal Voice, Disability Rights Group, Rooted in Rights, the West Seattle Helpline, major labor unions like SEIU-775, SEIU-6, UFC-W21, UAW-4121, UAW-1981, who collectively represent tens of thousands of workers, major faith coalitions, Earth Ministry, Faith Action Network.
I'm only about a tenth of my way through this list, but I see my time is already up.
Thank you.
The parable of the Good Samaritan was told in answer to a lawyer's question, who is my neighbor?
It destroys our way of drawing lines and saying everyone inside the line is my neighbor, but those outside, I don't have to be concerned about.
I can't say, because I live in Wallingford, I'm not concerned about the people living in South Park and Georgetown whose life expectancy is eight years less in part due to climate pollution.
The good Samaritan didn't calculate how much money his act of helping would cost him.
He paid the innkeeper and said if there were more expenses, he would pay them also.
There's going to be lots of pushback from people who don't want to pay to address a problem they helped to create.
Make them pay in an equitable way.
The lawyer answers his own question.
He knows what's right.
Knowing is not enough.
Jesus said to him, go and do.
You know a small solution won't fix a big problem.
Ending Seattle's climate pollution by 2030 is a solution that is big enough to match the scale of the problem.
Go and do.
Hello, my name is Jolie Simone Barga and I am 14 years old.
I'm a weekly climate striker with Fridays for Future Seattle and a city lead with Washington Youth Climate Strike.
I'm here today because I support the Seattle Green New Deal.
To me, a Green New Deal means hope for my future.
Right now, many people my age, including me, are scared for our future because of the climate crisis.
However, knowing that our city could pass the Green New Deal would be a step in the right direction with many clean, green, livable wage jobs and everyone having the access to clean water, clean air, and a healthy environment.
This is what my generation and everyone in the city needs.
I hope you all support the Seattle Green New Deal resolution.
Thank you.
Thank you.
David Mendoza is next.
David's going to be followed by Matt Haney and then Lalessa Gunnison.
Good afternoon.
My name is David Mendoza.
I'm the Legislative and Government Affairs Director at Front and Centered.
We are a statewide coalition of 60 communities, organizations, and groups rooted in economic and racial justice that advocates for statewide environmental justice policies.
I am here representing Front and Centered in strong support of the Green New Deal for Seattle.
City of Seattle can be a leader in adopting the Green New Deal and help push our county, like it already seems to be doing, state and federal governments to join us in this effort.
Addressing climate change requires ambition and broad scope that encompasses every major source of emissions and need for adaptation while providing solutions to these problems that improve health and well-being of those most vulnerable to climate change and pollution.
This resolution, by covering buildings, transportation, food, water, job creation, income inequality, is the needed comprehensive approach this crisis needs.
This resolution is a vital first step.
I want to thank you for listening to impacted communities and putting this resolution forward.
We urge all your support, and we look forward to working with our member organizations and you in making this a reality.
Thank you.
Good morning, council members.
Matt Haney, SEIU 6 Property Services Northwest.
I'm here to testify in support of the Green Janitors Education Program budget amendment.
Janitors want to be a part of the solution addressing global warming.
SEIU 6 janitors are in 95% of Seattle's large commercial office buildings.
These are the same buildings targeted in the Seattle Climate Action Plan with goals of reducing greenhouse gases, landfill waste, and water usage.
As the eyes and ears of our commercial office buildings, our janitors are in a unique position to identify and address a lot of the low-hanging fruit specific to each building to help us reach our climate goals.
Building owners and property managers, labor, environmental, and community organizations, and hopefully our local government, are all collaborating on the Green Janitor Education Program.
And we are optimistic to bring similar success, 5.6% energy savings that they've seen in a similar program down in Los Angeles.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm a janitor for a building service for more than 15 years.
I support the green janitor education program as a janitor.
I want to have a skill for taking care of the environment as well as my building.
We went to work that we We want to do work that makes the earth healthier for our children.
We can help the city make its green energy goals faster.
Please support the Green Janitors Education Program.
It will empower janitors with skills that will benefit everyone.
Thank you.
Vandana Whitney, Ingrid Elliott, and Harry Kotz.
Vandana, Ingrid, and Harry.
Hello, my name is Vandana Whitney.
I'm a member of Seattle 350 and the Sierra Club.
Ideally, the Green New Deal would be a federal program, federally funded, implemented at the state and local level.
And it's not completely out of the question that we might get that kind of leadership at the national level in the next election cycle, or maybe the one following.
At this point, we obviously can't hope for significant Federal funding.
So it is a tremendous challenge to fund a Green New Deal at the local level, as we are asking the Council to do.
But my point is this.
Every time a city like Seattle makes a commitment to the Green New Deal, it has a catalyzing effect on other cities, which will also create momentum that we need to push this political activity at the national level.
Our goal is to do the best we can at the local level, but never lose sight that we are just part of a much larger vision.
Thank you.
Ingrid here.
Thank you.
My name is Ingrid Elliott and I'm a Seattle mom.
I'm here because I want grandchildren.
We know that we have until 2030 to change the trajectory of climate change.
2030 is when my oldest son Avi would be 30 years old.
He says this is when he would think about having children.
But if climate change isn't under control by then, he shares the anxiety of the kids we've heard today.
And he says he won't have kids if he doesn't feel that he will be bringing them into a safe future.
I'm grateful that the Seattle City Council has endorsed the Green New Deal.
And I would urge you to adopt the Green New Deal resolution and make that beautiful endorsement letter from June official.
I would also urge you in the coming months to make effective and significant action towards making the Green New Deal not just a beautiful idea, but a reality.
The first step should be to do no new harm.
We must stop our growing admissions, and I would urge you to follow the example of King County, which has banned all new fossil fuel infrastructure projects.
the city of Berkeley, which has banned fossil fuel in new buildings.
Seattle can do the same.
Thank you.
Harry, Katz, Stacy, Zane, and Mark Baskin.
And that will conclude our fourth page.
Harry, Stacy, and Mark.
Baskin.
41, 42, and 43.
Hi.
Hello, council members.
Thank you for your time.
My name is Harry Katz, and I'm representing Sunrise Movement Seattle, a group that organizes young people to take action for the Green New Deal.
I'm here today because I don't want fossil fuel air pollution to shorten my life or anyone else's life, and I know it shortens many people's lives every year.
Young people want a livable future for all, and that's why we support Seattle's Green New Deal.
We are so inspired by this Seattle Green New Deal campaign, and we hope Seattle will inspire other places around the world to listen to the leadership of frontline communities, prioritize racial and economic justice, and eliminate pollution as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Is that Martha?
Or was there something else?
Martha Baskin?
Yes.
And Martha, before you, and you could proceed, but I think it's Steve.
Oh, Steve.
Steve Zemke.
Boy, Steve, I couldn't read your name, though.
So it goes Steve and then Martha.
My name's Steve Zemke.
I'm chair of Friends of Seattle's Urban Forest.
We want to say that we strongly support the Green New Deal.
We have a climate crisis.
It's not a climate change issue anymore.
We want to thank the council for moving forward on this legislation as well as their commitment to moving forward on updating the Seattle Tree Protection Ordinance.
This is long overdue by 10 years.
We can't make the problem worse by letting trees be removed and not be replaced the same time we're trying to do the Green New Deal.
They have to go together.
These are complementary issues.
So we support the Urban Forestry Commission draft.
We urge you to enact this as soon as possible that you can.
The whole idea with tree replacement required when developers remove trees, for instance, is that they can be planted in other places in the city that now have health problems, like in South Park, like in the Duwamish Valley, et cetera.
This is a racial and race and social justice issue.
And by passing the tree ordinance, you can assist in this Green New Deal effort.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm adding my voice to this effort to save our trees.
I'm here to support the Green New Deal and encourage city council members and all those who've worked so hard for its passage to also include strong language to protect urban trees.
Their importance in a changing climate and to public health and well-being should be self-evident.
But increasing development is seeing a rapid loss of green canopy on residential lots especially.
Housing and trees should not be incompatible, but often they are the sacrificial lamb.
As a member of the recently formed Don't Clear Cut Seattle, I urge the council to not only pass Seattle's new Green Deal, Green New Deal, but enact a draft tree ordinance protection now.
The draft was presented to the council and the mayor back in June, but we understand that it is stalled and that is tragic.
I respectively request the council to take action on behalf of trees, those silent living creatures, which any successful Green New Deal depends on.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Colleagues, we've listened to about 45 public comments.
We did hear public comment at testimony at committee as well.
So unless there's objection, I'm going to go to the agenda.
We have a lot of work to do on the agenda, and we want to thank everyone for your testimony.
I regret we can't get through all the names that we tried to do as best we could.
So having said that, please read the title of the payment of the bill section so we can move on with our agenda.
Council Bill 119605, appropriating money to pay salaries and claims for the week of July 29th, 2019 through August 2nd, 2019 and ordering the payment thereof.
I'll move to pass Council Bill 119605. It's been moved and seconded.
The bill passed.
Any comments?
Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Sawant.
Aye.
Bagshaw.
Aye.
Gonzalez.
Aye.
Herbold.
Aye.
Juarez.
Aye.
Mosqueda.
Aye.
O'Brien.
Aye.
Pacheco.
Aye.
President Harrell.
Aye.
Nine in favor, none opposed.
The bill passes and the chair will sign it.
Please read agenda item number one.
The report of the City Council reconsideration of Council Bill 119551 relating to creating a fund for sweetened beverage tax revenues adding a new section 5.53.055 to the Seattle Municipal Code and providing additional guidelines for expending proceeds passed by the City Council on July 22nd, 2019 and vetoed by the Mayor on August 2nd, 2019. Thank you.
Bear with me for one moment here.
I'm calling up the motion to reconsider the passage of Council Bill 119551 as amended.
It doesn't require a motion, but we will no doubt have some discussion.
The reconsideration of this bill as amended is now pending before the Council, and I will call for comments.
Just a word about procedurally sort of what we're doing.
As many of you know, The council passed some legislation relative to the sweetened beverage tax.
It has been vetoed by the mayor, which then requires that between five and, I believe, 30 days, we reconsider the vote.
And we can legally change our vote, or we can restate we can vote as we did on the record for the first proceeding and state our reasons, either legal or factual basis for our vote.
You're not required to, but you may wanna make sure you have a record.
So at this point, I think we all understand what's before us.
This will require, just so the public knows, two thirds vote to pass.
In other words, six votes, the law remains in effect.
And council members are free to of course vote whichever way they would like.
So who would like to speak on the possible veto and the reconsideration of the vote?
And we can take your time.
OK.
Would anyone like to start off?
Theresa Mesquita, Council Member Mesquita, would you like to start?
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Thank you.
You know, I am happy to also wait if there's others who had worked on the original legislation, but seeing no hands going up first, I'm happy to chime in first, and I'm sure that we'll have other people who will comment similarly.
I am extremely disappointed that we are here today.
I'm extremely disappointed that, again, we have to have this conversation about how we will not engage in an austerity budget.
We are not going to engage in pitting populations against populations, communities of color against communities of color.
We are not going to engage in children versus seniors or those who are housed versus unhoused.
We are talking about the very core services of government, and those core services of government should be coming from the general fund.
When we passed this tax initially, when the council courageously stepped forward and put forward a tax on sugary sweetened beverages, they did so in an intentional and thoughtful way, including communities of color, including those most harmed by the targeting of soda companies, including a conscious analysis of how to make sure that we kept workers whole and that as the tax was implemented, those dollars went back into the very communities that were being taxed.
This effort to try to pit one of us against another one of us in the community is part of why we are standing strong to stand up against this veto.
Today, Mr. President, I'm going to be supporting the council in its original language that it brought forward to make sure that we are not replacing general fund dollars with soda tax dollars.
The soda tax was a public health intervention.
It was always a bill to be a public health harm reduction strategy, not to foot the bill for general government.
So today, Mr. President, we stand in solidarity with the public health advocates who recognize that we need to reduce consumption of sugary sweetened beverage, with the voters who knew that we were yet again imposing a regressive tax, but doing so in a way to be intentional to get money back into the very communities that we're being harmed by high sugary sweetened beverages and to also recognize that yes, consumption has not declined because we don't have those dollars in hand and have not directed them to the educational programs, to the early learning programs, to the programs that ensure that there's more than just high salt, high carb, high fat food in our communities and we need access to fruits and vegetables and healthy foods and that we need community gardens and we need community education programs.
That is what these dollars were intended to do in addition to making sure that we supported early learning programs, home visiting programs, food assistance programs.
I do believe that we should do both.
We can do both.
The sugary sweetened tax beverage was, sorry, the tax was never intended to pat in the pockets of our budget overall and instead needs to go back into the very communities that supported this to begin with.
So as a public health advocate, as a champion to make sure that we're investing in our earliest learners, as someone who wants to see our communities become healthier and greener and live longer, we need to be true to what we've promised to the voters, and that was that this money would be walled off and intentionally directed to those who are consuming sugary sweetened beverages at highest rates and that we reduce consumption overall to create healthier communities across the board.
Mr. President, I'll be supporting our initial bill.
Thank you, Councilwoman Taylor.
Councilmember Gonzalez, I'm speaking directly to you at this point.
I could not see if you raised your hand when I asked if anyone wanted to speak.
But I will say that a few members of the council would like to speak, but maybe it would be appropriate for you to say a few words initially, and then I could recognize people here physically, or would you like to wait for me to recognize others first?
Thank you, Council President.
I don't have anything more to add than the original comments that I made.
I agree wholeheartedly with the remarks made by my colleagues.
on this issue, I'm ready to vote yes on this for all of those reasons and look forward to having an opportunity to win and if we call roll on this bill.
Thank you.
Okay.
And after you hear a few opinions, I'll just come back to you again, just in the rare, just in case you want to say something, I'll certainly give you another opportunity.
Thank you, Councilman Gonzalez for that.
And who would like to speak next?
When you're looking at me, I don't know.
Sorry, I was trying to convey complex thoughts.
Well, that's sort of funny.
I've been pretty good at reading body language.
When Council Member Herbold looks at me like that, it means call on me, but I didn't.
I do want to speak, but I'm happy for Council Member O'Brien to go.
But I also, if there are Council Members who are going to vote no on this agenda item, I would like to hear from them first before I go.
Okay, well, I understand.
If possible.
If possible, but I'll let every member, duly elected member, speak as they would, and I'll just recognize you as I see hands.
Council Member Bryan, I did see your hand next, I believe.
I can also be brief.
I've spoke to this numerous times, and I think Council Member Mosqueda, you said it very eloquently, and I fully support everything you said, and will be voting in support of the legislation to override the veto.
Thank you.
You know, I'm gonna, you know, typically and historically practice, and I think according to Rob Drew, I'm sure I'm supposed to go first, but last time everyone spoke, my daughter was there and she said, don't say anything, dad.
So I didn't get a chance to say anything.
I just want to say something very quickly and then we'll see who wants to close debate.
I'm certainly overriding the veto.
And for these reasons, it was very simple that when we as a council created this revenue stream, Quite candidly and quite honestly, I was against this tax.
It was a very regressive tax.
I thought that black and brown communities would suffer the most, and I had to be convinced as to why this made sense from an investment strategy.
And some of these same faces that I'm looking at now convinced me. that this revenue stream was for the long-term health of our community, that this revenue stream was to make sure that we understand the importance of health, and that we had to, from a grassroots standpoint, go against the strong marketing efforts that sometimes target poorer neighborhoods.
And it began to make sense to me.
And we took a lot of hits, by the way.
People remember that, but I was one of the few people that we were getting it from all angles.
But we did it, and we got through it.
And we didn't say it was going to be capped.
We didn't say, and by the way, if we generate more, we're going to do this.
We said this is going back into our community.
So for me, conceptually, it's a very simple vote.
It just is consistent with our values.
And so certainly I will vote to override the veto, and I look forward to that vote.
So thank you very much.
So I could keep going if you want, but I won't.
Council Member Swan, would you like to say a few words?
Thank you, President Harreld.
Every year during the budget, it is shocking to see how the general funds that could be spent on anything are used by the mayor and the majority of the council.
This year, for example, the mayor spent $400 million on policing, $10 million on inhumane and ineffective sweeps of homeless encampments, and a million dollars studying, putting regressive tolls on city streets, and not one discretionary dollar on building affordable housing.
This bill is about whether the funds raised by the sweetened beverage tax go into the general fund or whether they are in a special fund to be only used for things like access to healthy foods.
This bill is not about whether or not to have the sweetened beverage tax.
We are not relitigating that discussion.
I voted against the implementation of the tax because it is so regressive, putting the overwhelming majority of the burden on poor and working class people.
But today the vote is about whether the funds from this tax are reserved to support healthy food options for the very people who are going to be paying the majority of the tax.
This measure, to be able to use the funds for the community itself, mitigates the regressive nature of the tax, taking some of the revenues back into the hands of the communities.
And because of that, of course, there's no doubt I intend to vote yes.
This ordinance is not about cutting $6.3 million from other various important programs, as Mayor Durkan has falsely claimed.
This bill cuts nothing.
However, the mayor's lie, while absurd on the face, needs to be taken seriously because she has the power to propose a different kind of budget, and if she says that programs will be cut, she's effectively threatening to cut the funding to the programs if the social service operators do not fall into line.
There have even been reports that the mayor has had department heads calling social service providers and threatening to cut their funding.
In the end, this is what the bill is about.
This is not about one politician versus another, or some sort of palace intrigue in City Hall.
This bill goes to the heart of the matter that we face in our city, which is the lack of political courage in City Hall to tax big business so that all the programs that we need can be fully funded, so that all our needs as a society can be funded.
That is not happening, which is why you have situations like this where we are struggling to find measure of social justice and even that is being called into question by pitting programs against programs, by using the Peter, robbing Peter to pay Paul strategy.
As our movement is growing, absolutely we want to win this vote today and override the mayor's egregious veto.
But that will not be enough.
We will need to continue fighting for full funding of all our programs.
And that full funding will not come on the basis of the most regressive tax system in the entire nation, which is what we have in our city today.
We will need to generate the political courage to tax big business and the wealthy so that all the needs of our communities, especially the most marginalized, are funded.
And that courage, as you know, is not going to start from most politicians.
It's going to start in the grassroots, in our workplaces, in our communities.
So I look forward to working with you in September and October in our People's Budget Movement.
Thank you.
Any other council members like to speak on this issue?
Council Member Herbold, would you like to say a few words?
Just a few words.
Just piggybacking off of Council Member Sawant's comments about what the intent of this legislation is and is not.
When we heard that the mayor and some of her department directors were raising this concern in the community that by sequestering these funds for the intended programs that that might mean fewer funds for other programs that we all cared about.
We worked to actually amend the legislation to include a recital that clarifies what the council's intent is and what our expectation is for the mayor.
And so included in this piece of legislation is an amendment that clarifies that the legislation is not intended to reduce funding for any impacted programs And I think this next part's really important, that the executive is expected to identify other sources to main full funding for these additional programs that we all care about.
So that's what we're all hoping to see in the budget process this year coming up in September.
Thank you.
Thank you, Council Member Bolz.
Council Member Bagshaw.
We have gone through this now how many times four or five times in these chambers and I as budget chair had raised an amendment on one occasion and supported Councilmember Pacheco on another to say we went through this last year during the budget cycle and and we had agreed that we would have an endorsed budget, both an adopted budget for this year and an endorsed budget next year.
I will tell you that I am probably the least comfortable up here around this brouhaha we're now having, because I do feel it's pitting one community against another, many of us up here against the other, and the second floor against the seventh floor, which I think is absolutely unnecessary.
going forward.
But I do want to recognize that whereas I fully support the sweetened beverage tax investments, I also support the appropriations that we made last year for a number of things that were really critical, and those were public health, caring for our communities in other ways for our parent-child home program, our child care assistance program, and our nurse-family partnership program.
All these things are important to all of us.
So, coming up in October, what I'm asking my colleagues to do is we really need to prioritize the revenues for these other programs that we hold dear.
Now, of course, we're going to hold our food banks whole.
We need this money for our fresh bucks.
We know how important that is.
The operational cost for permanent supportive housing, all of these things that we invested in through the sweetened beverage tax last year.
Now, we must resolve the conflicting funding priorities as we go forward in our balanced budget.
So I'm asking you, I'm also asking our council central staff and the mayor's office as well, to help us look for and at the entire system of expenditures, primarily for human services.
I believe that this council has said over and over again, human services and finding housing for our unsheltered are top priority.
We also know that some of our investments simply aren't working and we aren't getting the benefits we expect.
So, my goal here as budget chair, unfortunately, I have to take a courageous position and say we have to have a balanced budget.
There is not a single thing that we have done in the last year to suggest that we're very good at cutting things.
So, I am really committed, as I know the mayor is, to find the money in our general fund to support what we're doing.
I know where the wind is blowing up here.
As my friend Richard Connolly used to say, you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing and how this vote is coming.
But I want to make really sure that we understand that as we're moving forward with these things, we ultimately are going to have to make some decisions.
One is going to be we need some additional revenues to cover this.
So I'm asking my colleagues, let you know over the next month before our budget really begins in October, I want to hear from you about are there one-time funds things that you are going to be willing to cut if we are needing additional revenues, we've got to work with the executive to make sure I am not going to be voting today to override her veto.
I believe that she had some real good reasons for doing that, but I do want my colleagues to know that I am committed to making sure that all the investments that we have identified in the 2018 budget for this year and next year are held completely whole and not touched.
Okay.
Come on.
Council Member Pacheco.
So prior to my appointment, I had the opportunity to knock on the doors of about 2,000 people in my district.
And one of the things that I would hear consistently at the door was, you seem like a nice guy.
If you get to the council, don't get caught in the fights between the council and the mayor.
And in my district specifically, I think it's what led to the rise of the call for accountability.
So this is hard.
This is hard for a variety of reasons, reasons that I outlined that were deeply personal to me because I grew up on many of the programs that we're talking about funding.
And not only do I know firsthand the importance of these programs, the question becomes, how do we fund these programs?
And the underlying issue and the issues that I've inherited with regards to the decisions that led to the situation are such that we still have yet to address the underlying part, which is How do we fund them?
As the tensions have escalated in this entire debate between the council and the mayor, it has really been disheartening for me and quite frankly, heartbreaking.
Because I'm here trying to focus on solutions.
I really want to work with all of my colleagues.
I know my colleagues are all dedicated public servants and I'm wanting to work with everyone to figure out how we best do this.
This is not about Us versus them, this is really about all of us trying to drive the solution forward.
In the end, there are 10 people responsible for the leadership of the city.
Nine council members, one mayor.
And so, as a sole vote against this ordinance, I will support Councilmember Bagshaw and the mayor's veto, and I will say this right now.
It is my priority, and don't interpret this vote as not wanting to put the money back.
It's a vote to say how do we figure out the solutions that are necessary because the underlying issue still remains.
We have not identified the funding sources, and I'm willing to work with anyone to identify those funding sources, to put the money back, and not pit organizations against each other, because that has been probably the most disappointing and disheartening part of this entire process.
We're better than this.
So I'm gonna vote to uphold the veto.
Thank you, Council Member Pacheco.
Okay, we're almost ready to vote.
Did anyone else want to say any other words?
Council Member Mosqueda,
Thank you, Mr. President.
Just to circle back, I do think it's important to note that I believe it was Councilmember Sawant or Herbold who mentioned that this is not about a political fight between Councilmembers.
This is not a political fight between the second floor and the seventh floor.
This is about a commitment that we have made to the community.
And if anything, it is intended, I believe, Mr. President, the leadership that you've shown by bringing this issue forward today, this is intended today to be a vote that signals our commitment to fully funding these programs, not just the programs that are funded by the sugary sweetened beverage tax, but the very programs that were funded through the sugary sweetened beverage tax erroneously last year.
We want to make sure that all of these programs get funding.
You heard that from us last time.
You heard a commitment to make sure that the home visiting programs and early learning programs and food bank programs are equally funded just like we've made a commitment to the voters who supported the sugary sweetened beverage tax.
that those programs will get enhanced funding.
It was always intended to be enhanced funding.
So as we move forward, I do hope that the message of unity around these programs at large are held up and appreciate the good chair of budgets comments that you made the last time around as well, that we all are going to be looking for ways to keep all of these programs whole.
What we hopefully will be able to avoid going forward after today not falling victim to manufactured crisis, not having ourselves be pitted against each other and creating unnecessary stress in the very communities that we have asked to trust us and support this tax.
I am hoping that this type of drama that has been stirred up will be behind us in the rearview mirror so that this council can fully focus on a robust budget that invests in our most vulnerable and our communities that have historically been not included in budgets in past decades.
And this is a council that will unite around those issues.
So regardless of what the vote is today, I am hoping that we will not fall for the manufactured crisis in October and November.
because I don't want this to be a signal of what's to come.
Let's unite around funding all of these programs, and again, calling for that additional revenue to make sure we're not in an austerity budget going forward.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Thank you, Council Member Esqueda.
Okay, we're about to call for the vote.
I don't want to make sure I've shortchanged anyone.
Council Member Gonzalez, are you good to vote?
I didn't see a bunch of hands going up here on the dais.
I'm ready to vote.
Okay.
So with that, let me sort of set the ground rules here.
The city council will now vote to reconsider passage of Council Bill 119551 as amended.
So during our roll call, council members will either vote aye to override the mayor's veto or no to sustain the vote.
So in other words, if the vote on the motion is tied or less than two thirds, the bill fails, and the veto is sustained.
Okay.
Reading it, it sounds a little confusing.
Does everyone understand that?
Okay.
All right.
So.
State it again.
I put it, I could put it in.
I was reading a script.
Let me put it in.
Plain English.
If there are six votes, the veto is failed.
Six aye votes.
Six aye votes.
Yeah, just any six votes.
No.
Six aye votes.
If there are six aye votes, the veto fails.
Six or more.
Six or more.
OK?
At least.
OK.
Is that clear?
Yes.
OK.
So remember, aye is to override.
OK?
Okay.
Will the clerk please call the roll?
Sawant.
Aye.
Bagshaw.
Nay.
Gonzalez.
Aye.
Herbold.
Aye.
Juarez.
Nay.
Mosqueda.
Aye.
O'Brien.
Aye.
Pacheco.
Nay.
President Harrell.
Aye.
I believe that's six in favor, three opposed.
So as I'm understanding that.
Motion carries.
The veto is overridden and the chair will sign the bill certifying passage of Council Bill 119551. Okay.
Please call the next agenda item.
Councilmember Gonzalez, go to bed.
It's late there.
Okay, thank you very much.
We'll now properly excuse Councilmember Gonzalez from this proceeding.
Now let's read the next agenda item into the record.
Agenda item two, resolution 31897, calling for an end to the U.S. government's economic, commercial, and financial embargo against Guba.
Council Member Mosqueda.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Raise your hand for the folks who've been able to go to Cuba.
I think that you will agree with the council up here and the majority of the general public that the Cuba embargo is not only creating a hardship for the individuals who live in Cuba, the kiddos, the workers, the elders, but it's also creating a hardship because we in the United States don't get the benefit of learning from the technology, the medical technology that they have, the health approaches that they have.
the incredible ways in which they've renovated their education system and created some of the highest literacy rates in the entire world.
So today, I appreciate you being here and I want to underscore our appreciation over the last decades of people who have continued to engage in interaction with the people of Cuba and to learn from the individuals and organizations to create this cross-national learning opportunity.
Since 1996, Cuba has suffered under the embargo that the United States has imposed in various degrees and various strengths against the country of Cuba.
And under this federal administration, we see an increased intensification of this embargo.
The people of the United States, though, agree with what the City Council is considering today.
The majority of people in the United States think the embargo is ineffective, inhumane, and a violation of U.S. laws and international conventions.
And that's why 11 other cities in this country have already passed similar resolutions.
Richmond, Berkeley, Oakland, Sacramento, all in California, Brookline, Massachusetts, Hartford, Connecticut, Helena, Montana, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, St. Paul, and Detroit.
Those last two just passed their resolutions this year and there's five more cities who are currently considering similar resolutions to call for our congressional members to put the pressure on and end the embargo against Cuba today.
We have 193 member organizations in the United Nations, and repeatedly the overwhelming majority have voted in favor of ending the embargo against Cuba.
191 member organizations, more recently 189 member organizations with two countries abstaining.
This is the vast majority of the world calling for an end to this embargo against the Cuba people.
The economic damages in one year alone for Cuba amounted to over $4 trillion, and still Cuba has achieved some remarkable, remarkable accomplishments, including the highest literacy rate in the world, over 99% of the population.
has achieved high literacy rates, guaranteed access to early learning, prenatal care, and long-term care, which has resulted in a life expectancy rate of over 79 years.
Individuals in Cuba are living longer than individuals here in the United States, regardless of wealth, because actually when you have poorer health outcomes, the entire population suffers.
So we have a lot to learn from our friends in Cuba.
Infant mortality rates are as low as zero 0.4%.
That's 0.4%.
Many of us, including me, and many individuals who want to survive giving birth, who want their kiddos to survive, especially in that first year of life, we have a lot to benefit from ending the embargo and continuing to look at the medical technology and advances from the teachers and the community in Cuba.
I want to call out some of the specific accomplishments that were raised in public testimony today.
Some of these advances in technology include diabetes drugs, vaccine for meningitis and hepatitis B, antibodies for kidney transplants, as well as other therapeutic vaccines that can help us advance our cause to end lung cancer, one of the most devastating cancers that we know of.
They have helped to create an antibody against that.
So this is incredible technology that we have the benefit of learning from.
I think it is past time that we end this punitive policy and make sure that we continue to extend our commitment and our message of solidarity across this country with the people of Cuba.
I am proud that this resolution will make us now a dozen cities across the country that will be calling for an end to the embargo.
And I want to specifically say thank you to Cindy.
Cindy Domingo, you're still here.
A longtime civil rights leader and labor leader who has led the delegations down to Cuba with the U.S.
Women and Cuba collaboration.
A huge amount of appreciation for all of the work that you've done.
My parents did have the chance to travel with you as well as a number of other people in the audience.
who have over the years had the chance to benefit from going on such delegations.
So to all of the folks who are listening, do know that we here in this corner of this country will continue to stand up against oppression and that includes the punitive measures in the embargo that has been incorrectly placed upon the people of Cuba for these past few decades.
And we will send this message of solidarity not only to the people of Cuba, because I know you've sent it to our friends across the country and across the water as well.
And we'll send it to our congressional members as well.
There is legislation that continues to be introduced, recently reintroduced again, to call for an end to the Cuban blockade.
And just sending a message of solidarity.
Si se puede, y gracias por todo, Cindy.
Thank you, Council Member Mosqueda.
Council Member Sawant.
Thank you.
I support this resolution calling for the end of the inhumane embargo of Cuba.
Thank you, Council Member Mosqueda.
Donald Trump claims that there is some sort of humanitarian justification for the embargo on Cuba, and that is absolutely ludicrous.
Trump's administration is blocking supplies needed to rebuild from hurricanes while sending deadly weapons to the Saudi royal family.
The reality is the Trump administration and the big business interests they represent push this embargo because they're totally opposed to essential services being part of the public sector and they do not want the successful example of Cuba to be learned by millions of Americans who will want the same thing if they saw how successful it was.
As was mentioned, Cuba's public health care has meant that people live longer, have far better health outcomes while living, and infant mortality rates are enviable.
Cuba's public education has meant higher illiteracy rates and training and more doctors exported throughout the world than any industrialized nation.
Cuba's public investments in housing has meant that they do not have and have not had the homeless crisis that we see in extremely wealthy cities like Seattle.
And this is in a tiny island nation strangled by an embargo by the most powerful economy of the world and recovering from a level five hurricane.
As a socialist myself, my view of socialism is a society where the economy is run democratically by workers and their communities to benefit the vast majority of humanity and to maintain the planet.
Cuba shows an important glimpse into what is possible with socialism, and what we need to do is go well beyond what's been achieved through the Cuban Revolution.
Certainly, the climate crisis, which we are appropriately discussing today, calls for a fundamental shift away from capitalism.
That would mean that the biggest corporations in our economy are run democratically, taken into public ownership, not for the profits and wealth of a few shareholders.
When you compare Cuba to Haiti, two countries with similar size, many similar historical points, climate and natural resources, you can see the day and night difference with the advantages of a public sector compared to the exploitative nature of capitalism.
So I'm happy to support this resolution and let's fight for and win Medicare for all.
Thank you, Council Member Swant.
Would any other colleagues like to say any more words before we vote on the resolution?
I just want to say thank you, Cindy, for all your work.
Okay, let's do this.
Those in favor of adopting the resolution as eloquently stated by Council Members Swant and Mosqueda, please vote aye.
Aye.
Those opposed vote no.
The motion carries and the resolution is adopted and the Chair will sign it.
Please read agenda item number three.
The report of the Housing, Health, Energy, and Workers' Rights Committee agenda item three, resolution 31893 relating to taxation stating an intent to adopt legislation opposing a local sales tax and use tax at the maximum rate authorized to fund investments in affordable and supportive housing.
The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Thank you.
Council Member Mosqueda.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
I'm really excited to bring forward this legislation today.
I know it sounds like it's policy wonk with a lot of wonky sauce on it, but it's really exciting.
This is a legislation that the state legislature initially passed this last session, House Bill 1406, which allows for municipalities to be able to access tax dollars that are already being collected and actually invest them into affordable housing.
So we do have items three and four.
I'm going to just speak to item three right now and then I won't speak again to item number four, Mr. President.
But this is a really important opportunity for us to both pass a resolution and then subsequent ordinance in the same day to allow for us to act on this brand new revenue opportunity to build housing.
First, thank you to Representative June Robinson and Representative Nicole Macri who We're the lead sponsors on this legislation to allow for these jurisdictions to get a portion of the existing sales tax and to our intergovernmental relations team and the lobbying team for their support of this.
It is critical that we get dollars in hand to build affordable housing now and we're in coordination with our county partners on the timing of implementing these dollars, but what's really important is is that we have dollars in hand to build housing.
Councilmember Herbold is a co-sponsor of this legislation, and through the last few months, I think we've been engaged in conversations about how do we not just access the dollars that are going to be available to the city, around $4.5 million a year, but how do we actually expand those, multiply those dollars, and bond against those dollars?
So, Councilmember Herbold, this is an effort you've been leading on in past years, and I think this gives us one more tool to allow for us to bond.
and get capital dollars in hand.
At a minimum, we are talking about bonding to be able to get $50 million to invest into housing.
And this is a really important opportunity for us to get those dollars in hand.
And at the same time, we recognize that this does not meet the scale of the crisis that we have in terms of the need for new revenue.
So just as a reminder, we have the need for around 156,000 units of affordable housing that we need to meet the need for today.
That doesn't even include the individuals who may come here as immigrants and refugees, or people who are coming here as economic refugees looking for a good living wage job or to start their own business, or the folks who are coming here as climate refugees seeking a more stable climate given the crisis that many of our colleagues and friends face across the country with wildfires.
and increased flooding and intense temperatures and unstable situations, more people are going to come to this region.
So we must build the housing to make sure that everybody who is in our region has a place to call home and that people aren't getting pushed into the street or pushed out of our city limits.
So in order for us to be able to act upon the legislation that was passed in the state legislature, we need to begin collecting funds by October 1st.
In order for us to meet that deadline, today council is considering legislation that allows for us by September 1st to authorize the executive to give a 30-day notice to the Department of Revenue.
And we're really excited that with passage of the resolution and the ordinance today, we will begin to be able to create that spending plan that will be heavy emphasis on capital, also recognizing that we do need to make sure that our permanent supportive housing that does get developed has the funds for case managers and additional ongoing support through operations and maintenance.
So there will be a little bit of a balance, but a heavy emphasis on the actual capital construction.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I think that summarizes the comments here, but I would be remiss to say that as we create housing, the emphasis with these dollars will be on the lowest income workers, folks who are making less than 30% of the area median income, because that is the population right now that the market is not going to be building for, and we must step in and build affordable housing.
Again, thanks to the entire team for making this possible, including Tracy Radscliffe from Central Staff, Emily Alvarado from the Office of Housing, Leslie Brinson from the mayor's office and Aaron House from my own office for their intense work to make sure that we got this passed on time to build housing and to our legislative partners who've made this possible.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you, Councilmember Mosqueda.
Councilmember Herbold.
Thank you.
I appreciate the opportunity to work with Council Member Mosqueda on this bill and have the opportunity to co-sponsor it.
Thank you as well, Council Member Mosqueda, for recognizing the work that this council has done in the past in ensuring that we use our bonding capacity in order to build affordable housing.
In 2017, this council had a conversation about doing just that.
We use our bonding capacity for almost everything that the city builds, whether or not it's buying new parking meters or fixing the seawall, a whole bunch of different capital projects in between, but we were not using our bonding capacity to build housing.
And given that we had, prior to 2017, just a couple years prior, declared a state of emergency, thought it was really important to use the city's ability to issue debt, to build housing, that that should be a priority for the city.
Just like, again, we use this debt for other things that the city needs.
The catch, though, in using our bond authority for affordable housing, or using our bond authority for anything, the catch is we're issuing debt.
And we have to have sufficient funds to pay off the debt.
Sometimes it is for 20 years, sometimes it's for 30 years.
This legislation before us today allows Seattle to access existing revenue that would otherwise be used by the state so that we can increase the affordable housing that we can build.
under this year's funding availability to nonprofits.
But it's only an allocation of state sales tax that we could use over the next 20 to 30 years, depending on what the term is that we decide to issue the debt for, for what we build additionally this year.
It's a high priority for me that Seattle double our housing investments for each of the next four remaining years of the housing levy so that we can act on the recommendations of the 2018 McKinsey Report that says our region needs to invest between $360 to $410 million a year to build affordable housing.
So just in Seattle alone we need to be doubling our annual investments in affordable housing.
This legislation before us today helps for this year because again it gives a revenue source that will allow us to double our investments in affordable housing this year.
But if we want to continue to use our bond authority in order to double our annual investment in affordable housing for each of the next four remaining years of the housing levy, and if we want to do so in a way that doesn't rely on our existing regressive taxes to do so, we will need another new progressive revenue source next year and the years following.
If we can't find another new progressive revenue source, then we only have our existing regressive taxes that are continuing reliance on them, whether or not it's to build affordable housing or to do the other things that are really important to the city, will hurt renters, mom and pop landlords, low income and middle income homeowners, seniors, and small businesses alike.
So I'm just putting this out there because if we really wanna be able to do what we're doing this year, For subsequent years, we need to find an ongoing revenue source in order to pay off the debt that we would issue to build more affordable housing.
Very good.
Okay.
Council Member Schwartz.
I will be voting yes on this bill and the next one, which will both be bills to make a tiny increase in the funding for affordable housing.
It is funded through sales taxes.
To be clear, it is not a new sales tax.
It is simply the state giving the city back a small proportion of the sales taxes they already collect so that the city can support it without creating additional burdens on regular people who already pay way too many taxes in Seattle where big business gets off virtually scot-free.
In the mayor's press release announcing this bill, she said it would raise $50 million, which makes it appear that it is replacing the Amazon tax that was repealed by the mayor and the majority of this council.
However, in the fine print, we have to be careful to see the fine print, that it is only raising a few million each year and that the city could make $50 million of those funds one time if it paid off that $50 million over the next 20 years.
I support every possible affordable home for our working families and will of course be supporting this bill as I said but we need to be clear as Council Member Herbold correctly outlined that this is a tiny drop in the bucket if you look at The amount of funds that has been through research we know that we need to address in order to need to raise in order to address the scale of the problem.
So this is relying on sales taxes is going to be completely insufficient, not dimensional, completely unjust.
If we are to have a city hall that actually addresses the housing and homelessness crisis, then we cannot duck the question of taxing big business to build affordable housing in the thousands every year, not in the dozens, and we will also need rent control.
Most importantly, at this moment, it is my duty to point out to what incredible lengths the political establishment will go in order to use sales taxes as a cover to avoid taxing big business.
The city lobbied the state legislature to pass a special law giving the city the ability to spend this tiny fraction of regressive tax on affordable housing.
The Democrats in Olympia, who have a majority in all houses, agreed to champion it.
They passed the law, sending out press releases bragging about what they accomplished.
Then Seattle's mayor brought this bill along with press releases bragging about what she had accomplished.
Meanwhile, tens of thousands are homeless, hundreds of thousands are in danger of being displaced, and Washington state continues to have the most regressive tax system in the entire nation.
The question we should be asking and our movement should be asking, where was the lobbying effort from city officials to repeal the ban on rent control?
Where was the bill in Olympia to tax Amazon or Capital Gains or anything else that would tax the richest people rather than the poor and working class people yet again?
Where is the billion-dollar social housing project the city could have advocated for and the state could have passed in this budget paid for by taxes on the super-rich?
None of that was on the political establishment's agenda.
That is why we cannot relent, our movement cannot relent, and while we strongly support every affordable home possible, including through the bill today, we as affordable housing advocates must hold the political establishment accountable for all that they are not doing.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We're ready to vote on a resolution.
All right.
Mr. President.
Just very short.
I forgot to say, Erin House, who had worked on this legislation, it is also her birthday today.
So happy birthday, Erin House, for your work on this legislation.
We appreciate you.
And again, we applaud the future efforts to get additional revenue in hand and all that you've been doing to make sure that we focus on zero to 30 percent AMI.
Happy birthday.
We're going to pass this resolution for your birthday.
Thank you, Council Member Mosqueda.
Okay with that those in favor of adopting the resolution please vote aye.
Aye.
Those opposed vote no.
The motion carries, the resolution is adopted, and the chair will sign it.
Please read the corresponding bill into the record.
Agenda item four, Council Bill 119590, relating to taxation, imposing a local sales and use tax to fund investments in affordable and supportive housing, adding new sections 5.60.025 and .027 to the Seattle Municipal Code, amending section 5.60.030 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
The committee recommends that the bill pass.
Council Member Esqueda, you sort of described that.
Would you like to say a few more words about the bill or just want to proceed with the vote?
Go ahead and please proceed.
Go ahead.
Okay.
You sure?
Yes, I'm sure.
Okay.
All right.
Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Sawant.
Bankshaw.
Aye.
Herbal.
Aye.
Juarez.
Aye.
Mosqueda.
Aye.
O'Brien.
Aye.
Pacheco.
Aye.
President Harrell.
Aye.
Eight in favor, none opposed.
Bill passes and the Chair will sign it.
Please read the next agenda item.
Please read the short title.
The report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee Agenda Item 5 of Council Bill 119602 relating to the financing of the Centre City Streetcar Connector Project.
Authorizing the loan of funds in the amount of $9 million for design of the streetcar.
The committee recommends the bill pass.
Council Member O'Brien.
Thank you.
Colleagues, this piece of legislation would authorize an Interfund loan to fund up to $9 million towards streetcar, ongoing streetcar engineering and design work.
As folks are probably aware, the streetcar program has been on hold and decision to purchase some additional streetcars for the Center City Connector is on hold.
Well, the mayor and the department do some more analysis.
They've done a bunch of analysis and would like to proceed with further analysis, which will cost up to $9 million.
Analysis includes further study of the size of the cars, changes that might need to be made to the bases or platforms, and probably most importantly, the structural components that may need to be reinforced at the 4th Avenue Street Viaduct, which is essentially the intersection of 4th Avenue and Jackson.
My understanding is the intent is to move forward with the project but the mayor cannot fully commit to that until this engineering work is done and they understand the full cost ramifications of that.
The intent is that the Interfund loan would be repaid by proceeds that would be reimbursing gas tax money from the sale of the Mercer Mega Block properties.
That discussion will start on my committee this Friday and hopefully would be complete before budget.
That transaction would likely be completed in 2020.
Thank you, Councilmember O'Brien.
Any other questions or comments?
Councilmember Herbold.
Thank you.
I want to start off by thanking the Mayor and the SDOT Director Sam Zimbabwe for the transparency that they've brought to this project.
It's a real improvement over the previous leadership.
I don't support moving forward with the project nonetheless.
The cost is most recently estimated at $286 million, more than twice the $135 million estimate included in the 2015 small starts grant application to the Federal Transit Administration, and this is twice the cost estimated in 2015 before we've even broken ground on the project.
A couple of the other reasons that I have strong concerns, in 2017 when the estimated cost was $158 million, The council adopted an amendment that I proposed requiring that SDOT report to the council to identify contingency strategies and potential funding sources to address the risk that future federal transit agency funds are not included in the federal budget to reimburse the capital construction costs of the project.
It stated that the report should identify contingency strategies and potential funding sources to address the risk of under-collecting future operating revenue in the case that ridership projections do not meet the estimates.
Further, this is an amendment that the full Council voted to support, but nevertheless we have not received an answer for how to pay for the extra costs of the project for both construction and operations, nor have we received a proposal to fully fund it.
The most likely option to be proposed that we'll probably hear in the future to pay for these extra costs is by not funding other transportation priorities.
And as we all know, we have a lot of transportation priorities.
For construction funding, Thanks to the first quarter enhanced capital project report for the 2019 watch list that the council adopted earlier this year, we learned that the $50 million from FTA, the Federal Transit Administration, will expire in September 2020 if a small starts grant agreement is not yet executed.
And this is a quote from the report.
We do not expect to have an executed Small Starts grant agreement by September 2020 under the revised draft schedule.
So what that means is not only is the additional $25 million that we were hoping to get from FTA, Not in hand, but it is very unlikely that we should expect an appropriation of the original $50 million.
So if the FTA funding for the project is more uncertain than ever, which it appears to be, this will result in a possible $140 million funding gap, nearly half of the cost of the project.
Even if those dollars were to come in, the $75 million would only cover about 26% of construction costs.
Again, the original estimate that SDOT included in its grant application was that those dollars would cover more than half the construction costs.
So, in short, I really don't think it's good public stewardship of limited public resources that have a really important demand, namely our finite transportation dollars.
I don't believe it's good stewardship of those resources to vote before even having a funding proposal for the project.
Secondly, the original purposes of the two existing lines are already being served by transit.
The South Lake Union line was developed to connect South Lake Union to light rail.
The First Hill line was built in lieu of a light rail station to connect the Capitol Hill and Chinatown ID stations.
Academic research shows, as Danny Wesny and others have noted, that streetcar projects serve primarily for economic development.
And it's difficult to claim that economic development is needed in the heart of downtown.
And in any case, the transportation funds, I believe, should be used for other transportation projects, primarily to address our needs of our transit system.
Downtown is well covered by buses, and we have a light rail line where the center city streetcar would go.
I'm really skeptical about the ridership projections.
The original projections for the South Lake Union line was over 900,000 riders in 2018, but the actual number is a little bit over $500,000.
It's 500,000 riders.
It's 44% below the projections.
And so what that means is when we don't have the ridership that we expect, we're not collecting the fare revenue that we expect, and that creates a need for another operating subsidy.
And again, having finite transportation resources, that operating subsidy might well come from the operating subsidy we could otherwise be providing to serve Metro and address the needs associated with Metro transit.
It's really important for all of Seattle to have good transit connections from Seattle to the Southlake Union Employment Center.
In 2016, when the C line route from West Seattle shifted to run to Southlake Union rather than ending in downtown, ridership went up 20%.
That is what happens when you invest in bus transit.
The use of bus transit increases dramatically.
We're one of the only cities in the nation where transit ridership has increased, and that is in no small part because of our investment in Prop 1 to fund bus transit.
I think another really important note of caution is that I-976 has qualified for the statewide November ballot.
If it passes, and I hope it doesn't, in 2020 the Seattle Transportation benefit district would lose $25 million in vehicle licensing fees that voters approved in 2014 for additional bus service beyond what is funded by King County Metro.
This could affect our ability to maintain current funding levels for service in 2020. On the C-Line, for example, over one-third of the service on the C-Line is funded by Prop 1. I want to also thank Budget Committee Chair Bagshaw for the proviso that she offered on spending for this project included in the 2019 budget.
I think we will need a similar restriction in next year's budget.
And I also want to make note of concerns I've heard from West Seattle bike commuters about safety with streetcar tracks.
They would need to cross if this is built to reach their jobs in downtown and South Lake Union.
They're very worried about their safety.
And so if this moves forward, bicycle safety must be addressed in all portions of the line.
And in closing, although...
Streetcar projects are known not to be transportation projects, but rather economic development projects.
These are the kinds of economic development projects that benefit the types of businesses that can weather the construction impacts of a project like a streetcar project.
We received an email from a small business owner on First Avenue.
This small business owner writes that they're on a very tight budget in trying to showcase local art to the residents of our city and visitors from all over the world.
They're a gallery owner.
It's a difficult business, but a much-needed cultural asset.
We work really hard to keep our doors open and are coming up on our two-year anniversary.
It's never easy.
In some months, we struggle more than others, but we understand the important role that art plays in our city, and it's worth every bit of hard work that we put into the gallery daily.
They go on to write that if the streetcar gets approved, it is unlikely that they and several other small but important businesses on First Avenue will survive.
Just the idea of potentially tearing up our lifeline, First Avenue, for any amount of time brings on tremendous stress and anxiety.
We rely on First Avenue being open to thousands that walk by each day.
If the streetcar gets approved, construction will deter hundreds of people from walking on First Avenue, let alone coming into our gallery to buy art.
What is the reason for building the streetcar in the first place?
First Ave is busy, lively street with traffic problems already.
A fixed rail streetcar will only add to the traffic mess, making downtown less accessible for those who live in the city and give them yet another reason to avoid shopping along First Avenue.
And who wins?
Big businesses that can afford to wait it out while construction of this ridiculous streetcar tears out First Avenue and drives out all of the local business.
And so, again, I think that there are a lot of problems with this project.
Primarily, my main concern is that we are using precious transportation dollars for what is essentially an economic development strategy that will not benefit all businesses and will result in the city needing to continue to subsidize both the construction of the streetcar as well as its ongoing operations and that that will, over time, negatively impact our ability to continue to fund in transportation systems that work, namely our very successful bus line.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Herbold.
We have a bill in front of us.
I want to make sure everyone has an opportunity.
Councilor Bechtol?
Councilmember Herbold, thank you very much for much of what you said there.
You know, you and I have been talking about this, agreeing with some things and not on others, but I do want to acknowledge a number of people who are standing at the back.
Don Blakeney from DSA, Leslie Smith from formerly with Pioneer Square Alliance, and Jenny who is here.
I had an occasion to meet with a half a dozen most recently and perhaps 18 members of the community about three months ago.
And what I heard from across the board, whether it was businesses large and small, whether it was our service providers, whether it was people along First Avenue, having the connection between the two existing lines of our streetcar, made a lot more sense than just having them as independent worms that don't go anywhere.
So I want to acknowledge though what Council Member Herbold has said.
It's a major concern of mine as well of what the extra costs for construction, whether really the juice is worth the squeeze.
I believe this nine million dollars is worth going forward though.
Let's continue the construction, the evaluation, But we are going to have to figure out the operations cost.
What Councilmember Herbold said I believe is absolutely true, particularly if that's going to shift to the City of Seattle's general fund.
But I do see the value of having a unified, connected system.
I'm glad to support this next phase, but I do want to hammer again what I said this morning.
We need to have a freight mobility strategic plan to make sure that we know what times and how we can promote freight getting around the city, particularly around downtown, because as more and more packages are being delivered, we need spaces for trucks, we need time, whether it is a temporal change in how and when trucks deliver the packages or how we're going to.
work that through.
So we're not done yet.
We're certainly not out of the woods.
But if SDOT will work with us on the freight mobility strategy, really fixing left turns on First Avenue so that we can have a dedicated lane for light rail.
And frankly, I think, and as a bicycle rider, I can say this, I think bikes need to be moved off of where we have light rail.
Let's provide dedicated, safe, separated bicycle lanes, good, safe pedestrian connections, but don't try to mix them because it just doesn't work.
So I just want to acknowledge again, DSA, thank you, Dawn, for being here, for all our Pioneer Square Alliance friends and the nonprofits, including Compass Housing, Chief Seattle Club, Those advocates were really persuasive to me that they wanted this connection, and also Tom Graf and others from Belltown, and our public health leaders that came and said, this is important to be able to get the services to the people who need it.
So I'm going to be supporting this $9 million investment.
And for others next year, you're going to have to make up your mind after you see what comes back and how much the costs are.
Thank you, Council Member.
Thank you.
Okay, if we're ready to close, did you need to say any closing remarks?
Council Member O'Brien, are we ready to vote?
Ready to vote.
Okay.
Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Sawant.
Begshaw.
Aye.
Herbold.
Nay.
Juarez.
Aye.
Mosqueda.
Aye.
O'Brien.
Aye.
Pacheco.
Aye.
President Harrell.
Aye.
Six in favor, one opposed.
Bill pass and show Senate.
Please read the next item into the record.
Agenda item 6, resolution 31885 relating to a Green New Deal for Seattle.
Establishing goals, identifying actions necessary to meet these goals, affirming the federal Green New Deal resolution and calling for the federal government to enact policies to advance a Green New Deal.
The committee recommends a resolution be adopted.
Council Member O'Brien.
Thank you.
Are we ready to talk about the Green New Deal?
Folks have been waiting for a couple hours for this, or some people have at least.
Colleagues, I'm really excited to have a chance to vote on this resolution.
I'm really, really excited for community members that have been coming together for years and in particular on this effort in the last few months to really highlight the changes that we need to make.
This resolution has a lot in it, as my colleagues have no doubt seen.
It touches on a lot of aspects.
I will say that my interpretation of the federal green new deal and what I hope to accomplish here in brief, without touching on all the points in the resolution, is that we have to address the climate crisis that's barreling down towards us and we have to do it in a way where we simultaneously address the economic crisis that faces too many of our community members.
And the solution to that has got to be Senator Rao lifting up the voices who have both been adversely impacted by pollution and the climate crisis in their communities and have not had access to the opportunities in an economy that too often overlooks certain communities.
And by lifting up those voices, those communities that have been most impacted who have seen firsthand how damaging both our environmental and economic policies can be, they also know the solutions to solving both.
If we simply solve the climate crisis, but double down on an economic system that leaves them behind, we'll be back here fighting a new crisis again.
And we can't simply solve the economic crisis without addressing the climate crisis.
And these communities get that better than anyone else I know.
When you read this resolution, know that you're reading the voices of so many community members who put a lot of time into making this right.
And recognize, of course, that a resolution alone is not going to solve it.
We have a lot of work to do going forward beyond this.
We already have an ordinance and committee that'll be back for us soon.
We're working on some transportation items.
It'll be here on Friday.
And this will last much longer than my current tenure on the city council.
And so we need some of my colleagues who are here and future council members to pick up the work and keep going forward.
I will just highlight that this resolution explicitly says that Seattle will be climate pollution free by the year 2030. When I first started on the City Council, or shortly after I started, 2011 I believe, we passed a resolution committing Seattle to be a carbon neutral city by the year 2050. We have done some great work in the last decade.
We have made some progress in bending the curve.
At moments we've reduced our carbon pollution, at moments we've increased our carbon pollution, but consistently have been reducing it per capita, so I'm trying to be optimistic, that's positive.
But all the spin on what we have done does not address the reality that science is telling us we must do at this point.
And so, well, we may have thought we had 30 more years to figure it out, we now have only 10 years to figure out something that's even more serious than we thought.
And there's going to be a lot of work to figure out how we eliminate fossil fuels from our city and our economy.
We have a lot of solutions in front of us that we can work on, but it's critically important that as we do that work, that we do it in a way that recognizes that many people rely on fossil fuels today.
Many people rely on it to get to work, because it's the only way they can make it work, or to get to school, or to take their kids to school.
Many people rely on it to heat their homes.
Many people rely on the fossil fuel industry for a job that supports their family.
And the science tells us we're going to have to get rid of fossil fuels, and we can't waver on that, but we need to include those folks who rely on fossil fuels, whether it's for work, transportation, or heating, or other needs, to be centered at this, to help us figure out how they can successfully make that transition to a fossil free world.
And that's what we're gonna, that's the work before us in the next decade.
Thank you, Council Member Bryan.
So, there may be a question.
We do have an amendment.
However, let me be clear.
Council Member O'Brien has incorporated many amendments into a version 3B, I think it is, for version 2F.
Council Members may want to speak to their version.
or there might be a new amendment that I'm not sure of.
But let's sort of walk through either comments or amendments.
And Councilman O'Brien, please.
I apologize.
Thank you, Council President, for highlighting that.
In committee, there were probably about 10 or so amendments that were brought up.
And we incorporated that into a substitute version, which I guess I'll go ahead and move and ask for a second, and then we can discuss that.
There we go.
So I guess let me say that I'm moving to substitute version 3B to replace version 2F.
You all should have a copy in front of it, and there's a series of red line sections.
They're not numbered, but you can look through it and see the various amendments that are incorporated into this substitute version.
And I would invite colleagues who spoke to that during committee or otherwise to speak to those.
And at the end, I will make some comments on the addition of language around trees and eco-gentrification, which is a term that we haven't used a lot around here, and I want to just clarify that.
But let me pause for a second and let others speak.
Thank you.
Okay, so we have many amendments that are already incorporated.
If council members would like to speak on the amendments that are incorporated in 3B.
Is it moved and seconded?
You can speak now.
Council Member Bakeshaw.
Thank you.
I just want to speak to the trees and thanks to our friends that are sitting in the front few rows advocating for our tree canopy.
We did add some language here encouraging preservation and planting of trees citywide to increase the city's tree canopy cover, prioritizing historically low canopy and low income neighborhoods while working closely with communities to protect against eco-gentrification.
So, Council Member O'Brien, you said you were going to explain eco-gentrification.
I've heard multiple different definitions of that.
But just so our urban forestry friends understand that clearly we are needing to move towards a million tree city.
And I think that this is something that just getting it clearly in our Green New Deal is a very wise move.
Thank you, Councillor McIntyre.
I'll respond to that.
The concept is fairly simple in words and then of course in action it becomes a little more complex.
But the concept that is as we invest in communities, including investments in green spaces, we need to be certain that we're doing it in a way that doesn't contribute to the displacement of existing community members by pushing up housing costs.
There's a great article in Crosscut a couple weeks ago that talks about this challenge.
I encourage folks to take a look at that.
I believe it's July 30th or so.
And it talks about how people in communities such as South Park and Georgetown that do have a very low tree canopy, are absolutely not opposed to trees.
They want trees and they also fear that converting their neighborhood to a beautifully treed landscape may also drive up property values and attract other people who have avoided those neighborhoods for a long time.
Like when we talk about anything when it comes to gentrification and displacement, the solution cannot be to continue under-investing in communities.
Every community deserves access to a green tree canopy, to good schools, to safe streets.
But it is also the reality is too often in our cities in this country been that with that has come displacement.
And so by centering the voices of those communities that are most impacted by the low tree canopy in their neighborhood, and allowing them to design how to bring the tree canopy and what other structures and safeties they need in place.
I believe we can achieve both and I think this particular line also speaks to the real underlying philosophy of the entire Green New Deal about whose voices are going to lead on that work.
Thank you Council Member O'Brien.
Council Members Swat,
I did have many amendments that were incorporated in the new version that Council Member O'Brien has presented, but I don't want to speak separately.
I just want to speak, make my general points also.
So whenever you say.
Okay.
Well, we could sort of do it after the amendments passed, but not the base legislation.
Council Member Mosqueda.
Thank You mr. President I think I'll wrap my comments and on the base legislation in reference to the amendment that was also made if I might then I'll skip my turn and the final resolution but The amendment that we had the chance to work on with councilmember Herbold as well with support from the lead sponsor councilmember O'Brien is on page 8 which is In section 1D, sorry, section 6D, I'm sorry, section 7F, I don't know why I was, okay, alphabet soup.
The point is that we have really a great opportunity to work with our folks, especially in the building and construction trades as we think about transitioning current work to really high quality union work.
in the green economy and one of the exciting things that we've heard from our building construction trade partners is that there's a really strong desire to make sure that we're supporting a mechanical installation which provides long-term energy efficiency, emissions reduction, cost-saving and safety benefits and so that exact language was put into the legislation with the support of the lead sponsor.
Again, thank you Councilmember O'Brien and thanks to Councilmember Herbold and your team and our team for working closely and quickly to include that language.
Just briefly, I think that language like this is really important as we especially think about the overall ordinance moving forward.
There's a saying that many of us always know, nothing about us without us.
And as we think about the way in which this legislation came together, it was really about the communities who are most affected by climate change.
and having the least responsibility for contributing to it, needing to be the folks who are driving the conversation.
So thanks again to the folks from Got Green, from 350 Seattle, from the nearly 200 community organizations, and for all of your work to include the community voice, community leaders, labor at the table as we think about what a Green New Deal looks like.
We talk often about what a just transition to a green economy looks like.
And that means making sure that folks who are in these fossil fuel industries, whose life is also at risk from pollutants and toxins, have the ability to have good union jobs in the green economy.
And I think the language that you've seen in the draft resolution signals that interest in making sure that there's frontline workers and fence line communities who are at the forefront of this legislation because it was drafted by you all.
So thank you for drafting the legislation and thank you for the ongoing work to help make sure that we're thinking about the just transition element and including access to good living wage jobs, union opportunities.
And thanks again, Council Member O'Brien for your leadership on this over the years.
I do look forward to working with you this council and those 200 organizations that have put this forward to prioritize strong labor protections and ensure economic and racial justice is at the center of our efforts as a city as it has been.
People continue to look at us for the high water bar and we want to set that standard for other cities when it comes to labor standards and our commitment to addressing a green new economy.
Thank you so much.
Thank you Councilmember Esqueda.
Councilmember Herbold.
And I'm just clarifying, we're just speaking to the amended version, the amendments in the amended version.
Correct.
If you want to bring attention to the amendments, we'll reserve some time for the full legislation.
Thank you.
So I also want to thank Councilmember Mosqueda, as well as our labor stakeholders for helping to identify the amendment that I co-sponsored with Councilor Mosqueda, specifically requested by Building Trades to support mechanical insulation which provides long-term energy efficiency, emissions reduction, cost savings, and safety benefits.
The reason why this is so important is because energy conservation starts with ensuring that we don't waste the energy that we're presently using.
I also want to thank whoever's great idea it was.
I have a feeling it was probably Councilmember O'Brien's.
to include language in the amended version regarding reducing the prevalence of single-use plastics.
That's some of the work that we've begun doing.
Councilmember Pacheco.
Thank you.
Fantastic.
Begun doing some of that work in my committee and would welcome your continued advocacy on this topic.
I wasn't obviously in committee last week, so I'm really happy to see that this is included.
Really important work to make sure that we're continuing to drive this issue forward.
I also want to speak to the new language included in the legislation related to congestion pricing.
And I just want to, again, make a note that we talk about congestion pricing and the need for it to be equitably implemented.
I want to highlight, when we talk about equity, a lot of times we're talking about impacts on low-income people and people of color, and I really support a congestion pricing approach that considers those impacts, particularly considering that sometimes people are working on off They're not working on shifts that allow them to commute using transit.
So they're either working a night shift or a swing shift.
And so I think it's really important to consider that.
But also there's a geographic equity.
Commuters, specifically in West Seattle, are more likely to use the SR-99 tunnel rather than I-5 and thus we'll have to pay the tunnel toll or we'll look for ways to avoid paying the tunnel toll and we'll, in order to do so, we'll have no option other than going through downtown to avoid the charge.
And so there's this potential for both, there's the potential obviously for the downtown tunnel, but then in order to avoid it, which commuters all over the city will likely be trying to do, there will be no way for commuters on in West Seattle to avoid either the toll or the congestion pricing.
So again, I think some geographic equity on the impact is really important as well in looking at how to implement congestion pricing, which again, as we know, will have to go to the voters in order to put into place.
And then finally, I want to make a note of My position as it relates to the language on page 12, this is new language and it's item 11. It says work with other statewide organizations to advocate for changes to state law regarding rent control.
I absolutely support the repeal of the state law that prohibits cities and counties from passing any laws regulating rent.
I have been a consistent supporter of repealing that law.
I am concerned, and I want to say for the record, I'm concerned about using the language rent control.
I think it's really important.
that we change the frame of this conversation if we're going to be successful in Olympia.
Rent control means a particular thing in many people's minds, and what's important to me is not to implement any particular version of rent control, but what's really important to me is to remove the statewide prohibition that already exists in state law prohibiting any city or any county from regulating rent in any way.
And I'm concerned that if we talk about rent control, that we will never be successful in removing this prohibition.
And this is why every year since, well, I only researched back to 2016, the city passes a state legislative agenda.
And we identify in our state legislative agenda what the top priorities are of the council in Olympia.
And since I've been a council member, starting in 2016 with passage of Resolution 31634, then in 2017 with passage of Resolution 31723, in 2018 with passage of 31787, and in 2019 with passage of Resolution 3189, 8-5-2, we have been, as I say, very careful about the language that we use talking about our desire and our interest to repeal this part of the law.
And we've done so in conjunction working with our state legislatures, legislators, because they are the ones who are down there working on removing this onerous and harmful language.
And so the language that we've used is we support the repeal or modification of RCW 3521-830 to allow local government to protect tenants from rent increases.
without causing a negative impact on the quality or quantity of housing supply.
So this isn't language that says we support rent control.
This is language that says we support the repeal of the state law that prohibits us from regulating rent.
And again, it's really important to bring this forward in order to reset the frame if we're going to be successful in repealing this onerous, onerous legislation that hurts not just the city of Seattle, but cities and counties throughout the state.
Councilmember Herbold, if you want to put that into an amendment here, I will second it.
There will be some procedural issues, we'll do it, and if we are to entertain that, which would require suspending the rules at some point, but Councilmember Chico, did you want to make some comments on either that issue or another issue?
I do have a proposed amendment following up on Councilmember Herbold, but I don't know if you want me to make a motion to suspend the rules or
So just let me ask you openly the question, is this a potential amendment to change the language around the rent control section specifically?
Correct.
Okay, so this is a sort of I'll call it an on-the-fly amendment since I don't think it's been printed or passed out and we can do that as I understand the rules.
to ask you or Amelia on the procedural issue.
Before I make the formal amendment, I think the sponsor of the amendment was council member on the rent control section was you.
Well, I don't want to, that wasn't a poor question.
Is there anyone that would like to, there's no formal motion made yet, let's have a little dialogue first before we do this.
Is there anyone that would like to, I'm trying to see if it's friendly or not, and coming from my perspective, I appreciated your comments, we would likely support it, but I want to know the original drafters, their reaction to the statements made by Council Member Herbold.
Council Member Schwan, would you like to speak?
So the proposal to add that language was, I mean, I introduced that in committee, Council Member O'Brien supported it, and I guess formally it is being sponsored by both our offices.
President Harrell, just as a matter, no, no, no problem.
I'm just waiting to get your attention.
As this is a matter of procedure, I do want to make some points in response to what Council Member Herbold said, but I do want the right to speak once a formal amendment is made, and I also would be curious to know if the amendment has passed to review of the law department.
Very good.
Because I don't appreciate, this is a major thing, and this was, you know, this is just being sprung on us.
So here's the procedural.
piece of this is I can move to suspend the rules and if it's the motion is accepted we can wordsmith the document.
The risk we run is of course it's not approved by law as we do have all of our legislative language go through but I think we're a student have to know if it's one minor word it's We could run that risk, because I think between now and within 30 days, we can always change it again.
So if it's not earth shattering.
So that's a risk that I'm willing to run if the language is straightforward enough and it seems to make sense.
So we can suspend the rules and entertain new language if it's desired, the dais.
I'm hearing some appetite for that.
So before we do that, would you like to speak now Council Member Swan?
Yeah, I would like to speak to the comments that were just made not to prevent any future amendment.
I, as those of you who were at committee the other day in the Sustainability and Transportation Committee, I had advocated that we, if we are going to have, I mean, just stepping back a little bit, this is what will be passed today will be a resolution stating a very clear and detailed intent of the city council to act on various policies as a comprehensive program to win the Green New Deal, or what we think of as what's necessary to do Seattle's part to fight the climate crisis.
So just as a reminder to everyone, what will be passed today is just an intent.
We would have one direction for the city council, but that by itself is no guarantee that we will win the actual components that will get carbon zero by 2030. So just to be very clear, about what we're actually winning today.
So in that context, what the resolution says does matter because then I don't want to be, as a council member, I don't want to be party to language that it goes in that ends up giving a future council member, regardless of who they are, you know, cover to say, well, this is what the past council said in the resolution and I'm not doing anything, you know, contrary to that.
So what goes in the resolution does matter and it should be good things, things that will actually provide housing and climate justice to our communities.
So here's my opinion and what Council Member Herbold just said.
I mean I completely sympathize with the concern she has raised and she and I you know of course have a you know we go back in fighting together for renters rights and for housing justice.
I don't believe in any way whatsoever however that winning rent control is a matter of framing yes strategy is important Framing and talking points and slogans are absolutely critical.
And in fact, we would not have won all the victories we have won starting with $15 an hour if we did not take strategy and tactics very seriously.
However, it would be a grave mistake on our part to think that somehow we are going to make any progress towards housing justice by trying to cleverly finesse language such that it fools the real estate lobby into thinking this is not actually rent control.
If we want to win, what constitutes affordable rents, then whether you call it rent control, rent stabilization, whatever you call it, it's, you're not going to, you know, you're not going to fool the real estate lobby into thinking that somehow they don't have to fight tooth and nail against it.
It is going to be a, it's going to be pitch battle between renters and housing justice activists on the one end and the real estate lobby and the politicians that support them on the other.
There's no way to duck that fight.
We're not going to slip this under the radar.
Instead if we don't say rent control it is what the effect it's going to have is ordinary people who would be willing to come to the front lines and fight will not actually understand what we're talking about and they will they're probably you know they'll be disengaged.
Already politics disengages and disenchants ordinary people because most of it is not for them.
They see politicians selling them out all the time and they don't feel like it's worth their time and they have to, you know, have two jobs to put food on the table.
So my duty is, as I see it, as an elected representative, is to, you know, do everything in my power to engage ordinary people.
Ever since we launched the rent control campaign through my office, Tenants Union, you know, Tenants Union activists have been here today.
Violet, I think, is still here.
Violet Levita is still here.
We launched our rent control campaign in April, and at this point, we have nearly 12,000 Seattleites who have signed our rent control petition, which is not a small thing, because they're signing on to rent control.
It has not been a barrier in any way whatsoever.
It is what's energizing people, and people are calling my office every day asking, so what's the next step in our fight?
The other point that needs to be recognized is that a historic victory was recently won by movements in New York State.
In fact, the movement in New York City joined with movements in other cities like Rochester and they formed something really inspiring, which was the Upstate Downstate Housing Justice Movement, where together they won rent control victories and renters rights victories.
They did not try to use another term because it's very clear to working people when you're talking about rent control, you're talking about something in their interest.
It has been a lifeline for a lot of people.
let's go out and fight for it.
And they won it through peaceful civil disobedience tactics and fighting tactics.
So in my view, the language should not be watered down.
So I just wanted to state my general points.
If there's an amendment, then I will speak to that.
Thank you, Council Member Sawant.
Okay, so having said that, Council Member Herbold made some points about the language, and Council Member Pacheco, did you want to propose some possible language for the dais to consider, or did Council Member Herbold want to do that?
Well, I think maybe my language could be considered a friendly, just based, if I can read it out loud.
Yes, just if you don't mind to indulge me one minute, let me grab the, so we're looking on page 12 of the hard, Copy and page L, section L.
What's the number of section L?
It's on page 12. Okay, so 6L.
I got documents coming everywhere now.
Okay, thank you very much.
And Council Member Pacheco, you have the floor, sir.
Sure, so the friendly amendment or the proposed amendment states, work with other cities, counties, and statewide organizations to advocate for changes to state law to provide more tools for local control to stabilize rents.
OK, thank you.
Does that capture your argument, Council Member Herbold?
Is this acceptable to you?
Sure.
OK, so there's no motion yet.
I'll entertain a motion in a moment.
So this is the language.
Does everyone have?
I have two hard copies now.
Does anyone need a hard copy?
All right, Council Member, let me step for one second.
Maybe we should make sure it's the same document.
Yes, okay.
Same document.
Can you read that one more time, Council Member Pacheco, please, for the public that doesn't have these documents for tossing around?
Page 12, section 10, subsection L.
Work with other cities, counties, and statewide organizations to advocate for changes to state law to provide more tools for local control to stabilize rents.
OK, so I'm hearing that language to completely strike the existing L and substitute it for your new proposed language, correct?
Correct.
OK.
Let's put it.
That's a form of motion.
Let me back up.
I'm going to move to suspend the rules to entertain a motion of potentially changing the language.
Is there a second?
All those in favor of suspending the rules to entertain a motion to make an amendment, please say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Wait, you want a hand count on that one?
Can you say aye and raise your hand, please?
Aye.
Opposed?
OK, so the rules are suspended.
And I'll go ahead and entertain a formal motion.
Sure.
I move to amend page 12, section 10, subsection L to read, work with other cities, counties, and statewide organizations to advocate for changes to state law to provide more tools for local control to stabilize rents.
Okay, it's been moved and seconded by Councilmember Bagshaw.
Okay, and I could keep the debate alive.
Would someone like to speak for it again?
I think Councilmember Herbold did a great job of speaking for it, but take another bite of that apple, Councilmember Chico.
I can drop the mic if you need me to.
No, I just think that, you know, to Councilmember Herbold's point, Language matters, and I think we can discuss the merits of rent control or rent stabilization, but rather than get into the weeds of what we're for or against, I think this is a great compromise for us to move forward that calls on our cities and our counties.
As we heard from Councilmember Larry Gossett, who spoke here, I do think the county needs to do more.
as well as other cities and counties to do more, not just in terms of the Green New Deal, but also with regards to the conversation, what we can do more to protect renters.
Thank you, Councilmember Pacheco.
Thank you for bringing forth the amendment.
Councilmembers O'Brien or Swamp, would you like to comment at all?
Councilmember O'Brien.
Yeah, colleagues, I appreciate the discussion on this, and I apologize to colleagues who only saw the amendments just a couple hours before the meeting started.
One of the things I probably could have done a better job is circulating and making sure to bring this to everyone's attention, because I imagine We probably could have spent a little time resolving this and not had this discussion.
From my perspective, a couple of things I'll just say.
I don't think the distinction is really significant.
Well, I want to recognize what two of my colleagues who I respect have different opinions on that.
And I think those opinions are valid.
I'm not sure that on page 12 of this resolution, one piece of language is going to make a significant difference one way or the other.
And I want to just flag one of the challenges that I think in the principle of the Green New Deal we're facing at the moment, which is in an effort to uplift community voices, I've worked really hard and my office worked really hard to continue to discuss the language, including wordsmithing of each of these amendments, not with full conversation we've had here.
and trying to really make sure that they have the power and control of what's being said.
And the reality is we will be in moments like this where we have to make some decisions.
We only have 10 years to solve climate change and that's going to require a certain amount of urgency too.
And so navigating that is just going to be a tension.
And I don't have a recommendation to my colleagues on which way to go on this because I think there's justification for either.
I'm going to err and vote against this just because I have not had a chance to check in with some of the community members whose voices are lifting up.
And again, I apologize because I imagine if I had had these conversations last week, probably could have resolved something and have clarity.
And I don't think, regardless of which way we go, I don't think it's going to make a huge difference for law, for community, for state legislation.
Thank you, Councilmember O'Brien.
Councilmember Chauvin.
Thank you, President Harrell.
The existing language says work with other statewide organizations to advocate for changes to state law regarding rent control, which I supported.
My original language that I was proposing was limiting how much landlords may raise rents from year to year, because I think it says very clearly what we need to do.
As it's been proposed, the amended language, work with other cities, counties, and statewide organizations to advocate for changes to state law to provide more tools for local control to stabilize rents.
That is essentially the same substance as what we have here in Clause L existing.
So I don't consider this language as some major step back.
However, I will be voting no on this, knowing that the amendment will probably pass, just making sure our movement understands that, you know, as you all have said in public comment, we're going to need drastic, dramatic change in how the city is run.
And winning rent control is going to be one of those components.
By itself will not solve it, but it is going to have to, we are going to have to fight to win universal rent control, free of corporate loopholes, because the experience of cities throughout the nation shows that it has been a lifeline, especially for communities of color.
Thank you, Council Member Sawant.
To follow Council Member O'Brien's lead, well, words matter, but it's not earth-shattering on this full substance and power of this resolution.
But, okay, we're almost off the dime.
Council Member Mosqueda, go ahead.
Close this on me.
No, no, no.
Please continue.
Well I'm supporting the amendment the language I think it's very closely linked to our legislative agenda that we're pounding away and I think we're all trying to do the same thing basically and so I'm sort of I don't want to waste a lot of airtime on it but you guys ready to vote?
I'm sorry, Mr. President.
I just want to echo the points that I think I heard both outside and in the wing and then here.
I do think that as Councilmember Sawant and Councilmember O'Brien have emphasized, there's not a substantial difference between the language and deference to the sponsor and the conversations that he's been having with the community partners.
I too am not going to support the amendment, but I do think that had it had a comma that said including rent control or something like that, that would have been a little bit more clear the intent of the body.
I do think that when we say for local control to stabilize rents, that is inclusive.
So I appreciate that.
I think it's Council Member Pacheco that you brought this forward.
I appreciate that that is one tool in the toolkit that we need to look at stabilizing rents.
So assuming the amendment does hang, it is clear to us, I believe, that rent control is one of those tools.
And as we've done every year with the legislative agenda, with echoing our strong desire to the state legislature to free us from this type of preemption.
I think it's in alignment with what we have done before, but in an effort to be deferential to the conversational community.
I'll also be a no on this, but appreciate there is that window there within the language you've drafted for rent control to be a part of that toolkit.
So thank you for your careful wording on that.
Thank you, Councilmember Mosqueda.
Okay, I think we've gotten a good flavor for where we're heading one way or the other.
So we have an amendment that has been moved and seconded.
And I'm going to ask that you raise your hand.
All those in favor of the amendment as stated by Councilmember Chico, please say aye and raise your hand.
Aye.
All those opposed say no and raise your hand.
No.
So It passes the amendment passes and so we are still in the habit of The practice I should say of describing any amendments that are embedded in Councilmember O'Brien's version was the 3b 3b so are there any other comments on of the embedded amendments that any council member wanted to bring attention to.
Council Member Pacheco.
I'll be brief.
I'm just really excited to vote in support of this and use this hopefully as a catalyst for both our other cities in the county and across the state to be able to utilize this as a platform to begin to implement more of a Green New Deal across our state.
Thank you, Council Member Pacheco.
Okay, so now we're just going to vote on the amendment, the global amendment package, okay?
So it has been moved and seconded to substitute version 3B for version 2F.
All those in favor of that amendment, please vote aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
The ayes have it.
So we have a substitute version that contains all the amendments.
And I'll turn to any council members for any closing remarks on the base legislation in Green New Deal.
Council Member Sawant.
Thank you, President Harreld.
Thank you to all the organizations and activists who have been advocating for this resolution and for the components that it is advocating for.
And it is incredibly gratifying to see that the Green New Deal movement spans across generations, all the way from the youngest people to some of our oldest elders.
There's a lot that we could all say about the devastating impacts of climate change, and I think our public comment people were right.
This is not a climate change anymore.
It's climate crisis.
It's climate catastrophe that we're facing.
The dangers from natural disasters like hurricanes and floods, deserts, famine, and rising sea waters.
Everybody, of course, is watching the news.
The devastating summer that so many regions throughout the world are having with unprecedented heat waves, including many deaths in Japan.
I just wanted to quickly focus my remarks on what is not the climate crisis itself, but what will be needed to fight back against this global calamity, and the kind of drastic and dramatic change that we need that you all talked about.
It is not an accident that we here in Seattle and activists across the country are talking about a Green New Deal.
Grassroots organizers in many organizations, including the Democratic Socialists of America, have organized a campaign to oust an entrenched representative in the Democratic Party's political establishment in Washington, D.C., and to get Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez elected in his place.
Ocasio-Cortez then did the right thing, and alongside the Sunrise Movement, led by many young people and other climate justice organizations and activists, sponsored the Green New Deal resolution in the House, but most importantly used that to help jumpstart a renewed climate justice movement throughout the country.
This is not business as usual for U.S.
Congress as we know.
This is regular people getting their own representatives elected and then forcing the political establishment out of its cozy board meetings with fossil fuel executives and into the light of day.
Under capitalism, regular people do not get to decide how our power is generated.
We do not get to decide whether there will be housing we can afford near where we work.
We do not get to decide whether public transit will be available and efficient.
We do not get to decide how our food is farmed and transported.
Big business and the richest people make all the decisions based on whatever will make them the biggest profits and wealth.
This resolution sets out a necessarily ambitious and appropriately dramatic path for carbon-free Seattle by 2013. But winning all of that will mean fighting for it, will mean going up against the power of fossil fuel companies and the Chamber of Commerce and the investors on Wall Street.
There is no other way to achieve this.
The barriers to achieving a Green New Deal and a shift away from climate change are not intellectual or knowledge-based.
The vast majority of human beings on the planet now know the crisis we face.
In fact, the communities that are most marginalized and are most disadvantaged are the clearest about the dangers that face us.
The barriers are where the power lies, where the balance of power lies.
We need to replace the natural gas burning electricity generation of private for-profit company Puget Sound Energy.
But Puget Sound Energy will not voluntarily stop burning natural gas, not because they don't understand the science of climate change, but because their profits depend on continuing to burn natural gas.
And so on and so on, same arguments for affordable housing, why we will need to go up against the real estate lobby.
and why we will need to tax big business to fully fund public transit and make it free and I appreciate that being included in as an amendment in the resolution.
So for us to win all of this will require building a fighting movement and that will require also having the labor movement on the front lines and making a just transition to an infrastructure that protects the climate cannot be an afterthought and I appreciate the janitorial workers and SEIU Local 6 being here as well to testify that's very important.
The workers who work for fossil fuel companies are not the cause of climate change.
They are, just like us, making a living to feed their families, building the electric trains, wind turbines, and everything else that will be required for a Green New Deal, including clean energy retrofitting of residential and commercial buildings.
All of this has the potential to create millions of public sector unionized living wage jobs.
Every worker in the fossil fuel industry should be guaranteed a good unionized job with the Green New Deal on the green infrastructure.
And the reality is the workers in the fossil fuel industry are in an incredibly strong position to fight for a Green New Deal because without their work, without their labor, fossil fuel billionaires don't get to make a penny of profit.
So they by using the striking of their labor stand to be on the forefront of fighting for the Green New Deal.
I'm really excited to vote yes on this resolution.
I thank Council Member O'Brien and his staff for working on this with the community and with my office on many of the amendments.
I especially appreciate in collaboration with my office, strengthening the language of solidarity with workers and unions in the fossil fuel sector.
I think that's incredibly important.
I also appreciate that we have stated in the resolution now that public transit should be free, not just affordable, but free.
I think this is very important.
We now have language on social housing, progressive taxation, and all of that.
So I think this is a very strong resolution on which to base our future fight on.
Last but not least, I want to congratulate among the many organizations that have been fighting for it, including the indigenous communities that have been on the front lines and have shown incredible leadership.
I want to specifically today congratulate Fridays for the Future, a campaign led by public school students, and especially declare my office's solidarity.
I wanted to especially declare our solidarity with Zoe Sherman, who has been a courageous activist on many issues, including against climate change, who was, this past Friday, egregiously arrested.
by the Seattle Police Department.
I think this was a shameful incident that happened, and I think Zoe and her fellow students showed incredible courage.
That is very hard.
These are 13-year-old students.
I think it's very important that we publicly declare our solidarity with them, and I also wanted to pass on a public message to the King County Prosecutor.
I really hope we are not going to see any charges pressed on Zoe or any other student.
They are fighting against climate change.
Any message the King County Prosecutor's Office should be about fighting climate change, not about jailing young people.
Let's fight for the Green New Deal and happy to vote yes on this.
Thank you, Council Member Sawant.
Any other comments before Council Member O'Brien closes out with a few brief remarks?
Everybody good?
Council Member O'Brien, why don't you close out with a few remarks?
Colleagues, thank you so much.
I'm really excited to be here today and to have broad support on this council, but I hope we'll be broad support on the council when we vote in a moment.
In my nearly 10 years on the council, I've been so proud to work with a group of folks who have always tried to do their best to center the climate catastrophe in the work we do and lift up community voices, and I think this builds on that legacy.
Again, I wanna thank the community members who've been working with me on this, but I wanna just acknowledge that this is gonna be hard work, and the only way we're gonna do this successfully is we have to have the power that each of us individually hold working together to fight this.
Specifically, I see people here and saw people testify earlier that represent frontline communities that are bearing the impacts of climate change and other environmental injustice in their communities on a daily basis, and I also see people who've been working to fight the climate catastrophe for decades.
And I think it's important that we continue to have the conversation about what that means when we lift up frontline communities.
That doesn't mean the rest of us get to go away.
We all need to show up and bring our power and strength to do this work.
And because these are new relationships, it'll probably take some while to figure out our respective roles at different points in time.
I've been really pleased in working through this process to see a lot of work done on building relationships.
But I want to be clear that whether you're new to this, whether you've been suffering from the disasters, whether you have been an advocate for your whole life, which may span multiple decades, We need all of you fully engaged on this work to be successful, and there's a role for every one of us to play, regardless of what neighborhood you live in, regardless of your income level, regardless of skin color, immigration status, religion.
Everyone has a role to play, and we all need to be united against the few interests that are making billions of dollars off this catastrophe.
Thank you for your leadership.
Thank you, Councilman O'Brien.
Okay, here you go.
Those in favor of adopting the resolution as amended, please vote aye.
Aye.
Those opposed vote no.
Motion carries.
The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it.
Thank you.
And before the ink is dry, we're going to rush this to the county, because you heard what Council Member Gossett said, so there you go.
Please call the next agenda item.
Agenda item 7, appointment 1389, appointment of Samuel Ferreira as member, levy to move Seattle Oversight Committee for term to December 31st, 2022. The committee recommends the appointment be confirmed.
Council Member O'Brien.
I'll pick up the pace a bit here.
Sam Ferreira is a young general, works as an engineer for the general contract firm W.G.
Clark.
responsible for a range of project management areas including communication with subcontractors, stakeholders of the public, finding project efficiencies, and managing project finances.
As a new addition to the Levy to Move Seattle Oversight Committee, his expertise, professional and otherwise, will be greatly welcomed.
Look forward to appointing him.
Thank you very much.
Any questions or comments on this appointment?
All those in favor of confirming the appointment, please vote aye.
Aye.
Those opposed vote no.
The motion carries and the appointment is confirmed.
Please read the next agenda item.
The report of the Planning, Land Use, and Zoning Committee agenda item eight, resolution 31896, identifying proposed comprehensive plan amendments to be considered for possible adoption in 2020, and requesting that the Office of Planning and Community Development and the Seattle Planning Commission review and make recommendations about the proposed amendments.
The committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended.
Okay, so I'm now in the Unprecedented situation where the chair just got up, right?
Okay.
And the chair is back.
I said the unprecedented situation.
Council Member O'Brien was ready though.
I saw him start.
I was ready to jump in, man.
So Council Member Pacheco, we are on agenda item number eight.
Sure.
I'm sorry.
I misspoke.
We are not on agenda item number eight.
We are on number eight and You have the floor on the comp plan amendment.
Sure.
So this is the annual comprehensive plan amendment docketing setting resolution, which queues up a docket of amendments for additional analysis and recommendations for the council to consider next March.
The docket includes two new applications for amendments, one to extend the boundary of the Northgate Urban Center to add two properties and another to extend the boundary of the West Seattle Junction Hub Urban Village to include the Providence Mount St. Vincent property.
The docket also includes items that the Council has previously requested the Executive to study, including identifying a new name for single-family zones, potential amendments to the Delridge Neighborhood Plan, and more.
The PLEZ Committee passed a few amendments to the docket as well.
Councilmember O'Brien proposed requesting analysis of amendments to clarify our intent to protect public health and meet climate goals.
We also pass an amendment to remove the stadium district proposal and other specific industrial lands amendments from the docket.
Council Member O'Brien has an amendment in line with what was discussed in committee and which I support that would replace the industrial lands language left in the resolution so I will throw it over to him.
Thank you Council Member Pacheco.
Council Member O'Brien.
Thank you, Council Member Pacheco and Council President.
So you should all have a copy in front of you.
It's this, we have lots of copies of things in front of us.
It's a staple document that looks like this and it has red line version.
And so I would move to amend resolution 31896 by substituting version 4B for version three.
Okay, this is just for the amendment.
Did you need to say any more about that version, Councilman O'Brien?
I will speak to it briefly, if that's okay.
Yes, please.
I'm not going to read the whole thing for sake of time.
I want to just highlight what we, striking the language that was in section two and replacing it with this new one.
Calls on the city to do a detailed plan, work plan for industrial lands review.
including key meetings, milestones, and deliverables, and report back to us by December 31. It also generally says that we cannot move forward with making individual land use policy decisions in industrial lands until we have an updated industrial land policy, and ask the mayor to convene that group.
We list the number of stakeholders that should be included in that, trying to keep it at a high enough level to leave some room for the mayor to decide how to do that work and then to come up with a proposal and present that to the council before we will consider the types of land use decisions that were proposed to be docketed.
We believe that the mayor is actually ready to announce some of that this week and hope that we can move swiftly and build on the prior work in the previous years to resolve some of the ongoing issues around industrial land use that have really kind of stagnated what we want to do forward.
And that will almost certainly be to a future council that I will not be part of to make those decisions, but I think it's important to do that work.
Very good.
This is just on the amendment.
Any comments on the amendment?
Council Member Herbold.
Thank you.
I just want to state for the record that I'm supportive of this amendment and I also want to emphasize the need to work from previous recommendations so the stakeholder group is not rehashing those previous recommendations.
I do recognize that some physical conditions related to industrial lands have changed.
But again, I think it's been very difficult for a lot of the stakeholders to have to continually spend time and effort in reviewing the need for a new industrial lands policy, get so far, get a new mayor, and start from square one.
So I appreciate the request for a work plan.
and a stakeholder group so that we can emphasize the desire to move forward on this.
I want to state for the record that I had crafted an amendment that was not heard on Wednesday because I was concerned that the votes might not be there for Council Member O'Brien's amendment, so I'm glad that wasn't the case.
I did have a compromise proposal that would have docketed a stadium district north of Royal Bromway and east of Occidental Ave that would have also limited residential use to the north of Charles Street.
And the purpose of that amendment was to try to move forward where there was previous agreement from stakeholders from the 2013-2014 process.
All of that said, I hardly support the direction that we're moving in now.
And then finally, I just want to make note that, as I mentioned earlier this morning, as it relates to the Wasco property, I found out that my office has done an initial reach out to WSDOT to understand their timeline for the sale of that property because of concerns that I've heard from stakeholders.
in the area about the sale of that property moving quickly prior to the council being able to act on recommendations.
So we've just done an initial reach out.
I think there'll be some necessary follow-up and I think some communication from the council and the mayor to WSDOT would be helpful in the future.
Very good.
Thank you, Council Member Herbold.
This is on the amendment only.
So any other comments on the amendment?
Okay.
All those in favor of substituting version 4B for version 3, please say aye.
Aye.
All those opposed?
The ayes have it.
Any other comments on the resolution?
Council Member Bagshaw.
Thank you.
Council Member Pacheco, thank you for picking this up.
I know you're stepping in in April and building on years worth of of work that had already been done, so I appreciate that.
So I want to focus on a couple of things.
First of all, is timing.
I would really encourage the mayor's office to fast-track this.
As Councilmember Herbold just mentioned, this is not the first time we've looked at industrial lands.
spending much of our time over the last 12 years.
I think this will be the third large study on the use of industrial land, so I'd love to build on it, not starting over, and give ourselves a date.
I think March 31st was a date that we're asking to have information come back for comp plan purposes.
And so with that, a couple of things that I would really like to see in this next bit of work.
One is about in the stadium district itself, the potential of having maker space.
There's a warehouse there.
Love to see that continue to be industrial manufacturing, light manufacturing, but allow affordable housing on top of that.
It's far enough away from the port facilities that I believe that affordable housing would be very useful there for individuals that are making and doing the work and providing services to the port.
So I think that's something that we should look at, could look at, and actually make a difference.
And I've heard from some of my labor union friends that are saying, yes, they would like and would support that.
Also, with potential for the Waska property, something that came up a decade ago now is to convert that, the zoning to allow hotels in that area.
With the port starting on Pier 48 for new cruise ship terminal and with the stadium, the ballpark right there, it could really do a lot for Pioneer Square, which is just north of that area, but also provide green space and open space and perhaps even some park space for people that are coming and going in that area.
Also, I just want to underscore preserving industrial land south of Holgate is something that I've heard over and over again, but allowing some use for either affordable housing or, as I mentioned, the hotels, is something that I've heard could be a good compromise.
And then fast-forwarding to the north part of our manufacturing industrial area, again, I'd like us to really do a special look at makerspace with the potential of affordable housing on top.
in the north area as well, primarily port property at this point.
So those are the things that I would like to add and ask for the mayor to take a special look at and see what we can get back by March 31st of next year.
Thank you, Council Member Bagshaw.
Any other comments before we vote on this resolution?
Council Member Mosqueda.
Thank you.
Just a quick thank you to the Chair, Council Member Pacheco, and to Council Member O'Brien for your work over the last four days on the language that you all crafted.
I know that we've received notes of appreciation from ILWU members, other maritime unions, and port commissioners.
So thank you for following through on the desire to have the timeline set and to be really inclusive of who's at the table so that we can have assurances that we're going to move forward with this analysis, but also recognize that the analysis needs to be comprehensive and across the city.
So I appreciate your quick work on that and just want to say thank you for following through on that.
Great.
I'll step in.
Any other comments or invite comments?
Council Member Chayko.
I think one part that I want to draw particular awareness to is the change of single family zoning, the changing of the name.
I think as we all acknowledge, language matters.
And so being intentional and mindful of that conversation as it moves forward in our city, potentially for the next council, is something that I think it's good.
And for my colleagues who will be here, I hope you can continue to support that conversation in terms of a way that's more inclusive so that we don't pit one against another on the issues that come before our city with regards to land use.
So, thank you.
I'll also take a moment to highlight section, what's been renumbered as section 5. It asks that the department provide recommendations for potential amendments to the environmental land use or utilities elements to clarify the city's intent to protect the public health and meet its climate goals by limiting fossil fuel production and storage.
We earlier heard King County Councilmember Gossett speak to his co-sponsoring of a moratorium that the county placed on new fossil fuel infrastructure of the county.
We're taking a slightly different strategy at the moment, but trying to get to the same end game, which is also consistent with some of the things that folks working on the Green New Deal have asked us to do.
Thank you for that.
Councilmember Herbold.
Thank you so much.
I just want to give a shout out to some of the recommendations or the inclusions in the comp plan amendment docketing resolution that relates specifically to the Delridge neighborhood plan and requesting recommendations from OPCD and the Seattle Planning Commission.
The top line issues are how to increase uses of parks, trails, cultural recreational facilities by engaging historically underrepresented communities in the planning process, coordinating with community members and supporting the Delridge Community Center, the Southwest Teen Life Center in Youngstown to provide culturally supportive programming, reduce pollution and stormwater impact to Longfellow Creek with drainage systems in the public right-of-way, increase sidewalks, implement the pedestrian master plan, and engage in Sound Transit three-station planning focused on transit-oriented development efforts.
And finally, and very importantly, increase opportunities to access healthy, affordable food and support urban farming and education.
Thank you, Council Member Herbold.
Okay, and thank you, Council Member Pacheco, for bringing this forward.
Okay, we have an amended resolution.
All those in favor of adopting the resolution as amended, please vote aye.
Aye.
Those opposed vote no.
The motion carries.
The resolution is adopted and the Chair will sign it.
Please read the next agenda item.
The report of the Governance, Equity, and Technology Committee, agenda item 9, Council Bill 119594 relating to interpretations, corrections, and revisions of the Seattle Municipal Code, creating the position of code reviser.
The committee recommends the bill pass.
Thank you.
As I stated to you during a briefing and as discussed at our council, at our committee meeting, this amendment basically gives authority to what's called a code reviser position for the city of Seattle.
And this position will be housed in a law department.
It will be an attorney qualified and designated to codify and revise city laws without substantive change or alteration of purpose or intent.
The city attorney and our central staff has found this position to be needed given the complexities of code changes.
And sometimes a single change may reflect itself in many ordinances.
And as many of you know, as legislators, this often gets complex.
And this designated position will truly have a subject matter expert housed in the law department at use for us when we consider legislation.
And currently there are two paralegals who are serving as legislation editors, but we think this newly created position makes sense.
Are there any questions on this ordinance?
Okay, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Swan.
Begshaw.
Aye.
Herbold.
Aye.
Juarez.
Aye.
Mosqueda.
Aye.
O'Brien.
Pacheco.
Aye.
President Harrell.
Aye.
Six in favor, none opposed.
Council Member O'Brien is here.
Aye.
Seven in favor, none opposed.
Seven in favor and the law department is relieved.
Okay, please read the next agenda item.
Agenda item 10, Council Bill 119595 relating to the technology matching fund making allocations and authorized implementation of certain technology matching fund projects in 2019 and allowing that any unspent funds from an individual project may be applied to another project that meets the goals of the digital equity initiative.
The committee recommends the bill pass.
Thank you.
So while the room has been largely cleared from community activists, we have a few loyal patrons here.
This is actually, I think, some of the most important work that the city does.
This is our technology matching fund program, and it authorizes, this particular legislation authorizes the disbursement of $320,000 from Seattle Information Technology, SIT, from their digital engagement budget summary level.
And in short, this is monies that will go to 11 community-based organizations.
It will allocate 302,000 community matching resources to do some very meaningful and effective work in terms of addressing the digital divide.
I'll just sort of very quickly describe some of these projects.
The South Park Information Resource Center are empowering South Park's non-English speaking residents to increase digital literacy skills to help them gain employment and access resources.
The Atlantic Street Center, I'll tell you, I'll just sort of name the names of the organizations and many of you are very familiar with them since they reside in your district.
I'll just sort of name the recipients.
The Atlantic Street Center, Kin-On Health Care Center, Multimedia Resources and Training Institute, the Seattle Neighborhood Group, The Jack Straw Foundation.
The Dress for Success Seattle.
I think that's sort of a code.
They help low-income women, especially women of color, to get and succeed in web design and computer coding jobs, empowering them to break the cycle of poverty for themselves and their families.
And last, a Real Change Homeless Empowerment Project.
So we, as a city, are making these investments because we think that digital access and literacy are going to be absolutely critical toward everyone's success and certainly our own.
I want to thank all the people at CEL Information Technology, the Community Technology Advisory Group, the volunteers, the folks that evaluated these proposals.
We couldn't fund everybody, but we certainly funded some superstars.
I want to thank them for their very impactful work on looking at these awards.
Any questions or comments?
Okay, I'm going to give Council Member Bagshaw a chance to vote on this exciting legislation.
Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Sawant, Bagshaw, Herbold, Juarez, Mosqueda, O'Brien, Pacheco, President Harrell.
7 in favor, none opposed.
The bill passed and the Chair will sign it.
Please read the next agenda item.
Agenda item 11, Council Bill 119599 relating to the City of Seattle's continued use of Cascade Public Media's Capitol Hill transmission site and tower.
The committee recommends the bill pass.
So this council bill authorizes the Director of FAS, Finance and Administrative Services, to execute a 15-year lease with Cascade Public Media governing our continued use of the transmission site and tower for radio equipment and associated antenna.
And we've had an arrangement for several decades with the Cascade Public Media's, which is formerly known as KCTS Television, with their continuing arrangement at the transmission site and the 410 foot tall tower.
And this continues our relationship we've had since basically 1992. Part of what we're doing, our housing, what was passed in 2015, which was a ballot measure authorizing an upgraded regional public safety emergency radio network, otherwise known as PCERN.
And again, this will be necessary, this legislation will be necessary to make sure that we are accommodating the technological needs of the PCERN infrastructure.
Any questions?
Okay, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Sawant.
Begshaw.
Aye.
Herbold.
Aye.
Juarez.
Aye.
Mosqueda.
Aye.
O'Brien.
Aye.
Pacheco.
Aye.
President Harrell.
Aye.
Seven in favor, none opposed.
The bill passed in the chair of Senate.
Before I It's getting late in the day and I just want to make sure that for these next few items we have at least seven members here that are necessary to pass the Several of these budget items that are forthcoming.
So just a forewarning And please read the next agenda item
With the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item 12, Council Bill 119572, amending Ordinance 125493, which amended the 2018 budget.
The committee recommends the bill pass.
Council Member Bekshaw.
Council President, I want to give you an opportunity to weigh in here.
I can move through this fairly quickly.
We've had two committee meetings where we went through...
Did I do that?
For the Green New Deal.
But anyway, the point is we've had multiple committee meetings on this.
We do have some amendments that came forward.
We suspended the rules to bring them forward today.
If you would like, I can just go through a very high level explaining what these ordinances are, what they do, what the dollar amounts.
And each and we can vote on them fairly quickly if you all would really like to stretch this out I've got enough information to keep us here till 630. So what is what is your pleasure here?
What I'd suggest in all opinions are welcome is that We're not going to read each one into the record at first, but why don't you take us through each one and And then council members can comment on that particular bill.
And then when we get to the reading part, we'll just go through a series of votes.
If that, instead of introduce, talk vote.
So why don't you...
I'm okay with you.
She's the boss.
So just walk us through the different bills and then we will come back and read them into the record for the vote piece of it.
Okay, I can see some head nods down there that people are saying, thank you very much.
Let's move this.
Okay, so item 12 is what's called the exceptions ordinance.
And this will amend our adopted 2018 budget, which scares me to death since we're only six weeks from our next budget process.
And that covers unanticipated costs that were realized late in 2018. And it resulted in spending exceeding appropriations.
The departments did have the money The bill increases the final 2018 budget by $13,619,032, of which slightly lower than $200,000 is for direct general fund expenses.
The largest increases are technical in nature due to changes from the new budget and the finance system questica.
Item 13 is the grant acceptance ordinance.
Now, as I spoke many times about this, we have been offered grants.
We have to accept them before we can spend the money.
Some of the grants come toward and for the police department, some are for parks, some are for other departments, but that results in about $3.7 million of funding to us.
Item 14 is our supplemental budget ordinance.
It's Council Bill 119575. The net appropriation increase proposed in the second quarter supplemental bill, including some grant back appropriation, is approximately $72 million, of which $6.9 million is the general fund.
In committee on Friday, we adopted are added to these appropriations by dedicating funding for approximately 600,000.
These were some of the items that Councilmember Mosqueda and I spoke to earlier today, and that included a downtown emergency services center nurse, LEAD, Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion, a database, all of which I think are very important for the progress that we're looking forward to around our human services docking.
The AIDS Memorial Pathway, the AMP Phase 2, we had some provisos that were funded for human services contract adjustment.
Highland Park intersection improvements, thank you Councilmember Herbold for bringing that forward.
University Heights accessibility improvement for a new elevator there.
$85,000 for food bank support.
the Green Janitor Education Program for $35,000, and at Daybreak Star Native Cultural Organization support approximately $100,000 for some one-time capital improvement.
Item 15 is our Capital Improvement Program Abandonment Ordinance, and what this is are ongoing capital projects, some of them have been around for a decade, the projects are finished.
We had some additional monies that were left over, amazingly enough, coming in under budget, and that money will be, if it's unused, will be reappropriated for our 2019 adopted budget.
And then we had some carry-forward appropriations, and these are used to reappropriate funds that were previously provided but not yet expended for various purposes in the 2018 budget.
So, the items do not increase the level of authorized expenditures in 2019, but it was adopted on the assumption that most of those expenditures would have taken place, and therefore, there's no additional impact.
in our 2018 budget going forward.
I'm sorry, 2019 budget.
And that's it.
So I'm happy to entertain any questions.
Otherwise, I will ask everybody to chime in here and we can vote on them individually.
Council Member Musqueda.
Oh, sorry.
I didn't record.
Thank you.
Let me share the meeting if you don't mind.
I am aware that you have an amendment for agenda item number 14, correct?
That's correct.
And so what I would purport to do is vote for 12 and 13 and then relinquish the floor to Council Member Mosqueda for 14, if that's okay with Council Member Mosqueda.
No problem, Mr. Chair.
Okay, so just on agenda item number 12, okay?
Absolutely.
Are there any comments on agenda item number 12?
Okay.
Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Sawant.
Begshaw.
Aye.
Herbold.
Aye.
Juarez.
Aye.
Mosqueda.
Aye.
O'Brien.
Aye.
Pacheco.
Aye.
President Harrell.
Aye.
Seven in favor, none opposed.
The bill passed and Chair will sign it.
Please read the short title of agenda item number 13.
Agenda item 13, Council Bill 119574, authorizing in 2019 acceptance of funding from non-city sources.
The committee recommends the bill pass as amended.
Okay, I'm not aware of any amendments.
Are we okay to vote on this one?
Everybody good?
Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Sawant?
Bigshaw?
Aye.
Herbold?
Aye.
Moraes?
Aye.
Mosqueda?
Aye.
O'Brien.
O'Brien.
Apacheko.
Aye.
President Harrell.
Aye.
Seven in favor, none opposed.
The bill passed in the Chair of the Senate.
Please read the short title for agenda item number 14.
Agenda item 14, Council Bill 119575, amending Ordinance 12574, which adopted the 2019 budget.
The committee recommends the bill pass as amended.
Okay, Council Member Bankshaw did describe the basis of the bill.
Council Member Mosqueda, would you like to...
Before the amendments?
I'm sorry?
Before the amendments or after if we have comments on the base?
Let's just talk about the base right now, then perhaps in that even someone can describe the amendments as well.
So would you like to say any more word about the base legislation on agenda item 14?
Council Member Baxter?
Let me see.
What item specifically are you interested in, Council Member Herbold?
I would like to speak to two of the items, the AIDS Memorial Pathway and the Highland Park Roundabout, and I'll be very brief.
Please, Council Member Herbold.
Thank you so much.
I mostly just want to thank Chair Bagshaw for doing my work for me in committee on Friday when I was unable to be there.
I had two amendments that I was sponsoring, but she carried them forward for me and I'm very appreciative.
One amendment was to fund The AIDS Memorial Pathway, this is following up on a Lunch and Learn that many of us attended.
And the funding will assist the project in continuing to gather its self-determined personal narratives regarding HIV AIDS and allow it to move into phase two of the project.
which will, in addition to gathering new narratives, will broaden inclusivity and apply learned narrative gathering behaviors and increase opportunities for diverse communities to share those narratives as part of this project moving forward.
And then in addition, the other amendment that we had was to correct an error in the budget process last year for the capital improvement project.
Last year we created a CIP project for the Highland Park roundabout.
to earmark some already dedicated funds by the Department of Transportation.
And the earmarked funds did not actually accurately represent what the commitment was from the executives so far.
So the commitment from the executive is actually now properly reflected in the amendment in the CIP.
But in addition, we also have adjusted the total cost of the project to more accurately reflect what the project will cost.
So we're going from a $200,000 commitment to a $500,000 commitment to accurately reflect what SDOT has put forward to the project.
Thank you, Council Member Herbold.
Council Member Mosqueda.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I, too, want to echo my appreciation for the budget chair and all of the work she has done in the supplemental to include a number of items.
And if I might, Mr. President, I'd like to talk about a few of those items and then I'm happy to, when you say go, talk about the slight amendment.
Please do.
We have included in this budget with the council's full support a continuation of our efforts to make sure that there's an inflationary adjustment for our human service contractors.
Being able to bring forward a small amount from last year's budget that was underspent makes it clear that we're reaffirming council's intent to support those workers who provide the basic social safety net and the backbone services that our city really relies on for our elders, our kiddos, women, people who've been victims of domestic violence, individuals who need assistance with housing, and those who are trying to get out of homelessness.
And this is a really important way for us to stabilize those organizations.
So thanks for your work on that.
Council Member Bagshaw this morning as well mentioned the testimony that we heard from U Heights last week.
U Heights in the U District has been calling for the need for there to be an elevator because the lift that they have with their stairs and again their old The beautiful old building does not have an elevator in it was proud to sponsor along with councilmember Pacheco the need for us to include funding from the city level to Be coupled with state funding and other community partners to create Accessibility throughout the building by creating an elevator.
That's really exciting our friends from seiu6 are here and I wanted to say thank you to our community partners who have been working with us from Seattle, our 2030 Seattle and SEIU 6, our partners at the City Office of Environmental Sustainability as well, who are really excited about the opportunity to create a green janitor education program to train between 30 and 50 janitors.
to clean our LEED buildings throughout Seattle.
A 30-hour curriculum on green cleaning is not only good for the workers, but it's good for meeting the very environmental standard strategies we talked about earlier today and hopefully reducing energy consumption and water consumption, which is what they saw in the city of Los Angeles as well.
So this is a huge opportunity to try to meet those goals and to train up more to make sure that we have the staff well trained to make sure that we have janitors in a really growing sector to make sure that our buildings across Seattle, not only are built LEED certified, but that we have the staff well trained to make sure that they can clean those buildings using healthy materials and keeping our buildings, our workers, and future generations healthy as well.
So thank you guys for continuing to be here and for your work on that as well.
And Mr. President, if you'd like, I can either move the amendment
Let's go ahead and dive right into the amendment unless anyone else wants to talk on the base legislation.
Council Member O'Brien, to put you in queue, I think you have an amendment as well.
So Council Member Esqueda, will you speak to your amendment, please?
Thank you very much.
Again, I want to thank the community partners who have been serving our Native community, especially in District 7, but really across the board in partnership with Council Member Juarez, who helped to lead the effort to ensure that there was a community space for our Native community at Daybreak Center.
We have heard over the years that the very entities who are serving some of our most vulnerable communities, providing them with cultural space and the ability to have access to services, that buildings are in need of repair.
It's been really exciting to work with the organization and the individuals out of United Indians for All Tribes and to recognize that this amendment doesn't specifically go to them, but helps us make sure that there's opportunity to support our Native cultural organizations with providing access to utilities and upgrading bathrooms and upgrading kitchens.
This is a really great way for us to use some potential surplus dollars that have been found and use one-time infusion into capital projects.
chair as well for her support with helping to direct us to those one-time infusions that will really make a meaningful and lasting improvement into structural structures that serve our community, especially our Native community.
And I would love to turn it over to Councilmember Juarez, if possible, as she has been a huge supporter and leader in this effort.
Councilmember Juarez.
Thank you.
I've been dying to talk all afternoon.
I just want to say thank you Councilmember Bagshaw and Councilmember Mosqueda for being such big supporters of United Indians and Daybreak Star.
As you know, that facility has been in need of repair for at least two decades.
We tried to build the People's Lodge under the direction before we lost Bernie White Bear, and we were met with many legal challenges.
So hopefully someday we can revisit that and realize the dreams, not only of Bernie White Bear, but the whole Native community in building the People's Lodge.
And I'm hoping in the future we can focus on Labatea, which is the group home of United Indians as well.
So thank you very much.
Great.
Thank you, Council Member Juarez.
And I just, if I can just add one thing on that, I want to acknowledge that the one time funding is going to go into capital projects, like you mentioned, whether it's restroom or just fixing up some of the facilities downstairs.
And we use this facility a lot for our parks efforts for various community meetings.
So I think it's such a community asset that needs that upgrading.
It was a good call and thanks for bringing it forward.
Council Member Mosqueda.
Thank you, Mr. President.
So the technical amendment is really a change to the reference in the budget control level.
This is on page 3, modifying item 1.24 to, instead of referencing the leadership and administration division, which is 00100B, OHS H 5 0 0 0 it would instead reference supporting affordability and livability which is section 0 0 1 0 0 B OHS H 1 0 0 0 Is there a second I'll second that okay, I'll refer to that as amendment 1 are there any comments on amendment 1 as stated by councilmember skater I
Okay, all those in favor of amendment amendment one, please say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
The ayes have, amendment one has passed.
Now to consider Councilmember O'Brien's proposed amendment, I'm going to have to suspend the rules.
I'll do that by motion.
So all those in favor of suspending the rules to consider Councilmember O'Brien's amendment, I will move for that to do that.
Okay so moved and seconded to suspend the rules to allow discussion on Councilmember O'Brien's amendment.
All those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
The ayes have it.
So the rules are suspended.
Council Member O'Brien, will you walk us through your proposed language?
Thank you.
Colleagues, I had circulated an amendment, which was previously Amendment 2, last, on Friday.
I got some feedback over the weekend and so added a line to that, but as we note, it was not circulated in time.
So thank you for suspending the rules.
I would like to move To amend Council Bill 119575 as presented in Amendment 2B.
What this does is it builds on what my previous amendment says, which was to allocate an additional $100,000 to addressing homelessness, BCL.
And add a proviso to it that says, of the appropriation in the 2019 budget for the addressing homeless budget summary level, $100,000 is appropriated solely to provide assistance to people experiencing homelessness who occupy vehicles.
In the event that a prohibition is placed on allowing a person to occupy a vehicle in exchange for rent or other consideration, these funds shall be spent to provide support to individuals displaced from their vehicles due to the prohibition.
2B adds this last sentence which says, no portion of the amount so appropriated shall be used for indirect administrative costs.
And then it renumbers the following sections.
Very good, so that is the proposed language.
I do have an extra hard copy if it's been passed around.
Councilman Herbold, we heard your points duly noted at the briefing session this morning.
You're welcome to repeat them if you like.
At 5.42.
So first of all, let's make sure the amendment passes.
Councilmember O'Brien described the mint amendments you have the language is there first of all is there a second Okay, it's been moved in second.
There's any further discussion on the amendment only Okay, all those in favor of the amendment.
Please say aye aye Opposed the ayes have it Okay, so now we have amended legislation for agenda item number 14 councilmember Bagshaw, did you want to say any other closing words on amendment on item number 14?
I would just like to say that I support council member O'Brien's effort on this.
It arose last Friday after we had our discussion about the RV legislation and I want to underscore that I'm delighted to be putting this money in the budget and I am asking the mayor's office and members of her team to make sure if the RV legislation goes forward that we are supporting the people who are getting removed from those RVs and that we have some 24-7 place to put them.
So I think that's the intention as we originally discussed this, but we don't want to limit it just to people that are being removed because of potential new RV legislation.
I support Council Member O'Brien and I am delighted to recommend item 14 as amended.
Okay, very good.
Any further comments?
Please call the roll on the passage of the bill as amended.
Sawant.
Begshaw.
Aye.
Herpel.
Aye.
Juarez.
Aye.
Mosqueda.
Aye.
O'Brien.
Aye.
Pacheco.
Aye.
President Harrell.
Aye.
Seven in favor, none opposed.
The bill passes and the Chair will sign it.
Please read the next agenda item, the short title, please.
All right.
Agenda item 15, Council Bill 119576, amending Ordinance 125724, which adopted the 2019 budget.
The committee recommends the bill pass.
Councilmember Baxhaw.
I don't think I've got anything else to add.
Okay, any other comments on agenda item number 15?
Okay.
Hearing no questions or comments, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Swann.
Begshaw.
Aye.
Herbold.
Aye.
Juarez.
Aye.
Mosqueda.
Aye.
O'Brien.
Aye.
Pacheco.
Aye.
President Harrell.
Aye.
Seven in favor, none opposed.
The bill passes and the chair will sign it.
Please read the short title for agenda item number 16.
Agenda item 16, Council Bill 119573, amending ordinance 125724, which adopted the 2018 budget.
The committee recommends the bill pass.
This is the carry forward ordinance that I mentioned previously.
I don't think I have anything to add to enlighten the crowd.
Okay, any other comments or questions on number 16?
Seeing none, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Sawant.
Begshawn.
Aye.
Herpel.
Aye.
Morris.
Aye.
Mosqueda.
Aye.
O'Brien.
Aye.
Pacheco.
Aye.
President Harrell.
Aye.
Seven in favor, none opposed.
The bill passes and the chair will sign it.
I believe that concludes our agenda items for the day.
Is there any further business to come before the council?
Council Member Baxhaw.
Lisa Kay, thank you for your help in putting all this together with your colleagues, Tom and Eric Sund.
This is a precursor of what we're going to have in six weeks.
Thank you.
Council Member Mosqueda.
We'd love to hear from you.
Mr. President, I really appreciate your indulgence.
So the next full council meeting is September 3rd.
Is that correct, Mr. President?
I believe so.
Yes, it is correct.
And just want to give our council colleagues a heads up.
We will have a lunch and learn that day between council briefing and the full council on the gig economy.
Would love for folks to be able to come and hear more about sort of what we're hearing from community partners around everything from drivers to changing work in traditional industries and cropping new industries.
So I'll look for that announcement to come from us later this week as well.
Excellent.
Thanks for that plug.
Okay our next we'll be on recess for two weeks our next full council meeting will be September 3rd and everyone have a great rest of the afternoon and a great recess with that we stand adjourned.
Thank you.