SPEAKER_17
Good afternoon.
The September 17, 2024 special meeting of the Seattle City Council will come to order.
The time is 2.02 p.m.
I'm Joy Hollingsworth.
I am your council president pro tem of council.
Clerk, will you please call the roll?
SPEAKER_18
Council Member Morales.
Here.
Council President Nelson.
SPEAKER_24
Present.
SPEAKER_18
Council Member Rivera.
Present.
Council Member Saca.
SPEAKER_37
Here.
SPEAKER_18
Council Member Strauss.
Here.
Council Member Wu.
Present.
Council Member Kettle.
SPEAKER_17
Here.
SPEAKER_18
And Council President Pro Tem Hollingsworth.
SPEAKER_17
Awesome.
SPEAKER_18
Seven present.
SPEAKER_17
Thank you so much.
I'm going to recommend that we hear a presentation from central staff after the conclusion of public comment.
Because this is a special, if there's no objection, the council rules are suspended to postpone the presentation until public comment.
Hearing no objection, the rules are suspended and we will move on to public comment.
The council's provided an opportunity for public comment today, a special city meeting.
To do this, I'm gonna have to suspend the rules to allow this because usually for special meetings, we don't allow public comment, but we're gonna do it because I think this is incredibly important for us to listen to and I know that there's a ton of people here to give public comment.
So if there is no objection, the rules will be suspended to allow public comment today in the hearing.
Hearing no objection, the council rules are suspended and we will proceed to public comment.
The hybrid public comment period is now open.
Public comment is limited to today's item agenda.
It is my goal during this public comment that we hear from all perspectives.
whether in favor or opposition to the policy choices before us today, we will be respectful, we'll listen to everyone, and we were going to extend the public comment to ensure that we have everyone here to be able to present those public comments.
Clerk, how many speakers are signed up today?
SPEAKER_18
We have seven remote and 17 in person so far.
SPEAKER_17
Okay.
We have 17 remote.
Say that one more time.
I'm sorry.
SPEAKER_18
Seven remote and 17 in person so far.
SPEAKER_17
All right.
Awesome.
We are going to allow 90 seconds today for everyone so they can give their public comment.
And we were going to start with the speakers in the council chambers first.
Clerk, I know I hand this over to you to present the instructions and call on the registered speaker.
Thank you.
Speakers.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_18
And just for clarification, that 90 seconds, correct?
SPEAKER_17
That is correct.
90 seconds for everyone.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_21
The public comment period will be moderated in the following manner.
Speakers will be called in the order in which they are registered.
Speakers will alternate between sets.
We'll start with in-person speakers and then move to remote speakers.
Please begin by stating your name and the item you are addressing speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left of their time speakers mics will be muted if they do not end their comments within the allotted time to allow us to call on the next speaker, the public comment period is now open and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.
SPEAKER_18
The first speaker, we'll begin with speakers one through 10, if you can please line up.
And Megan, just really quick, if you could change the timer to a minute, thank you.
Appreciate that.
Speaker one will begin.
And again, there are two sets of microphones.
So if you want to alternate between one and two, that'd be great as well.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_17
It's one second.
Thank you for coming.
SPEAKER_35
All right.
Hello, Council.
My name's Eric.
I'm deeply concerned by the authors of the alternatives apparent failure to grasp concepts being discussed, especially after having 45 days to consider the initiative.
I want to make one thing clear.
Under I-135, social housing is cross-class housing and is available the people making between 0% and 120% of the AMI.
There are three reasons for this.
Number one, it emerged as a learning from historic US public housing policy, which resulted in segregation by class and race.
Number two, in part, the folks who make the most subsidize the people who make the least.
And number three, when market rate housing has to compete with a public option, it creates a downward pressure on rents.
This makes housing more affordable for all working people, no matter if they live in social housing or not.
Additionally, Councilmember Kettle said during his comments on I-137, don't bring me problems, bring me solutions.
The alternative simply creates more problems for the PDA and working people by taking funds available to essential social services and significantly reducing the number of units the PDA can build, kneecapping its impact.
Council, don't bring us problems, bring us solutions, or get out of our way.
Pass I-137 outright or put it on the ballot with no alternative.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_17
Thank you, Eric.
Next, go right ahead.
SPEAKER_05
Hi, all.
Ryan Driscoll.
And I brought a graphic because I'm an educator, and so I think visuals are always helpful.
And I just wanted to reiterate the point that Eric was just making.
I think there's a little confusion around why social housing has such a wide range of incomes and why it's important that this is a separate funding source and we're not taking funding away from low-income housing.
We all recognize that we need more housing across all incomes, and we shouldn't be taking income away taking the money away from our low-income housing to provide social housing, and the way we do that is having cross-class subsidization.
So if we look at affordable housing in kind of two buckets, low-income and social housing, we know that all affordable housing is aiming for people to only pay 30% of their income as rent.
When we're looking at low-income housing, that additional amount of rent is coming from federal, state, and local subsidies, things like our housing levy or from the jumpstart tax.
When we're looking at social housing, the additional income that is needed to cover their rent doesn't come from our public sources.
It's coming from the higher-income individuals that are a part of social housing.
So the reason we need that 120% to 80% bracket is so that the extra rent above the cost of maintaining that unit goes into the social housing developer to cover the difference for the lower income individuals.
I ask you, instead of sending this alternative to the voters, that you send just I-137 as a straight up or down vote to the voters.
Make it nice and simple and easy for them to understand.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_18
Thank you.
We're on speaker number three.
SPEAKER_13
I think anyone can recognize that we have a housing crisis in Seattle, and this disproportionately falls on the shoulders of working class Seattleites.
I know many people right now who are struggling having to couch surf just to figure out when the next available unit is going to be open to tenants in their income bracket.
And in response to that, a lot of these great folks turned out in a February election almost two years ago to get I-135 passed.
And they had put a lot of thought and effort into what their proposal was for I-137.
And instead of just putting it to a clean vote, y'all have been deciding to obstruct it.
and to honestly waste a lot of the voters' time, the taxpayers' time.
So please, how about y'all just do your freaking jobs, put the vote up cleanly, because we all can admit that the alternative is just going to pilfer Peter to pay Paul when this original proposal, I think, stands on its merits alone.
So please, put it to a vote.
Quit wasting our time.
SPEAKER_16
Thank you.
SPEAKER_36
Next, whenever you're ready.
Good afternoon, Council President Hollingsworth and Council Members.
My name is Lars Erickson, and I'm speaking on behalf of the more than 2,500 members of the Seattle Metro Chamber of Commerce in support of placing the proposed I-137 alternative sponsored by Council Members Kettle, Moore, Rivera, and Wu on the ballot.
This alternative provides for accountability and transparency and holds the social housing PDA to the same standards as our affordable housing community providers.
It uses existing payroll expense tax revenue, which this year alone is estimated to generate nearly two times the amount originally anticipated.
Funding a brand new housing entity in perpetuity without accountability does not guarantee housing, but making ongoing funding contingent on progress more likely will.
The PDA is still empowered to apply for capital grants and issue bonds.
In fact, that is how Initiative 135 backers claimed social housing would be funded during the 2023 campaign.
It should be up to voters to decide which proposal will lead to responsibility and accountability and actually deliver the promised units.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_18
Thank you.
Speaker number six.
Lauren, go ahead.
SPEAKER_08
Good afternoon, council members.
My name is Lauren McGowan, executive director of LISC Puget Sound and a board member of the Housing Development Consortium.
LISC is a community development organization and CDFI that works with Jump Start Partners to provide capacity building, technical assistance, and lending capital to deliver affordable homes across our city.
I urge you to reject this ballot alternative, which would divert $10 million annually from Jumpstart funds.
Jumpstart was designed to help those most vulnerable to displacement, households earning 30% of AMI and below.
Diverting these funds weakens our ability to serve those in greatest need.
We all agree that everyone deserves a safe, affordable home.
Without enough affordable housing, we harm families, businesses, and the city's potential.
While innovative housing solutions are needed across income spectrums, the answer is not to divert funds from Jump Start.
Diverting these funds would mean fewer homes and less progress in addressing our housing crisis.
Please oppose this ballot alternative.
Thanks.
SPEAKER_17
Thank you, Lauren.
Whenever you're ready.
No worries.
SPEAKER_02
Hi, my name is Travis.
I'm from D3.
I am also here to urge you not to put forward the alternative today.
It is unfortunately clear that members of the council do not understand the mechanics of social housing as passed by voters last year.
Council members who are actively sponsoring this alternative asked questions on Tuesday that show that they have not actually engaged with the core ideas of social housing and what's required to make it succeed.
Cross-subsidization is core to the social housing model.
Someone at 80% of area median income cannot cross-subsidize someone at 30%, but someone at 120% can.
The council said they don't want to see another failed pilot, but that is exactly what your alternative will do.
I encourage you to meet this crisis, and it is a crisis, with the full force it deserves.
Do not take money from Jumpstart, respect the will of the voters who approved I-135, and put I-137 up for a fair vote on its own merits.
SPEAKER_16
Thank you.
SPEAKER_07
Good afternoon, council members.
I'm Jesse Simpson, director of government relations and policy for the Housing Development Consortium.
Thanks for your opportunity to testify today.
We represent the nonprofit affordable housing developers, as well as other organizations working across the city and county to build the affordable housing that we desperately need here today to testify.
in opposition to the proposed alternative ballot measure, Council Bill 120864, and to emphasize the importance of protecting Jump Start funds.
Jump Start's the single largest source of funding for affordable housing across the city.
It's been a game changer for our members, and the funds are dedicated to serving a broad range of housing needs for our most vulnerable neighbors and community members.
Jumpstart's let us build and acquire thousands of new homes affordable to very and extremely low income people.
It's stabilized the workforce for permanent supportive housing providers by raising their wages and letting providers like Plymouth and DESC actually fill positions.
And it's funded much needed operational stabilization for housing providers facing unprecedented challenges and near the brink of collapse.
Any diversion of these funds, including the proposal to siphon $10 million annually to the social housing developer, would undercut the basic premise of Jumpstart.
And while Jumpstart has raised more than was originally projected, these funds are still oversubscribed.
Any RFP issued by the Office of Housing, whether it's for new capital or operations, is oversubscribed, and we can deploy this money effectively.
Respectfully ask you to oppose the alternative measure and protect Jumpstart.
Thank you very much.
SPEAKER_18
We're at speaker number eight.
SPEAKER_23
Hello, my name is Sarah Dickmeyer and I'm here on behalf of Plymouth Housing.
We are a permanent supportive housing provider serving nearly 1,300 formerly homeless adults in the city of Seattle.
We urge you to reject the proposed alternative to initiative 137 that would divert 10 million of existing and dedicated Jump Start funding.
Jump Start provides critical support for the work we do at Plymouth.
By providing wraparound services and 24-7 staffing, we're able to support our residents as they transition out of homelessness, stabilize, and remain housed.
We are proud that this work, funded by Jumpstart, is able to prevent returns to homelessness more than 95% of the time.
We're concerned that this alternative undermines our city's commitment to target the deepest levels of need and will present voters with a false choice.
We must be unified and intentional in our response to our region's housing and homelessness challenges.
Jumpstart was a meaningful step in this direction, and Plymouth was an early supporter for this reason.
We hope we can talk with you more about why protecting this dedicated funding is so important, but for today, we respectfully urge you to reject the draft alternative.
SPEAKER_34
Hi, my name is Suresh Chandugam.
I live in District 3 with my wife and my family, and I'm one of the leaders of Tech for Housing.
If you believe everything you read on Twitter, we authored I-137.
I am here because Tech for Housing for about a year and a half operated as a nonprofit under the fiscal sponsorship of the Housing Development Consortium.
While we're no longer officially affiliated with them, we have a deep respect and passion for the work that they do and all of their members.
And it is absolutely critical that you vote no on this alternative because it would defund the incredibly critical work they do.
Yes, it's great.
The jumpstart continues to bring in more revenue.
The programs that Housing Development Consortium members are operating today need that extra funding.
Please do not defund all of the incredible work that they're doing.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_18
And we have speaker number 10, who is the last person for this set, and we'll move on to remote.
SPEAKER_22
Anitra Freeman with WEAL.
I was once on the Low Income Housing Institute Board of Directors.
The Board of Directors of the Social Housing Development has more people with more housing development experience than we did or that the current Lehigh board does.
They're not inexperienced people, but a board does not do housing projects.
A board does not build housing.
A board hires and supervises a CEO and sets policies and practices.
This board, the Social Housing Development Board has a large, a majority of them are renters.
They can actually have a powerful voice in the policies and practices of the social housing.
That is important to my people.
It's also important to us not to be segregated.
And it's important to us that the bonding capability of this group not be held to possibly the funding getting withdrawn in three years if it isn't all spent.
You tried to do that to EDI.
Don't do it.
SPEAKER_21
Thank you.
Our first remote public commenter will be Kathleen Brose.
As a reminder to all public commenters, please press star six when you hear the prompt of you have been unmuted.
Go ahead, Kathleen.
SPEAKER_26
Good afternoon.
My name is Kathleen Brose.
I live in District 6. We all want affordable housing.
Current proposed I-137 funding is not the answer.
There is not enough transparency and accountability in this tax grab.
The money will be wasted.
A better way to create more immediate, already built housing is to re-look at the current landlord-tenant laws and make it financially conducive to rent out private property.
Many small landlords are keeping their rental properties empty rather than lose money on non-paying or destructive renters that are almost impossible to evict.
Please do not place I-137 funding on the ballot in February unless Its small print includes fiscal responsibility, transparency, and accountability.
Also, the public board overseeing I-137 funds needs to be managed by qualified individuals.
Lived experience, although important, is not enough to be on a board overseeing millions of tax dollars.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_21
Our next speaker is Alberto Alvarez.
Alberto will be followed by Regan Langholz.
Go ahead, Alberto.
SPEAKER_03
25,000 Seattle residents submitted I-137 for social housing.
The mayor now plans to undermine this effort.
The Harold scam is one man's ploy to raid our low income services and housing funds.
The mayor is wrong, and we'll answer for this.
Council members who have signed on to this plan will be voted out, starting with Tanya Wu.
This council has bled us for everything we need to endure the high cost of living.
The ultra wealthy must pay for social housing.
It is their greed that makes sure half or more of our income is paid out in rent and mortgages.
We need affordable housing now.
Peace of mind for the working class will turbocharge our local economy.
We are the buyers.
We are the spenders.
The ultra-rich are the parasites of our city.
They hoard money and siphon it out of state.
Pass I-137 as submitted by the voters.
Say no to the Herald scam.
You have this one chance to do what's right for all of us.
Fail us and you will be removed.
Have a good day.
SPEAKER_21
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Regan Langholz, and Regan will be followed by Aiden Carroll.
Go ahead, Regan.
Regan, as a reminder, you may need to press star six.
SPEAKER_28
Thank you so much.
My name is Reagan Langhold and I am 22 years old.
I am a full-time student, a full-time political consultant, and I commit myself to educating folks of all backgrounds on local and state policy regarding basic needs.
I do not live in Seattle.
I live in Kent.
I have conducted research on housing insecurity in Kent and the current barriers to achieve housing in Kent are due to the consequences of policy decisions made here in Seattle.
I doubt that if anyone here provided the definition of shelter poverty, they would ethically agree to this counter initiative.
If I-137 for social housing passes, Seattle residents up to 120% AMI could have access to affordable, sustainable housing that is community owned and protected against the speculative market.
Social housing won't replace income restricted housing.
It will expand the supply of housing for everyone in Seattle without displacing current residents or further commodifying the basic need of shelter.
There are more than enough funds for I-137 to become a reality.
This metropolitan policy sets a precedent for the greater Seattle area, including my home of Kent.
Read before you speak.
Think before you preach or write something into policy that will affect all of us.
Thank you for your time.
SPEAKER_21
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Aiden Carroll, and Aiden will be followed by Alex McGuire.
Go ahead, Aiden.
SPEAKER_24
As a member of Seattle Education Association, speaking in professional capacity, I'd like to first remind you that the zoning is the reason that we have fewer and fewer middle-class families afford to live in Seattle.
The reason that Seattle schools are shrinking while writing schools are overcrowded is because fewer and fewer of the families can't afford private school, can't afford to live in Seattle.
That's the reason the housing crisis is to a point where the middle class families need housing assistance also.
There are other reasons that social housing is a good idea, but we have to make up for the failed overly restrictive zoning of the last 50 years.
We lost the private sector housing after the fire in the Ozark Hotel in March 1970 caused the city council in that era to pass an unfunded mandate that, rather than make the hotel's people who were living in safer, caused them to be demolished over the course of the 70s and replaced with parking lots.
That was when we had the homeless crisis emerging in downtown Seattle in the 80s and the founding of the nonprofits you know.
And these nonprofits do good work, but they cannot do this on their own.
Social housing is class-integrated, and because of it, requires less taxpayer money per unit.
You need to disrupt the dangerous open-air market of real estate property in downtown Seattle that is causing so many harms in our community.
This is a real crime.
This is furthering so many of the things you identify as crimes.
SPEAKER_21
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Alex McGuire.
Alex will be followed by Howard Gale.
Go ahead, Alex.
SPEAKER_29
Hi, can you hear me?
SPEAKER_21
Yes.
SPEAKER_29
Hi.
Hi, my name is Alex and I live in D3 and I am opposed to this alternative to I-137.
The majority of your constituents enthusiastically voted to create a public development authority and the 26,000 signatures collected by Housing Our Neighbors reflect that I-137 is a known next step to making the PDA functional.
I am deeply disappointed in this council's inaction on I-137, and frankly, the amount of time and effort put into creating a husk of an alternative is insulting.
This alternative is a direct attack on programs intended to benefit our Seattle working class rather than holding wealthy corporations accountable to investing in the cities they reside in.
This alternative does not allow a large enough income range to support our missing middle housing, and taking jumpstart funds away from intended low-income youth will likely doom all programs that lean on the jumpstart to fail because of shoestring budgeting.
Your voters don't want our existing funds divided into ineffectively small amounts We want bold and voter-backed solutions to repairing Seattle's housing options.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_21
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Howard Gale.
Howard will be followed by John Scholz.
Go ahead, Howard.
SPEAKER_09
Good afternoon.
Howard Gale, District 7. You demonstrated clearly to us that overwhelming public opinion three to one against is irrelevant to you when you voted two days ago for more punitive measures to address the consequences of social inequity.
Your disdain for the public, along with your hypocrisy and cynicism, are on display today as you vote on legislation to undermine I-137 by replacing a proposal for $50 million per year for new housing generated by taxing corporate wealth with a paltry $10 million per year robbed from the existing Jumpstart Fund, thereby both crippling the new social housing initiative and taking away money from other social needs.
You punish folks for the consequences of social inequity, and then you enact measures to ensure that inequity is perpetuated.
You do this under the guise of fiscal responsibility and making sure our dollars are spent wisely.
Yet where is the audit of the hundreds of millions spent on the SPD, or the audit of over $70 million spent on failed police accountability system, which has not been audited in over seven years, despite the city auditor calling for one seven years ago?
We are all aware that in the next few months, you will not only fail to fund the needed social programs to offer real solutions instead of punishment, but that because you have refused to explore other revenue sources, you will almost certainly cut back on these needed programs, proving your patronizing disdain for your constituents.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_21
Thank you.
Our next speaker is John Scholes, and John will be followed by David Tammis-Parris.
Go ahead, John.
SPEAKER_33
Good afternoon, council members.
My name is John Schultz, President and CEO of the Downtown Seattle Association.
The DSA has a long history of supporting housing in our community.
In the early 80s, we established what is now known as Bellwether Housing, one of the largest housing providers in our community.
We've been longtime supporters of the Seattle Housing Levy, endorsing every levy that has been on the ballot, including the most recent levy, which tripled the level of investment in our city.
And we provide direct housing support to our downtown ambassador team, which today totals 165 individuals.
The measure before you, 137, excuse me, is the monorail of housing.
And while you don't have the opportunity or option to stop it necessarily in its tracks, you do have an opportunity to provide the public and voters a reasonable and more responsible alternative.
I urge you to vote for that alternative, which caps city investment at 80% of AMI and requires the social housing PDA to comply with all the Office of Housing Fund policies.
This is a much more responsible and reasonable approach to addressing social housing in our city, and I urge you to give voters the opportunity to vote on it.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_21
Thank you.
Our next speaker is David Tomas-Parris, followed by Matt Hutchins.
Go ahead, David.
SPEAKER_32
Hi, my name is David Tamash-Parris.
I'm a D6 resident and a member of Tech for Housing.
I do want to clarify because some council members, including those sponsoring this initiative, seem to be confused about it.
Tech for Housing did not write the initiative.
That honor belongs to House Our Neighbors.
We were among people gathering hundreds and hundreds of signatures, totaling to 35,000 in support of this initiative.
and we will be turning out to candidates against the council members who vote to put this misguided initiative on the ballot.
What really, I do just wanna say, what really struck out to me when I was gathering signatures for this was that anyone who stops, the vast majority of people are excited about this model.
They know that our current model of housing is broken.
They know that the wealthy are not paying their fair share in this city, and they want something where we can live and have mixed income housing where people who earn more can subsidize those who don't earn as much.
This is a misguided initiative, and you should put it on the ballot, but I know that your friends at the Chamber of Commerce will have their way, and it will appear on the ballot.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_21
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Matt Hutchins, and Matt will be followed by Sydney Province.
Go ahead, Matt.
SPEAKER_31
Hi, my name is Matt Hutchins, and I'm calling to oppose 314535. So many Washingtonians struggle with housing, and we know that in Seattle we are not building anywhere near enough The projection for our 20-year need for any kind of affordable housing is over 60,000 units, and we're not going to get there just with Jumpstart, just with MHA.
We need more housing funding sources to expand the pool for affordable housing.
This measure is a poison pill.
It's meant to divide the populace against affordable housing, and we really need all tools in our toolkit to provide as much affordable housing as Seattle actually needs.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_21
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Sydney Province, and Sydney will be our last speaker in this set.
Go ahead, Sydney.
Sydney, you may need to press star six.
SPEAKER_28
Hello.
Hi, I wanted to comment on the proposed council alternative to I-137.
The alternative appears to be designed to cripple the social housing program and other affordable housing programs in the city by poaching money from the affordable housing pot, which will in effect make social housing exactly like every other affordable housing program that serves only very low income individuals.
I voted for I-137 because the limitations of that model are very apparent to people who are in that income range.
I have friends who live under 80% of the AMI who are forced to work less or refuse higher paying jobs in fear of losing their housing.
And I don't know anyone who is making between 80% to 100% of the AMI in Seattle who isn't struggling with the cost of housing.
At that wage point in the city, you simply cannot afford to buy a home at all, and you cannot afford to rent without being significantly cost burdened or by occupying the lowest cost units, thus perpetuating the cycle of displacement of low-income people and the need for more subsidized affordable housing units, the fund of which is now being poached.
Mixing on social housing is critical for breaking this cycle, and yet the alternative seems to indicate that the council doesn't understand the reasons why Seattle voted for social housing, or in the case of repeated comments by council members such as Council Member Wu, seem to be entirely ignorant of the core concept.
I-137 will likely pass in its unaltered form either way, but voters will remember the support of the council for...
SPEAKER_18
Well, we will now go back into in-person public commenters and we are number speakers 11 through 18. Number 11 will be first.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_15
Is this on?
Hello, my name is Jeff Paul.
I'm a special education parapro in Seattle Public Schools.
Yesterday, I went to a rally at the John Stanford Center with hundreds of parents who were there devastated at the announcement of mass closures in Seattle Public Schools.
As a previous caller mentioned, we're losing all of these schools largely because of enrollment issues, which are directly tied to the cost of living in the city.
Eight days ago, I was at another school board meeting, and the chief operating officer of Seattle Public Schools gave a report to the school board.
And in that report, he said one of the primary reasons why families with Kids under the age of five are not enrolling in Seattle Public Schools, even though they're born here.
It's because those families are leaving the city once their kids get old enough that they need more space because they simply can't afford the places that have the space to raise a family here in Seattle.
So that is what's going on.
We are losing our schools because we can't seem to get it together and actually address this housing crisis.
That's the thing that social housing is supposed to do.
It is supposed to create a more affordable city for everybody, for families and for workers.
And this alternative just gets in the way of that.
Not only does this alternative get in the way of supporting those families who are struggling, it also raids money from the people who are struggling even more, the people who are the most vulnerable in our city.
It's taking funds from Jumpstart and saying, sorry, we're going to make social housing compete with that.
And that's just not going to work.
The people are very clear.
We want social housing, and y'all are getting in the way of it.
Don't say that this is reasonable.
We just heard that guy from DSA say his goal is to kill social housing.
That's what he wants to have happen.
He's calling it reasonable, but he said in front of everybody that that's what's going on.
SPEAKER_99
So we know that this is what you're doing.
SPEAKER_17
Thank you so much.
Appreciate you.
Next speaker.
SPEAKER_18
Number 12?
Go ahead.
SPEAKER_12
Hello, my name is Tom Barnard.
I am a member of the Seattle Social Housing Board, although I am speaking today only as an individual.
You are clearly trying to prevent the will of the voters in creating an alternative which results in significantly less funding, contains methods to keep the Social Housing Board from accessing that funding, and a process which is designed to put up roadblocks to allow SSHD to do its work.
And you are also raiding funds from the jumpstart tax needed for actual affordable housing.
But most of all, you are attempting to keep in place a system which does not provide housing solutions for the vast majority of Seattle renters who face rental rates that beggar them from developments owned by Wall Street dark money investors whose only interest is maximum return on investment.
These, of course, are some of the same investors and types of investors who fueled your recent rise to power.
I would bother to try to explain the way in which the mechanism works, how the Social Housing Board works, but I'm actually fairly sure that you know exactly how that works and you are simply throwing up chaff to confuse the voters.
You will not succeed.
From the recent King County Social Housing Initiative by Gourmet to efforts at the state level to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's brand new federal legislation that will establish and fund social housing, efforts to establish a model are around the world and known in the future.
You are behind the times, stuck in a model that protects your real estate backers, and you will pay the political price for doing so.
Some of you sooner rather than later.
SPEAKER_18
All right, number 13.
SPEAKER_00
Good afternoon.
My name is Kat Munson, speaking on behalf of Real Change and in strong opposition to the proposed council alternative to I-137.
As you know, Real Change is Seattle's 30-year-old street newspaper sold by vendors with the lowest barrier work opportunity in our city.
Our anti-poverty and homelessness advocacy is driven by the lived experience of these vendors, many of whose voices helped to shape I-135.
Due to the tireless efforts of How's Our Neighbors, born of a political action committee originally part of Real Change, Seattle voters decisively passed I-135 in 2023. Real Change now stands in unwavering support of I-137, along with over 30,000 voters who signed to fund the PDA with $50 million a year annually, not 10, from a progressive revenue source.
And we stand against the council's alternative, which defunds affordable housing projects, the Equitable Development Initiative, and so much more.
So we urge you to heed the voices of the voters, put I-137 on the ballot as a standalone policy, and embrace the longstanding, proven, and operationally successful social housing model as one of a portfolio of solutions to our city's housing crisis.
Housing is a human right and a public good, and it's well past time for the council to acknowledge that.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_14
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon, Council.
My name's Ben Frillo.
I'm a renter in District 3. Council's alternative to I-137 takes a proven mixed-income housing model and completely alters it without showing that the new version would even work, because it won't, without massive federal subsidies and a very complicated capital stack.
Council's plan kneecaps the social housing developer by only giving it $10 million a year that can only be spent serving tenants up to 80% AMI.
This, in effect, prevents the developer from sustainably operating a mix of renter incomes and, at the same time, gives them less resources to build that housing.
Does Council have any evidence to prove that this purposefully watered-down alternative model will even succeed?
Of course not.
We know that social housing works.
You can look around the world and here in the United States to see that the social housing, the mixed income social housing model actually works.
I implore you to please stick to proven solutions rather than failing to meet the moment of this housing crisis.
Politicians around the world have gone down in history favorably for passing bold and progressive social housing policies.
How will you be remembered as a meek footnote in the history books or as those who chose to act?
I hope today that you make the right choice.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_11
Good afternoon, council members.
My name is John Grant.
I'm the chief strategy officer with the Low Income Housing Institute.
I'm also a former board member of the Seattle Housing Levy Oversight Committee.
Lehigh is one of the city's largest affordable housing providers with over 3,500 units of housing.
Presently, we operate five properties funded by Jumpstart payroll expense tax, such as our Good Shepherd House and Dockside Apartments.
Lehigh is strongly urging the council to withdraw its alternative proposal to I-137.
This council is known for taking a slower and more methodical approach to truly measure the impacts of legislation it passes.
This proposal falls short of those standards.
If passed, this measure would redirect $50 million over five years away from very low income people earning 0 to 30% of the area median income.
and redirect it up toward people who are earning 80% of their immediate income.
This would essentially eliminate housing units for hundreds of homeless people.
Any alternative, at the very least, should cause no harm.
Affordable housing providers have never recovered from the pandemic with millions of dollars lost from rent arrears.
We are already seeing affordable housing properties being put on the market, and we will lose more if the city doesn't act.
This proposal would significantly reduce the funding available to stabilize the city's nonprofit housing sector at the worst possible time.
Instead, we desperately need the city to prioritize jumpstart dollars to establish an operating fund to stabilize underwater properties.
The affordable housing sector is in free fall, and this only deepens the crisis.
Please vote no on this alternative.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_18
Thank you.
Round number 16.
SPEAKER_39
Two weeks ago, council members Strauss and Nelson said they could not discuss any reasons why the council is delaying I-137 due to attorney-client privilege.
I would hope our council members would know that attorney-client privilege only restricts the attorney.
The client is free to speak.
Why are you using senseless excuses to avoid discussing the critical and urgent issue of creating more housing?
I'm grateful for the opportunity to make public comment with my fellow Seattleites, but it will be an empty gesture if you do not listen to us.
I urge the council to implement I-137 directly, or at least to withdraw their countermeasure.
Social housing benefits people of more income levels and encourages diversity in our neighborhoods.
Companies paying individual employees more than $1 million per year can easily afford the proposed payroll tax.
Your countermeasure would take money away from existing programs instead, moving funds around without increasing needed resources.
In your decision today, tax the rich, not the poor.
SPEAKER_16
Thank you.
SPEAKER_06
Hi, folks.
My name is Gabriel Jones.
First off, I'd like to apologize for my behavior last meeting.
Apparently, as a small business owner, we're not supposed to talk about our special privileges as loud as I did.
So I apologize for that.
My bad.
Won't do that again.
Secondly, as for I-137, this needs to pass outright.
The city has worked so hard for this.
You have so many people who are so excited about this.
This is going to work.
But instead, we're going to raid another agency to do what we can do already.
There's no reason for it.
It just cuts more affordable housing.
So many council members spoke earlier this week about, we need more social housing.
We need more social housing.
Instead, we're going to cut it.
We're going to cut the budget.
We're going to make it so much harder to get more affordable housing, while saying, well, we need more affordable housing.
You have so many issues you want to solve, but instead, We'll take the slowest, most nonsensical solutions.
We need to fight.
Well, I don't want to say fight because Tanya Wu might hiss with a car.
Anyway, we need to make sure we're staying safe and we need to make sure that this passes or not.
We will vote out everyone here who does not stand with us.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_17
Thank you, Mr. Jones.
Ms. McCoy.
SPEAKER_20
Thank you.
Executive Director of How's Our Neighbors, Council Member Hollingsworth, thank you for the 90 seconds.
It's a nice repeat to be able to talk about everything I would like.
I want to just refresh the public's memory on why we weren't able to provide funding in I-135.
It's a constitutional issue, really.
It's the fact that public development authorities don't have taxing authority and also that you have to keep initiatives to a single subject.
You can't fund an entity and create it in one.
We were incredibly transparent about that.
Virtually every media outlet reported about it.
So we always were clear that this is a two-step process, create the developer and then fund it.
That is what we are doing.
We strongly oppose defunding Jumpstart and defunding the housing levy.
We're glad the housing levy was taken off the table, but we are very opposed to Jumpstart being defunded.
They need the money, the affordable housing providers, the Equitable Development Initiative, all of the Green New Deal, they need that money.
And before someone says, we're not actually taking money from Jumpstart because it is bringing in record amount.
Jumpstart Spending Plan is a percentage.
Every bucket has a percentage that goes to it.
So it is up to you all to tell the public how you are not taking from those buckets when it is based on percentages, not on revenue being brought in.
I will say as well that, because I have 16 seconds, the Social Housing Developer Board has multiple people on there that have development experience.
You have a public housing finance expert, Chuck DePue, who the mayor appointed.
You have Julie Howe, who's a UW professor, has been doing affordable housing for 30 years.
You have an architect, and the CEO, Roberto Jimenez, comes from California with over three decades of development experience.
Please don't put the alternative forward.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_17
I believe we have some more people signed up.
Yes.
And we will get to you.
Just give us one second while we are coordinating those.
SPEAKER_18
Number 21 is David Moser.
SPEAKER_17
Thank you.
SPEAKER_10
Hello, Council.
My name is David Moser.
I'm a District 3 resident, longtime Seattle resident, and I'm here to oppose the alternative that has been put forth and to support I-137 as is.
The working class and renters of Seattle have been getting pushed out of Seattle for decades now due to the extreme concentration of wealth and housing scarcity.
The leadership of the city has so far failed to put forth any plan that fundamentally alters this situation.
So the working class of the city has been forced to organize ourselves.
Now you are putting forth this alternative that not only waters down the original thoughtful plan, but fundamentally alters it and it raids the other funding for affordable housing in turn.
You say you want a proof of concept, so please do your due diligence and basic research on the many cities around the world who have built and are building social housing currently.
Many of those cities are way less wealthy and rich than Seattle is.
Seattle is one of the wealthiest cities in the history of the world.
We can pull out of this scarcity mindset, and we can house our neighbors.
Please don't put forth this alternative.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_18
Shannon?
SPEAKER_04
Hello, I'm Shannon.
I'm a low-income tenant currently in public housing.
And to share my experience, the current proposals for low-income housing as stands do not provide for the needs of its tenants.
It cycles tenants into homelessness.
And I support the social housing measure because there is an action in it about supporting people who have financial difficulty.
which is a lot about reasons why you would be in low-income housing anyway.
And this has addressed that there aren't enough provisions in the current measures to address the total needs of the tenants.
And the system has its flaws, and this does address some of those things.
I would urge you to overcome politics to support a real measure that functions.
SPEAKER_17
Thank you, Shannon.
SPEAKER_18
We have one remote speaker left, and after that, that's the end of the registered public commenters.
SPEAKER_17
Awesome.
Thank you so much.
SPEAKER_21
Our next speaker will be Ellie Robert Shaw.
Ellie, as a reminder, you may need to press star six when you hear the prompt.
You have been unmuted.
SPEAKER_27
Hi, my name is Ellie.
I live in Renton and work in Seattle.
And most of my family does live in Seattle as well.
It's terrifying to me that in this housing crisis, you are so flippant about this issue.
Number one, I can see it in the way you talk and it's a little bit scary to be honest.
And it's also scary that you are actively blocking a proven concept like social housing.
You say that social housing lacks credibility, but I think it's actually this body that lacks credibility and is refusing to listen to the many experts who have spoken today who do provide affordable housing here in Seattle.
You're also not putting forward any solutions of your own, which we do need because there is a crisis happening right now.
You are hurting residents of both Seattle and South King County by doing this.
Please put initiative 137 on the ballot with no alternative.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_21
Thank you.
Our next speaker is going to be Rachel Kay and Rachel will be followed by David Haynes.
Go ahead, Rachel.
SPEAKER_25
Hello, my name is Rachel Kay.
I volunteered to gather signatures in the I-135 campaign as well as during The 137 campaign where I gathered between 150 to 200 signatures.
I am also low income.
I work in retail.
I have nearly been evicted twice this year.
I have been forced to sell blood plasma to pay for rent.
And my friend, UC, was killed in an eviction in March 2023 by King County sheriffs.
I understand that these politicians received tens of thousands of dollars in independent expenditure funds from the likes of the Washington Realtors, the Rental Housing Association, and the Multifamily Housing Association.
They also wrote this ill-thought-out initiative with the backing of their fellow rich friends at the chamber.
These council members...
are profiting from the homelessness crisis where like hundreds of people die on king county annually and it's multiple times the murder rate yet uh cops get 50k bonuses and uh the how social housing gets defunded vote yes on i-137 in its original form thank you um our last present speaker is david haynes go ahead david
SPEAKER_30
Hi, thank you.
David Haynes.
Maybe the council should like take a look at some of the jumpstart spending priorities, because I know the previous progressive councils who imploded our society and defunded the police and then prioritize repeat offenders who commit crimes are getting like priority for housing and services first.
And maybe there's only like less than 60% of the jumpstart money actually makes an effort to solve the homeless crisis.
But it's not solving the homeless crisis for the innocent homeless a lot of times.
So I dare say that there's some, like, protesters slash nonprofits who claim expert on solving the problems in our community who hide within the jumpstart financing that seems to, like, pretty much use taxpayer dollars to buy off protesters that hide behind, like George Floyd protesters hiding behind from nonprofits.
And, you know, it's suspect to me that there were certain things that the council did a while back that has to do with the jumpstart that are not really solving the homeless crisis.
So maybe there's some funding there.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_18
That concludes our public comment speakers.
SPEAKER_17
Awesome.
So we have reached the end of the list of registered speakers.
The public comment period is now closed.
I want to thank everybody for coming today and speaking about this important issue.
Initiative 137 is before the council for consideration.
The council will continue to consider the options provided by the charter and within the allotted 45 days provided.
At this time, I would like to call up our phenomenal central staff, Jen Labreck, to provide us with an overview of the policy options for us today.
And I will request that the rules be suspended.
And if there's no objection, the rules will be suspended to allow council central staff to address the council.
SPEAKER_19
All right, hello, good afternoon.
SPEAKER_17
Oh, sorry, thank you.
Hearing no objection, the rules are suspended and central staff, please begin with introducing yourself and then present the overview and just walk us through everything.
So thank you.
SPEAKER_19
Sounds good.
Hi, I am Jennifer Labreck with City Council Central Staff.
Today's agenda will involve action on Initiative I-137.
So I will be walking through the agenda to provide clarity on the choices before council today and also some clarity on what each agenda item is and what it does.
First, just a couple minutes of background.
Initiative 137 was filed with the Office of the City Clerk on February 13th, 2024. And on July 26th, King County Elections provided a certificate of sufficiency, verifying that there were sufficient signatures to place the petition on the ballot.
The notice of signature sufficiency was provided to city council on August 6th and under the city charter, council has 45 days to act from that day.
So that deadline is tomorrow, September 20th.
Under the city charter, council has three choices for action when it comes to a city initiative, voter initiative.
They can enact the measure, in which case it becomes law without going to the voters.
They can send the measure to the voters without an alternative, or they can send the original measure and an alternative to voters.
So today, there are two choices before council in order to meet the September 20th deadline.
Agenda items one, two, and three together comprise the first choice, which is to send both the original I-137 measure and an alternative measure to the February 11th, 2025 special election ballot.
Item number one is a clerk file and it's a necessary procedural step in order for council to declare its intent not to enact initiative 137 and instead send both the original measure and the alternative measure to voters.
Item number two, the Council Bill 120864, is the Council Bill with the alternative measure, which is again to allocate $10 million of payroll expense tax to the Seattle social housing developer annually for five years.
And item number three is a resolution that directs, among other things, that King County Elections Department place both the original I-137 measure and the alternative measure on the February 11, 2025 special election ballot.
So it's important to think about these three items on the agenda, one, two, and three, as a package.
Council would need to affirmatively act on all three of those agenda items in order to essentially create the alternative and send both the original and the alternative measure.
to the February 11th, 2025 ballot.
Item number four on the agenda is related to council's second choice.
That is a resolution directing King County elections to place only the original I-137 initiative on the February 11th, 2025 ballot.
If council does pass items one through three, then no vote would be taken on item number four.
If council does not pass items one through three, then a vote would be taken on item number four.
So I will pause there for any questions about either the procedure or about any policy questions about the alternative.
SPEAKER_17
Thank you, Jen.
Colleagues at this time, you're more than free to not answer any questions, but to ask any questions that you might have.
And I'll pause here and wait to see if there's any questions.
Okay, so there's no questions, and I'll look online too as well, all right.
Will the clerk please, hearing, excuse me, let me go back.
If there's no objection to the agenda, we'll be adopted.
Hearing none, the agenda is adopted.
And Jen, please stay at the table, because we're gonna go through all this.
Will the clerk please read item one into the record?
SPEAKER_18
Agenda item one, clerk file 314535, city council motion and declaration of city council intent to not adopt initiative 137 and place initiative number 137 on the February 11th, 2025 ballot in conjunction with a measure to fund the Seattle city housing developer by allocating funds from sales, existing payroll, expensive tax, a proposed alternative measure on the same matter.
SPEAKER_17
Thank you, Council Member Rivera.
As you are the sponsor, you are recognized to move item number one.
SPEAKER_01
I move CF 314535. Is there a second?
SPEAKER_17
It's been moved and seconded to approve and file the clerk file.
Council Member Rivera, sponsor, you're recognized to address this legislation.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_01
Just as a recap to thank you so much, Jen Labreck, Council Central staff, and just in general for all the work that you did throughout this process.
I really want to recognize that we are very well staffed by Central staff.
They help write policy and they advise us and we very much appreciate all their efforts and all their work.
And we are especially grateful because Jen's been here for many years And so thank you very much for taking us through all this to recap Colleagues this particular bill all is to not we We are not putting this or this would be if we wanted to and acted directly without putting it on the ballot So this is what we're voting on first Any questions?
SPEAKER_19
Just to clarify, you're stating, council is stating its intent not to do that with this clerk file.
SPEAKER_01
Right, which then means the next step would be to place it on the ballot.
But for this vote, it's just not to enact it on our own without placing it on the ballot.
SPEAKER_17
All right.
Thank you.
Will the clerk please haul the roll to approve and file the clerk file?
SPEAKER_18
Council Member Morales.
Yes.
Council Member Nelson.
Aye.
Council Member Rivera.
Aye.
Sorry.
Council Member Saka.
Aye.
Council Member Wu.
Yes.
Council Member Kettle.
SPEAKER_17
Aye.
SPEAKER_18
And Council President Pro Tem Hollingsworth.
Yes.
Seven in favor, none opposed.
SPEAKER_17
Will the clerk please approve?
Well, the clerk file is approved and filed and the chair will sign it.
Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?
Thank you so much.
Will you please read item number two into the agenda?
SPEAKER_18
Agenda item two, Council Bill 120864 relating to funding the Seattle social housing developer requesting that a special election be held on February 11th, 2025 for submission to the qualified electors of the city of a proposition to fund the Seattle social housing developer through the city's existing payroll expense tax.
The committee, sorry, ending there.
SPEAKER_17
Thank you.
Council Member Rivera, sponsor, you are recognized.
SPEAKER_01
Thank you, Council President Pro Tem Hollingsworth.
I move Council Bill 120864. Second.
Second.
SPEAKER_17
It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill.
Council Member Rivera, as the sponsor, you are recognized to address.
SPEAKER_01
Thank you, Council President Pro Tem Hollingsworth.
As I said in Tuesday's meeting, I co-sponsored this alternative to I-137 with Housing and Human Services Chair Kathy Moore and Council Members Kettle and Wu as co-sponsors.
Also, Mayor Bruce Harrell has voiced his support for voters to have an alternative on the ballot.
We're all in agreement.
We need more affordable housing in Seattle.
We are all aligned in that goal.
This alternative is also aligned with that goal.
It balances the need for innovation with the need for accountability.
It allows the Seattle social housing developer, a new public development authority, to show what they can build here in Seattle.
But it won't give a blank check to yet another new agency that does not have the experience creating housing.
If the social housing PDA shows proof of concept and positive outcomes, this alternative gives the city the ability to expand the PDA's efforts.
As you heard from Central staff on Tuesday, the alternative compels the new social housing effort to abide by the same parameters that Seattle's existing affordable housing providers comply with.
The goal is to ensure public dollars are spent wisely and effectively while creating much needed housing.
Our job as stewards of public funds is to make certain taxpayers see results from their investment.
Both pieces of legislation, if passed today, will appear on the ballot in February.
It is then up to the voters to decide.
Colleagues, happy to answer any questions you may have for me.
SPEAKER_17
And at this time, I will pause to see if anyone has any questions during this time.
Or comments.
Or comments.
Council Member Kettle.
SPEAKER_38
Thank you, Council President Pro Tem Hollingsworth.
I appreciate it.
I want to thank all those here today in public comment, plus all those I've been reaching out in multiple different ways on this topic.
I note the points made on social housing and housing generally to include house our neighbors in my office.
I appreciate all the, you know, the the attention and the points made.
I will note that I'm hearing you and I note the international points that are made, but I also know as someone who has lived, studied, and worked overseas that the government structures, the taxing structures, and everything else is very different in these countries.
And that's one of those things that we need to note as we go through what we're trying to do based on our country, national, state, and coming down to local.
I also recognize the points we made about social housing and the like as opposed to affordable housing generally or even more generally just housing.
And that point I'd like to thank central staff who laid out very clearly what social housing is with I-135 here in this document and also in the note that was created by central staff.
So I really appreciate that.
THAT SUPPORT, THANK YOU, MS. LEBRECHT, IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.
AND ALSO TO THE REST OF THE TEAM, INCLUDING THE HEAD OF THE CENTRAL STAFF.
MY POSITION IS BASED ON GOOD GOVERNANCE CONSIDERATIONS, LEGAL RISK, FUNDING, AND GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE.
AS NOTED, I SHOULD ADD, IN TERMS OF THOSE THAT ARE REACHING OUT TO US, INCLUDE MAYOR HAROLD, WHO NOTED, FOR EXAMPLE, THE LEGAL RISK POINT.
I believe that the alternative is better in terms of, you know, crawl, step, walk and run across the legal funding and governance points.
And I am in support of that council bill.
And I want to thank Council Member Rivera for the incredible amount of work that she put in and the coordination she did not only with central staff, but city attorney's office and many others to come up.
with this alternative, which will go, I believe, to the voters along with I-137 itself.
As noted before, and as one of the public commenters noted in terms of don't bring problems, bring solutions, I do believe that we need a Seattle housing plan akin to our Seattle transportation plan that works through all these elements of housing.
As you know how complex it is, as the folks that I'm looking at with your experience, and all the various facets to it, whether it's from programs to funding sources and all the like.
And I think going through that kind of process would be very illuminating.
It would highlight the different issues, and it would also have public comments and engagement.
Then it would come to us in a solid and collective way, which then, again, would have a public comment AND ENGAGEMENT PROCESS BEFORE GOING TO A VOTE BY THE COUNCIL, WHICH GOES AGAIN TO THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE, WHICH GOES BACK TO EARLIER POINTS MADE.
SO WITH THAT SAID, RECOGNIZING THE POINTS MADE, THAT'S THE POSITION THAT I HAVE.
AND SO AGAIN, THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA, FOR BRINGING THIS ALTERNATIVE.
I DO BELIEVE IT'S A STEP FORWARD, ESPECIALLY IN COMBINATION WITH THIS IDEA OF A SEATTLE HOUSING PLAN.
that can help our city move forward with respect to our housing challenges.
So thank you, Council President Pro Tem.
SPEAKER_17
Thank you, Council Member Kettle.
Council Member Saka, you are recognized.
SPEAKER_37
Thank you Madam Council Pro Tem and just really want to thank Council Member Rivera for your leadership in preparing an alternative and working closely with our central staff experts to craft this.
Also colleagues who happen to co-sponsor this legislation as well.
Thank you for your leadership and hard work.
We need more affordable housing in Seattle.
That much is very clear.
We also need a path to implement and specifically in this case fund VOTERS DEMAND FOR SOCIAL HOUSING.
ON THE ISSUE OF THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE, I STAND FIRM WITH MY COUNCILMEMBER COLLEAGUES WHO COSPONSORED THIS ALTERNATIVE AND THE MAYOR WHO ORIGINALLY CALLED FOR IT.
WHY?
I SUPPORT ADDITIONAL OPTIONS AND ENHANCED CHOICE FOR VOTERS.
SUPPORTING SOCIAL HOUSING WITH A CLEARER PATH TOWARDS EVALUATING AND COLLECTING IMPORTANT DATA IS SIMPLY GOOD GOVERNANCE.
Given the newly proposed option, voters will now be better empowered to decide, given that both initiatives will be presented together.
We're centering choice, optionality, and I trust the judgment of voters to make the ultimate decision.
So today, that's what we're doing.
We're giving voters an important choice.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_17
Thank you, Council Member Saka.
Are there any further comments?
Seeing none, clerk, will you please call the roll on the passage of Council Bill 120864.
SPEAKER_18
Council Member Morales?
No.
Council President Nelson?
SPEAKER_01
Aye.
SPEAKER_18
Council Member Rivera?
Aye.
Council Member Saca?
SPEAKER_01
Aye.
SPEAKER_18
Council Member Wu?
Yes.
Council Member Kettle?
SPEAKER_17
Aye.
SPEAKER_18
Council President Pro Tem Hollingsworth?
SPEAKER_17
Yes.
SPEAKER_18
Six in favor, one opposed.
SPEAKER_17
Well, the bill passes.
The chair will sign it.
Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?
And will you please read item number three into the record?
SPEAKER_18
Agenda item three, resolution 32148 regarding initiative 137 concerning excess compensation payroll tax to fund the social housing developer authorizing the city clerk and the executive director of the Elections Commission to take those actions necessary to enable proposed initiative 137 to appear on the February 11th, 2025 ballot and the local voters pamphlet in conjunction with the payroll expense tax proposal, which is a proposed alternative measure dealing With the same subject matter in accordance with Charter Article 4, requesting King County Elections Director to place the proposed Initiative 137 and its alternate on the February 11, 2025 election ballot in accordance with applicable law and providing for the publication of such proposed initiative measure and its alternate.
SPEAKER_17
Council Member Rivera, as a sponsor, you are recognized.
SPEAKER_01
Thank you.
Thank you, Council President Pro Tem Hollingsworth.
I move Resolution 32148. Second.
Second.
SPEAKER_17
It's been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution.
Councilman Rivera, sponsor of the bill, you're recognized to address it.
SPEAKER_01
Thank you.
This is the resolution that's necessary to place both the original I-137 plus the alternative on the ballot for February, 2025.
SPEAKER_17
Thank you.
Are there any comments during this time?
I will pause and wait.
Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll for the adoption of the resolution?
SPEAKER_18
Council Member Morales.
Yes.
Council President Nelson.
Aye.
Council Member Rivera.
Aye.
Council Member Sanka.
SPEAKER_17
Aye.
SPEAKER_18
Council Member Wu.
Yes.
Council Member Kettle.
SPEAKER_17
Aye.
SPEAKER_18
And Council President Pro Tem Hollingsworth.
Yes.
Seven in favor, none opposed.
SPEAKER_17
The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it.
Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?
My apologies, give me one second.
If there's no more additional items on the agenda today, this meeting will be- Excuse me, Council President Pro Tem Hollingsworth.
SPEAKER_18
Item number four, it's recommended that we postpone it indefinitely.
SPEAKER_17
My apologies, thank you.
Item number four.
Thank you, so excuse me.
My apologies, I saw that.
I move that resolution.
or excuse me, I move that item number four be postponed indefinitely.
Is there a second?
SPEAKER_01
Second.
SPEAKER_17
It's been moved and seconded that item number four be postponed indefinitely.
Are there any comments during this time?
Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll?
SPEAKER_18
Council Member Morales.
I believe she left.
Okay.
Council President Nelson?
Aye.
Council Member Rivera?
Aye.
Council Member Saka?
SPEAKER_10
Aye.
SPEAKER_18
Council Member Wu?
Yes.
Council Member Kettle?
SPEAKER_17
Aye.
SPEAKER_18
And Council President Potem Hollingsworth?
SPEAKER_17
Yes.
SPEAKER_18
Six in favor, none opposed.
SPEAKER_17
The motion carries, and item number four will be postponed indefinitely.
We have reached the end of today's agenda.
Our next regular scheduled city council meeting will be held September 24th, 2 p.m., hearing no further business, and I'll pause to see if there's any.
This meeting is adjourned.
Thank you.