Seattle City Council 6/18/2024

Good afternoon, everyone.

The June 18th, 2024 meeting of the Seattle City Council will come to order.

It is 201. I'm Sarah Nelson, president of the council.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Rivera.

Council Member Saka.

Council Member Wu.

Present.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Here.

Council Member Kettle.

Council Member Moore.

Present.

Council President Nelson.

Present.

Six present.

Thank you very much.

The rules indicate that I must, after the roll call, say if there is no objection, Council Member Rivera will be excused from today's City Council meeting.

Hearing no objection, Council Member Rivera is excused from today's City Council meeting.

All right.

I will note also that Council Member Morales and Council Member Strauss had previously been excused.

Okay, there is not a presentation today.

So colleagues at this time, we'll open the hybrid public comment period.

Madam Clerk, how many speakers are signed up today?

We have 14 remote and 13 in person so far.

Okay, we'll start with the people in council chambers first.

Everyone will have one minute to speak and you can just go ahead and do Can you please tell me the breakdown again?

14 remote and 13 in person.

Okay, let's go.

Let's just do all the in-person and then all of the remote.

It's about the same number.

Okay, please read the instructions and begin.

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

The in-person speakers will be called on first, followed by the remote speakers.

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left of their time, and speakers' mics will be muted within the time to call on the next speaker.

We'll now begin public comment.

Our first three speakers, if you can please line up to the podiums, is Jason Agulink, John Stramstan, and Bennett Haselton.

Today is the ninth day in a row that I've worked.

I can't justify taking a single day off, and I'm not the exception.

Last month, I had to use my $73 emergency fund so I could pay my bills on time.

Each week, I've fallen behind a little bit.

Eventually, I want people to keep up no matter how many hours I work.

Listening to the restaurants, I've been telling you for more than five months, they're the most accurate representation of how pay up is squeezing us.

The current version of pay up cannot be modified.

However, the revision of the bill is adjustable.

Everyone has been waiting patiently through delay after delay, but there has been no date set for the vote.

To force us to wait indefinitely is reckless.

The restaurants, customers, and the vast majority of couriers have been telling you how much this is hurting us.

We need the vote to happen now.

Okay, ready?

One, two, three.

Hola, mi nombre es Juan Jose.

Soy trabajador autónomo de las aplicaciones Uber y DoorDash.

En este momento quiero hacer una petición al gobierno porque últimamente han habido muy poca demanda en los domicilios y se ha bajado mucho el salario.

Entonces, quisiera que el gobierno nos ayudara aquí en la ciudad de Seattle a solucionar ese problema.

Gracias.

And the translation is coming.

Juan Jose is a driver in Seattle.

Hello, my name is Juan Jose.

I am a self-employed worker of the Uber and Yardus applications.

I submit.

I want to make a request to the government because lately there has been very little demand in the homes and the salary has been lowered a lot.

I would like the government to help us here in the city of Seattle to solve that problem.

Thank you.

We have Bennett and then followed by Bennett will be Justin Taylor and Alberto Alvarez.

You're welcome to come to this mic.

This one?

Okay.

Hi.

So as part of, I think, promoting what I think is healthy skepticism of the actions and the statements of the police generally, I wanted to play a clip this time, not from my arrest, but from an arrest that happened at a protest a while ago.

This is a woman who was arrested for spitting towards a police officer.

That part's not surprising, but I want you to watch in the video the woman to our right in black who's just holding her friend back.

I think it's pretty clear that she didn't do anything wrong, and it was wildly improper for the cop to arrest her.

So sorry for the language.

I'm just going to play the video for you.

Shut the fuck up!

You're really fucking crushing it, you piece of shit!

Now watch the woman on the right.

All she did was...

You're under arrest.

Put your hands behind your back.

You just tried to un-arrest her.

All right, so pretty clearly, yeah, it was not surprising that the woman who spat towards the cop was arrested.

But why was she arrested?

She was just holding her friend back.

And I think it's the same situation that happened, like, to women outside a bar.

There's no way a cop would have arrested the person just for holding her friend back.

He did this because he thought of her as a protester.

That's time.

Alberto, sir?

Sorry, it's Justin and then Alberto.

Is Justin here?

Justin Taylor?

Hi, my name is Justin Taylor and I am a gig worker.

So I want to acknowledge that with looking at new legislation for app-based worker minimum pay, I think requires a lot of trust, right?

So creating any kind of legislation that creates multiple wins for different parties, that really does require trust.

And my opinion is that a robust stakeholder process that helps create trust.

So I really want to thank council member Hollingsworth and her staff for taking the lead in this process, and hopefully it continues.

One question you might have is, why might app workers have low levels of trust with the app companies?

And I think you only need to look at how many app companies that operate in the city of Seattle have had multimillion-dollar settlements for failing to administer paid sick time accurately.

And as I speak to you right now, has not calculated my paid sick time accurately.

So how this process moves forward, we'll demonstrate to other workers and work organizations who in the city we can trust.

Ready?

Hi, so license plates and pay up law is what I'm here for.

Notorious for theft, robbery and kidnapping, Prison Mike has pledged to send Seattle a bunch of screwdrivers.

They will allow criminals to remove the license plates when they're about ready to commit crimes.

Yeah, get closer.

Can you hear me now?

So screwdrivers will take care of that license plate issue for people that want to hide criminals.

So that doesn't work.

Besides, you can buy protectors and reflectors from amazon.com.

And recently, Amazon and Grubhub are offering free delivery in Seattle.

So competition is picking up.

Competition lowers prices.

Protect our wages.

Okay?

The competition is there.

Business is starting to boom.

We're not quite there yet.

But competition will lower prices and remove those fees.

Thank you.

We now have David Haynes, followed by Derek Gordon, Humberto Suiza, and then Rain Lake.

Hi, David Haynes.

In light of the recent ex-police chief's interview, I think the council needs to realize that he has sabotaged the integrity of every crime-fighting unit.

And the council needs to step up and overthrow all the progressive policies that created repeat offending priorities for putting criminals into housing and services first at the expense of innocent homeless.

But the cops were purposely trained wrongly by Adrian Diaz.

He was one of the worst crime fighters this city has ever had.

And it's just not fair that We have a public safety and a homeless crisis, and we still have to put up with evil junkie thieves in pockets all down Third Avenue and all around every business.

But the cops keep using the crime hotspot in the news to trick people into believing that they're having success taking away all the bus stops and setting up their RVs and their SUVs to show force.

But the whole time, all these lowlifes are going around the corner and getting away with it.

And nobody has stepped up to trespass and question all these junkie thieves to find out where they keep getting...

Thank you.

Thank you.

So you have Derek and then Humberto and Rain.

Hello, my name is Derek Gordon, and I was in the Low Income Housing Institute, and I was on 84th and Hosmer, and I was kicked out prematurely because the owners are doing things that are not right to the people that is trying and trying to get help.

The funding shouldn't be allocated to these programs because if it's not helping no one, then they shouldn't be funded.

And I think that we should be proactive about helping the kids stay off drugs.

I think they need a place to go for after-school programs.

And I just came to talk about the funding that is available for the people and that is going to be allocated for the mental health, the drug addictions.

and all the other stuff that is going on in the world.

And I just want to help the people that is trying, you know, and it's just kind of hard to do that when people are stealing money and not using the money right.

Thank you.

We have Humberto, Rain, and then Steven.

Good afternoon, my name is Alberto Susan and I'm here in support of the app-based work minimum standard, also known as the pay-up legislation.

The proposals set before you by Councilmember Sarah Nelson doesn't address the fact that working space should be illegal, especially in our city, what Sarah Nelson is suggesting.

The amount still comes out to less than minimum wage after expenses.

This is still lower than the ballot initiative apps wrote for themselves in California.

This is to have no meaningful input from workers or workers' organizations, and that 35 cents a mile still means workers will be losing cash with every mile they drive.

This is to affect me when I got low pay.

I cannot pay my bills.

I got low pay.

I cannot pay my own bills and have fallen more behind on bills.

I have...

Thank you.

Just a reminder that when you hear that bell sound, that means you have 10 seconds more to speak, and then when it's done, your mic will go off, and please respect that so that everybody can get the same amount of time.

The rain will be followed by Stephen Geary.

Hi, my name is Ren Lyke.

I'm an audio-video professional working in the city of Seattle, as well as a long-time gig worker.

When I first started as a delivery driver over 10 years ago, I worked for a small business delivery company that predated the likes of DoorDash, Postmates, and Uber.

During that time, I was working my way through college, and I earned well above minimum wage, and I was able to pay my living expenses exclusively through my contracting job as a delivery driver.

In the 10 years since, I have worked for every food delivery app on the market.

These app companies use their multi-billion dollar investments to force any small business competitors out of the market.

And what have I seen since?

Over 10 years, I have seen a steady decrease in my pay and longer wait times for orders.

Companies like DoorDash and Uber Eats use their chokehold on the delivery market along with their slew of corporate lobbying groups to ensure that they can continue these anti-worker practices.

I can no longer use gig work even as a sustainable side gig, much less rely on it for any steady income.

Since the gig worker ordinance was passed, companies like DoorDash and Uber Eats have passed on the cost of paying their workers a fair wage to the consumers using the apps.

I strongly urge City Council to reject the amendment that is caving to corporate interests.

Thank you.

Stephen?

Steven Geary, and I'm here asking that you guys do not vote on this pay reduction because it's a simple monopoly.

It's not gonna change much other than continue to cater to huge businesses.

Excuse me.

There hasn't been enough time for the market to adjust.

And for anybody who's so upset, that they can't rely on a private corporation to take care of them.

See me after the meeting and I'll find you a job.

We have Ariana Riley, then Alex Kim, Mike Assai, and Jared Assig.

Hi, my name is Ariana Riley.

I'm a delivery driver and a resident of District 1, West Seattle.

Every aspect of pay up was designed to ensure workers are treated fairly, but also had the net result of incentivizing better service.

The end result has helped customers and businesses, both big and small, by decreasing refunds and credits, which often came out of the restaurant's pocket.

Business has been up for months now.

Most restaurants that I talk to say they're busy and haven't noticed lower delivery volumes.

I'm busy all day delivering restaurant food and sometimes groceries in West Seattle, the South End, and Georgetown.

If you all were collecting the data, then you would know this too.

Are delivery volumes down on a citywide level?

Are they down on Uber but up on DoorDash and Grubhub?

Are they up over the past month?

You all don't know because you don't have the data.

It's important to collect data before making changes.

That's just good governance.

I'm tough on crime, and I believe the rule of law needs to be respected.

The biggest crime committed across the country is wage theft.

Let's be tough on crime and hold criminals accountable for their actions rather than handing out get-out-of-jail-free cards to billion-dollar companies.

Keep pay-up in place.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Alex Kim.

I'm a gig worker, District 2 resident, and pay-up supporter.

So besides the obvious of letting a fake driver group created by Uber write the proposed pay-up provision, I don't believe those on the council that support the rollback have been acting in good faith.

I'll give you the benefit of a doubt because you may not have known about this.

In 2022, the city passed a TNC tax of 42 cents per trip for ride share.

The cost was passed to consumers and only 15% of the revenue goes to help drivers.

The rest goes to the city, mostly to fund the downtown streetcar, a project that Seattle has decided not even to build.

So if the logic behind revising pay up is to lower fees so the cost of service is lower and customers order more, then the council should act immediately to lower this tax from 42 cents to seven cents, the amount which does go to help drivers.

This issue is relevant because many rideshare drivers also do food delivery.

To recap, some of the council believe that raising service costs for gig work is good, as long as budget, you know, to essentially pay your salaries.

But if gig workers want to raise service costs to dramatically increase our pay and working conditions, that's when it becomes bad.

Mike Asai and then Jared Isik.

I have said this in previous council meetings and I didn't think that I had to say it again, but please do not clap or make other noise in between speakers because it slows down and it is a rule of this council.

Go ahead.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Mike Asai.

Today I am not talking about cannabis.

Today I'm representing Shaka's Kids Foundation named after my father.

This city...

On May 28th, a young man here, Matthew, on the day of the EDI issue, he was drowned out and rightfully so somewhat.

But young Matthew spoke of the city and how he's a young man.

He has to walk around feces and piss and pills and needles.

We got to get the city cleaned up.

I've had people reach out to me from North Seattle.

I'm not a politician, but people see me on TV, and they say, you know some council members, you know some politicians.

What can be done?

What happened in North Seattle cannot happen again.

We have to do something.

We need to have tough love in this city.

We have to get this city cleaned up.

We can't keep talking and keep spending money.

We have to have action, and it has to happen now.

We got to think about our kids and our youth, please.

Thank you.

And Jared is the last speaker that we have registered here.

Good afternoon.

Good morning, Seattle City Councilors and citizens.

Today is, well last week I wished you all a happy Pentecost.

Today is still the third month of the year in the Jewish calendar.

I have a copy of it right here.

And it's the 12th day of the calendar.

In the Chinese calendar, it is the Wu Yue.

It is the 13th day of the same lunar month because we all have the same moon.

You see, in Asia, we don't rely on Roman astrology, which is totally arbitrary and conventional and is a product of Western imperialism, Roman imperialism in particular.

That's why the Wing Luke Museum should ally with Israel and with the Jewish people to liberate itself from imperial Christianity and imperial Islam.

Go ahead and, are we, do we have one more that we need?

Mr. Zimmerman, do you want to wait until the remote speakers?

Yeah, I will be very nice with you.

I know you mentally sick people, so you're very nice with disabled people.

Yeah.

Zeke?

Zeke?

Zeke?

Where is timer?

Timer.

Yeah, my name Alex Zimmerman.

Again, we have one minute.

Look, there's nobody here.

10, 20 people, you give one minute.

Why?

Why you don't give a chance speak what is we want for three minute like everybody?

And for many years, more than 10 years, publicly in my election, for 12 times, I speak about this, open better room.

You want one minute?

You want 30 seconds?

You want 15 seconds?

It's okay with me, with people too.

Give them chance, speak.

Open better room in City Hall from 9 to 9, so people who working cannot come right now.

You give them time, speak for three minutes without your Nazi Gestapo control.

Where is this will be stopping?

Whereas we'll be stopping controlling the 750,000 idiot who live in the city.

Look, they all slave.

Stand up, America.

Thank you very much.

Go ahead.

It's the last speaker for in person.

We will now move into our remote speakers.

And as a reminder for remote speakers, after you've heard the message that you have been unmuted, please press star six and only press that once.

Our first remote speaker is Cynthia Spees, and following Cynthia will be Julia Buck.

Go ahead, Cynthia.

Hi, I'm Cynthia Spees.

My comment is regarding SPD's automated license site reader or ALPR surveillance impact report.

It's very concerning that you are steamrolling this bill and are now proceeding with one-third of the council absent.

Committee members were confused.

They gave examples where retaining data longer than 48 hours would be useful, but all the examples they gave would be hits, i.e., matches against a hot list, and thus not subject to the proposed 48-hour retention limit for non-hits.

Council members seem unaware that the 48-hour limit from the working group in 2019 was already a compromise.

The working group didn't suggest a ban or a moratorium, even though public comments on the original SIR recommended either getting rid of ALPR completely or not retaining data on non-hits.

The working group gave you a compromise by softening the recommendation to at most 48 hours for non-hits.

This bill will lead to 50.8 million license plate scans in 90 days.

This disproportionately impacts renters and low-income folks who must park on the street.

Council members are creating a false sense of urgency.

Wait until all council members are present to vote.

Invite the AGO to a council hearing, reduce the data retention

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Julia Buck, and following Julia will be Eliza Ohani.

Go ahead, Julia.

Good afternoon, Council.

My name is Julia Buck.

I'm a resident of District 6, and I'm calling in opposition to the automated license plate reader expansion.

I am concerned because while a government declined to cooperate with another government, It's much more difficult for a private company to say, no, we will not share data with a government, particularly if they have contracts as Axon does in Florida, in Texas, and with ICE.

I'm also confused as to how we have $300,000 to spend to surveil communities at the South End, but we do not have money for the Equidepot development initiatives to prevent people from being gentrified out of the South End.

If we are indeed in a budget crisis, I would urge the council not to allocate more money to this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Eliza Pahni, and following Eliza is BJ Last.

Go ahead, Eliza.

My name is Alize Bojani, and I am the policy counsel for Legal Voice, a Pacific Northwest organization with offices in Seattle fighting for gender justice and reproductive rights.

I'm testifying today with concern about the expanding ALPR technologies.

Abortion access and gender-affirming care are under attack nationwide with multiple bans, bounty hunter laws, and restrictions on care threatening people's lives.

Right-wing extremists are targeting patients, their helpers, and health care providers through public records and private data sharing.

Bounty hunter laws are meant to chill support for abortion seekers from friends, family, physicians, and even Uber drivers.

The SHIELD law cannot protect records that they are stored off-site in Arizona where Axon stores their data.

And a hostile attorney general can go directly to a third-party company to collect data and circumvent the SPD entirely.

If data is stored for a long period of time, such as 90 days, this gives more time for pinpointing people after the fact, including any Seattle residents.

Please reject the surveillance expansion or store ALPR data solely on-premise at SPD and...

Thank you.

Our next speaker is BJ Last, and following BJ will be Happy Israel.

Go ahead, BJ.

Hi, my name is BJ Last.

I'm a Ballard resident, and I oppose CB120778, which would expand automated license plate readers.

At a bare minimum, council should wait until all council members are present and all districts are represented before voting.

This is especially true for District 2, which will be disproportionately impacted by this technology.

Like all surveillance, alpers do not prevent crime.

So Seattle is required to have a balanced budget, so city spending is, in fact, an either-or.

Deciding to give $300,000 to act on the store Alper data means that $300,000 cannot be spent on undoing cuts, increasing youth programming, or any other community investments that are proven to reduce violence.

A study in California found that only 0% of Alper students have any law enforcement purpose.

So Seattle will be paying to store 9,999 cans that have no purpose for each can with a purpose.

And if that's even worse, an International Association of Police chief study found that alpers have an error rate of 35%.

So Seattle's been paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to store garbage.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Happy Israel.

And following Happy will be Matt Offenbacher.

Go ahead, Happy.

Thank you.

Hello, Council.

My name is Happy Israel, and I've been a shopper with Instacart for the last five years.

I've spoken to you in person several times in the last month or two, but today the agenda changed so quickly I didn't have time to come in person, so I'm calling in.

I've already said several times how important the payout legislation is and why it should be kept.

Today I want to share with you a story from a friend of mine who just started with Instacart last week and already had an extremely frustrating and disturbingly common experience.

He, on one of his very first orders, was checking out in the evening at Total Wine, and the card came up declined at checkout because Instacart failed to account for the taxes on liquor.

And Instacart has been retracting their support for shoppers on active orders, so he was unable to contact Instacart to get any help at checkout.

His options were schedule a call for the next day or send an email.

Because of the law, Instacart was forced to pay him for all of the time he spent on this order that he was unable to finish.

Without this law, that would have...

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Matt Offenbacher, and following Matt will be Jordan Green.

Go ahead, Matt.

Hi, Council.

This is Matt, a resident of District 3. I'm calling in today to ask you to oppose the expansion of the license plate readers.

or at the very least to delay the vote until you can consider legislation to reduce the amount of time SPD keeps the data.

Other states are trying to undermine some of our most dearly held values as enshrined in Washington state and Seattle law.

For example, we know, and this is a reported fact, that Texas has pursued aggressive legal strategies to get their hands on Seattle data that would help them prosecute trans kids.

At last week's committee meeting, the police department representative responded to concerns such as these by saying, trust us to get this right.

Honestly, I was floored by this response.

SBD has violated the public trust over and over again.

The potential benefits of this tech are not worth it.

Excuse me, our next speaker is Jordan Green, and following Jordan will be Lauren Kay.

Go ahead, Jordan.

Hi, my name is Jordan Green.

I'm sorry I cannot be present as I'm working now, but I know how important it is to speak on the gig worker pay cut.

The apps are willing to negotiate.

$21.97 is what the app said, up $2 from Sarah Nelson's proposal.

But for some reason, instead of letting stakeholder intake place with all parties involved, Sarah Nelson's trying to close the door quickly on this.

Why?

Shouldn't we be involved in crucial decisions being made, especially ones that are going to be taking food off of our tables and money out of our pockets?

I think it'd be amazing if you guys took time out of your day to do what it is we do for the pay you're trying to give.

And let's see if the wear and tear on your vehicles and the endless low-paying offers while watching a company who's almost doing nothing make millions off your back.

Let's see if you guys are singing the same tune you are now.

I thought this was the Seattle City Council for the people of Seattle, not the corporation city council who bends over backwards for those greedy corporations who have proven they are willing to negotiate.

I thought they couldn't meet their profit margin, and now they're willing to bring the dollar price.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Lauren Kaye, and following Lauren will be Nicole Kern.

Go ahead, Lauren.

Hi, I'm Lauren Kaye.

I'm one of the six people City Council ordered arrested on February 27th.

Once again, City Council is buying into a grift.

Mobile ALPR technologies like those put on police cars have a 35% error rate.

That's slightly less than ShotSpotter, but I mean, the bar is in hell.

I'd also like to add that, speaking of hell, that they, like other people admitted, SAAS slash cloud-based ALPR technologies facilitate ice capture of undocumented people, even in so-called sanctuary cities.

They also make it much more possible for hostile states like Idaho to enforce their bounty hunter laws on anybody who provides reproductive care to people with uteruses across state lines.

This will also target the CID far greater than any other district.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Nicole Kern, and following Nicole will be Rowan Kaufman.

Go ahead, Nicole.

I'm Nicole Kern with Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates.

In this moment, Seattle should do everything in its power to protect patients seeking sexual and reproductive health care, which is why we urge you to adopt the ACLU's recommended amendments, CD120778.

Planned Parenthood understands firsthand how data in the wrong hands can lead to not only prosecution, but also to violence and harassment.

Expanding the use of automated license plate readers makes our patients' location data vulnerable to any state that would like to prosecute patients, providers, or helpers.

Already, anti-abortion groups like Operation Rescue are collecting data from ALTRs to track the license plates of those visiting abortion clinics.

Those who obtain abortion should not to worry about their location is being tracked and uploaded into a cloud that can be accessed by hostile governments and seeking health care legal in our case.

What's more, in the wake of Dobbs harassment and violence against abortion providers and patients has surged.

For example, nationally, there was a 637% increase in protester violence in just a year.

Anti-abortion groups should not have increased access to providers' location data to the city's expansion of ALPRs.

We encourage you to amend this measure.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Rowan Kaufman, and following Rowan will be Laurel Heckler.

Go ahead, Rowan.

Hi, my name is Rowan Kaufman.

I'm a District 4 resident, and I'm speaking in strong opposition to the ALPR expansion program and the horrifying implications it poses for the rights of those within our city and beyond the state.

Not only does this pose a threat to Seattle residents' privacy, especially those most marginalized, are due to collected and at-risk personal information being surveilled and saved, but it will also create opportunities for other states to get around the Washington state's shield law and keep Washington working at.

There are endless reasons why this expansion is inappropriate and dangerous.

You heard plenty of them already today, and I am speaking today to demand that the bare minimum safety protections from the impacts of this program reject this expansion, or at the very least, license plate data must be stored on premises at SBD and the retention period must be reduced to three minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Laurel Hecker, and following Laurel will be Michelle Balzer.

Go ahead, Laurel.

Hi, my name is Laurel Hecker, and I'm calling today to oppose the ALPR automated license plate retention program.

I think this is a dangerous program that places PEOPLE SEEKING ABORTIONS FROM OUT OF STATE AS WELL AS IMMIGRANTS AND OTHER VULNERABLE POPULATIONS AT RISK.

AT THE VERY LEAST I URGE THE COUNCIL TO REDUCE THE RETENTION OF THE LICENSE PLATE DATA FOR THOSE LICENSE PLATES THAT ARE NOT ON A HOT LIST TO THREE MINUTES WITH A MAX OF 48 HOURS AS WELL AS STORING THE INFORMATION ON SITE WITH THE SPD RATHER THAN IN A CLOUD-BASED FORMAT.

AS PEOPLE BEFORE ME HAVE SAID, THIS IS DANGEROUS AND WILL ALLOW FOR OUT OF STATE PROSECUTION OF ALLOW FOR PROSECUTION OF THOSE SEEKING ABORTION FROM OUT OF STATE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU.

OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MICHELLE BALZER.

AND FOLLOWING MICHELLE WILL BE AMARINTHIA TORRES.

GO AHEAD, MICHELLE.

helpful um yesterday president alston you said you the companies were willing to pay at 21.97 but that wasn't a published update i just feel like everyone's kind of getting played and i'm not sure who to trust at this point i'm just wondering how long have you known about that is that something that you've known all along is that i mean is is that their low offer i can't tell if i draw on and the lack of honesty and transparency really scares me the ongoing betrayal of the You being their spokesperson is damaging your willingness to align with the company that you've heard and seen about.

Not knowing the true origination of this proposed amendment makes it necessary to strike it at this point.

Was it started due to the workers speaking at the first meeting?

Is it the companies that approached you?

Look, you want to make changes to the bikes?

That's fine.

That's a great idea.

But that's it.

This is about worker wages.

Leave it alone.

Fix the wages for the bikers.

Everything else needs to stay.

Workers buying restaurants and the companies, that's an entirely different ordinance.

Why are we still talking about this?

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Amaranthia Torres, and following Amaranthia will be our last remote speaker, T.

Shannon.

Go ahead, Amaranthia.

Hi there.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Amaranthia Torres, and I'm the co-director of the Coalition Ending Gender-Based Violence.

We support over 35 community-based, culturally specific, and BIPOC-led organizations that all work towards ending gender-based violence, such as sexual assault, rape, and domestic violence and trafficking.

I'm speaking today to share concerns regarding the expansion of the automatic license plate reader.

I've been a little behind catching up on this, so I regret speaking about it just today and not in committee.

And I just wanted to try to share some concerns.

We're particularly concerned about the impact of increased surveillance the lengthy data retention timeline, and the potential for abuse of this technology on survivors of domestic violence and stalking.

I'm thinking about the survivor who takes her car to a confidential shelter as she tries to seek safety from an abusive partner, and whose safety could be in jeopardy by this technology.

I'm thinking about survivors of stalking.

And I appreciate the efforts of some of the council members who sought clarification about this technology and the risk to privacy.

Thank you.

And our last remote speaker who is present is T.

Sannin.

Go ahead, T.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is T.

Sannin, and I'm the Technology Policy Program Director at the ACLU of Washington, speaking on the proposed ALPR expansion.

The ordinance, as proposed, poses serious threats to people's privacy and civil liberties and stands to harm immigrants, BIPOC communities, and people seeking reproductive and gender-affirming health care.

We urge you to consider two critical amendments.

First, the proposal to store data off-premise with Axon would enable third parties, such as law enforcement in states with abortion bans, to bypass our existing protections, including our SHIELD law and the Keep Washington Working Act, and to access Seattle's ALPR data by going directly to Axon.

We recommend mandating that ALPR data is stored exclusively on-premise at SPD to reduce this risk.

Second the longer ALDR data is retained the risk of misuse only continues to grow.

We recommend limiting this data retention to three minutes as in New Hampshire or no more than 48 hours.

We urge you to delay the vote until the full council is present and have time to consider these crucial amendments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That is our last public commenter.

Okay thank you very much.

This now closes our public comment period and we will now move on.

So right now we will address the, okay, excuse me.

If there is no objection, the introduction and referral calendar will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the introduction and referral calendar is adopted.

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

Hearing none, the agenda is adopted.

We'll now consider the proposed consent calendar, and those items are the minutes of June 11th, 2024, Council Bill 120798, which is payment of the bills, and four appointments from the Sustainability City Light Arts and Culture Committee.

Are there any items that council members would like to have removed from the consent calendar?

Hearing none, I move to adopt the consent calendar.

Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to adopt the consent calendar.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the consent calendar?

Council Member Saka?

Aye.

Council Member Wu?

Yes.

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council Member Kettle?

Aye.

Council Member Moore?

Aye.

Council President Nelson?

Aye.

Six in favor, none opposed.

Thank you very much.

The consent calendar items are adopted.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the minutes in the legislation on the consent calendar on my behalf?

Okay.

Will the clerk please read items 1 and 2 into the record?

Agenda items 1 and 2, Council Bill 120795 and 120796, relating to city employment authorizing execution of a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Seattle and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Number 77, Construction Maintenance Equipment Operator Unit.

Okay, thank you very much.

Both items one and two were just now read into the record and I'll be addressing these items together and then we'll vote on each bill separately.

And so as a reminder, the terms of collective bargaining agreements are negotiated and approved in Labor Relations and Policy Committee meetings.

And those meetings are not public before they come to full council for a vote.

So in the spirit of full transparency and for the benefit of the public and council members who don't serve on LRPC, before I move this bill, I'd like to have central staff director Ben Noble provide us with an overview of these two agreements before considering each bill.

So if there is no objection, the rules will be suspended to allow council central staff to address the council.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Council Members.

Excuse me.

Thank you.

You have two bills in front of you that address labor agreements.

One affects relatively few employees, just under 50. They are represented by, excuse me, by Local 17, the electrical workers, although they are themselves not electrical workers.

They are construction equipment operators.

They work at SDOT, at SPU, and at the Parks Department.

They, in particular, operate large equipment.

I think of backhoes and dump trucks and the like.

The agreement that's before you is comparable in its terms to the one that was approved for the coalition.

This particular agreement actually only covers two years, 23 and 24, and the wage increases are, again, comparable to those for the coalition.

In addition, there's a market adjustment.

IT'S DIFFICULT TO RECRUIT AND RETAIN THESE WORKERS, SO THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL 5% MARKET ADJUSTMENT ABOVE AND BEYOND THE ANNUAL WAGE ADJUSTMENTS THAT ARE RELATED TO, LARGELY RELATED TO INFLATION.

AS WITH THE OTHER AGREEMENTS, THE CITY HAD ANTICIPATED THE POTENTIAL TO REACH THESE AGREEMENTS AND HAD, IF YOU WILL, SOCKED AWAY SOME MONEY.

THE FINAL TERMS OF THE AGREEMENTS ARE SOMEWHAT MORE EXPENSIVE THAN HAD BEEN ANTICIPATED, SO THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL ANNUAL COST ABOVE WHAT HAD BEEN PLANNED IN THE BUDGET OF ABOUT $700,000.

However, the bulk of that is not borne by the general fund, so it's not contributing to the deficit number that you've heard us reference in the past in any great amount.

The increment to the general fund is less than $100,000.

So again, it's relatively few employees and largely not general fund affected departments.

So that's one of the two agreements.

The other agreement affects more employees.

And in particular, they are also represented by Local 77. These are, once again, not electrical workers.

They are IT professionals.

So over 450, but about that number, mainly operating, working in the IT department, but also in several other departments as well.

This is actually a three-year deal, just goes back to 23. And again, the terms are generally comparable to those that were in the coalition agreement.

There is a one and a half percent market adjustment beyond the annual wage increases implemented over two years within the agreement.

And then once again, the city had anticipated the potential cost of this agreement, although ultimately not fully anticipating the cost.

So the increment above what had been planned is approximately $3 million on an annual basis.

The direct impact to the general fund of that increment is, again, relatively small, about $200,000.

There is some indirect impact as well.

The IT department bills its services to a variety of city departments, including some general fund departments.

So the overall impact is probably half a million or more per year, but in that order of magnitude.

So that is high-level summary.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

So if it's...

The coalition contract that we approved months ago, I believe it was on April 2nd or 1st or whatever, that comprised how many different unions?

Well, it's somewhere between 10 and 20, maybe some more.

Local 77 has traditionally within the city negotiated separately from the coalition.

I don't know that I have all of this history entirely accurate, but I think it would principally have been the local 77 electrical workers, it had principally represented city lay employees and the financial pressures on the utility versus the rest of the city are very different.

So I think it made a lot of sense over time to have those contracts negotiated separately as, 77 has recruited other professions into its union.

Its scope has expanded.

So in particular, the IT professionals are a large number.

But 77 maintains its negotiating separately from the coalition.

It's just that in this particular case, they work in a department that is largely represented by the coalition.

So the idea that the terms are relatively consistent is, again, consistent with general negotiating patterns that the city has had over time.

Right.

So basically, here's the deal.

The coalition contract was negotiated first, and basically the employees who are represented by unions that are not in the coalition should, well, I'll save my editorial remarks for later, but basically the point is that this is an effort to bring into parity the unions that are not in the coalition, but that has been the practice that's been city practice for years and we're likely to have a few more of these contracts come before us later in the year but the terms the the foundations of the terms were set in the by the coalition contract correct for these particular employees yes um some of the other contracts that are i think upcoming are actually electrical work

worker contracts that are more specifically related to City Light.

And the terms there tend to be somewhat different because again, the business forces on both the employees and the utility are very different than the city as a whole.

But yes, in principle, what you described is exactly the case.

Okay.

Do my colleagues have any questions?

Okay, thank you very much.

And again, there is this, the actual documentation is on the agenda and there was an email from Karina Bull with more background information.

So I'll just go ahead and say that, I have to move first, yes.

So let's, if there's no, I already did that.

We'll now consider each bill separately and starting with item one.

I move to pass council bill 120795. Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill.

As sponsor of this item, I'll address it before opening it up for comments.

These, as Director Noble said, these are SPU parks and SDOT employees who operate the heavy equipment that deliver the infrastructure projects that form the foundation of the back to basics priorities that many of you have expressed.

a commitment to.

And as we said, I believe it's absolutely necessary to make sure that their wages are competitive with other city employees and also with other jurisdictions and the private sector.

Because let's not forget, these employees are making a choice to work in public service for the city of Seattle and there are highly skilled professionals and when we think about the difficulty filling vacancies and the competition amongst jurisdictions and also between the public and private sectors it is absolutely important that we keep these employees and that we also show that we value their work and their contribution to making the city run the way it does.

So I fully support this and I ask for your support as well.

All right.

Seeing as how there are no other comments, let's get onto the vote.

Will the clerk please read the roll on the passage of council bill 120795. Council member Saka.

Aye.

Council member Wu.

Yes.

Council member Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Council Member Moore.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Six in favor, none opposed.

All right.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?

Okay.

Item two has been read into the record and we'll now consider it.

I move to pass Council Bill 120796. Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill.

Are there any further comments on the bill or any questions?

I will address it myself.

Okay, so again, I was not party to the negotiations that approved the terms of the coalition contract, but I fully support extending those benefits to these employees.

Colleagues, this bargaining unit are the people that that actually brought Zoom to city workers so that we could fulfill the basic functions of city government during the pandemic.

They bring connectivity to workstations, both in the office and at home.

And again, when we're talking about wanting to show that we value our employees and also want to retain them, it's important that we keep their wages competitive.

And these are...

highly skilled professionals in the IT sector, and so I urge your support of this bill.

Seeing no questions or comments, will the clerk please call roll on the passage of the bill?

Councilmember Saka?

Aye.

Councilmember Wu?

Yes.

Councilmember Hollingsworth?

Aye.

Councilmember Kettle?

Aye.

Councilmember Moore?

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The motion carries.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?

Thank you.

Will the clerk please read the title of item three into the record?

The report of the Public Safety Committee, agenda item three, council bill 120778, relating to surveillance technology implementation, authorizing approval of use and accepting the 2023 updated surveillance impact report and 2023 executive overview for the Seattle Police Department's use of automated license plate reader technology.

The committee recommends the bill passes amended with council members Kettle, Saka, Hollingsworth, and Nelson in favor with an abstention from council member Moore.

Council Member Kettle is chair of the committee, recognized to provide the committee report.

Thank you, Madam President, Council President Nelson.

I appreciate it.

Yes, Council Bill 120778 related to Seattle Police Department's Automatic License Plate Reader Fleet Ride Update Surveillance Impact Report Ordinance.

Stolen cars are not just for joyrides and being dumped, but rather they're used to carry out crime and often violent crime with guns.

We need to work smarter and nimbler, especially given the massive loss of sworn officers, which has impacted not just patrol, but also detectives and specialty units and their investigations.

And this underlines the need for ALPR.

I'm constantly hearing from constituents, residents, neighbors about their cars being stolen.

or their stolen cars being dumped in their neighborhood.

This enforces the idea of a permissive environment that this illegal activity is permitted and that our government is unable to govern and create a safe base.

I understand and appreciate the technology and privacy arguments.

I lived this in my career in Naval Intelligence, I understand, but also understand our mission, our goal is to create a safe Seattle for all of us to include the most vulnerable.

The ALPR SIR builds these technology and privacy points into the program and is strengthened by our amendments, both in committee and here in full council, and within also our discussions previously with the mayor's office and SBD before it was even submitted.

I wanted to make an additional point, and this goes to, again, I hear the comments made, the antidotes and the points related to, say, other jurisdictions, but...

When this ALPR legislation was introduced and moved through committee, we heard, read, and saw many comments on the technology and privacy being used as examples around the country that were problematic.

I understand that.

These anecdotes never acknowledge, however, the hard work we have done as a city with the consent decree and the establishment of our accountability system.

This accountability system is very unique.

We have the best accountability system in the country.

First, we have, as respect to the LLPR, we have the Officer Inspector General, OIG.

OIG's mission and responsibility is to audit the use of technology by SBD.

I have spoken to Inspector General Lisa Judge about this.

She understands this and she will carry this out.

And they also have their other responsibilities as it relates to their oversight of SPD.

Secondly, and there are some concerns that were being expressed regarding officers gaining access, for example.

That would be, particularly as the modifications that we've done to the SIR, the amendments have changed the SIR, this would be a serious violation.

We have the Office of Police Accountability.

Director Best understands this.

He understands how important this is, this oversight role is, and his duties as it relates to investigating officers who may have created a serious violation And of course, we have the Community Police Commission, very important from the community voice to keep us and keep our feet to the fire, our toes, and make sure that we're covering all the bases as it relates to this legislation.

And that's not to mention what we do as a council and as a committee.

I truly believe our committee and our council is an additional accountability partner as we move forward, particularly in areas like as it relates to this, technology and privacy.

Our accountability system is key and something that needs to be acknowledged and needs to be celebrated, frankly.

And it's time to, you know, leverage the hard work that we've done in this accountability system and use it in support of our needs as it relates to ALPR.

But at the end of the day, it's about creating a safe base and doing so responsibly.

And this is what we're doing with our oversight of this ordinance and this legislation, and that's what we will do moving forward.

So thank you, Council President.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bill, and I ask for your and my colleagues' support here on the dais.

Thank you, I will ask for comments and then we will still have to move and people have another opportunity to make comments and ask questions as well.

Are there any comments at this point?

All right.

Do you want to introduce your?

Yeah, I'm sorry.

Okay, I'm sorry.

I have got paper on my screen.

Go ahead, Council Member Moore.

Okay, I don't know if this is the right time procedurally, and I have given prior notice to Council Member Kettle.

So at this point, I was going to make a motion to, well, I moved to I move to postpone Council Bill 120778 until the full Council meeting on July 9th in order to allow this bill to be heard at the same time as legislation that I have developed to require a retention period of 48 hours for data that is not matching for stolen vehicles, amber or silver alerts, active investigations, or similar matches.

And I think I would need a second for that.

I'll give you a second.

I don't, yeah.

Second.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

So I'm just going to go through this.

As I've said during committee, ALPR can be useful in recovering stolen vehicles and for locating missing persons and for active investigations.

However, the concerns raised by members of the public at the Public Safety Committee and today about reproductive health care and gender affirming care and immigrants are very real.

The state legislature adopted the SHIELD law and the Keep Washington Working laws, and it is important to ensure expanding use of ALPR doesn't become a workaround to get around those laws.

The most effective, and I appreciate the comments that Chair Kettle has made, and I appreciate the reassurances that have been made to us by SPD.

But as somebody who spent my life working with law enforcement and in the court systems, I prefer things to be codified.

And I think that the surest way to really minimize those, while they may at the moment feel hypothetical, I don't think they are, risks, is a 48-hour retention for non-matching data.

which minimizes the likelihood of states such as Texas and Idaho receiving compromising data on women seeking reproductive care, gender affirming care, immigrants seeking to work in this state.

So that's why I'm asking to this be considered at the time that I bring forth that legislation.

And because it's a SIR, I was not able to just bring an amendment.

I had to introduce entirely new legislation.

And so that's while we're sort of in this procedural posture and apologize for that being the case, but given the way the SIR law has been written, that's the way we have to do it.

Okay, will the clerk please call the roll on the motion to delay the vote until July 9th?

Council Member Saka?

Nay.

Council Member Wu?

No.

Council Member Hollingsworth?

No.

Council Member Kettle?

No.

Council Member Moore?

Yes.

Council President Nelson?

Nay.

One in favor, five opposed.

Okay, thank you very much.

The motion fails and now we'll proceed to actually moving the bill.

No, we've already done that.

Yes, sorry, go ahead.

Council President, at this point, I would like to invite Council Member Moore to move her amendment to the SIR legislation.

Thank you very much, Chair Kettle.

So at this point, hopefully I'll have more success on this one.

I move to amend Council Bill 120778 as presented on Amendment A, Version 2, which was distributed yesterday.

The only change to Version 2 is in the effect statement there was a typo and some additional clarity.

The reason I'm bringing this amendment with I believe the support of the chair is to request that in any contract executed with the third party vendor for the ALPR technology that SPD require the vendor to immediately notify them if the vendor receives a warrant or subpoena seeking SPD automated license plate reader data for any purpose.

including purposes related to reproductive health care or gender-affirming medical services.

It further requires SPD to notify the Council of attempts to seek data via the request of the vendor, and it requires SPD to submit a copy of the ALPR vendor contract to us to confirm that those provisions are in the contract before the budget transmittal this fall.

And I just want to say that if implemented, this will allow SPD to stay apprised of any warrants or subpoenas that are issued for their data from out-of-state jurisdictions.

And it also gives us an opportunity to measure whether, in fact, that risk is, in fact, a real one, and if so, one that we might need to consider revisiting.

Thank you.

Are there any comments?

I second.

Second.

Anticipating the question, I second.

Thank you.

In terms of comments, I'll just add I support Councilmember Moore's amendment.

Thank you very much.

All right, I'm not seeing any hands raised.

Will the clerk please call the roll on Amendment A?

Councilmember Saka?

Aye.

Councilmember Wu?

Yes.

Councilmember Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Councilmember Kettle?

Aye.

Council Member Moore?

Aye.

Council President Nelson?

Aye.

Six in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries and Amendment A, Version 2 is adopted.

And are there any other comments on the bill as amended?

Isn't there another outstanding amendment?

Yes, there is.

Council President, I would like to move on an amendment submitted by Council Member Rivera.

Second.

And regarding comments on this, can I basically read what Council Member Rivera submitted to me?

Yes, please, go ahead.

In a submission to me, and I'm submitting this amendment too for Council Member Rivera, she's unable to attend today, but she believes strongly in this and also as Council Member Moore does in terms of the protections that we need to include.

And she worked with SPD on her piece as it relates to the data and how it's accessed and the like.

And her comment that she asked for me to submit on her behalf was, I believe ALPR gives police an important tool to help address crime across the city.

Seattle has seen a large and troubling increase in stolen cars and the use of those cars to commit additional crimes.

I also believe we needed to clearly define privacy protections to mitigate for any unintended consequences that could result from the use of this technology.

Toward this end, I worked with SPD and the council central staff to craft an amendment that places parameters around those who have access to ALPR data, why the data is needed, and tracks who has requested access.

I want to thank Councilmember Bob Kettle, Chair of the Public Safety Committee, for his support of this amendment and bringing it forward on my absence today.

The amendment limits access to ALPR data to specific authorized individuals permanently assigned to the Real-Time Crime Center and or Intelligence Units and who have completed training on the ALPR system.

If those individuals are transferred out of those units, their permissions to the systems will be revoked.

Any request to search the historical data by an officer must be accompanied by a written request identifying the requester, the reason for the search, including the reasonable suspicion or probable cause, and the associated case number.

Access and use of the system will be audited by the SPD Audit Unit and the Office of the Inspector General.

Those were Councilmember Mayer's remarks regarding this amendment.

Okay, seeing as how she's not here to answer any questions or address any comments, if there are none, and I see none, will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of Amendment B?

Councilmember Saka?

Aye.

Councilmember Wu?

Yes.

Councilmember Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Councilmember Kettle?

Aye.

Councilmember Moore?

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The motion carries, and Amendment B is adopted.

And we'll now just consider and entertain any comments or questions about the amended base legislation.

Are there any?

I'm looking to see if there are any hands up.

Council Member Wu.

Yes, thank you.

I am not on the Public Safety Committee, and so I did have concerns regarding immigrants, people seeking reproductive rights and gender-affirming care.

And so I wanted to thank central staff for answering all my questions.

And I think listening to public comment, and as someone who did not attend all the public safety meetings with some very much of the same questions, I've learned that if Another agency, maybe a federal agency, with a subpoena trying to get some of this data was told that Axon is not, they hold the data, they don't own the data.

And SPD owns this data.

So anytime there is a subpoena asking for this data, they'd have to go through SPD.

And that Axon it does not have the right to be able to release it.

They'd have to challenge it in court.

And so that means that there is that layer of protection from any other agency trying to get that data.

So if there is a legal request, they're prohibited, and these requests will be directly challenged.

And I've been promised that SPD will do everything in their power to fight that subpoena.

And also, the subpoena would take a while to get.

So if they were trying to go after someone who was undocumented or someone seeking care or any of these issues, that, you know, this data would take a while to get.

And so not only that, but this data will tell you where the car is, but not the person.

And to find a person, you need phone data.

And so it's restricted in a way in its use, and it's also very limited.

Like this data will only be used for a couple of things, like locating stolen vehicles, wanted license plate, endangered, missing, those violating protection orders, people canvassing around crime scenes.

And so I believe that a lot of the concerns and the issues people have with this legislation has already been examined and looked at.

And it's not all together.

you know, issue-free, but at the same time, I think that, you know, we are a sanctuary city.

There are protections put in place to protect that and to protect people's rights coming from wherever they may come from to find safety here in the city.

So I do support this piece of legislation, and I'm thankful that it's been well thought out.

And I agree with Council Member Kettle that we need all these tools to be able to do things like find endangered or missing people to locate stolen vehicles that have been used in other crimes.

And so would love to be able to see where this legislation takes us and if there are any issues, we will definitely come back and take a look at this again.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for those comments.

Let's see, Council Member Moore.

Thank you, Council President.

I would just note that there's a difference between ownership and possession, and that we had a very lengthy discussion about this, and there's nothing safe about the way Axon would have to respond to a subpoena, and we're requiring that the contract in Seattle require them to respond.

So I think we need to be careful about representations that we are making about how this is a safe process.

That said, I am very pleased with the amendments that were passed relating to protection of privacy rights through public disclosure requests.

requiring a copy of the contract and for us to be notified if Axon does receive legal process, and also Councilmember Rivera's amendment setting up a very detailed secure way for officers to access information.

And so it's not an ideal bill, but it is an important, very important tool.

And I feel comfortable with the safety pieces that we have added.

And for those reasons, I will be voting in favor of it today.

Are there any other comments?

If not, I'll say a couple things and then let the chair close us out.

I just want to note that I do completely understand concerns about what might happen in terms of incursions into privacy protections and hypothetical scenarios where data could be released and I also appreciate the efforts that my colleagues have taken to minimize those potential breaches of civil liberties.

But here's the thing.

I am very concerned about what is happening every single day across the city.

And we were told in the very first presentation about this legislation that stolen vehicle reports of stolen vehicles have gone up 33%, I believe, in the last four years.

And those stolen vehicles serve as kind of invisibility cloaks for the commission of other crimes across the city.

And so I, everything from well, number one, it's a bummer to have your car stolen, but number two, everything from smash and grabs to much more violent crimes.

And so that is what is motivating my support.

We have an understaffed police force, and we've got a technology that could help mediate some of the crimes that we're seeing happening all over our city.

And so I fully support this, and I also thank my colleagues for making it an even better piece of legislation.

Council, your hand was up a moment ago.

Thank you, I appreciate it.

And I think, Council President, thank you very much.

And I really do appreciate the many conversations I've had with my colleagues here on the various aspects of this bill.

I think it's important to restate a few things.

One is, You know, we have a Seattle Police Department.

Its leadership is dedicated to constitutional policing.

You know, they came up with a lot of the pieces in the SIR, working these pieces.

They know our city, and these pieces were incorporated.

And, you know, with our interim chief, you know, the guardian mentality, the guardian approach to policing, and I think...

We need to guard those that are most vulnerable, but we also need to, as you noted, to guard those, our residents who are suffering from these crimes that are happening, the stolen cars themselves and then the crimes that come out from that.

But we also have the amendments, the PDR, the Public Disclosure Request Amendment, that really tighten that up in terms of how that data is sent back out.

It's gonna be very difficult for anybody to figure that out.

Council Member Moore's amendment I think is fantastic because it ensures the, you know, it singles our intent, it encourages for Exxon to be on their toes, to be aggressively defending, which is in their, commercial interests too, by the way.

And then also, you know, connection with SBD and if in the case of a break of a contract, what that may provide us.

And then finally, the council member Rivera's amendment, the access piece, you know, locally, you know, ensuring that T's are crossed and I's are dotted with that amendment.

She did fantastic.

And I would add too, And again, I recognize the privacy and the technology concerns, but there's also a lot of practical matters which came out of our committee meeting in the sense of, you know, Seattle, we're the furthest north and west city in the country.

And in order to get to us, like from Texas or Idaho, you would have to drive across state when there's a lot of other options before you even get here.

To Texas, California would be the most likely option.

If you're coming from via plane and the like, You know, there's a lot of organizations that support individuals, like, you know, in terms of immigration and the like.

Trying to figure out which license car they're in and what license plate number it is is going to be very difficult.

So there's a lot of practical considerations, too, I just wanted to quickly highlight.

But then and again, I just wanna reemphasize the point that we have a great accountability system, OIG, OPA, and CPC, and we will continue to build those organizations and support them, and we will do our due diligence, and that's our commitment to the people of Seattle.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Saka?

Aye.

Council Member Wu?

Yes.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Council Member Moore.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Six in favor, none opposed.

Thank you very much.

The bill passes as amended unanimously from this council and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?

Thank you very much.

Congratulations.

Will the clerk please read the title of item four into the record?

The report of the Parks, Public Utilities, and Technology Committee, agenda item four, Council Bill 120797, relating to the Seattle City Department, excuse me, the Seattle Center Department authorizing the Seattle Center Director to execute a fourth amendment to the Facility Use and Occupancy Agreement between the State of Seattle and the Seattle Repertory Theater.

The committee recommends that the bill pass with Council Members Hollingsworth, Nelson, Kettle, and Rivera in favor, with an abstention from Council Member Strauss.

Thank you very much.

Council Member Hollingsworth is chair of the committee.

You're recognized to provide the committee report.

Thank you, Council President.

Well, on a much lighter note, we have a bill that is from our Seattle Center with the Seattle Repertory Theater They were founded in 1963. They intersect arts and community and culture.

They're one of the Seattle Center Jewels, and this is a bill that was brought forth from our Seattle Center to just mitigate, just redo their, not redo their operating agreement, but just update their operating agreement with the Seattle Repertory Theater.

It doesn't have any, I read the fiscal note, there's no fiscal impact to the City of Seattle.

I know that Councilmember Strauss, and I'm not speaking for him, but he abstained from the vote And I know that the Seattle Center reached out to him just to provide more information and clarity about this as well.

And just wanna thank central staff for providing information for the council regarding this bill that was brought forth by our Seattle Center and the Seattle Rep Theater.

So would love to earn everyone's support on this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you for that report.

Are there any questions or comments?

All right.

Seeing none, I just want to voice appreciation for you for bringing this forward so expeditiously and also shout out to the rep. Very happy to support whatever helps you.

So will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Council Member Saka?

Aye.

Council Member Wu?

Yes.

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Aye.

Council Member Kettle?

Aye.

Council Member Moore?

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Six in favor, none opposed.

All right, the bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?

All right, moving on.

There were no items removed from the consent calendar and there's no resolution for introduction and adoption today.

Is there any further business to come before the council?

Council Member Saka.

Thank you, Madam Council President and colleagues.

Thank you all for your thoughtful participation and engagement earlier today during that marathon session at the Levy Select Committee earlier today.

Three and a half hours roughly, but we had some great conversation and discussion of our respective amendments.

A quick housekeeping item that I forgot to mention there, I'll mention it here in this forum.

The executive has offered me initial feedback on all the amendments and I anticipate that they will follow up with council at some point after our committee meeting.

ended earlier today.

So sooner today, the better, I guess for in terms of if to the extent we want to see what that feedback looks like from the executive's perspective.

So stay tuned.

But thank you.

Thank you all.

Do you mean he's emailing us or what do you mean?

I anticipate feedback of some sort in the form of Writing, yeah.

A memo, okay.

Yeah, a memo, email.

I didn't know if there were going to be requests for meetings or whatever.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you for that information.

I do have some business.

If there is no objection, I would like to be excused from the June 25th and July 23rd and 30th City Council meetings.

Hearing no objection, I am excused for the June 25th, 23rd and...

and 30th city council meetings.

I must check these dates here.

June 25th and the July 23rd and 30th city council meetings.

That's the dates.

June 25th, July 23rd and 30th.

Hearing no objection.

That's what's gonna happen.

All right.

If there is no other city business, we will go ahead and close this meeting.

It is 322, and this meeting is adjourned.

Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting will be held on June 25th at 2 o'clock.

Thank you very much, everybody.

Thank you.