Select Committee on Seattle Transportation Benefit District 7/16/2026

All right, cool.

All right, good morning.

The July 16th, 2026 meeting of the Select Committee on Seattle Transportation Benefit District will come to order.

It is 9.33 a.m.

I am Rob Saka, chair of the committee.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Rivera.

Present.

Council Member Kettle.

Here.

Council President Hollingsworth.

Present.

Council Member Juarez.

Councilmember Lin?

Here.

Councilmember Strauss?

Here.

Councilmember Foster?

Here.

Councilmember Rink?

Present.

Chair Sacca?

Here.

Chair, there are eight members present.

Thank you.

Let's see, let the record reflects that Councilmember Juarez is excused until she arrives.

Is she online?

I don't see her.

She is excused until she arrives.

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

Hearing and seeing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

All right.

Good morning, colleagues, members of the public.

Thank you so much for being here today.

Exciting day today.

Before we begin today's business, I want to take a moment to recognize something truly remarkable.

Over the past month, during the heart of this very committee's work, Seattle welcomed the world during the FIFA World Cup.

Millions of people experienced our city, and one thing stood out again and again.

Our transportation system delivered.

Sound Transit recorded the highest monthly ridership in its history.

King County Metro carried nearly two million riders during Seattle's match days.

Our own Seattle streetcar reported record ridership during this period, particularly for the critical First Hill line.

In all, transit helped people move safely, efficiently, and reliably throughout our city.

And there were even more exciting wins for things like shared micro-mobility.

which empower those critical first mile and last mile connections with Lime scooters tallying record ridership in Seattle during FIFA.

National and international media have consistently praised Seattle, not only for our stadium and our fans and the experience, but for the way people could actually get there, including Seattle's vibrant transit system.

Even our legendary Seattle hot dogs earned recognition and kudos from the New York Times as America's best dog.

Extra cream cheese and onions for mine, please.

Cool accolades, of course.

But why does all that even matter?

It matters because it reminds us that investments in transportation are ultimately investments in people.

When transit is safe and reliable, opportunities move.

Jobs become more accessible.

Neighborhoods become more connected.

Working families spend less time in traffic and more time together.

And as we've heard from members of the public earlier this week during our public hearing, oftentimes transit is simply the people's limousine.

It can even help make sure you're not late for a date.

Now, I suppose we're all individually responsible and accountable for setting up those dates, but as a city and as a region, we have a responsibility from a transit planning and policy perspective to make sure that your transit to get you to the date is safe and reliable.

That's what today's about.

I appreciated those comments from members of the public because they reminded us that behind every policy discussion are real people living their lives.

That brings us to today's meeting.

Over the past several weeks, this committee has heard from the executive, including the Transit Advisory Board, received independent analyses from our own central staff experts, listened to hours upon hours of public testimony, received thousands of written communications from the public and carefully considered nearly 30 proposed amendments from council members.

That is exactly how good legislation should be developed.

not behind closed doors, not in smoke-filled rooms somewhere, not through assumptions, but through open dialogue, public participation, and respectful disagreement.

But more importantly, through a willingness to improve one another's ideas.

Today, we take the next step in our journey together.

We will first consider A chair's proposed consent package designed to incorporate amendments that reflect broad consensus across the committee.

We will then deliberate on the remaining amendments before deciding what proposal should ultimately move forward to the full Council on Tuesday.

Now, before we do that, I want to thank each of my colleagues.

Council President Hollingsworth.

Thank you for championing equitable transit access as part of this process.

Councilmember Lin, thank you for challenging us to think creatively about affordability and progressive revenue.

Councilmember Rivera, thank you for strengthening our focus on reliability and accountability.

Councilmember Juarez Antti, Thank you for your steadfast leadership on accessibility.

Councilmember Schraus, thank you for your strong advocacy for regional transit and your constituents.

Councilmember Kettle, thank you for challenging us to examine affordability and fiscal discipline.

Councilmember Brink, Vice Chair Rink, thank you for pushing this committee to carefully consider the role and purpose of the Seattle Transit Measure.

Last but not least, Council Member Foster, thank you for elevating accountability and long-term performance as part of this process.

Each of you made this proposal stronger, regardless of where we land today.

Today's vote is not the end of this conversation, nor should it be.

but it is the product of a public process that has challenged our assumptions, sharpened our thinking, and strengthened this legislation.

If Seattle's transit system helped show the world what our city is capable of, today's work is our opportunity to help shape what comes next.

That said, today isn't simply about voting on amendments or officially closing the work of this committee.

It's about earning the public's confidence that this proposal is stronger because of the work we've done here together.

Now let us roll up our sleeves and finish the work together.

All right.

Per the agenda that was published on July 14th, only written public comment is being accepted at this meeting.

We had a remote and in-person public comment at our first three select committee meetings.

We also had a public hearing on July 13th, which included an evening session for those who were unable to participate in public comment during normal business hours.

Today, we are going to focus our time together on deliberation on the nearly 30 amendments so we can ultimately approve a package to submit to the full council for consideration.

Members of the public are always welcome to submit their written comments on the Seattle transit measure via email, postal mail, or dropping them off here on the second floor.

Members of the public are also welcome to call council members' offices directly to express their verbal feedback.

All right, we will now move on to our first item of business.

Will the clerk please read item one into the record?

Agenda item one, briefing and discussion on council bill 121226, an ordinance relating to a sales and use tax providing for the submission to qualified electors of the city at an election to be held on November 3rd, 2026, a proposition to collect a sales and use tax to fund transit and related transportation programs in Seattle and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

Thank you.

First off, let the record reflect that Councilmember Juarez has joined us.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Now let me kind of frame the conversation and kind of set forth next steps here.

The consent amendment package consists of items that were initially proposed and discussed at the July 6th meeting.

There are a few tweaks, including non-substantive and substantive tweaks that were made to a few of the items in the proposed consent package.

But, and we'll talk about that here momentarily, but the plan is to vote on all items as a consent package.

Central staff will provide us with a brief overview of items that have either been revised or present new ideas since the July 6th meeting.

After central staff's overview, I will ask members if they would like to remove an item from the consent package.

This request does not need a second or any reason why the request is being made.

If an item is removed, it will then be considered after the consent amendment package vote and in numerical order.

Before voting on the consent amendment package, members will have an opportunity to specifically highlight and speak to items within the group.

Central staff, Would you please introduce yourselves and then begin your presentations.

Welcome.

Good morning, council members.

Amanda Allen with central staff.

Ann Gorman, central staff.

All right.

There we go.

The consent package is comprised of 15 amendments previously discussed in this committee.

In many cases, those amendments now reflect additions of additional co-sponsors or a co-sponsor.

Some council members have added their co-sponsorship after the July 6th meeting.

Two of the amendments, Amendment 2 and 4, have a bit more substantive changes rather than just the addition of co-sponsorship.

So in Amendment 2, it now includes a more expansive reference to electric transit rather than just solely referencing bus transit, electric bus transit.

and amendment four no longer includes a requirement for council's annual approval of transit service purchases and rather reflects more language related to council's authority.

Thank you.

And as the amendment author for both of those amendments that were revised, I'll briefly share that with respect to amendment number two, the change there was a direct result of these open exchanges that occur here at the dais in front of the public.

So Vice Chair Rink, great suggestion on adding or broadening the scope of that to specifically reflect as opposed to purely just electric buses.

And so we added that term accordingly and also preserved the original construct of buses, which we believe we can deliver in the Duwamish Valley today and other areas that meet that objective criteria.

so thank you Councilmember Rink for your helpful suggestions there with respect to the amendment tweaks, very substantive actually, to amendment number four.

This is also a direct result of engagement with this council, members of the public, feedback.

I heard you loud and clear on the most potentially concerning provisions of the first version of that amendment that would purport to require parallel council review and approval each year.

I think that is within our authority to do, but I hear the concerns and to respond to those concerns, good news is strip that out, did away with that, requirement and instead included a statement that is essentially a restatement of Council's existing plenary authority over budgetary matters.

That's it.

So I think it's a lot better as a result.

So I want to thank everyone, my colleagues, members of the public for your engagement in this process.

All right.

At this moment, we'll ask, are there any items a council member would like to briefly highlight or an item a council member would like to remove from the proposed consent agenda package?

Starting first with Council Member Foster, you are recognized.

Saw some hand change in there on the Zoom.

Thank you so much, Chair, and thank you for your leadership and your work on putting this package together.

I know it has been a tremendous lift and I'm really looking forward to the remainder of the discussion today.

I would like to remove from the consent package amendment number one as well as amendment number four.

Let the record reflect.

Amendment number one and amendment number four were drawn.

We will consider those separately.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Foster.

Let's see, Council Member Juarez, you are recognized.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, is this a time where I can just, you said we can just open the floor and just speak briefly to our amendment that's in the Chair's package?

Absolutely.

Yes.

Thank you.

It's your time to request withdrawal of any specific amendment included in the broader consent package or speak more broadly to any item that is in there.

So you are recognized.

First of all, I want to thank you, Chair, for listening.

And obviously you do do this.

to public comment and to your colleagues in making the changes that you did.

That made a big difference and I really appreciate that.

That is excellent leadership and I appreciate that.

So only what I want to share and I may add some more later if I speak in opposition to any amendment is I want to thank not only the chair but all of my colleagues and also to thank the coalitions who supported amendment number 20. Again, I spoke to Mr. Nelson this morning co-chair of the Seattle Disability Coalition and he attended public comment many times and expressed support for our amendment, which is amendment number 20. I also wanted to thank, and I'm trying to get these thank yous out there now because I know they're listening.

I want to thank the Pedestrian Advisory Board who submitted a letter of support in June stating that 100% of transit riders are pedestrians.

Buses and light rail do not exist in isolation.

Every trip begins and ends with walking.

the funding in the mayor's proposal for capital projects to access transit infrastructure is a very important component to the overall transportation funding for the framework of the city.

Also, I want to thank the mayor's office because we, as you know, Mr. Chair, we started with the mayor's original package having a much lower amount than $5 million and we raised it to five.

Obviously, we would have liked to see more, but we are trying to stay within the framework and the intent of the Seattle transit measure.

I also want to thank SDOT's own transit equity workgroup, which submitted a letter on the 14th sharing, Councilmember Warr's amendment to include accessibility language representing people with disabilities is vital and aligns with our commitment to advancing equity for all underserved communities.

And on a personal note, I want to thank Councilmember Sally Bagshaw, who I worked with for eight years on Seattle City Council, and sharing her comments to the whole Council to thank you for working with the Disability Commission and the Pedestrian Advisory Board to develop an amendment that will improve access for people with disabilities.

Like you with MS and my husband with muscular dystrophy, we have improved access via sidewalk, curb cuts, crossing signals, pedestrian lighting, or seating, and it's very much needed.

Until we are living with a disability or living with a person who has a disability, These needs cannot be missed.

Thank you for being so conscientious and dedicating these needs.

Thank Councilmember Strauss as well.

I would like to share one last note and I normally don't do this but I want to share it because it's important before I end on a hard fact.

We received many letters from people from the disability community and the sighted community and also people who have children who use strollers who use public transit.

Hello council members, my name is Sawyer and I myself have a spinal cord injury and I rely on public transportation.

Amendment 20 will allow for infrastructure work, wayfinding improvements, maintenance operations, more accessible seating on the bus, which will lead to an increase in transit riders overall, more inclusion of our elders, disabled population, mothers and children, and mothers using strollers.

Accessible transit for me is crucial for my daily life.

I rely on transit to safely get me to work, to take part in my interests such as advocacy work, and the inclusion approach it will bring that invites people with disabilities to all the amazing things Seattle has to offer.

People with disabilities here in Seattle have a right to an accessible transit system.

to get there through transportation would be more of a headache, so they'd rather not go.

But here we are, and we want to enjoy Seattle in a safe and accessible way, just as anybody else wants.

Amendment 20 is a step towards accessible transportation for all.

And the last note I want to share, as you all know how I love to start with facts before I get into feelings, The Seattle transit measure as it stands now if indeed it stays at 10 years has a total expenditure of 1.4 billion over its full term and the total percentage of this measure that is dedicated to transit infrastructure accessibility and safety not just sidewalks is less than 4% and I don't think asking for less than 4% out of 1.4 billion is a big ask.

And I don't want this amendment to see like we're pitting pedestrians against transit riders, against sound transit, but I am going to share this.

There is a part of this city that finds people with disabilities to be invisible.

and sometimes for all of our, sometimes performative, we don't always center and uplift those folks.

So I don't think, and I hope I have the support, and again, I understand and anticipating some amendments that may take away from this that we keep with the intent and the spirit that this is the real Seattle, that not everybody is physically able to get to a bus stop, to hop in an Uber, to get on light rail or has a car.

And so I will leave it at that.

And thank you again, Council Member Saka.

You've been really good to me in going over this.

And thank you to Council Member Strauss.

You've been really good about talking.

And Council President, you introduced it because I couldn't be here for that and gave me the additional information and percentages, and that meant a lot to me.

So thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for indulging me.

Thank you, Council Member Juarez.

Well said, and as I mentioned earlier, I really do appreciate your steadfast leadership and being a champion of all issues related to accessibility, especially in the context of this proposed Seattle transit measure.

So thank you again.

Council Member Kettle, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

I echo your comment about Councilmember Juarez.

She, for those that don't know, is ferocious in her advocacy on the various issues that are out there.

Because I'm old.

I'm right behind you.

Okay, Chair, I wanted to take the opportunity, A, to thank you for your support, to include those that my amendments that are in the chair package, but it was also told by legal that I need to say out loud here from the dais those amendments that I would like to co-sponsor.

And I think this might be a good time to do it.

Central staffs nodding their head.

So with that, Chair, if I may, I would like to co-sponsor your amendment number two, work in maritime issues.

I've learned about the Lower Duwamish and the challenges in that area and the communities to include South Park and the like.

And so this is very important in terms of the environmental challenges that exist in that area, both on land and at sea.

I'd like to also co-sponsor, if I may, Councilmember Rink's eligibility night service.

This is really important.

I've had conversations with Local 8 recently, which is a reminder to me about those that work in hospitality, whether it's hotel, restaurants, and often at night, and we need to support them and their ability to get home safe.

so thank you Council Member Rink.

If I can also, Council Member Foster's number six midterm evaluation program, this screams good governance in my mind, Council Member Foster.

If I also can, Council Member Hollingsworth, her number 28, which expands access to TAP.

I believe I can do that.

On all these, I believe I can still do it.

There's limits, apparently.

And then also, back to Council Member Juarez and what she was just talking about, amendment number 20, if I can be a co-sponsor on that.

That's the one I'm not so sure if I can, but if...

Yeah, you can.

We're in public.

Okay, thank you.

And then lastly, and this is really important to me as well is bringing in the trade schools.

This is something in terms of my upbringing and approach and this ties into so many things and what we're trying to do.

So amendment number 27 from Council Member Rank.

So, Chair, that's it.

I'm hoping that my colleagues will accept these co-sponsorships and central staff as it, and I'm legal according to legal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

If there's no objection from the prime sponsors of those respective amendments, let the record reflect that Councilmember Kettle will co-sponsor amendment numbers.

2, 16, 6, 28, 20, 27, and any other that I might have missed.

I think that's it.

But also, you were already co-sponsored on at least one of those, my proposed amendment number two, but thank you for doubling down on that.

It's really important, climate electrification, climate justice, climate resiliency amendment, so really appreciate that.

All right, let's see, council member, or council president, you're recognized.

Chair, thank you so much.

And colleagues, I know I always say I don't like walk-on amendments or changing things, but I would like to pull Amendment 28 because I am going to bring a verbal amendment to extend the date to 2028, which gives Metro and SDOT a year to give us more information about the access program.

So I know I have to do that whole thing, but I would like to pull it so I can...

That's my intent on that one, Chair.

Thank you, Council President.

Just so I'm clear, we're clear here, do you...

do you wanna pull it from the proposed consent package and then vote on it separately today or instead do you wanna just withdraw it and then potentially either bring it back with the adjusted date at full council next Tuesday or make a verbal amendment.

So pull it from the consent package, then make a verbal amendment to adjust the date today and vote on it today.

What is your preference on that one?

Ideally, I would just have loved to make a verbal amendment because I believe it's a small technical change with changing the date.

Just note the rules will need to be suspended for that.

If the rules are suspended to allow an amendment after the deadline, then you can proceed with the amendment.

And then also there may be some, when we get to debate, we can discuss the merits of the actual amendment and any feedback the central staff may have.

And here's the deal, Chair, if I may.

I want to make it as easy as possible.

So if it's easier just to pull it and I can bring it back, I'm more than happy to do that.

Whatever pleases you, Chair.

Thank you, Council President.

My preference would be to pull it, and then bring it back to full council on Tuesday.

And the reason why is because there's a number of amendments that include the same date and raise the same underlying issues.

And so I think we need to have conversations today and then I need to offline individually with you all working with central staff to figure out the best path There's some administrative overhead that we're imposing on this in the interest of transparency and oversight and responsible spending, but we also wanna make sure that whatever reporting requirements that we impose as part of this in exchange for almost $2 billion, potentially over 10 years, that we're also setting the departments, whether it's SDOT and Metro up for success to effectively be able to respond to those.

So for those reasons, my preference would be to withdraw it today, bring it back, and then make a potential broader amendment to address the same issue and some of the other things.

But are you okay with that?

If I may share, absolutely.

More than happy to.

Thank you all for your support and the co-sponsors, Councilmember Kettle, Councilmember Rink, and Councilmember Rivera.

I'll be working with you all.

It's just a slight date adjustment on that.

So thank you all.

Thank you.

I had those same concerns, I raised them in our committee.

So this is us being responsive on the fly.

So really, really appreciate you.

So let the record reflect.

Council President has withdrawn Amendment 28 from the consent package and withdrawn from consideration today and reserving the right to, and we will bring it back at full count.

Full intentions, it will come back, absolutely.

Yes, yes.

Full intentions, thank you.

and I'll work with you to ensure that happens, too, by the way.

Cool.

Let's see.

Any other final comments, questions?

Oh, looks like Councilmember Foster, is that a stale hand or new?

Fresh.

Go ahead.

Yeah.

Thank you so much, Chair.

I wanted to come back and speak to my amendment that's included in the package, and thank you so much for co-sponsoring this amendment.

Councilmember Rink and Councilmember Kettle, appreciate your support.

Colleagues, I know after the amendment package, we're gonna consider some other excuse me, after the chair's package, we're gonna consider some other amendments.

So I just wanted to speak to this one quickly.

You know, from my vantage point, I believe it's really important that this measure is a full 10-year measure.

From my vantage point, you know, we have a real opportunity to make sure that we are investing substantially and adequately in our transit service so that we are providing affordability for folks.

We heard so much through this fantastic public, the public meetings from public commenters around the cost of owning a car versus the cost of taking transit.

We know that our investments, I know that our investments that we're going to make in the Seattle transportation measure are going to be something that helps us to increase our ridership.

I deeply believe that.

I also deeply believe, as Councilmember Kettle just said, in good governance.

And from my vantage point, this amendment is a great opportunity to strike a balance, so that at the six-year point, we can review the success of these investments, we can look at the impact of those on ridership, and we can also look at our ability to have other progressive revenue sources.

Thank you, Council Member Rankin, Council Member Lynn, for your amendments.

and make a determination on whether we are able to make an adjustment into that sales tax rate at that point in time.

So I just wanted to speak to the intent behind this amendment from my vantage point that allows us to do these investments, do the right thing, get us on track, tackle climate change, and also manage with good governance and a review of these investments at a midway point so that we can make changes as needed.

So thank you so much, Chair.

I appreciate that.

Thank you, Council Member Foster, and love this amendment.

I support all the amendments in the proposed consent package to varying degrees, but I intentionally, as chair, am not co-sponsoring them just because I think the inference is sufficiently clear that they're included in my proposed package.

But this one, I strongly support, so thank you for bringing it forward.

Vice Chair Rink, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair Sacca, and first and foremost, thank you for your work in putting together this chair's package, and thank you, colleagues, for your engagement with my office on these amendments.

I'd like to first speak to my amendments 16, 17, and 27, which are in this package.

The first of three, amendments 16. I will note that King County Metro has been ramping up their night service as rider trends change with new needs.

This is an important service to offer, and I believe it's worthy enough to make it explicit and signal our support for it.

I know in my experience, I've missed my bus and had to wait in the dark 30 minutes after getting off a shift waiting tables around 1 a.m.

Now, the alternative to waiting in the dark and feeling unsafe waiting in the dark is paying $40 maybe for a rideshare.

And there are so many workers in nightlife who I am sure will be much happier paying $3 or for some $1 to be able to get home and get some rest.

And I'm very grateful for the support this amendment has received from the Washington Hospitality Association, GSBA, and the Transit Advisory Board, as well as huge gratitude to the co-sponsorship of many on this dais.

Thank you.

Secondly, Amendment 17. I've noted this before, but last legislative session I met with legislators in an effort to allow localities like Seattle to have additional progressive revenue options to move us away from sales taxes.

One suggestion was to expand the funding tools available for the transportation benefit districts.

Now, unfortunately, that effort was overshadowed by the many other issues that our state is working on.

So, this amendment focuses our local efforts on what we can do to progressivize our transportation funding and including collaborating with King County to potentially offset our local sales taxes.

This amendment was done in a collaborative effort with Council Member Lynn, with amendments 11 and 17 working together to support additional progressive revenue.

Huge thank you to Council Member Lynn for your work on this.

And third, Amendment 27, a path for a working family to achieve a livable income has been evolving over the years.

And the Path to Trades program that we put forward in the Families Education Preschool Promise Levy is a really important effort and really looking at how we can also diversify and understand that college is not the only option after high school and there are incredible careers available in the trades.

And trade school students should be eligible for transit passes just like those who are eligible in the Seattle Promise Program.

And so huge gratitude to all who co-sponsor this amendment as well.

And Chair, if I may, I'd like to briefly speak to some of the amendments in this package brought forward of my colleagues that I'm particularly excited about.

Notably starting with you on Amendment 2, Chair Saka, sincerely thanking you for being receptive to the proposed changes to just expand and include trolley buses in this amendment.

Really grateful for that inclusion and excited about this.

Amendment 6, Council Member Foster, I appreciate your thoughtful efforts in ensuring that we're really striking that balance and looking at an opportunity to evaluate and recalibrate down the line to ensure the service we're funding is meeting the needs of our riders.

Amendment 11, Council Member Lynn, thank you for your collaboration and your office's collaboration and having this shared focus on progressive revenue options to offset our regressive sales taxes and expand transit service.

Amendment 20 from Councilmember Juarez.

I want to thank you for your engagement with the Seattle Disability Commission and so many others in shaping this amendment.

And I want to express my appreciation in their consultation early and consistently and throughout this process.

And very grateful for your championship of matters related to people living with disabilities.

Thank you.

and I know they were pulled, but I still wanna voice my appreciation for Council President Hollingsworth on the amendments for accessing worker cards.

We'll take it up later, but I am very excited that those will be returning to this body to take up for consideration.

But with that, I'm looking forward to voting to pass this consent package into the Seattle Transit Measure.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Vice Chair Rink.

Well said.

Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

Excuse me, colleagues.

First, I want to thank the chair for all the work that you and your team, your office has done in putting together this package.

These things require many, many, many hours, deliberation and consultation with colleagues, and I really always appreciate your thoughtfulness on coming to all of us to consult on the things that would be included in this transit measure.

And so I, and then also my team has consulted with your team and so really want to uplift that and thank you for all the hard work that you've put into this.

Then I wanna say, I wanna speak to my one amendment that's in the package, but first I really want to uplift and give a huge note of gratitude to our colleague, Council Member Juarez, for her amendment number 20 on the accessibility piece.

You know, when we were doing the transportation levy, we had a lot of conversation about many, the lack of streets, sidewalks across the district and many in your district.

And that is obviously an accessibility issue.

And I know that the city has been grappling since for years now and since I worked even upstairs in the mayor's office on the curb cuts, which is another huge accessibility piece.

for our constituents.

And so I just wanna really acknowledge you and thank you and give a big plus one.

This is a huge and very important issue across our city.

And like many things, it doesn't always get the attention that it deserves and you are uplifting it in this process to give it the attention that it deserves.

and so I proudly added my co-sponsorship.

I am really so thrilled and so grateful that you put this amendment in and gave this focus.

So I cannot thank you enough and I think we all across the city.

Oh, a big note of gratitude for you for putting this in here.

And also wanna thank folks that came from the community to also support this, to request it, to support it.

It's how the system should work.

And these things should not be something that are not called out on the front end.

as is usually called out on the back end.

So I really appreciate you calling this out, and especially to the folks who came to chambers to call this out on the front end.

We need this.

So thank you.

And then lastly, and very briefly, I just want to thank the chair for including my amendment on the Fair Recovery and Performance Report.

Reliability is such a huge issue on time performance.

I know many folks rely on the buses to get to school, to get to work.

They're often overcrowded, which is another amendment that I put in and preview chair.

I'll be pulling that out and bringing it back to full council later and I'll explain why.

But in terms of really getting this annual report on fear recovery has been an issue discussed, not just in our city, but across the country for transportation systems.

The ability to recover fare helps us continue to provide the service, provide the service robustly, keep things going, be able to manage for infrastructure needs.

And so the fare recovery is really important.

And then, as I said earlier, this performance piece on time and so people can get to school and work on time.

and after school activities, which is another amendment I brought that we're gonna talk about later in terms of night service to teens who are doing teen nights.

So anyway, I'll talk about that later, but thank you for including this here.

That's the intent of this.

And I think it's really important to have this report on an annual basis.

So we see how well we're doing and we're showing our work to the public.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Rivera.

Appreciate your feedback and comments there.

Let's see, Councilmember Juarez, you're recognized.

I'll be very brief.

I apologize.

I had meant to be a co-sponsor on some of these amendments in the chair's package, but I knew that there were some changes that were being made, so I was waiting until we got on the floor and in front of God and everybody.

So I just wanted to, if I can just rattle those off.

Thank you, Chair.

I wanted to be a co-sponsor on amendment number two with Council Member Sacca.

I wanted to be a co-sponsor on amendment number four.

Council also amendment number 16, amendment number 17, and amendment number 26. as well as 27. I feel like we're playing bingo here.

Do we get them all?

So 2, 4, 16, 17, 26, and 27. Correct?

Got them.

Thank you guys.

I mean, thank you everybody.

Thank you colleagues.

Thank you, Councilmember Juarez.

Let the record reflect.

Councilmember Juarez would like to be added as a co-sponsor for amendment numbers 2, 4, 16, 17, 26, and 27. All right.

Excellent.

Any final comments, questions before we vote on the package, the proposed package?

So, yeah, absolutely.

Council President.

Sorry, I don't want to add...

I will add to the chorus, just really thanking you for adding my amendments, but also I think this is a great group of amendments that you added for the package, and so just that appreciation where you were trying to put together something that there was general support for, so just really appreciate your work on that, because I know how hard it is to put something together for everyone, so thank you, Chair.

Just wanted to say those words.

Thank you, Council President.

Appreciate you, your leadership and your partnership in all this and consensus is what this is about.

So really appreciate that.

All right.

Let's see here.

Now let's vote on the proposed consent package as it's currently constructed.

So I move to amend the bill.

Excuse me, excuse me.

Procedurally complex.

All right.

amendment, so for clarity, amendment numbers 1, 4 and 28 have been removed and will be addressed separately.

We know amendment 28 will not be considered today, but will be brought back to full council on Tuesday.

Therefore, I move to adopt the consent amendment package, excluding amendments 1, 4, 28. Is there a second?

Second.

It is moved and seconded to adopt the consent amendment package, excluding amendment numbers 1, 4, and 28. Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the proposed consent package?

Councilmember Rivera.

Aye.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Councilmember Juarez.

Aye.

Councilmember Lin.

Yes.

Councilmember Strauss.

Aye.

Councilmember Foster.

Yes.

Councilmember Rink.

Yes.

Chair Sacca.

Aye.

Chair, there were nine ayes and zero nays.

All right.

The consent amendment package, excluding amendment numbers one, four and 28 are hereby adopted and will be incorporated into the bill.

Uh, let's see.

Now, now we take up, I think the, the two items, uh, that were removed, correct?

Yeah.

All right.

So I move So that's what's gonna happen.

We're gonna take up the two items that were, well, yeah, two items that were removed.

We know that one of those items, there's a third item that will be brought back a full council.

And then we will proceed with the amendments contained in that group B package individually.

So any questions, comments on that process, just so we're clear colleagues?

Folks hearing none, seeing none?

Okay, cool.

And by the way, that's thunder that we're hearing outside.

As a kid who grew up in Minnesota, I love hearing thunder.

I miss the storms.

And it's good to hear that every now and again here in the Pacific Northwest.

All right.

Let's see.

I...

Let us first take up, should we move the First Amendment first?

And then, okay.

I move to amend the bill as presented in amendment number one.

Is there a second?

Second.

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

Central staff, could you please provide an overview of the amendment?

Amendment 1, version 1, to Council Bill 121226, sponsored by Councilmember Saka.

This amendment would add recitals and amend sections of the bill regarding adding language to stress the responsibility of local jurisdictions in King County Metro in providing safe and secure transit services.

It also creates a new permissible use of Seattle Transit measure revenues to support local implementation of King County Regional Transit Safety Task Force recommendations.

And it also adds a clause regarding additional purchases and prohibiting supplantation of resources already provided by King County Metro.

Thank you, Amanda.

And as the amendment prime sponsor, I will share from my perspective that this amendment is the direct result of community feedback, including from Metro operators and the transit operator union leadership.

As chair of this committee that oversees transportation policy in our city, transit safety and security is, always has been, and always will be one of my highest priorities.

Just last month, in a report mandated by a Seattle City Council statement of legislative intent, SLI, that I sponsored during the 2025 city budget process, SDOT provided data on security and safety incidents on King County Metro from the first quarter of 2023 through the first quarter of 2025. So you all like data?

I love data too.

Here it is.

Data is very discouraging.

Heads up.

Harassment and threat incidents increased significantly during that period, rising from 397 in 2023 to 564 in 2024. Those harassment and threat incidents remained high in quarter one of 2025 with 152 incidents, which was on pace for 608 total for the year.

Passenger assaults, disturbances also showed a significant upward trend increasing from 313 in 2023 to 348 in 2024. Q1 of 2025 showed 75 incidents of passenger assaults and disturbances, consistent with prior quarterly ranges.

Transit worker assaults have also risen significantly.

There were 38 incidents in 2023 and 51 in 2024. which is an increase of over 34 percent year over year.

Q1 of 2025 reports 12 incidents of transit worker assaults, which was on pace for 48 such incidents by the end of that year.

All this means that in the last five quarters for this reporting period for which data is available, there was almost one assault on a transit worker every week that is totally unacceptable.

Now, as we talk about increasing transit service, we have to understand the importance of recruitment and retention of transit workers.

Can't just write a check and expect more buses to roll out the next day.

I know we all care about workers, colleagues.

We have to take responsibility for maintaining healthy and desirable working conditions If we ignore these problems, we won't be able to count on enough people coming forward.

It's a difficult, but highly impactful job to serve as transit workers.

Nor will we be able to assume that people will automatically choose public transit as the preferred option and choice to driving.

Because at the end of the day, it's a choice.

But don't take my word for it.

A little more data.

On July 2nd, a Metro bus driver did not allow a man to board a bus near Fourth Avenue South in South Jackson Street in the Chinatown International District because he recognized the man from a previous incident and was concerned about the fact that the man was carrying a machete.

Machete!

Is this a Banana Republic?

The man then allegedly used the machete!

to damage the bus window and windshield.

How horrifying that must have been for that driver and all those passengers on board.

Common carrier.

Thankfully, no one was hurt that day, at least with respect to that incident.

And colleagues, friendly reminder, quite literally on the eve, the day that I originally presented this amendment to you all and to the public, night before, the night of July 5th, 39-year-old man suffered three gunshot wounds while sitting in the back of a Metro bus.

According to witnesses, the incident began when the suspect accused someone on the bus of stealing his property.

The suspect then exited the bus in the 500 block of South Lander Street, my district by the way, and then proceeded to fire multiple rounds at the back of the bus, ultimately striking the victim.

The victim was transported to Harborview Medical Center in critical condition.

As of today, an update to his condition has not yet been made public.

Colleagues, this amendment is intentionally serialized as amendment number one for a reason.

These safety issues amount to an imminent threat to transit riders and operators Right now we should not even be surprised that this is an issue because we know in 2025 the King County Council adopted a motion establishing the King County Regional Transit Safety Task Force.

This was in direct response to 33 reported assaults on operators in 2023, contamination from drug use aboard vehicles, fentanyl, broader safety concerns shaped by homelessness, behavioral health challenges, and fragmented jurisdictional responsibilities, as well as the tragic high-profile murder in December 2024 of Metro operator Sean Yim.

The task force consisted of ATU Local 587, operators, agency leadership, law enforcement, municipalities, behavioral health providers, care responders, riders, and community organizers.

Operators shared firsthand experience of risk and riders described conditions that made them feel unsafe.

And they were, in fact, unsafe.

Agency leadership contributed expertise to translate the expressed concerns into practical solutions.

And as a direct result, the task force published an initial resource that I highly recommend each of my colleagues read.

This amendment pledges the city of Seattle's support for local city of Seattle implementation, local city of Seattle implementation of the recommendations listed in this document, including, but not limiting to hiring additional personnel, such as behavioral health specialists, Metro transit police officers, transit security officers, Metro ambassadors, contracted security officers, fair enforcement and the like.

Although the task force recommendations do not contain Well, I'll just stop there.

This is a common sense amendment.

I'm proud of the work of community working so closely in partnership with my office to develop this in terms of some of the sausage making.

We learned from the task force that Improving transit safety and security is a shared responsibility, not just one solely borne by an individual transit agency like King County Metro or Sound Transit.

That's what the amendment says, because that's what the task force said.

ATU Local 587 share with me that they take the position that for every dollar of investment for transit hours and transit service, there should be a certain portion or percentage of that dollar minimum invested in parallel with transit safety and security.

We weren't able to align in the limited time on what that precise allocation should be, and instead, this is where we landed.

This amendment allows us to invest above and beyond.

Again, we're not talking about baseline, what Metro has already provided or will provide.

We want them, they've made significant strides in improving transit safety and security.

But there's plenty more work to do as some of the data and evidence I shared earlier make crystal clear.

And we as a city also have a responsibility.

So for those reasons, colleagues, I ask for your support on this amendment.

Thank you.

I will now turn it over to my colleagues for questions, comments from your perspective, starting first with Council Member Foster.

You are recognized.

Thank you so much, Chair Asaka.

I really appreciate that.

And I have to tell you, I really appreciate the passion with which you speak about transit safety and security.

I talk often about the fact I'm a mom to a 13-year-old, and what's really cool is that he rides the bus now by himself.

And what's really cool is because we have free youth passes, he rides his bus by himself and I don't have to pay for it.

So shout out to all the organizers who made that possible.

But I think a lot about safety and security because Not only is he riding the bus, but he's riding the bus and he's doing transfers by himself, which means he's waiting at the bus stop by our house, but he's also waiting at the bus stop wherever his transfer is.

And, you know, I'm a mom.

I'm guilty of getting nervous every now and again and sending a text message and going, Did you get on your transfer?

Are you okay?

Is everything okay at the bus stop?

Transit safety and security is incredibly important to me.

I have dear friends who are bus drivers who have been able to get financial stability through becoming bus drivers.

who have been able to sort of support themselves in staying in our city because they are bus drivers and they are good union jobs.

And I'm so grateful to all of our bus drivers, especially the ones I know who warm my day, and I want them all to be safe.

The reason that I wanted to pull this amendment out of the package, fully knowing how controversial it would be to pull an amendment about transit safety and security out of the package, is actually around where you closed, Chair Saka.

which is your point around the investments in transit safety and security.

And it's important to me that when we're talking about this, we're really clear that we are already purchasing transit safety and security with every dollar of service that we purchase from Metro.

So in fact, the current as-is is that every dollar of service that we purchase from Metro, 10% around, it might be 9 point something something, so I'll turn to central staff here in a second, goes to transit safety and security.

It's also true that we have about $9 million in the recent MOVE Seattle levy that's intended to go towards transit safety and security that we haven't yet programmed.

So we have those resources.

And as we continue to scale our investments in transit service, if we are spending more dollars on transit service, then we are spending more dollars on transit and safety and security as we increase those.

because it is baked into every dollar.

And from my vantage point, I think that's really important.

I know that we often talk about, you know, good governance and fiscal responsibility.

And so I think we have to say we are purchasing transit safety and security when we do those purchases from Metro.

And I just want that to be a clear and transparent component as we're considering this amendment.

And as I read this amendment, there's many parts of the, particularly, particularly many parts of the recitals that I just deeply agree with.

our duty to make sure that our drivers are safe, our duty to make sure that we are taking care of people who are riding the bus.

I deeply agree with that.

I couldn't agree more.

I also want to make sure that we're clear that we are making these investments with this levy, particularly through sizing up this levy, increasing our investments in transit service.

We will be increasing our investments in safety and security.

So for that reason, I'll be voting no on this amendment today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Councilmember Kettle, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

You know, it's interesting to look at this issue, and I think, you know, looking at it, you can't be just so focused just on the transit piece.

You have to look at it more broadly.

and I have been speaking to this issue of public safety more generally a lot lately, first with Little Saigon and the challenges that we face there, then North Aurora and what we're seeing in that location.

also highlighting why we are essentially chronically dealing with these problems.

And it's because we are a city of two minds.

We want to take action, but then we don't for different reasons.

I see this across the board in public safety.

and it's the reason why I bring it up and it's basically a fundamental reason why we are in a chronic state of challenge from a public safety perspective in Little Saigon.

Downtown Third Pike and Pine, Third and Blanchard, Second and Lenora, up into the CID, now North Beacon Hill, you know, across all seven districts and the challenge underlying a lot of this is capacity.

We're seeing it right now.

We're backsliding on North Aurora, partly because there was a surge as related to the World Cup, but then the surge ends.

Then we start falling back.

The next thing you know it, here we are.

I said this in the press conference that we had just outside chambers here not long ago, that I didn't have much confidence because we cannot sustain the effort.

We have to sustain the leadership.

We have to have the follow-up and the follow-through, and that takes resources.

So that's the broader public safety piece.

But when you start necking it down to the pieces that, you know, how this plays into public transit, and I want to thank Mr. Woodfield from ATU 587 for being here and representing his bus drivers for all the reasons that Chair Saka noted.

They shouldn't have to deal with this on a day in and day out basis.

The transit riders shouldn't have to deal with this on a day in and day out basis.

But here we are, again, chronic.

So we need to take action and it's important in my book to build the capacity so where the city and the county are working together.

That we're bringing the assets from Seattle PD but also King County Sheriff's Office and then additionally with King County Metro and Metro Security.

Because that will in turn help our broader public safety profile and posture.

So we can say no, you know, we can kind of enable the chronic situation that we have with public safety, which I'm already seeing in different places already that we're trying to surge on.

But this amendment, A, puts resources to it, and B, sends a message that we are serious, that we're not going to be of two minds.

And so for those reasons, Chair, I'm going to vote yes on this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Kettle.

Councilmember Rivera, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

Chair and members, when bus driver Sean Yim was killed in my district, actually the D4, driving a bus in D4, you and I sat together at the memorial service and it was profound and what was most profound and deeply troubling to me and both of us at the time because we talked about this, we did some follow up with Metro on this is the bus drivers had been asking for those shields, the partitions for a long time and you know Metro had committed to doing so and it just had not gotten done.

And so I think if it had gotten done, perhaps Sean Yim would be alive today.

So while I agree that Metro's responsibility for every dollar that we give them, they should be doing the public safety pieces, Council Member Foster and I appreciate all your comments.

and I'm a mom too, we have that in common and I know you care, so wanna acknowledge that.

But the fact is, it doesn't exactly work that way.

And so we've had to put supplements to the investment that we make to make sure that the safety on the transit is actually there.

Because Sean Yim is sadly one example, but there are many, as Chair pointed out, and I have seen a lot of things on the buses as we probably all have and our kids have seen a lot of things on the buses and so while we would want the money, our service hours, our service dollars to fund security in this robust manner, it just doesn't meet and rise to the level of what is needed and what we're seeing is needed.

So I do appreciate the chair putting in additional safety dollars to make sure that our buses are safe in Seattle for the folks that are driving the buses and for the folks that are riding the buses.

It's really important.

And I've said this before, if you do not provide safe transit service, folks are not going to use it.

So we've been grappling with this for a while and I think it's warranted to do yes.

I fully expect that Metro is going to provide that safety that we pay for in those service hours and unfortunately we've had to supplement that safety because we're seeing it's not yielding the results we would like to see in terms of safety on our buses.

So for those reasons I you know and I wish we didn't have to supplement but this is where we are and we have to address the issues that are before us.

And for those reasons, I do appreciate that you put this in here and transit safety is very, very important to me.

And so I will be supporting this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rivera.

Council Member Lane, you are recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, colleagues for all the discussion on this.

I will be voting yes.

Transit safety and security is absolutely essential.

And to Councilmember Foster's point, I do think it's important to recognize that it's part of what we pay for when we pay for service.

It should be part and parcel of that service, security.

and safety.

But I also just want to speak to, I don't think there's anything necessarily unique about buses in terms of our safety and security, that they are uniquely unsafe.

I think it's a consequence of our failures to address our mental health issues in the city, substance use issues in our city and gun violence in our city.

We tragically lost two Rainier Beach High School students earlier this year at a bus stop in Rainier Beach.

And that speaks to our failures to address gun violence, youth gun violence more broadly.

And so as I think about sort of investments in transit safety, I think just investments in safety more generally across our city are investments and community violence intervention work our investments in addressing mental health and substance use will provide those benefits to our community more generally at those bus stops, but also on buses as well.

I also think that as we talk about public safety, we have to work in partnership.

We have to work in close partnership with King County Metro.

And so I'm supporting this in part because I think it's important that we have this Regional Transit Safety Task Force, and this is implementing those task force recommendations, and obviously it's gonna be those we have recommendations today, and those might change.

This is a 10-year measure, and so this doesn't, dictate any specific spending, or that's how I interpret it.

It doesn't dictate any specific amount, but it says that we are gonna work in partnership, or that's how I interpret it, that we're gonna work closely with this task force and do our best to implement those recommendations.

And for that reason, I'm voting yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Lynn.

Appreciate all the comments and robust discussion on this very important amendment.

Any final comments for the good of the order on this proposal?

Hearing and seeing none, I will just share from my perspective, close us out as the sponsor of this, prime sponsor of this proposal, that I really do appreciate the concerns expressed and raised by Councilmember Foster, and I appreciate your willingness, leadership, and bravery for being able to tee up this conversation in such a manner.

And I know you, I know your heart, I know you care about, and I know your intent, I know you care deeply about transit safety and security, both from the operator's perspective and from members of the public.

And I don't question that at all.

We're 100% aligned on those goals.

to see this particular amendment a little differently from a philosophy perspective, which happens.

But what I will just say on...

This amendment importantly contains a non-supplantation provision, which will serve to ensure that the funds allocated for safety and security services in the Seattle Transit measure will be used to provide services beyond what is otherwise budgeted for baseline.

As was alluded to, it's roughly 9%.

The executive, when they reported that first meeting, it's roughly 9% of our baseline transit service, what we purchased for service hours is appropriated on the back end.

Appropriated on the back end, specifically for transit safety and security.

I'm glad that's appropriated on the back end.

I'm trying to appropriate it on the front end, too, and go above and beyond baseline, because those...

I think the data that I shared earlier, the evidence that I shared earlier, and talk to your friendly driver next time you see him.

They'll tell you.

Improvements have been made.

There's plenty more work to do.

True story.

You can't make this stuff.

You can't make any of this up.

The other day, sitting in the back of the bus, and everybody knows, if you know, you know, I'm a regular transit rider, proud of it.

See me there.

And just the other day in the back of the bus, got on, gentlemen, probably suffering from a behavioral health challenge of some sort, crisis situation, bare cheeks all out, exposed, sprawled out all over the back seat, smoking on some unknown substance, I don't know, I don't know what fentanyl smells like, but I know as soon as I saw what he was doing, I got up and moved a couple seats forward so I don't have to ingest that stuff.

Being on the bus, riding the bus daily, seeing many incidents like that, incidents that could, arguments, disputes that could rapidly devolve into one of the situations I described earlier, I've seen people stripping copper wire in the back of the bus openly, unashamed, unapologetically.

Like that's a normal behavior.

Look, I got a high tolerance for that kind of stuff.

I'm built a little differently.

But not everyone who has a choice to choose to ride transit has a similarly thick skin.

If our goal is climate, to address the climate, reduce traffic congestion and all those things and more, this is a critical component.

It ain't flashy, it ain't flashy, I get it.

It's not sexy for some.

But it is a mission critical thing we can do to actually invest and put some dollars behind those excellent recitals that we worked on with the union and put some actual dollars in investment behind.

are value statements that we all share.

So also close out by noting, because it was noted as well, there was $9 million for transit safety in the levy.

That was approved by both this council and then ultimately voters before Shawn Yim was murdered in December of 2024. So that reflects an investment before, and that was an eye-opening wake-up call for all of us to snap out of it, to get it together, to get our act together collectively as a region, as a city, as transit agencies.

And by the way, we own two different transit agencies.

As a reminder, friendly reminder, colleagues.

Seattle Monorail and the Seattle Streetcar.

One of which the executive has reported that they intend to use funds to expand service on the streetcar.

So again, council member Saka, I'd like to call the question.

Second.

To call the question is to end debate.

If two thirds of members agree, then the council will then proceed with a vote.

All right.

Let's Let's just, let's just, let's do that.

Let's do that.

So it's moved and seconded.

Any final comments, questions?

Okay, hearing none.

It is moved and seconded.

The current question right now is whether or not we should end debate.

And so the roll call vote right now would be to end debate.

And so we would just call the roll.

If two thirds agree, then we would then- Okay, so address the pending motion to, okay, cool.

Can the committee clerk please call the roll on the motion?

Councilmember Rivera.

No.

Councilmember Kettle.

No.

Councilmember President Hollingsworth.

Aye.

Councilmember Juarez.

Aye.

Councilmember Lynn.

Yes.

Councilmember Strauss.

Yes.

Councilmember Foster.

Yes.

Councilmember Rink.

Yes.

Chair Saka?

No.

Chair, we have six votes, four and three opposed.

All right.

Thank you.

The motion is adopted and we'll now proceed to vote.

All right.

Okay.

So it's been moved, seconded.

Debate ended, so now will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of amendment number one.

Councilmember Rivera.

Aye.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Councilmember Juarez.

Aye.

Councilmember Lin.

Yes.

Councilmember Strauss.

Aye.

Councilmember Foster.

No.

Councilmember Rink.

No.

Chair Saka.

Aye.

Chair, we have seven votes for and two opposed.

All right.

Thank you.

The motion carries and amendment number one is adopted.

Let us proceed to the next amendment that was withdrawn.

Okay.

Amendment number four.

All right.

So I move to amend the bill as presented in amendment number four.

Is there a second?

Second.

is moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment No.

4.

Central Staff, would you please provide an overview of the amendment?

Amendment 4 version 2 to Council Bill 121226. This amendment is sponsored by Councilman Bersaca.

Councilman Bersaca has added her co-sponsorship this morning.

This amendment would request annual reporting by King County on various dimensions of service hours purchased with Seattle transit measure replacement funding.

Those dimensions are fare compliance, the fare recovery ratio, reliability, and on-time performance.

Version 2 of this amendment also includes some additional specificity about how the reporting should include comparisons both to peer agencies and to previous year's statistics coming from King County.

The amendment also states the Council's intent to exercise its legislative and budgetary powers with respect to all investments funded by this funding source.

Thank you, and as the amendment's prime sponsor, I'll speak to this as I alluded to earlier actually during this conversation.

You know, I heard great community feedback and feedback from my colleagues on the most, you know, the spiciest of the provisions in there, which was the provision that would purport to require parallel City Council approval annually of the proposed spend plan instead.

So did away with that, removed it, and instead there's a generic statement that essentially restates Council's existing plenary authority over budgetary matters.

And so remove that provision.

So it's essentially a glorified reporting provision or reporting amendment, basically.

And let the record reflect.

Also added some verbiage on some of the other reporting elements to compare some of the requested information to specific things like transit agency peers, when we're talking about the fair recovery ratio and reliability and on-time performance as it relates to comparing against ourselves, just to provide appropriate context.

Anyways, for those reasons, colleagues, I ask for your support on this amendment.

It strengthens oversight, accountability, and transparency.

It's just a darn good governance thing, I think.

But I welcome comments, questions from you all.

Councilmember Foster, you're recognized.

Thank you so much, Chair Saka.

Chair, with your permission, I'd like to ask a few questions to central staff before I share some comments.

Please do.

Thank you.

Could you, and I appreciate that Chair Saka just shared some differences, but central staff, could you walk us through the differences between version one and version two of this amendment, please?

Sure.

As Chair Saka has explained, one of the fundamental differences between version two and version one is that in version two, the amendment no longer contains a requirement that Council annually approve transit service purchases by hours and routes served.

In terms of the reporting, the four dimensions, which I listed earlier, are as they were in version one, but there is some additional specificity required about how some of those will be reported.

For instance, in terms of reporting around the fare recovery ratio, there is now a request that that include a comparison to a national group of at least 20 comparator or peer transit agencies and how King County Metro ranks within that group.

that for the reliability reporting, there is now in version two a requirement that each year's reliability beginning in year two of reporting be compared to the previous year of reporting.

and that same thing holds for the requirement to report on on-time performance across service hours and routes served.

Just not only how was it this year, but how was it the year previous.

Thank you.

And I know we just adopted the chair's package, which included amendment number 25 on fair recovery and performance reporting from Councilmember Rivera.

Can you just speak to the fair compliance components in this amendment and how they align with the amendment we just adopted through the chair's package?

Let me, hold on, hold on just a second.

Let me get both of them in front of me so I can directly compare.

Yeah, absolutely.

Thank you.

So what we adopted in Amendment 25 as part of the Chair's package, the fare recovery effectiveness, including the percentage of people paying fares, the fare box recovery ratio, or the percentage of King County Metro operating costs that was funded directly by passenger fares.

That's essentially a definition of fare recovery ratio.

Total fare revenues collected and any service operational or policy changes that affected revenue performance.

In Amendment 4, which is before the committee right now, the required reporting on the fare recovery ratio asks for the percentage of King County Metro operating costs that was funded by passenger fares.

Again, just a definition, including the fare recovery ratios of a national group of at least 20 comparator or peer transit agencies and King County Metro's ranking within that group.

So the differences are that Amendment 4 contains that comparison and Amendment 25 also asks for a few dimensions that are not present in Amendment 4. for instance, total fare revenues collected and any service operational or policy changes that affected revenue performance.

Thank you, I appreciate that, and I'm never envious of that role that you all have, so I thank you for that comparison.

I just want to make sure we're tracking as we're sort of comparing with the chair's package.

So now I'll do just some quick comments and just share a little bit of part of why I pulled this amendment.

You know, I spoke earlier to my amendment, and thank you again, Chair, for including that in the chair's package.

I deeply believe that through our investments and our increased investments and improvements and reliability, we'll be able to continue moving Seattle forward to being the world-class transit city that we are and that we're gonna continue growing to be.

I do have sort of concern around the level of reporting that we are requiring here and the potential for us to make and colleagues forgive me because this is the word that's coming to mind, but like knee-jerk or short-sighted pivots based on that information prior to allowing substantive or enough time for those investments to take place, be absorbed in the network, and result in the transit ridership changes that I believe that we will see over the lifetime of this Seattle transit measure.

And that's part of why I put forward my amendment with this six-year review as opposed to an annual basis, because I believe it's gonna take time for those investments to show up in reliability and other changes.

We also know that Metro has some work that they are gonna be doing internally in the next couple of years, and I believe it makes sense for us to ensure that we allow Metro to do that work on their service realignment prior to making any substantial changes.

So, colleagues, I pulled this because I believe it deserves discussion as we are thinking about the work that comes with producing these reports and the likelihood that we would be taking substantive action on them.

From my vantage point, those do not line up, and I'll be voting no on this amendment.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Vice Chair Rank, you are recognized.

Thank you, Chair Sacca.

I want to thank Councilmember Foster for pulling this amendment for further discussion and want to voice a couple of the concerns that I have related to this amendment, many of which have already been covered by Councilmember Foster, but want to add a point to them as well.

Particularly the points related to reporting is of concern to me, particularly because much of this data is within Metro's control.

The part that is within SDOT's control is already reported in the regular annual report.

So this would be, as I understand it, a redundant annual report.

This would take staff time, which isn't free, and the reports would end up being mostly duplicative.

And so while it's an improvement that compared to the earlier version of this amendment now, Section 7 no longer requires annual council approval of annual service hour purchases, I believe the new language reflects the lack of application to our SDOT staff.

I want to uplift that SDOT already has an equity-centered prioritization methodology rooted in the frequent transit network and supportive of the comprehensive plan that is used to make transit service investments.

And these investments are reported in STM's annual reports and to the Transit Advisory Board.

So the possibility of council involvement down the road could invalidate our current approach to service investments and create situations where there is real allocation of service hours based on political concerns, which would impact riders who depend on consistent service from year to year.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Vice Chair Rank.

Any final comments, questions?

Councilmember Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

Just so that I'm clear, the difference between this amendment and the amendment that I brought that is included in the package is just there's a couple of extra things here that are not in my amendment.

Is that correct?

I mean to me these are so similar.

So I'm trying to figure out what is additional.

They are similar.

The primary difference between what's contained in Amendment 25 and what's contained in Amendment 4 is that Amendment 4 includes a comparison requirement in terms of the fair recovery ratio, and also in terms of the fair recovery ratio, Amendment 25 includes a few more reporting dimensions.

For instance, the total amount of fares recovered.

That's in 25, it is not in four.

Right, I'm just, I'm more looking at four and thinking what's in four that's not already, because we just passed 25. So what's in four that's not in 25?

And I'm looking at the peer cities comparison and also section seven.

So, Chair, I would like to actually ask a question of Chair in terms of the thinking behind the Peer City comparison and then also what does Section 7 practically mean?

Thank you.

So from my perspective, the pure city comparison is a standard reporting mechanism that many transit agencies across the nation are subject to.

As I sit on the King County Regional Task Force, or excuse me, King County, RTC, Regional Transit Committee, sorry, so many committees.

I've received briefings over time in that very body from Metro reporting on how they stack in various metrics, including fair recovery ratio against peers across the nation.

So it's a common and standard and acceptable benchmark.

It's a way to stack yourself So the thinking there is like data alone in isolation is helpful, but it's also a little more helpful in broader context of what everybody else is doing.

And so that's the whole purpose and intent there.

The final provision there, again, that you asked about Council Member Rivera, section seven, it says, it is the intent of the council to exercise its legislative authority and its budgetary powers with respect to all service purchases, programs, activities, and investments funded through the proposition revenues, especially via the city's annual budget process.

and that is just a restatement of Council's existing plenary authority over the power that we have, the power of the person we have enshrined in the Charter.

So that's the intent there.

and again, I made that change directly in response to community feedback, because I think it strengthens the City Council's transparency and accountability role in the implementation of this measure, should it be approved by voters.

I want to remind everybody that the measure would generate, by my back of the napkin math tally, this measure would generate an average of $186.6 million per year.

in its current unmodified, unamended form.

Together, this would amount to a grand total of $1.87 billion in tax dollars over 10 years as it's currently drafted, assuming the 10-year thing.

We're talking about almost $2 billion at stake here.

Chair, sorry, do I still have one?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I'm finishing the answer to your question.

It's a good one.

because this closes out your second question on that section seven there.

I think it's a fair exchange paired with the reporting that We and the public need to see this information and we're gonna exercise our oversight authority over this, no different than we would any other sort of form of spending.

So thank you.

Any other comments, questions?

So just basically the only difference, that seven just is restating what we already do as a body.

So it's really the only difference is the peer review piece.

So it's adding, if you were to add that to my amendment, it's pretty much the same.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks, Chair.

Thank you.

Any final questions, comments on this amendment?

Okay.

Hearing and seeing none.

Finally, I'll just note that, because it was noted, there are some redundant and overlapping constructs.

Absolutely true.

Absolutely true.

And we learned the similarities and dissimilarities as well.

I also note that this isn't the only case where that happened.

In the consent package we just adopted, and pass unanimously.

For example, one, there is an amendment calling on additional progressive revenue.

Two of those.

Substantially similar topics, subject matter and underlying subject matter at issue.

Many of the same verbiage, if you do compare.

So that's already included.

We're assembling kind of a Frankenstein-ish thing right now because of the fast moving nature of this.

That's already contemplated by the last on each amendment.

You'll note at the end, there's a note from central staff that says, note multiple amendments may amend the same sections or subsections following the select committee action on all amendments.

Central staff will reconcile language and renumber, re-letter sections and subsections as needed in the bill.

There's already, there will be an effort to reconcile, you know, the language differences, restructure, drive, improve clarity as well.

So that was already going to happen for the progressive revenue things that we just improved.

It'll happen for this too, if it passes.

So for those reasons, I ask for your support.

Thank you.

Any final?

Let's go vote.

All right, let's, let's, let's do it.

Let's do it.

But great questions.

All right.

It's moved and seconded, so no more final comments.

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

Councilmember Rivera.

Aye.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Hollingsworth.

Abstain.

Councilmember Juarez.

Aye.

Councilmember Lynn.

No.

Councilmember Strauss.

Nope.

Councilmember Foster.

No.

Council Member Rink?

No.

Chair Sacca?

Aye.

Chair, we have four votes for, four votes opposed, and one abstention.

All right.

The motion fails and is not adopted.

Thank you.

We will now move on to the...

voted on both amendments that we're gonna consider today.

They're removed from the package.

Now we'll move on to Group B amendments individually.

Is that right?

Yeah, okay.

All right.

Okay, the first one that we'll consider...

So we'll consider them in order, right?

So do we move them first?

Okay.

So Group B. The First Amendment in Group B would direct the use of unspent funds allocated for transit service.

So as a sponsor, as the prime sponsor of that amendment, I move to amend the bill as presented in Amendment 3, Version 2. Is there a second?

Second.

It is moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment 3, Version 2. Central staff, can you please provide an overview of the amendment?

Amendment 3, version 2 to Council Bill 121226, sponsored by Councilmember Saka.

This amendment would direct the use of unspent funds allocated for transit service.

The amendment would direct that the Seattle Department of Transportation annually report to the Council any unspent Seattle transit measure revenues that were allocated for the purchase of King County Metro Transit Service hours.

Further states the Council's intent to reappropriate those funds for supporting safe access to transit for pedestrians and increased or enhanced accessibility for transit riders in the public right of way and for other purposes, as described in Section 2E of the bill.

Version 2 makes some changes to the previous version of this amendment, reflecting the sponsor's intent to exclude from potential reallocation any transit service funding that SDOT reserves for the maintenance of consistent transit service over the life of the Seattle transit measure.

This amendment solely addresses funding planned and not expended in a given year for the purchase of transit service hours.

All right, thank you as the prime sponsor of this amendment.

I'll note that the amendment simply clarifies what will happen with leftover funds if Metro is unable to provide full amount of transit service as budgeted in the Seattle Transit measure.

What will happen is a report will happen.

And then there's a potential for that to with subsequent council action for this to be rolled over to accessibility capital, which we know is so vitally important.

This is an important contingency to anticipate as it is exactly what happened during the current Seattle transit measure.

There is an open question as to whether Metro can deliver a 47% expansion of the services they currently provide in Seattle.

Metro, especially in the very near term, Metro has stated that they may take a year or two for them to be able to effectively deliver the full amount of transit service.

This proposal contemplates, so we need a plan.

Under my amendment, unused funds are intended to be used for cap accessibility, capital investments, enhance, providing enhanced accessibility and safety supports to allow pedestrians to safely access transit.

and after receiving some feedback from the community, I revised this amendment to clarify that reserves SDOT holds aside, the departments hold aside to accommodate future increases in the cost of transit services are protected.

So we added, we restructured the amendment to make that clear.

It was work closely with central staff and law to do exactly that, to be responsive to the community concerns.

This amendment ensures funds don't sit idle while operational constraints arise.

We're not raising the sales tax and collecting people's hard-earned money just to let it sit in the bank.

This keeps the money working for transit riders and for the laborers who build and maintain the system.

I'm proud that this amendment has the support of the Seattle Disability Commission, Seattle Building Trades, including Leuna Local 42, Pedestrian Advisory Board, and more.

My office consulted closely with the Seattle Disability Commission when developed this common sense amendment.

One more final data point on this amendment.

I pull it up.

A lot going on, but this is important.

So my office carefully negotiated with the mayor's office an incremental increase to the annual, maximum, legislative maximum annual expenditure, excuse me, for accessibility capital.

of from $3.5 million per year to $5 million per year.

Proud of that work.

Thank you to the mayor's office for their partnership and getting us to this point.

But at the end of the day, however you slice it, that still reflects a cut in accessibility capital from today's levels of investments for the same thing.

The average annual based off of So if you were to extrapolate things out and do the math, because the current measure, 0.15% sales tax, the proposal would double that, 0.3% sales tax.

So if you extrapolate that out, we're talking the, if we have a baseline level of investment for the same thing, not including inflation, it would amount to 47%.

million, $47 million would be the average annual amount for the legislative max.

Now, if you slice it by the actuals, what was actually spent under the current measure at the 0.15% sales tax rate and extrapolate that out to contemplate the doubling of the sales tax.

of the actuals, it would still be $27.4 million every year.

And what we're left with is $5 million.

Still a significant cut when you extrapolate this out to vital transit accessibility.

And this transit measure recognizes it's a transit service first measure.

and the $5 million reflects that.

And this proposed amendment just says, hey, if it's not, if we can't, it also operates as an incentive for the executive to make sure it actually spends on what we all intend, primarily transit service.

If it doesn't, then there's a report, then it might get converted to capital.

So for those reasons, colleagues, I ask for your support.

I think it is complimentary to the terrific amendment number 20 offered by our colleague, Councilmember Juarez, regarding accessibility, because her amendment, and how I view them at least, is her amendment adds and clarifies intent and expands the scope and permissible scope of what we can use those vital funds for, and then my amendment could potentially put some dollars behind those investments, some extra dollars behind those investments as well.

Anyways, I welcome your comments, questions.

Starting first with Council Member Juarez, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanna thank everybody here for the work and discussions that we had, particularly in light of the the amendments that were pulled from the Chair's package.

I do want to say first and foremost that we all understand that the Seattle Transit measure, of course, the target is increased bus services.

But I think what you're hearing today, and you heard this from Councilmember Kettle, Councilmember Robert, and Councilmember Saka, that there are other matters involved as well, public safety, driver safety, et cetera.

And Council, the Chair is correct.

I think that this dovetails nicely not only with Amendment 20 for the disability piece, but I also think that it also dovetails nicely with Council Member Foster's Amendment 6 if indeed we look at a five-year rollover to look at transparency, accountability, what got delivered I think if you pass something for 10 years, you have to have some marker in there for the councils to stop and say, hey, have we met these goals of bus increase?

And also some of the words that came out that was just passed in amendment number one that passed seven to three by council member or the chair and council member Kettle.

Council member Kettle said something that I think we've all talked about it, but said it much more eloquently than I probably will say it.

that expansion of bus services is important, but all these other factors are important too, and we can have both.

We can have public safety, we can have driver safety, we can have disability, and we can also increase bus services.

So, I also think that the public should understand that when we use the word underspend, that that is a term of art, it's a budget political term of art, that those discussions will still go on at SDOT, in the mayor's office, with Seattle City Council, and of course the chair of the committee.

for Seattle Department of Transportation.

So these aren't done in a vacuum.

These discussions will happen.

City departments do come forward and say, we have an underspend here.

But what's nice about amendment number six by Council Member Foster is we'll have an opportunity to say, you know what, at the five year mark, it looks like we have X amount and this isn't going to be spent.

We've had a discussion and now we can dedicate this to the services that we're talking about, supporting safe access to transit for pedestrians.

and increased or enhanced accessibility.

And I just want to end on the note that as my prior life as a litigator and representing tribes and having a right, I always used to say, and certainly have won on this argument many, many times, what good is a right to something if you can't access it?

What good is the right to get on a bus and have more increased bus services if you can't get there?

If there isn't sidewalks, cutaways, lights, buttons to push for the hearing impaired, the sight impaired, moms with strollers, and that's what we're talking about here.

So it isn't a matter of a mind of scarcity that you're taking away from increased bus services.

You're saying we recognize in the ecosystem of expanding bus services that there's other orbits in there as well that need to be addressed.

So thank you.

I will be supporting this.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Juarez.

Very well said.

Colleagues, any other comments, questions?

Councilmember Foster, you are recognized.

Thank you so much, Chair Sacca.

I just have a couple questions for central staff.

I just want to clarify.

So, you know, the language, the updated language in this amendment under the new Section 4 says the Council intends to appropriate the unspent funds and then it delineates the uses.

It's my understanding that the...

Can you describe the current practice for unspent funds or underspend?

Sure.

I think that SDOT talks about a reserve more than they do underspend.

Currently, SDOT maintains what it calls the service planning reserve, which would be funded by Seattle Transit measure replacement revenues.

And over the life of the tax, some revenues are set aside every year.

and not used for same-year transit service purchases, but held for transit service purchases in future years.

And the reason this is necessary is that SDOT is balancing two things.

One, the provision of a consistent level of transit from year to year and two, the fact that the costs of providing transit service increase faster than the revenues that support that service.

Costs to provide are growing faster than the rate of growth of the revenues from the Seattle Transit measure.

So especially the first few years that this tax is in effect, SDOP plans to build up a reserve to ensure that there is no need to reduce service in the last few years that it's in effect.

And we have confirmed with SDOT that the process of determining the reserve amount is extremely quantitative and analytical with a lot of cost inputs.

And some of those cost inputs are safety and security, labor, bus maintenance, and fuel.

Excuse me.

was the last name?

Fuel?

Yes.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

And then I just want to say, I think it's my understanding that with this, we're stating our intent to appropriate those funds for one particular use in the future.

Is that correct?

This amendment states intent not to touch any of the funding that SDOT plans for the service planning reserve.

This funding would state Council's intent to reallocate funding that is planned for the purchase of transit service hours, but unable to be so expended.

For instance, if Metro is not able to hire enough drivers to drive the routes to which they want to expand.

But let me just be very clear that the service planning reserve would be untouched based on this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Councilmember Vice Chair Rink, you are recognized.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

I wanna respectfully offer a correction to an assertion made earlier because it is not an open question as to whether King County Metro can deliver this service.

And I wanna note for the record that on July 6th, King County Metro sent a letter to this body reaffirming the following.

Quote, Metro has the capacity to continue adding additional bus service in 2027 and 2028. Metro will collaborate with the city and community to plan how to phase in any renewed STM-funded service growth over time, end quote.

and so I bring that up just because I think that's important to note for the record since there have been a number of points and questions raised about this matter and I think it's important to emphasize that we have received that affirmation from King County Metro and we've also discussed at length how this proposed measure would increase bus service in Seattle by 100,000 bus trips which is incredible and exciting and going to be very meaningful for our community and for King County Metro, this total increase in hours represents two to three percent growth in Metro's overall service plan.

I know we're here in Seattle and we're focused on Seattle.

King County Metro has a very large service area and so when we look at the whole, we're talking about an increase of two to three percent growth.

So I just wanted to make that comment for the record.

To speak specifically to this amendment, just given some of the answers that central staff have provided related to our current budget process, understanding that we have the ability to direct the use of unspent funds to areas like capital when we can't get dollars out the door should that scenario arise in our current budget process.

So I have some concerns more procedurally related to if we tie our hands now and require this funding to be spent a certain way, there could be budgetary challenges down the line and the need for a legislative change to be flexible again to solve for any of those issues.

So for that reason, I will not be supporting this amendment today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Rank.

Any other comments, questions?

Let's see, Council Member Juarez, you're recognized.

Thank you.

I want to thank Council Member Rink for bringing up the...

Council Member Rink, just can I ask her a question?

You can ask, yes, Council Member Warriors, you can ask her a question through me as chair and I'll recognize her with the answer.

Go ahead.

Okay.

I want to make sure that we're talking about the same letter.

Are you talking, Council Member Rink, the July 6th letter that we received from King County Metro?

Correct.

Chair Rink?

Correct.

Okay.

All right, Council Member Warriors.

It's just that I'm looking at her, so I thought I could just say it.

Okay.

So, first of all, thank you, Council Member, our Chair and Council Member Rink.

and it's a great letter that we got from King County Metro addressing service delivery capacity, new jobs, safety and security.

And it's two and almost three pages long signed by Deanna Martin, Chief of Staff for Metro.

So I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page.

I know that it went to all the committee members.

I want to make sure everybody was aware of it.

So thank you.

I just want to make sure.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Juarez.

Any final comments, questions on this amendment?

Okay, hearing C and none, as the amendment prime sponsor, I will close out the conversation.

I'll just note that with respect to the reported correction of the facts, I respectfully disagree on that assertion that that's exactly what King County Metro's letter specifically says, or even implies, frankly, that they are ready day one to implement.

No, it says that, okay, for clarity, that they are ready day one to implement a measure that would double the tax, which means double the revenue received, which means double the expenditure spent to Metro, which on the expenditure side would account for 47% increase in expansion of service.

quite literally overnight.

That's not what the letter says.

It's not.

But reasonable minds differ.

They do say more generally, they have capacity to continue adding, quote unquote, Metro has capacity to continue adding additional bus service in 27 and 28. Metro would collaborate with the city and community to plan how to phase in any renewed STM funded service growth over time.

It's not the same thing as we are ready day one to implement 47% net expansion of service.

And we also have history as a comparator and There were some initial rollout challenges earlier.

So anyways, but reasonable minds disagree.

Appreciate the debate and the conversation.

If there are no final questions or comments, is that a stale hand, Council Member Juarez?

Yes, it is.

All right, cool.

If there are no final comments, questions, will the committee clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 3. Excuse me.

Okay.

Okay, okay.

Let me reset.

So if there are no further questions, will the committee clerk please call the roll on adoption of amendment three, version two.

Council member Rivera.

Oh, wait, wait, wait, pause, pause for just a moment.

There's a lot going on procedurally here, which I understand.

And, you know, we're, we're flipping through docs live on the screen, like in, in real time.

So, uh, let us be, is it?

Okay.

Sorry.

So it's the voting.

We're voting on three.

Amendment three, version two.

Aye.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Councilmember Juarez.

Aye.

Councilmember Lin.

No.

Councilmember Strauss.

No.

Councilmember Foster.

No.

Councilmember Rink.

No.

All right, let's move on to the next one.

I move, let's see.

I move to amend the bill as presented in amendment number five, version two.

Is there a second?

Second.

It is moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on amendment number five, version two.

Central staff, could you please provide an overview of the amendment?

Amendment 5, version 2 to Council Bill 121226, sponsored by Council Member Saka, amends the term of the Seattle Transit measure.

The version that you all saw of this amendment back on July 6th had a six-year, nine-month term.

This amendment before you today is slightly different in that it sets out a seven-year term.

So this would adjust the end date of the Seattle Transit measure from March 31, 2037 to March 31, 2033. Thank you, Amanda.

And as prime sponsor of the proposed amendment, I'll just share from my perspective that The purpose of this amendment is to make sure the City Council has a chance to level set in a reasonable amount of time, provide effective oversight, respond to rapidly evolving change of circumstances, potential changes to state law to accommodate potential new progressive revenue opportunities as earlier amendments contemplate.

A shorter term will give the city a more eminent opportunity to recalibrate after evaluating ridership trends and to revisit the funding mechanism to ensure fairness and efficacy.

I also believe it serves as a good forcing function, if you will, which creates an opportunity to reevaluate the effectiveness of the program before extending it even further.

given the changing economic landscape, mounting affordability concerns, the importance of maintaining Seattle's competitiveness as a visitor destination, and potential, again, state reforms to unlock new progressive revenue opportunities.

I believe periodic reassessments like this is both prudent and responsible.

And this, again, also restores the measure to be in terms of a specific duration to be more in line with how it has been historically, six years, this is seven years, so it's an extra year.

And I did tweak the term there in direct response to community feedback.

Some of the angst about this particular amendment, at least in part, was due to the fact that it was a little confusing, six years and nine months, well, what does that be?

Did away with that, seven years, plenty of flexibility.

and it's only three short years shorter than the original 10-year proposal.

So for those reasons, colleagues, ask for your support.

I think it's a good governance, effective oversight provision.

Thank you.

Welcome questions, comments, if any.

All right.

Oh, Council Member Foster, you're recognized.

I'll just be brief.

Thank you so much, Chair, and thank you for making changes to this based on community feedback.

I just wanted to ask a question to central staff.

Central staff, can you just share a little bit about Council's ability to amend the sales tax percentage at any point during the measure?

Yes, Council can at any point in the timeline, can adjust through an ordinance, could adjust both the sales tax rate to something less than what's being proposed, as well as could adjust the timeline.

Thank you.

I just wanted to reiterate that.

I appreciate your intent, Chair, and I won't, I already spoke to Amendment 6, so I won't restate that, but thank you so much.

Awesome.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Colleagues, any final comments, questions on the proposal before us before we proceed to vote?

Hearing and seeing none.

Let's see.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll on the adoption of proposed amendment number five, version two to the bill.

Councilmember Rivera.

Confirmation your vote is nay.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Hollingsworth.

No.

Councilmember Juarez.

No.

Councilmember Lin.

No.

Councilmember Strauss.

No.

Councilmember Foster.

No.

Council Member Rank.

No.

Chair Saka.

Aye.

Chair, there are two votes for and seven votes opposed.

Thank you.

The motion fails and the amendment is not adopted.

We will now move on to the next item and next amendment in the group B.

That's amendment number 13, version two.

And a motion would be in order.

Chair, I'd like to move the bill to bring amendment number 13, version 2.

Second.

It is moved and seconded.

I can second motion.

It is moved and seconded to adopt amendment number 13, version 2 to the bill.

Will central staff please brief the bill, provide an overview for the amendment?

Amendment 13, version 2 to Council Bill 121226 is sponsored by Council Member Kettle.

The version that you see before you today, I will highlight the differences from what we saw on July 6th.

On the July 6th meeting, this amendment had a sales tax rate of 0.2%.

The percentage proposed today includes a slightly higher rate of 0.225.

The 0.225% tax rate would generate about 1.225%.

or sorry, about $1 billion over 10 years, which is about $345 million less than the proposed legislation.

I'll also note that the amendment adds back the eligible spending category of capitals funding, and it allows that funding to be allocated for annual maximum rate of $5 million a year.

It retains funding for the, it retains eligible spending for transit access program participation, funding of the city's sound transit staffing, and the streetcar as originally proposed.

The 10-year term remains unchanged.

I will note that because the tax rate is reduced and the spending limits set out by this amendment remain unchanged, the actual maximum spending per category would need to be adjusted or spending on transit service hours would need to be adjusted.

Council Member Kettle's intent is that this amendment would deliver transit service by 2028 to achieve the 97% of the 2019 service hours compared to the proposal before the council currently, which would achieve 100% of those hours.

This transit service level is about 34% less transit service than submitted, which is maintaining our transit service at current levels.

Reducing the sales tax from 0.3, which is in the current proposal down to the 0.225 would preserve 0.075% sales tax authority, which could be levied by future council ordinance and could be available to support any transit related investment.

and that doesn't need to go to a vote.

That's a councilmanic authority.

The amount of that 0.075% sales tax is estimated at 345 million.

and that is the end of my comments.

Thank you, Ms. Allen.

Councilmember Kittle, as prime sponsor of the proposed amendment, you are recognized to speak to your amendment.

First, colleagues, let me clarify, a lot going on, a lot of procedure, process, Roberts rules, a lot of substantive amendments we're cycling through.

For clarity, we are talking about Council Member Kettle's proposed amendment 13, version two, the short title of which would amend the sales and use tax rate to 0.225%, which was just briefed by our expert central staff team.

And now Council Member Kettle has sponsored this proposal.

You're recognized to speak to your amendment.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

I also want to thank Ms. Allen and Ms. Gorman from Central Staff for your support working with my team.

Colleagues, I just want to state quite clearly, I support public transit.

You know, I've experienced it in the Metro in Moscow, Russia, the U-bonds and the S-bonds of Stuttgart and Berlin, Germany, the Metro and the Tube.

when I was studying in France and England.

In Boston when I was an undergrad, I often quipped that nothing in life is free except for the above-ground outbound T, which is when your dorm room's in West Campus, that's very important.

And then also in D.C.

where I was stationed three times, I would take a bus to the Braddock Street Metro Station up to the Pentagon, and then I would take a shuttle over where I work primarily to Capitol Hill, not our Capitol Hill, the one that has Congress.

So with that experience, I see that as very important and I see where we are as a city and I know that we have more to do and we have to build out.

I'm really excited about the light rail expansion because that starts to bring us up to those levels of all those cities that I've said.

just listed.

And that's why I supported, for example, the change for the Route 8 from Queen Avenue North to 2nd Ave North to support it, to make it less late.

And I also support different pieces, like even in the chair package today, because it shouldn't take Council Member Strauss so long to get from Ballard to downtown Seattle.

And I know that these bus routes from the different parts of the city come through my district to come to Greater Ground Town, and we need to do better in those areas, and we need to improve it.

My initial amendment, yes, dropped the proposed measure from point three to point two, and I should note, not often noted, but the remaining 0.1% was basically placed into a reserve.

It didn't disappear, it was in a reserve, if you will, that could be acted upon by the Council in the future.

And this was done for two reasons.

The first is affordability.

Affordability must be part of the discussion.

I acknowledge how public transit can help affordability.

I agree with what's been said by many on this point, but I would also say that sales tax cuts across the entire spectrum beyond those that take transit today or those that may take transit in the future, particularly because of the work that we're doing today.

More importantly, we need to look at affordability by, you know, holistically by understanding what is happening with property tax, sales tax, utility rates, this combination.

But not just that.

By what we're doing here in the city, but what's the county doing?

What is the state doing?

And that combination across these areas by three different levels of government has a cumulative effect.

You know, recently the county just increased the sales tax by 0.1% for transportation as it is, where they actually, they were looking to take funds from the city, and I thank my colleagues who joined me in basically lobbying the King County Council to not allow that to happen.

And then, and to be frank, it adds to what we did last year with the public safety sales tax.

As the public safety chair, I acknowledge that, and I should, as I, at the same time now, I'm talking about affordability.

I also served on the Regional Water Quality Committee, and I saw firsthand how the rates, the issues related to our water rates were going up.

And then just yesterday in committee with Seattle City Light, we were gonna see increases in our electric bills.

This is all happening at the same time, but who looks at the cumulative impacts here in the city as we pass levies and sales tax and utility rates initiatives?

Who's keeping the big picture of the impacts of those multiple pieces?

That's very important.

And these increases add up.

I acknowledge the points made about each one individually, but who keeps the bigger picture?

And who keeps the bigger picture impact on the people here in this city.

Even more importantly, who looks at what is happening again across the state, the county, and local government?

I'd argue nobody.

Maybe our state treasurer, Mike Pellicciotti, you know, who basically warned the legislature down in Olympia about what they were doing with tax policy and how it could impact our ratings and the like.

And he was being basically proven right.

So we have what's going on in Olympia, we have what's going on in the county, and we have what's going on here.

These questions are also backdroped by a period of high inflation.

Sadly, self-induced with our president's tariff policy and now war in Iran and its impacts on the straight-run news, the impacts of inflation should not be underestimated and their impacts on levies, sales tax, and utility rates.

So, colleagues, I ask you to...

to start a discussion with me, you know, regarding affordability.

I would also add good governance is important.

You know, this amendment creates a reserve, initially a .1 preserve, and I did that purposely, by the way, to highlight the Councilmatic piece of this and the creation of a reserve.

is now down to .075, which takes care of the inflation pieces.

And again, thank you to the central staff, my team, for working through these pieces.

I really appreciate that.

But we should do this, have this reserve, so then we can see to the questions back and forth regarding King County Metro's ability to provide those service hours.

a bit of trust but verify, if you will.

Remember, I used to serve in Russia.

And so this is important.

And then also, let's look at our utilization rates.

This is something that we should be part of the discussion too from a good governance point of view as we look compared to pre-pandemic and also taking into account the public safety challenges that we face and their impacts on utilization.

You know, again, as Chair Kasaka mentioned, this was introduced.

I got a call that morning from Chief Barnes about three different shootings.

One, as Chair was talking about, a man who was shot.

It was incredible.

What does that do to utilization?

If nobody uses the bus, then from a good governance point of view, this is a problem.

So that kind of goes back to public safety.

But again, affordability is key.

And colleagues, my goal with this amendment was not to cut public transit.

The amendment actually increases transit hours across in addition with the King County Metro Plus Up, though admittedly reduces from what the mayor saw with her measure.

My goal is to bring attention to this very important topic, affordability, that impacts everyone, but especially the working poor, the working class, as they live out their daily lives.

And I see this.

I see this.

And clearly, I don't live this now, but as a kid, I did, much like many of us sitting here on the dais.

The majority of us, I believe, had working class upbringings.

So I see this, and I want to acknowledge the affordability impacts by our actions, to take a deep breath, to step back and say, hey, what are we doing here in terms of bigger picture?

Not just this immediate piece here with the Seattle Transit measure.

But then also the actions of our colleagues at the county and the state.

because the impacts are real.

So, colleagues, I'm not going to ask for your support for this amendment, but I just ask for your consideration.

And as we move forward together, looking at different pieces and, you know, keeping an eye on the cumulative impact of what we do, particularly because apparently we do it in isolation from the county and state.

There's no indication that Governor Ferguson, Executive Sahalai, and Mayor Wilson discuss their actions before they take them.

Clearly, I don't think this happened on the King County Bill sales tax that was just done.

So, colleagues, that's all I ask, and thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Kettle.

Councilmember Strauss, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to Councilmember Kettle for bringing this amendment forward for the conversation.

Colleagues, what we have before us is a transit measure.

This is not a concrete measure or a transportation measure or a staffing measure.

This is a transit measure.

We should not be collecting more tax than we need to fund the transit that can be provided to us.

Hearing the chair's previous comments, I share the concerns about ramping up service quickly.

But in that moment, I believe we should not tax Seattleites for the service that we can't receive, rather than spending the tax on concrete.

We do need to set Metro up for success.

As I shared, I have some concerns that we will be able to fully utilize all of the money next year, but we need to set them up for success because through the pandemic, we saw many issues that were outside of everyone's control, which set us up to use this transit measure in ways that were not transit and colleagues.

We have to stop that practice.

we need to return this to being a transit measure.

Because I do believe that Metro is now set up to succeed in the ways that we want.

I believe that Metro is set up to be able to expend the funds so that we can purchase the service hours that Seattleites are asking for.

So we need to set them up for that.

And if I was as confident If I was more confident, or if I knew that Metro could provide us every service hour for every dollar that we could give them, I'd add a vehicle license fee to this package.

Because I know that Seattle Lions want more transit service.

But we're not quite there yet, and so rather...

and that's what we're doing.

So in another way, I would support this amendment if we had a VLF added, but we're not quite there yet.

And so I won't be supporting this amendment today.

But I really appreciate the conversation that this amendment creates because we need to be very clear-eyed about how we are taxing Seattleites and how we are using those tax revenues.

will pay for transit service.

And so as much transit service as Metro can provide us, we will buy from you.

And I thank you for all you do for our city.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

Shout out to King County Metro, our partners.

Councilmember Lin, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

And Council Member Kettle, just wanna say that I share your concern about affordability, just to be kind of transparent.

When I first heard about a 0.3 proposal from the mayor's office, I had a lot of concerns similar to you.

But I thank the mayor's office for being bold here and pushing me on that issue.

And because we know that There's nothing, at least in my opinion, more important that we can do both on affordability and the urgent issue of climate change than making a long-term commitment to transit.

As we see the wildfire smoke in Canada right now, the fires that we have, that smoke that we have experienced here, this long-term investment is probably the most important thing we can do and the most consequential thing we're going to do this year.

And so again, I appreciate the concern about sales tax.

I don't think anybody loves sales tax here.

But that is the tool that we have.

I think it is important that we commit to the spending on transit and that we commit to working together with other electeds across the region, across the state, to come up with better ways to fix our tax system.

And this gives us that opportunity.

Voters approve this, and I think that that's an important note that, you know, it's not us that is approving it.

I mean, we are just putting this on the ballot for voters.

It is ultimately up to them to decide whether to pass this.

But we do have that flexibility over this 10-year term to continue to work on our tax system to come up with better ways to fund transit or many of the other issues that we need to work on.

And so I'll be voting no, but I am committed to working with you and others on finding better ways to fix this long-term, assuming voters approve this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Lin.

Councilmember Rivera, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

And thank you, Council Member Kettle for bringing this forward so we could have this really important and difficult decisions.

These decisions are not easy.

They're often portrayed as, you know, whether or not how much we support something.

And I think that that's wrong.

I have so much support for the transit system to include that for the almost first 30 years of my life, I exclusively used public transit.

Didn't have a driver's license till I was almost 30 years old.

and since then I've used transit a lot.

So just because I have a driver's license doesn't mean that I don't use on support transit and of course my kids use public transit as well.

My spouse has been on the board of the Transportation Choices Coalition, full disclosure, we've worked really hard.

I'm so proud of his work on sound transit for many, many years now.

So I say all that to say we should not be judged by sometimes the decisions that we have to grapple and struggle with.

It's not just do you support it or do you not, it's we do and there are other considerations as I appreciate my colleague Councilmember Juarez raising earlier about some of these other uses for these funds.

The reason why I decided to co-chair, I mean, sorry, co-sponsor this with my colleague, Councilmember Kettle, is because I am so concerned about sales tax increases that hurt our low-income people the most.

We all know this.

It's the most regressive tax you can bring.

Currently in Seattle, we have one of the most or one of the highest sales taxes across the country.

and I am also compelled by the fact that we have some of our low-income residents who have to use a car.

If you're a domestic worker, you don't have a choice to use public transit.

So we have to be mindful that that person would also be paying into this system and they may or may not be utilizing it for work.

That is not a reason not to support it, but I am compelled by the fact that folks are paying more and more by way of sales tax, which currently only mostly groceries are exempt from.

Even with the millionaire's tax that has some additional exemptions, that does not kick in until 2029, and it does not exempt everything.

You still have to pay for things like feminine hygiene products, clothing, shoes.

If you're a parent, you know, depending on the age of your child, you're buying shoes every few months.

So, you know, every little bit that our low-income residents can keep in their pocket is important.

So to me, you know, the base plus inflation was a prudent way to go while still, you know, still supporting transit while at the same time supporting our working families that also pay sales tax.

So it's a difficult decision.

And here we are.

So for these reasons, you know, I am going to be supporting this particular amendment.

But again, please know that when we sit up here, we have to grapple with very difficult choices and what I don't want to be said is that we do not support transit.

I very much more so than I think some other folks definitely 100% support public transit.

since it's what my family used growing up and I used, like I said, for the first 30 years of my life.

So thank you, Council Member Kettle for bringing this forward.

We do have to have these conversations and we do need to consider the impacts on our low income residents when we pass things like sales taxes.

It's why last year I actually did not vote I was the lone vote against that sales tax increase for public safety, but it makes a difference.

We passed one last year and now this is another one this year.

So we talk about affordability, but then we're raising the sales tax.

So I'm here to work with you all to figure out other ways that we can support transit and the other things that we need to support like public safety on behalf of our residents, but I do not take these decisions lightly.

And I'm not saying we can't support transit with a sales tax increase.

I'm saying we ought to consider Council Member Kettle's proposal that does not double it, but that brings the base plus inflation so we're not losing service.

I think that's important and we owe it to our low-income residents and the folks that we, you know, this affordability piece to at least consider this.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Rivera.

Vice Chair Rink, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair Sacca.

I want to start by saying that I think the points about coordination across city, county, and state in terms of tax approach by Councilmember Kettle are very well taken.

I hope that this is a catalyst for all of us to be working across levels of government to be considering the larger picture as it relates to tax burden and how we have to balance our tax code so it is more fair to working people.

The concern that I've had about our regressive tax system is why I, along with Councilmember Lin, brought forward amendments to commit us to partnering with the county and state to find alternative fund sources to fund our transit.

If implemented, that would then lower our reliance on sales tax.

But putting my opining over our regressive tax system aside, I am concerned about the level of service that this amendment would lock us into.

it's been made clear that in order to maintain the level of service for bus levels over the next 10 years, this 0.225% rate would essentially lock us into our current levels of bus service for the next 10 years, rather than expand that access.

This amendment would save the average household about $1 a month, and that's at the expense of an expansion of 100,000 bus service hours.

That's not a trade-off I can support today.

I'll also lift up that car ownership is expensive.

The average cost of car ownership in the U.S. is $11,000 a year.

That is about $900 a month.

So if someone can get by in this city without a car because of this expansion to bus service, to the level, well, maybe they can sell their car.

And that's budding back in folks' pocket.

I'll also lift up that 60% of our emissions locally in City of Seattle come from transportation, and that's primarily driven by cars.

So the best way that we can get folks to get out of their cars and onto the bus is if they know that the bus is going to come quickly and they can rely on it.

So I will not be supporting this amendment today, but I do thank Councilmember Kettle for the discussion.

Thank you, Vice Chair Rink.

Quick time check.

Note that it is noon, two and a half hours into this meeting.

The amendments that I expected to have in here, the most discussion, debate over were amendments one and this one.

So hopefully after this, we'll continue to expedite the process here, but we're all at our own time.

Last but not least, Council Member Foster, you are recognized.

Thank you so much, Chair Saka, and thank you, Council Member Kettle.

I appreciate your comments today and your comments around being able to have a conversation around affordability.

I think, you know, earlier obviously I brought forward something that I wanted to have a conversation about, so I appreciate that intent.

I wanted to turn back to central staff just for a moment, and thank you so much, Council Member Rink, for those comments.

and your incredible math.

I think we've had a couple of conversations on the dais here.

Central South, can you just clarify something for me?

I know that we've talked over the last few weeks when this has been in committee around what it would take in terms of the sales tax to ensure that we have continuity and not a loss of service.

And so I wanna say that number was 0.23%, 0.223%, or can you just affirm that for me really quickly?

Yes, it was 0.223.

This amendment seeked to not just keep the transit at status quo, but also sought to allow the increase in transit access program spending.

So council member Kettle proposed it at the 0.225.

Thank you.

Correct, 0.223.

Thank you.

I just wanted to bring that up just because I know there's been a lot of public discourse around the doubling of the sales tax, and I just want to continue to revisit the fact that in order to just maintain our service levels, we would have to increase it from the existing 0.15 to that 0.223 just to maintain our service levels.

So I don't take this decision that we're making today lightly at all, but I do want to make sure that voters have that understanding of in order to do what we have heard so much during the period that we've been considering the Seattle transit measure, which is to expand transit service so that we can reach more people.

We have to be able to actually go back and increase beyond that bare minimum at 0.223%.

And Council Member Kettle, I appreciate you revised this.

from the previous measure, which was 0.2%, which we know would have been a reduction based on inflation.

However, from my perspective, when I continue to hear from individual voters and individual residents, it's been clear that we need additional transit investments and that we need those additional transit investments to get to accessibility, that we need them to get to our climate goals, and also that they're a part of affordability so that people have options beyond car ownership.

I do think that is incredibly important.

So I will not be voting in support of this today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

From my perspective, I'll just share.

First, I want to thank Councilmember Kettle as the prime sponsor of this amendment, also Councilmember Rivera as the co-sponsor of this amendment.

Your amendment raises non-trivial, very important issues related to affordability and accountability, including when we're talking about affordability, the cumulative impacts every single tax measure and increase incrementally that is made at the state property tax level, the sales tax level, all the levels, the levers of taxation authority that our city has as a local municipality.

Compounding cumulative effect of those.

Yours raises those really important issues as it relates to affordability.

And what I'd like about your amendment Your proposal here is that it doesn't rely on progressive revenue fairies, dependencies or contingencies that may happen or may not.

It would allow us as a city to control our controllables and say all that stuff might happen.

Yes.

And we're still going to take action today and we're still going to do our best to address affordability today.

That's what I love about it.

So I want to thank you.

And that is bold.

Probably some of the probably the most singular, most bold amendment that we've seen today.

So I want to thank you for your leadership in that leadership.

It's hard work.

Got to put yourself out there.

You got to initiate tough conversations.

And you're absolutely right.

cumulative effect of these various tax increases does have an impact, it's squeezing people out, pricing people out, impacts affordability.

And at a certain point, when we're talking, this levy over here, this levy over here, there's sales tax over here, we're playing effectively a musical chairs game.

At some point, the music's gonna stop, and some community priority is gonna be left underfunded because our hands are effectively tied.

But I would posit to you that it should not be transit.

Should not be transit.

Affordability is important.

But I don't think we can stop investing in transit despite some of these hugely impactful affordability concerns.

Because transit is so critically important to our city for so many reasons.

Transit today, transit tomorrow, and transit forever.

Can't let transit be left without that, left standing when the music stops in this musical chairs game.

But I still appreciate you for bringing this forward.

I appreciate your bold leadership.

I will not be supporting it, but I am forever grateful for you initiating this conversation.

As sponsor of this amendment, you are recognized for the last word.

Wait, is that a new hand, Councilmember Rivera?

First, I hope it's quick, and then Councilmember Kettle.

Thank you, Chair.

This isn't a funny, but the comment about QUIC made me laugh.

Thank you for recognizing me.

I really just want to say something that you just said, because again, I don't want people to leave here thinking that somehow Councilmember Kettle and I do not support transit.

Sorry, Councilmember Kettle, I threw you in there, but this is not, we're not stopping investing in transit.

We are merely saying and acknowledging that this is a sales tax increase that has huge impacts for our low-income folks.

Our high earners, maybe not as much, but our low-income folks, this can have a huge impact.

So we're saying, let's make sure we do not decrease transit.

We keep it where it is.

That's why it's the inflationary pieces in here.

But I don't wanna leave it said that somehow we're not investing in transit.

We 100% are investing in transit, whether this one passes or the underlying bill passes, we are going to continue to invest in transit.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Rivera.

Well said.

I know you both care deeply about transit and have demonstrated your willingness to invest in transit in so many ways.

I appreciate that comment.

Thank you for the clarification.

Councilmember Kettle, finally, has Prime Sponsor recognized any final comments?

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate everybody's comments and for those out there.

I think all my colleagues know that a 1-8 vote's kind of lonely, so I just want, as chair knows from the previous one, so I just want to thank Councilmember Rivera for her vote, so we don't have the lonely 1-8 vote, and again, I recognize it, but that is the main thrust of my amendment was the affordability, so thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Kettle.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll?

on the adoption of Amendment 13 version 2 to the bill.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

2-0.

Council President Hollingsworth.

No.

Council Member Juarez.

No.

Council Member Lynn.

No.

Council Member Strauss.

No.

Council Member Foster.

No.

Council Member Rink.

No.

Chair Saka.

No.

Chair, there are two votes for and seven votes opposed.

All right, the motion fails and the amendment is not adopted.

Moving on to the next items in that Group B, we specifically, at the request of Councilmember Rivera, withdrew Amendment Number 21, Version 1. So moving on to-

Sure, sure.

Yeah, let's speak to it.

If you want to move it, you can too, but feel free to, you're recognized.

Actually, first, can we have central staff, would you mind briefing?

Briefing Amendment 21, version 1, first, and then we'll turn it over to the amendment sponsor.

We don't need to brief it.

I can just move to withdraw it, but then I want to say...

Yeah, it's already been withdrawn, so...

I've never moved to withdraw it.

Okay, sorry, sorry.

A lot going on.

Now, that's my apologies.

Now I'm confused.

You're absolutely right.

Go ahead.

You're recognized, Councilmember Rivera.

Thank you, chair.

I am going to be withdrawing amendment number 21, but I will be re-bringing it.

I'm going to be amending it and bringing it to full council.

I'm going to be expanding to include all.

It's a report.

This was a report.

I'm going to be amending it to include all middle school and high schools and community centers as what I will be requesting S.T.

to look at in terms of service because I know that the buses have been very packed and kids can't get to school on time or to their after school activities on time.

And so it's not just the kids in my district at my schools and community centers, but at others.

So I will be bringing this back to make sure it's, it's, um, includes across the city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council member Rivera.

Do you have to move to withdraw?

No, no.

Okay.

We can just move on to the next one.

Okay.

We will therefore move on to the next one, which is amendment number 10, version two.

Central staff, or actually first motion would be in order if we wanna discuss that one.

Thank you, Chair.

I move amendment 10 to the bill.

Second.

It is moved and seconded to consider passage adoption of amendment 10 to the bill.

Will center staff please brief the amendment.

Amendment 10 version two to council bill 121226 is sponsored by council member Strauss.

This amendment would add to the scope of prioritized and allowable uses of revenue generated by the STM to allow support of transit network connections to regional transit or sorry, regional centers as identified in the city's comprehensive plan.

The city's comprehensive plan identifies seven different regional centers known for their key hubs for growth, jobs and services and includes downtown, Northgate, Uptown, South Lake Union, Capitol Hill, First Hill, University District and Ballard.

All right.

Thank you.

Councilmember Strauss is a sponsor of the amendment.

You're recognized to speak to your amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, colleagues, for the consideration of this amendment.

We have to pair our transportation and our land use decisions together.

As the Seattle Transit measure is currently written, direct service to the Regional Center of Ballard is unattainable.

It's not allowed, actually.

As we heard in committee here, the suggestions were to use the Route 40, which is a milk run through a number of different regional centers that eventually gets to the Ballard Regional Center or to use the rapid ride which goes through uptown and when questions were pressed there it was shared that we should put in more bus lanes but you can't put a bus lane on a one-lane road.

I guess I'm quite disappointed that this was not an allowable use when it was transmitted to us.

And this simply states that if we are going to increase our housing and job capacities based on our land use code, we should also be creating direct service between our regional centers and between our regional centers and our light rail stations.

As you've noticed, I have not stated specific bus routes because I think that there are a number of different options before us to be able to achieve this, as well as we kept it centered on our land use decisions because if Chair Saka, if you vote to put a regional center in West Seattle, we should be giving you direct service as well.

And that goes across the board, right?

Where we choose within our city that should be the job and growth centers, we should also be creating direct transit there between our downtown, other regional centers and light rail.

Would love to earn everyone's support.

Thank you, colleagues.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

Colleagues, any comments, questions on the amendment before us?

And for clarity, we are talking right now about amendment, Councilmember Strauss's amendment 10, version two.

Any comments, questions on that?

Hearing, seeing no comments, questions, I'll just say, Councilmember Strauss, really appreciate you for bringing this forward.

I like this amendment.

It makes sense.

Thank you for not calling out, you know, kind of specificity level line decisions and said, you know, centering it on, you know, framework and objective criteria.

I support this amendment and would have included it and would have loved to include it in the chair's package, but the request was made to have it discussed separately.

So here we are.

So makes sense.

I'm going to be supporting it and here we go.

All right, well, will the committee clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the proposed amendment number 10, version two.

Council member Rivera.

Aye.

Council member Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council member Juarez.

Yes.

Councilmember Lin.

Yes.

Councilmember Strauss.

Yes.

Councilmember Foster.

Yes.

Councilmember Rink.

Yes.

Chair Saka.

Aye.

Chair, there are nine votes for and zero opposed.

All right.

The amendment passes is approved and or the motion carries and the amendment Number 10, version two is adopted.

Dispatch with that.

Three more folks, three more colleagues.

The next one up for discussion is amendment number 24, version one, or sponsored by council member Rink.

A motion would be in order.

before moving them?

Okay.

All right.

There are some...

So with respect to amendments 24 and 29, they conflict with each other.

And so...

And if one passes...

We'll learn more about it.

I'm not gonna talk...

I'm gonna let central staff brief amendment numbers 24 and then 29, and then I will turn it over to the amendment sponsors to speak to their various amendments.

And then we will move the first amendment in numerical order.

Senator Staff.

Thank you, Chair.

The reason that amendments 24 and 29 are in conflict is because they would both raise the minimum percentage of Seattle transit measure revenues that are allocated to transit service.

Amendment 24 would increase that percentage to 65%, and Amendment 29 would increase that percentage to 75%.

So if this committee passes Amendment 24, Amendment 29 cannot be voted on.

I will briefly describe both of the amendments.

Amendment 24 to Council Bill 121226 is sponsored by Council Member Rink.

This amendment is primarily concerned with revising the allowable spending categories of proposition revenues, and it is through those revisions that the proposed change in transit service minimum comes about.

Amendment 24 would do the following.

It would reduce the maximum amount of infrastructure maintenance and capital improvement spending from $5 million per year to $2 million per year.

It would expand the category of allowable infrastructure maintenance and capital improvement spending to include contributions to Sound Transit III projects, including the Graham Street infill station, West Seattle Link Extension, and Ballard Link Extension.

It would revise the description of the Sound Transit 3 staffing spending category to clarify its for staffing costs separate from the revised capital spending allowance.

And finally, it would increase the minimum percentage of revenues for transit service from 60%, as is expressed in Section 3 of the bill, to 65%.

Moving on to Amendment 29, Amendment 29 is sponsored by Councilmember Strauss, and it would simply raise the minimum spending on transit service in Section 3 of the bill.

It would revise the 60% minimum to a 75% minimum.

Awesome, thank you so much.

And we'll now, Move it over next to Vice Chair Rink to speak to her amendment, then we'll move it to Council Member Strauss to speak to his conflicting amendment.

Council Member Vice Chair, you're recognized.

I believe I need to move the amendment, so I move to amend CB 121226 as presented on Amendment 24.

Second.

All right, it is moved and seconded.

The bill has been, or the amendment has been moved and seconded.

We'll open it up for discussion.

Councilmember Ring, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

And I'll note at the top, actually, I want to get into just some of the mechanics of the conflict between the two amendments that have been discussed, just to make sure that we're clear on a procedural basis.

Considering, so for Amendment 29, assuming if Amendment 24 were to pass and Amendment 29 could not be considered today, it could be brought to full council.

Is that correct?

This question for central staff.

I see the representative of the city clerk's office nodding.

I will say yes, that is correct.

Thank you.

I just want to make sure that is clear for the purposes of clarification because, and I know I'll speak to this when hopefully we have a chance to speak to Amendment 29 because I want to voice my support for it and is not my intent to take that policy consideration off the table entirely.

And so I just wanted to get clear on that procedural point.

Colleagues, now I'll speak to just the amendment before us, which is Amendment 24. This amendment has three main components.

First, it shifts $3 million from capital into an allowable spend to allow for additional purchase of transit service.

Second, it names allowable spending for capital to include ST3 projects from West Seattle Ballard and completion of Graham Street Station.

And then third, it raises the required percentage of funding in the measure up from the currently stated 60% up to 65%.

So I want to first touch on the point related to capital spending by starting by placing our capital spending in context quickly.

Within the eight-year, $1.55 billion transportation levy, we have 160.5 million for Vision Zero projects, 403 million outlined for street maintenance, 193 million outlined for pedestrian safety, including sidewalks and ADA improvements, and 133.5 million for bike safety.

Now, I said this back when this levy was up for consideration back when I was just a community member.

I do wish we went larger with the levy in order to increase allowable capital spending.

But I do want to also uplift that just a few weeks ago, we did secure additional dollars for capital through the King County Transportation Benefit District with the matter of the city pass-through.

There was an amendment on the table that we've discussed a little bit in committee today that would have directed $3 million away from Seattle and actually to other jurisdictions around the region.

And colleagues, I want to thank you again for signing on to my letter to King County Council calling out this, what I think is fair to say, a very unfair amendment to our residents.

And it was between that and the advocacy of members of this body, including Chair Saka, as well as Councilmember Lin, who himself went and testified before King County Council, the Transportation Benefit District Committee, against this measure.

And because of those efforts combined, we now will have 4.8 million in new revenue coming to City of Seattle annually that is specifically designated to capital projects in our right-of-way, including sidewalks, ADA improvements, and other accessibility needs.

That all being said, we've long talked about the challenges with our sidewalk network across the city.

This is a tremendous challenge for our residents.

I don't wanna negate that in any way.

And I believe that the effort of addressing our missing sidewalk network really needs focused attention and energy from this body.

And I know there have been efforts and part of the formation of the revenue task force is to identify potential solutions for being able to fund the work that we need to be doing on our sidewalks.

But when it comes to this effort, colleagues, particularly with the Seattle Transit measure, I've been consistent since our first committee meeting here that I believe the Seattle Transit measure's top priority needs to be service hours, as the other funding measures that I mentioned don't contribute to transit service, like the Seattle Transit Measure does.

STM represents the single largest local fund for buses and our dollars stretch far.

For the cost of four to six blocks of sidewalk, we can purchase 2,400 annual bus service hours or 54 bus trips per week.

That looks like the 25 which travels from Westwood Village to South Seattle College to downtown, improving from 60 minutes to 30 minutes on Saturdays and 30 minutes on Sundays rather than no service on Sundays at all.

I also want to touch on the other element of this amendment, particularly to naming of Sound Transit 3 projects.

I just want to be clear on this point that the naming of ST3 projects in the capital bucket is more of a transparency measure.

Without this amendment and as written, spending on ST3 projects is still an allowable spend.

For those who don't know, earlier this year, Mayor Wilson passed an amendment, the Sound Transit Board, to fully fund Graham Street Station.

And to do this, the City of Seattle pledged to allocate $30 million to the project if other funding sources couldn't be identified.

Now, $20 million of that $30 million was identified within this STM capital bucket.

And now we don't know for sure until the late 2020s if this money will be necessary to fund the project as it's only a backup fund.

So if it isn't ultimately needed, that $2 million could be spent on capital projects a year.

So, from my perspective, this is our chance to invest in as much bus service as we possibly can.

This amendment would add an additional 90,000 service hours over 10 years.

9,000 hours a year in service is roughly equivalent to doubling the weekend frequency on a route from every 30 minutes to every 15 minutes.

By increasing funding to service, we're also supporting our union member transit operators, and we're improving the access for riders who rely on these routes every day.

And I'm proud that this amendment has the support of the Non-Drivers Alliance, as well as the Transit Advisory Board, which oversees the Seattle Transit Measure funds, and our local bus drivers union, ATU 587. Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Again, amendments 24, 29 were presented together We know that if Amendment 24 passes, Amendment 29 cannot be voted on, but we also learn what is possible within the realm of possibility for the full final vote at full council on Tuesday.

The original intent coming into this conversation from a procedural process perspective was to brief both items, both items be able to be discussed by the sponsors and then move the first one in sequential order.

That said, that's more of a form over substance distinction in my mind.

So Council Member Strauss, I'm gonna recognize you next to, because we do have a pending motion on Amendment 24, I'm gonna recognize you to discuss Amendment 24 in the context of your amendment, 29.

Thank you.

I just have a couple of questions for central staff.

Thank you for briefing us on the amendment before us.

Can you confirm that without this amendment, we can still use the funds within the measure to pay for projects associated with the West Seattle extension, the Graham Street Station, and the Ballard Link extension?

Is that correct?

I don't have that information at my fingertips.

I apologize.

I will follow up.

Maybe I will share the proactive statement that I have received from central staff in the past weeks that we would be able to, and as the sponsor's comments just mentioned, that we would be able to use the funds within this measure to support our work with sound transit.

Is there any difference of opinion today?

There's no difference of opinion.

I'll let Amanda field this question.

Fantastic, thank you.

Yes, that's true.

Fantastic.

Thank you.

And at the last committee briefing, I believe it was presented that the current spend plan for this measure is 75%.

Is that correct?

In the spend plan that accompanies the bill that we are discussing today, approximately 80% of revenues is allocated for transit service purchase on an annual basis.

So even my 75% amendment is below what we are telling voters that we will spend on.

Is that accurate?

It is below the spending level that is allocated in the current version of the spending plan.

That spending plan would change if there were a significant change in the cost of providing transit service or in the amount of revenues that's coming in versus what is forecast.

but you are correct based on the plan that accompanies the bill.

Thank you.

I will share what I appreciate about Amendment 24 and the concerns that I have.

What I appreciate about this is that it is very specific in how we will use concrete money.

I don't believe that we should be spending money within this measure on concrete or on sidewalks.

This is a transit measure.

and the important thing that was in the chair's package this morning is as Council Member Juarez noted, if you cannot access transit, you can't use it.

and that is why without that provision within Amendment 24, I can't support it.

And as central staff just mentioned, the spend plan is currently 80% of this measure and I believe that 75% is a prudent number because this is a transit measure.

This isn't a transportation measure.

This isn't a sidewalks measure.

It's not a staffing measure.

we should be reserving the dollars within this measure for transit.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Council Member Juarez, you are recognized.

Thank you.

I would like to address both Amendment 24 if I can and comment on 29 because I am a co-sponsor.

First, I wanna thank Council Member Rink for being a co-sponsor on Amendment 20 for promoting and protecting accessibility.

and I guess my concern with this amendment is Amendment 24. I also believe not only conflicts with Amendment 29, but to some degree conflicts with Amendment 20. I supported amendment by Council Member Strauss because even though there is the difference in the percentage, There's still the money that we are hoping, the $5 million for what we're hoping for access and safety for our community.

I will be voting no on Amendment 24, because this is just a position, as it takes about $30 million away from accessibility and safety capital projects, if we are looking at a 10-year span.

I believe, to some degree, Amendment 24 also undermines the work of Amendment 20 that was in the Chair's package.

Amendment 20 clarifies allowable investments of transit infrastructure explicitly include accessible pedestrian connections, ADA improvements and projects that improve access for people with mobility, sensory, cognitive and developmental disabilities.

This is the language that we received from the Seattle Disability Committee and Commission and the state folks for the visibility impaired folks.

Amendment 24 is still, as you can just do the math, decreases the transit infrastructure by 60% from $5 million annually to $2 million annually.

This money takes away from vital projects and efforts in the STM towards accessibility and safety allowed by Amendment 20. The STM has a total expenditure, as I shared this morning, of $1.4 billion over its full term, and the total percentage of this measure that is dedicated transit infrastructure is less than 4%.

I just can't see it cutting it anymore.

I should add and thank the Mayor's Office because when we saw the original plan it was much less than 5 million.

So I do want to thank the Mayor's Office and of course the Chair for being supportive to see that we could at least get it up to 5 million.

And I just want to end on this note.

Decreasing the budget for transit infrastructure budget by 60% to 2 million annually delays these important projects that advance equity, access and safety.

But more importantly, I believe we have an opportunity to see and support a community that is often overlooked in an able-bodied world.

I want everyone who uses transit to be seen and to be safe.

Not everybody is able-bodied to access a bus stop, light rail, to pay for an Uber, to have a friend with a car, to ride a bike or hop on a scooter.

And so $5 million, less than 4% over 10 years, I think, Well, actually, I think it's a shame.

I think it should be more, but I'm willing to be and understand that in this job, diplomacy and consensus is really important.

I still think that this amendment conflicts with, which again, I'm a little confused because Councilman Rinke, you were a co-sponsor of my Amendment 20, but that Amendment 24 conflicts with not only my amendment, but also Councilmember Strauss's Amendment 29, which I'm a co-sponsor.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Juarez.

Well said there.

Let's see, any other?

Okay, yeah, Councilmember Rivera, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

Can you just confirm, central staff, on the last transit measure, how much had been proposed for the capitals on the capitals' side for accessibility and other uses that really support transit and the ability to use transit.

I think it was in the 12 million range, but I just want to confirm because I don't have the actual number.

So from what I remember, the original STM had an initial $9 million capital funding and then was intended to decrease to 3 million.

That number then was later adjusted by the City Council at various points and continued to increase it.

and that was due to the pandemic and underspend related to King County Metro not being able to staff up the transit service.

So I think at the very end, it was at 15.6 million.

15 million per year?

15.6 was the last year's maximum spend is what I remember.

And I'm going to take chair's privilege here because this is important.

We crunched the numbers, including working with central staff a month or two ago, but if my memory serves me correctly, so there's the baseline amount that was included in authorizing the original legislation, then I think the more appropriate numbers are the following two when we're talking about the current Seattle transit measure, are the revised legislative maximum amounts.

And by my rough recollection, on average, under the revised legislative maximum amounts, it was roughly equated to be about roughly $12.5 million per year.

Then you look at the actuals, what was actually spent.

it was roughly $7.5 million per year under the current soon to be expiring measure.

And again, importantly, that measure reflected a 0.15% sales tax.

So if you double it and extrapolate it out and you wanted to compare apples to apples, you would have to double those expenditures for the same rate.

Anyways, central staff, go ahead.

So just make a correction, the original, the current STM, the original amount that had been proposed before the pandemic had been planned at 3 million.

And the, in the very last year's, 16.4 million is what the number had been or is currently.

Thank you, central staff.

I was, that's helpful to know.

I thought it was more in the 12 million, 15 is more.

but the point being capital needs were needed.

I don't know what it was used for but I can only surmise it was for accessibility pieces because I know we've had ADA and other type of adjustments that we've had to make.

And so now what is being proposed is the maximum is about 5 million so it's a lot less than was included in the original and also the, or what we've utilized rather in the last few years.

We don't know what it was.

Last year was 15, but the year before and subsequent years prior, I don't know.

I'm not sure of the, but Cal has joined us.

Cal.

Calvin Chow, central staff.

I think it's always useful to remember that the last measure came right at the start of the COVID pandemic.

we found ourselves with additional resources piling up, and so there was a decision made by previous councils and the executive to divert those resources to do more capital projects in support of transit, so that definitely changes the character of how we spent in the last measure.

The previous measure had a small capital component that's more in line with what's proposed here, but our recent experience has been to do more capital projects.

because they're needed.

I mean, that's what I'm gonna take away from that.

So all that to say that, oh.

Council member Rivera, I would just note that one difference that we have today that we didn't have in the last measure is the passage of the 2024 transportation levy, which includes millions of dollars for capital spending.

I think there is...

$30 million in the transportation levy for ADA investments, $111 million for sidewalks, whether it's new sidewalks or repairing sidewalks.

So that's a difference that we didn't have that funding source.

So going forward in this new reality, that is a source for us.

Chair's privilege to let the record reflect that we also had a transportation levy before in the earlier measure, the 2014 Seattle Transit measure that was in place at the time to cover substantially all those same exact things.

So let the record reflect that.

All right, go ahead, Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

I was gonna make that exact point, so thank you.

Sorry, let me wrap up.

I am trying to get to the fact that it is very important to do this accessibility pieces.

We heard from constituents who came for public comment all the times we had public comment about how important it was to ensure we have accessibility to be able to utilize transit.

So back to Councilmember Juarez, thank you for you're putting in that was the point of amendment 20 which I co-sponsored and for those reasons I'm not going to be supporting this amendment because the accessibility piece and being able to use capital for accessibility is really important and this is a reduced amount of what we've been using based on last year's number at the very least.

So it seems like an increasing need.

Thank you chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Rivera.

Councilmember Foster, are you recognized?

Thank you so much, Chair.

And thank you, Central Staff.

This is a marathon.

I appreciate you all.

I just wanted to, I guess, share a couple of thoughts here, and then I'll just sort of share where I'm at.

I really want to appreciate you, Council Member Rank, for bringing this forward, and in particular for the transparency pieces around Graham Street Station, West Seattle Station, and the Ballard Link Extension.

So I'm gonna speak to that briefly and why I believe those are important things.

and even no matter what happens to this amendment, important components for us to daylight in this committee today.

And that's because it was my understanding and I believe it's our shared understanding as this measure was sent down from the mayor's office that there's an intent to ensure that some of these resources are available if needed to help support the final execution of those projects.

It's my belief based on the response that was provided by central staff to Council Member Strauss's question that we retain the ability to spend those resources on those projects without this amendment.

However, Council Member Rank, I do think it's important, and you gave us an opportunity to daylight and discuss that intent here, so I want to thank you for that.

I also want to just, I guess, share my own reflection on this really important conversation around the minimum amount allowable, the maximum amount allowable, and the differences between this measure and the previous.

Seattle transit measure.

And from my perspective, I do think it is an important distinction that in the previous measure, my understanding is we had the same, or excuse me, we had the $3 million there, but given the pandemic and given the impacts on ridership, council made a decision to pivot investments and to speed up or increase our investments in transportation infrastructure.

And I do think that's important.

When we are making a one-to-one comparison, between the previous measure and this measure.

Again, just understanding that we had that high capital expenditure, but part of that was our response to the pandemic changes.

So I just, that does impact the way I look at the one-to-one components there.

And lastly, I do wanna say, and you know, deeply, deeply appreciate the conversation that Council Member Juarez is bringing us to have around transit accessibility.

And I think it's really important, and I just want to reflect what I heard during this process.

And I heard both from transit and disability access, or advocates, excuse me, disability access advocates, there we go, who talked about the need for infrastructure the need to be able to navigate safely to a bus stop, to have clear way finding.

And I also heard really clearly from advocates that transit service is a component of accessibility, particularly for people who are non-drivers and are relying on that transit service to get where we need to go.

And I say all that because I think that's what makes this conversation difficult because we heard, I heard, both of those things and both of those components.

And I think that's what I'm hearing reflected in our conversation on the dais today.

So again, I want to extend my appreciation to Council Member Rank and Council Member Juarez because we couldn't have had that space without these two amendments coming forward.

I did not know until I came out here that if we voted on this amendment, we cannot vote on amendment number 29. And so that is an important distinction from my vantage point.

And for me, that's the...

sort of final decision point in terms of influencing my vote today.

I do want to be able to vote in favor of amendment number 29, increasing the service up to 75%.

So I will be voting no on this measure for that reason.

But I want to appreciate you deeply, Council Member Rink, for the conversation you allowed us to have.

Thank you, Council Member Foster.

Looks like a new hand.

Council Member Juarez, you are recognized.

Thank you.

I just want to clarify something.

I want Council Member Ring to know that I appreciate.

I don't want her to think that, I mean, I think when the viewing public, whoever's out there listening, thinking that there's just some kind of intense conflict, a lot of times when we're doing our amendments, Central staff isn't always allowed to share what's going on, and that's why we're out here having these conversations.

And I know for a fact that Council Member Rink appreciates, and as she always says, centers and uplifts the issues of the disability community and understands the differences with the abled community.

and I had this intense discussion and I was looking at our notes from late June with the chair.

This is beyond sidewalks and I know you mentioned that and it's way beyond sidewalks.

And the other issue was, let's be clear here, we're under a consent decree from 2017 under the federal court that we have to build sidewalks.

That's what that's for.

the lawsuit and we are under the consent decree.

I'm sure you would correct me if I'm wrong.

I'd read it.

I know the chair read it as well.

And so that is important as a side note.

So when people say, well, you don't really need that five million because there's a consent decree and there's S-dot money and there's the move Seattle and that money's there.

Well, the problem I've had sitting up here for almost a decade is People think it's always just sidewalks, and it's not.

It is visually impaired, it's our elders, it's women with stroller, or people with strollers, it's children, people that have disabilities like myself, that we do the wayfinding, that when we spoke to the impaired or the disability commission and also the state people, for vision impaired and the work that we did.

Council Member Strauss helped me on this the last time I was here with the Ryther Institute and putting up sidewalks and putting up, I don't know what you call that, the button that you push to say you can walk now.

I mean, I don't know all the technical terms, but I asked the disability folks and the pedestrian people that supported us to just give us the language so I can understand it.

and when you look at our amendment, and that's why I actually put that in there, that the ADA improvements and projects and access for people with mobility, sensory, cognitive and development, developmental disabilities.

So I don't want people thinking that, oh, we're just here gigging for sidewalks.

We're not.

That's my point.

So with that, again, Council Member Rank, you did co-sponsor Amendment 20, so thank you for that.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Juarez.

Any final comments, questions before I give my final remarks and turn it over to the amendment sponsor for last word?

Hearing, seeing none, I'll share on this particular amendment, I have concerns about the significant reduction, the 60% reduction in accessibility capital expenditures on the one hand, which on the other hand would also purport to expand the scope of what it could cover and therefore dilute what little is left I recognize, of course, there's an open question of whether, you know, the existing amount could cover some of those sound transit station investments, but have concerns about reducing that baseline amount, which in and of itself represents a significant cut to today's levels of accessibility capital.

Irrespective of however you slice it, we talked about the different ways, it's still a significant cut.

And, but to accessibility.

And that $5 million figure, although it reflects a substantial cut, it was also a carefully negotiated amount that I landed on at an arm's length negotiation and transaction, working collaboratively with the mayor's office.

And so I think we need to hold the line somewhere.

And for me, that's $5 million.

and I couldn't agree more with the essence of what I've heard today.

I think there's common consensus that this measure is not principally a sidewalk measure, it's not a curb cut measure, it's not a concrete measure.

To Councilmember Juarez's earlier point, you know what it is?

It's a transit accessibility measure.

It's a safe access to transit measure.

It's a basic human dignity with respect to transit measure.

And I think, looked at it through that lens, I do think we need to hold a line at that five million.

Appreciate the intent, but I will not be supporting this today.

Councilmember Rank, you are recognized to have last word on your proposal.

Thank you Chair Saka and I want to start by voicing just my deep respect for the position and points raised by Councilmember Juarez on this matter and I want to respond directly just to the point around potential conflicts because my team touched base with the Disability Commission co-chair this morning just to talk through this issue.

I know we have ongoing work with the Commission going on and it's important for us to to be working with the Commission.

They did not see the Amendment 20 and 24 in direct conflict.

I understand if you do.

I didn't and they didn't.

But I understand if that's your perspective on this matter.

And I... I believe it is just really a point on, you know, because not seeing that particular conflict, that's why I wanted to support Amendment 20 and be a co-sponsor on it, just because I do believe it is tremendously important.

Colleagues, I wanted to bring this amendment forward because I've spoken about this a number of times.

I am the only member of this body who does not own a car and relies on our transit system to get where I need to go.

and I know I proudly represent the 20% of Seattle households who also live that reality.

And that 20% of Seattle households who do not own cars, do not drive, Sometimes that is by choice, other times it is not.

We heard in the public hearing earlier this week from a number of folks who cannot drive, a number of folks for medical reasons or living with disabilities cannot drive.

And so I think Council Member Foster named this particularly well in just this whole discussion.

From my perspective, this is a matter of strategy and approach on how we meet our ADA obligations and create a more accessible city.

rather than disagreement over people living with disabilities and how we invest in them.

So I do not anticipate this amendment passing.

I look forward to voting on Councilmember Strauss's amendment, but colleagues, I sincerely want to thank you for the time in committee today to discuss these trade-offs and considerations.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Rank.

Seeing no final comments or questions, will the committee clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 24 version 1?

Chair, did I have a chance to address my amendment or no?

I gave you the opportunity earlier to speak to her amendment because there was a pending motion through the context of your amendment.

So I'll be provided the opportunity after this amendment's vote?

we can revisit after we vote on this amendment.

If you have any final comments on this amendment, do you have any final comments on this amendment before us?

I just have final comments on my amendment.

So if you'd like that now or later, your call.

After we vote on the pending amendment before us.

Thank you, Chair.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of amendment number 24, version one.

Councilmember Rivera.

No.

Councilmember Kettle.

No.

Council President Hollingsworth.

No.

Councilmember Juarez.

No.

Councilmember Lin.

Yes.

Councilmember Strauss.

No.

Councilmember Foster.

No.

Councilmember Rink.

Yes.

Chair Sacca.

No.

Chair, there are two votes for and seven votes opposed.

All right.

The motion fails and the amendment is not adopted.

Councilmember Strauss, you are recognized to discuss your amendment 29 version 1.

Thank you.

Final comments, correct?

Thank you.

See, I'm even confused.

Thank you.

We have our expert parliamentarians keeping us honest here.

Yours would not be appropriate for today if and only if Amendment 24 version 1 had passed.

Because it did not pass, therefore there is no conflict, therefore your amendment is alive and well and viable.

So therefore a motion could and would be in order if you want to debate and discuss.

You're also welcome to bring it back on Tuesday if you want.

I move Amendment 29 to the bill.

Second.