Seattle City Council 9/19/23

Good afternoon, everyone.

Today is Tuesday, September 19th.

The meeting of the Seattle City Council will come to order.

The time is 2.05.

I apologize for the delay.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Councilmember Sawant?

Present.

Councilmember Strauss?

Present.

Councilmember Herbold?

Here.

Councilmember Lewis?

Present.

Councilmember Morales?

Here.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Present.

Council Member Nelson.

Present.

Council Member Peterson.

Present.

Present.

And Council President Juarez.

Present.

Nine present.

Thank you.

Moving along in our agenda as far as presentations, we have a proclamation sponsored by Council Member Herbold proclaiming September 18th to September 24th Diaper Need Awareness Week.

And we discussed it yesterday and we voted on it.

And after that, right now, I'm going to allow Councilmember Herbold to walk us through this and then to do a presentation.

And when we get to that part, I will suspend the rules.

So with that, Councilmember Herbold.

Oh, you're both together there, West Side Baby.

Thank you.

Councilmember Herbold.

Thank you so much, Council President, and to my colleagues as well for joining me and Mayor Harrell in declaring September 18th through September 24th, 2023, as Diaper Need Awareness Week.

Today, we have members of West Side Baby present with us to speak about their critical work addressing diaper need in Seattle.

I want to thank you for being here with us today.

About one in four families in King County experience diaper need, and we know that certain communities are disproportionately impacted by diaper need and by this public health crisis.

Black caregivers and Latinx caregivers are over two times as likely to experience diaper need.

And we know that LGBTQ families are also experiencing significantly higher rates of diaper need.

In these communities, caregivers often have to make hard decisions between buying diapers on a limited income or groceries for the week.

The economic toll that diaper need can place on families is significant.

Purchasing enough diapers to keep a baby or toddler clean, dry, and healthy can consume 14% of a low-wage family's post-tax income, making it incredibly difficult to obtain a sufficient supply.

I'm so grateful to Westside Baby for their ongoing work in supporting Seattle's babies and infants experiencing diaper need, and I'm really pleased that Becky Schroeder, Deputy Director at Westside Baby, and Laura Skelton, Interim Executive Director, are able to be here today to share their remarks about Diaper Need Awareness Week and speak about their terrific work.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Herbold.

If there's no objection?

the council rules will be suspended to allow our guests to accept the proclamation and provide brief remarks.

And Becky and Laura are both here as Councilor Herbold said from Westside Baby.

Weren't you guys here last year too?

Yes, we did have Westside Baby representation last year.

Thanks so much for having us again.

Yeah, well, the floor is yours.

Members of City Council and citizens of Seattle, my name is Laura Skelton and I'm the interim executive director at Westside Baby.

And I'm Becky Schroeder, Deputy Director at West Side Baby.

Thank you so much for bringing attention to diaper need and proclaiming this as Diaper Need Awareness Week in the city of Seattle.

As you heard from Councilmember Herbold, nearly, or I'm sorry, over 20% of families locally lack a sufficient supply of diapers to keep their babies clean, healthy, and dry.

As a result of diaper need, parents often have to reuse dirty diapers or use paper towels and plastic bags to get by.

Many low-income parents have to stretch the time between diaper changes, putting their children at risk for painful diaper rashes and infections.

Studies show that mothers who are unable to afford diapers for their babies are more likely to suffer from maternal depression and mental health issues.

And compounding all of this is the fact that most childcare centers require at least one day of supply of disposable diapers.

So parents who cannot provide disposable diapers for their children may be unable to access childcare, impeding their ability to go to work or school.

We know that diapers can cost about $100 a month per child, and those costs have risen at alarming rates since the beginning of the pandemic.

Those facing transportation barriers may have to pay even more when they have to purchase diapers at a convenience store rather than lower cost big box stores.

So for the past 22 years, Westside Baby has been committed to providing a safety net for local families through the distribution of diapers and other basic essentials to children.

We work directly with over 100 social service partners across the county, including numerous Seattle-based partners, such as Seattle Housing Authority, Seattle Public Schools, Public Health, and neighborhood food banks to connect resource to need.

We recently heard from a public health nurse partner reflecting on how diapers can be a bridge to other forms of support.

She said that often diapers and wipes get me in the door and allow deep and meaningful connections to be built and my clients to thrive.

This year, Westside Baby is on track to supply over 2.6 million diapers to Seattle area families.

And we can only do this thanks to the support of our community, and thanks to the awareness around this issue.

So thank you again for recognizing National Diaper Need Awareness.

Thank you both for being here.

Councilor Herbold, I skipped a step here.

I meant to open the floor for my colleagues.

So if you don't mind, can I open the floor and then have you close this out?

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Colleagues, is there anything that you would like to share with now that we have our friends from Westside Baby here and regarding the proclamation that's now in front of us?

Do not see any hands customer herbal.

Is there anything that you'd like to say to close this out?

And I, before you say anything, let me say this.

Thank you guys for being here.

Thank you.

West side baby.

Thank you customer herbal for doing this.

This is an issue that we often don't talk about, but as as mothers and grandmothers, we know.

That is a very, very, it's an expense that's really difficult, particularly that first year.

So thank you so much.

Councilor Herbold.

Thank you.

And I know some folks might think that I bring this forward every year just because of Westside Baby's work in my district, but Westside Baby does work all over the city and outside of the city as well.

I believe King County also acts annually in honor of the work that they do.

And I've just been so honored to lend my voice in some small way over these years to the advocacy and not just advocacy, like the real life, addressing of needs that caregivers experience every day.

Really, really appreciate having this opportunity to lift those issues in partnership with Westside Baby.

Thank you.

Thank you and I should add, because customer and I talked about this, we try to, we work closely with North helpline in our food banks, and they have a baby cupboard and the diapers and the formula are the 1st to go all the time.

We can never keep that stock.

So, thank you so much for being here and coming here every year.

And I know customer herbal, you don't do this just out of habit.

You do it because you truly care about this issue.

So, thank you.

And thank you.

All right.

Let's move on to our agenda to public comment.

Madam Clerk, I know I checked with you before we went live.

How many folks do we have remotely now?

We now have 48 remote and 38 in-person.

Let's do this.

We will give everybody one minute and let's do 10 and 10, starting with the folks online first.

And we will do the recording because I'm guessing we'll have some 1st time callers and some folks that have not come down to public comment in person before.

Please, please, please be mindful of the chime that tells you you have 10 seconds.

to wrap things up.

There's a lot of folks here today with a lot of comments to be made in public comment.

We want to make sure that we don't cut people off and we want to make sure that we speak to the agenda and that we're respectful and we allow other people to have opinions, even if we disagree with them.

With that, Madam Clerk, let's start with the first 10 remote and then we'll flip over to the first 10 in-person.

You would like the recording played?

Yes, I would.

Thank you.

Hello, Seattle.

We are the Emerald City, the city of flowers and the city of goodwill, built on indigenous land, the traditional territory of the Coast Salish peoples.

The Seattle City Council welcomes remote public comment and is eager to hear from residents of our city.

If you would like to be a speaker and provide a verbal public comment, you may register two hours prior to the meeting via the Seattle City Council website.

Here's some information about the public comment proceedings.

Speakers are called upon in the order in which they registered on the council's website.

Each speaker must call in from the phone number provided when they registered online and use the meeting ID and passcode that was emailed upon confirmation.

If you did not receive an email confirmation, please check your spam or junk mail folders.

A reminder, the speaker meeting ID is different from the general listen line meeting ID provided on the agenda.

Once a speaker's name is called, the speaker's microphone will be unmuted and an automatic prompt will say, the host would like you to unmute your microphone.

That is your cue that it's your turn to speak.

At that time, you must press star six.

You will then hear a prompt of, you are unmuted.

Be sure your phone is unmuted on your end so that you will be heard.

As a speaker, you should begin by stating your name and the item that you are addressing.

A chime will sound when 10 seconds are left in your allotted time.

As a gentle reminder to wrap up your public comments.

At the end of the allotted time, your microphone will be muted and the next speaker registered will be called.

Once speakers have completed providing public comment, please disconnect from the public comment line and join us by following the meeting via Seattle Channel broadcast or through the listening line option listed on the agenda.

The council reserves the right to eliminate public comment if the system is being abused.

or if the process impedes the Council's ability to conduct its business on behalf of residents of the City.

Any offensive language that is disruptive to these proceedings or that is not focused on an appropriate topic as specified in Council rules may lead to the speaker being muted by the presiding officer.

Our hope is to provide an opportunity for productive discussions that will assist our orderly consideration of issues before the Council.

The public comment period is now open, and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

Please remember to press star six after you hear the prompt of, you have been unmuted.

Thank you, Seattle.

Our first remote speaker is listed as not present, so we'll move on to the second remote speaker, which is Michael Malini, and Michael will be followed by Drew Batchelor.

And, Michael, you may need to press star six to begin speaking.

Hello my name is Michael Mulaney.

I'm a president of District 3 and I'm calling the council to again reject the proposed legislation that would expand the city's criminal code to prosecute drug possession and public drug use.

We have decades of evidence that incarceration does not prevent overdoses nor give the people the help they need.

City adoption of this law would increase overdose deaths and racial disparities and arrest jail time and overdoses.

This proposed bill will bring us back to regressive and racist war on drug policies instead of moving toward evidence-based, effective, and more compassionate approaches.

Do not pass this legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Drew Batchelor, and Drew will be followed by Alex Fay.

Hi, my name is Drew Batchelor.

I live in D6.

Last January, an SPD officer was racing to deliver criminal justice to a drug user who was not a danger to anyone and ended up killing an innocent woman.

This week, we all heard the leaders of the Seattle Police Union laughing at her death.

And today, we find the council voting on whether to send the same officers after some of the most vulnerable people in our city.

I wonder if the people this bill targets will be considered regular people.

I wonder what a dollar value that SPD will put on their lives.

During the last vote on this issue, Council Member Nelson said, and I quote, say what you want about the war on drugs.

We have to do something.

It's such an embarrassment for a leader to just admit on a record that they were supporting bad policy so they can say they're doing something.

Seattle deserves better.

Everyone knows that mass incarceration, the war on drugs is a bad failed policy.

We have 50 years of evidence showing that it doesn't work.

It doesn't stop drug use.

It doesn't prevent crime.

It exacerbates all of these problems.

It's unequally enforced.

Criminalization will blow a hole in our budget and lead to cuts in other services that can actually help people break the cycles of poverty and addiction.

There are examples of other solutions with better outcomes all over the world.

We could have that here if our leaders would only rise to the challenge.

Vote no on Seattle's new war on drugs.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Chairman Robert D. Los Angeles from Snoqualmie Tribe.

Madam Clerk, so we have, hey, Chairman DeLos Angeles, welcome.

Yes.

Great.

Seattle City Council members, thank you for the honor to speak.

I am the Chairman of the Kwame Indian Tribe, Robert DeLos Angeles.

As you know, our tribe decided to be public this summer about the need to protect a cultural modified tree or CMT.

in Seattle this summer after we became aware of it being permitted for removal.

CMTs are archeological sites and as such are protected under state law.

It is critical that all CMT archeological sites are protected within Seattle's limits and beyond.

When the city passed this tree ordinance, tribes were not consulted and as a result, language to protect the CMTs was not included.

The legislative fix before you has been carefully crafted to include tribal feedback and review, thanks to Councilman Peterson.

Our hands go up to Councilman Peterson for his leadership and follow through in introducing language that will help protect these few remaining CMT archeological sites in the city of Seattle, in reaching not only out to the Snoqualmie Indian tribe, but other tribes in the area on this issue.

Our ask is please make sure this bill is heard and acted on earnestly.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next remote speaker is Alex Faye.

And Alex will be followed by Shamaya Tripathi.

Go ahead, Alex.

Hi, my name is Alex Faye.

I'm a registered nurse who works in Lipscomb District 3. I'm asking the city council to again reject CB12043.

six or five that would expand the city's criminal code to prosecute drug possession and public drug use.

I work daily with people who use drugs, many of whom are also unhoused, low income, or people of color.

During my time as a nurse, I've had the chance to build relationships with many of my patients and have seen them switch to safer drug use practices, begin medications other than Suboxone, and find ways to maintain a sustainable relationship to their drug use, however that may look for them.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Shamoya Tripathi, and Shamoya will be followed by Linnea May.

Hi, my name is Shamoya, and I'm the director of policy and civic engagement at Asian Counseling and Referral Service, as well as a constituent of Seattle Council District 3. I'm here today to also ask council to reject the proposed legislation that would expand the city's criminal code to prosecute drug possession and public drug use.

As an organization that serves over 30,000 Asian Pacific Islander community members in Seattle and King County, and more specifically as a service provider that supports clients through recovery and substance use disorder, we know that incarceration is not an answer to overdose.

Our community needs culturally competent recovery services, harm reduction practices, and evidence-based public health approaches, not outdated war on drugs policies that have already historically proven that they deeply harm communities of color.

As a longstanding and trusted service provider, and more importantly, out of deep care for our clients and community members struggling through substance use, we at ACRS ask city council to reject this proposed legislation.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Linnea May and Linnea will be followed by David Gill.

Hello, my name is Linnea and I'm asking you to vote no on the regressive war on drugs.

I live in an apartment in District 3 just above a park where two weeks ago a few people were living out of their tents.

I woke up to sirens and a team of first responders hauling the limp body of a man out of his tent.

I heard them yell for Narcan and watched in anticipation terrified that the white sheet they brought out meant they were too late.

A few minutes later the man thankfully came to.

He seemed frail at best.

His companion had to rebutton his shirt because his hands were shaking too hard.

Watching this man come to it shocked me to think.

If the police officer on scene decided to, they could send this person to jail.

This man is so clearly sick, I could see that plain as day.

How in the world would jail help this man?

Even more than that, how is the threat of jail supposed to help?

All I felt was compassion for this fellow human being in pain, and I want our systems to approach my neighbors in a safe way.

Vote no on this bill.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is David Gill, and David will be followed by Alice Lockhart.

Hi, this is David Gill.

I'm a resident of District 5. I'm asking the Council to please allow Council Member Peterson's legislation protecting culturally significant trees be heard by voting this afternoon to put his legislation on the Council's introduction and referral calendar.

Preventing this bill from being heard perpetuates the perception that our City Council is more responsive to the money, power, and influence of for-profit developers than to tribes and environmentalists protecting Seattle's dwindling urban forest.

Seattle's Department of Construction and Inspections can verify culturally modified tree status with the State of Washington with a simple email.

This status designation does not slow down the development process.

Please do the right thing to support Seattle's indigenous tribes, its climate and environment groups, and its future generation, and put CMTs on today's agenda.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Alice Lockhart, and Alice will be followed by Mark Epstein.

Hi, Council.

I'm Alice Lockhart from Licton Springs in District 5, speaking emphatically against the new war on drugs.

Council members, we all know this is bad policy.

It puts more power in the hands of police, like the police union leaders we just heard showing blatant disregard for a death of a member of our community.

These union leaders are not a few bad apples.

They are representative.

We know the policy will take scarce fiscal resources away from real solutions.

We know there will be racial disparity in its enforcement.

We know it will result in deaths in jail and overdoses upon release.

I personally, back in the days I used to commute downtown on the 358 bus, heard three people who, I heard multiple people on the bus riding together who had been released from jail.

But on three different occasions, folks were sad that they were losing their jobs as a result of having gone to jail.

Jail just makes everything worse.

We know this policy will fail.

Thank you.

Our last remote speaker for this session is Mark Epstein, and then we'll move into the public in-person commenters.

Go ahead, Mark.

Good afternoon, council people.

My name is Mark Epstein.

I'm a substitute educator in the Rainier Valley, and I'd like to speak to Alex Peterson's proposed amendment on culturally modified trees.

I heard a land acknowledgement, of this meeting, but what makes a land agreement concrete is when action is taken to bring justice to Native people.

Indigenous stories are not just cute stories about trees, animals, and the earth.

They're scientifically based over many thousands of years of experience.

The importance of trees and large trees in the city is recognized the Japanese concept of forest bathing or Shinrin-yoku.

In my neighborhood, I've seen the 20 largest trees were removed.

Please hear and pass the Peterson Amendment to protect Seattle's trees.

They do not.

Thank you.

We'll now move to remote speakers.

Our first remote speaker is Rudy Pandoja, will be followed by Alexander Maben.

And be sure to pull the mic right up to you.

Thank you.

My name is Rudy Pantoja, or Toja, or whatever you want to say.

Hey, I'm here to support this ordinance.

I think it's very important as a person that works the streets along the Aurora Corridor in North Seattle as well as in South Seattle.

Oftentimes, I'm the guy that cleans up after the addicts, whether they're alcoholics, marijuana smokers, fentanyl, IV users.

And I'm a little sick and tired of going to a job site where I've got somebody smoking fentanyl or shooting up with no respect for my welfare or the customer's welfare or the business welfare.

their only concern for themselves is getting high and staying high.

And I'd like to try to disrupt it without asking Seattle Police to respond.

But I wanna thank SPD for also giving the Narcan when I need them for people that are overdosing or maybe dying.

Anyway, my time's expired.

Thank you very much.

Councilman Strauss, thank you for your service and have a great day.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Alexander Mabin, and Alexander will be followed by Bailey Medill.

Good afternoon, my name is Alexander Maben, he, him, resident of Council District 6. I'm rising in stern opposition to Ordinance CB120645.

Our police department doesn't care about the law.

Our police department appears inconvenienced at best by the need to ensure basic public safety.

If it wasn't clear before from the SPD's obstructionism toward the federal consent decree, it certainly is clear now after our city has learned the details behind the death of John V. Condula at the hands of this police department.

Our community is appalled, not just by this tragic killing, but by the police union vice president's repugnant disregard and disrespect for human life in the immediate aftermath.

It is a remarkably tone-deaf and morally bankrupt act on the city's part to follow this revelation by immediately granting sweeping authority to a police department that has proven time and time again it is not accountable to the citizens of the community it supportedly represents.

I will ask Andrew Lewis and I will ask Lisa to please vote no and uphold the progressive principles you are elected to represent.

I refuse to let the city double down on failed solutions and its failed police system.

Searching for more lives to destroy could not be further from the original...

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Bailey Medillo, and Bailey will be followed by Jordan Van Vos.

My name is Bailey Medillo, I'm a resident of District 2 and I'm a political worker here in Seattle and I'm not going to waste your time once again.

I'm testifying against the new war on drugs once again because it is obvious that this bill is incomplete and utter opposition to the values of our city and the values of this chamber.

If you truly care about your citizens, you will not be empowering a police department that stands by the words that people like me are of lesser value.

Do you believe, all of you, who are going to vote on this and the people who are going to be enforcing this.

Do you believe that people like me are of lesser value?

Because that is the words of the vice president of the police guild.

And that is the words that our police department is going to stand by.

And all of you seem a little bit too excited to hand more authority to a trigger-happy city attorney who plans on prosecuting more and prosecuting disproportionately.

This is unacceptable.

I urge all of you, including you and you, Lisa Herbold and Andrew Lewis, to vote no on this legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you, our next speaker.

Our next speaker is Jordan Van Vost, and Jordan will be followed by Teresa Lam.

Good afternoon, Councilmembers.

My name is Jordan Van Vost.

I speak in favor of Councilmember Peterson's amendment to the tree ordinance.

This is a small but important step towards rectifying this hastily crafted legislation which fails to protect Seattle's remaining trees from development that prioritizes short-term profit over the long-term health of our communities.

I speak in opposition to CB120645, a bill which criminalizes drug possession and use, and gives discretion to a police force which has repeatedly broken our trust, most recently with the shameful ridiculing by SPOG's vice president of Janavi Kandula following her wrongful death.

Investing in public health instead of punishment is the wise and compassionate choice.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Teresa Lam, and Teresa will be followed by Tanya Wu.

So I'm here for the third time.

The facts show that this bill will do nothing but deepen the harm already suffered by marginalized communities.

I am angry that the creators of this bill are taking advantage of the desperation we all feel to end the public health crisis and to push their own agendas.

Just doing something does not mean it's the right thing to do, especially when there is so much at stake.

And although I do appreciate Councilwoman Herbold and Councilman Lewis flavoring the taste of this bill with amendments so we believe it tastes good when it's forced down our throats, the root of this bill will make criminals out of those suffering the most.

No amount of amendments can change this.

I urge you one more time, please do not pass this bill and abandon the citizens that need you most and the outreach organizations you claim to support.

This is the wrong way to go.

My name is Tanya Wu, District 2 resident, small business owner, and I'm in favor of this bill because I am part of the Chinatown International District Community Watch.

We go out, we've been out for three years trying to help our unhoused neighbors, trying to aid our small businesses and the residents.

And I don't know, how many of you have had a friend die from fentanyl?

How many have you witnessed people dying in front of you from fentanyl?

We've seen too many deaths.

And we need something to be done.

I mean, we cannot have a perfect plan, be an enemy of a good plan.

We just need treatment.

We need services being offered.

And it's been two years.

Fentanyl has been in our streets, affecting our communities, our small businesses.

Summit Sierra High School is half a block away from 12th and Jackson, where there's 150 people almost every single night there.

So I'm in favor of this bill.

We need to vote yes.

We need to do something, because it's been two years.

And good leaders should have seen this in the horizon and should have done something by now.

But now we have no options.

Time is running out.

We have to act.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Randy.

And Randy will be followed by Reza Marashi.

My name is Randy Wu Ng.

I'm part of the Chinatown Night Watch, lifelong South Seattle resident.

I've seen the war on drugs.

I've seen Columbia City when it was terrible.

All right.

OK.

I've done CPR on an overdose victim.

Luckily, CLPD and firefighters were there to save his life.

How many of you guys actually have done that?

We need to do something, and voting yes on this drug bill will be doing something.

We need to do better.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Reza Murashi, who will be followed by Dennis Sills.

Hello, Councilmembers.

My name is Reza Marashi.

I'm Director of Government Affairs at Kilroy Realty Corporation and Board Director for the Metropolitan Improvement District.

You know, I got this piece of paper here in front of me, but I figure Repeating what I've been saying the last couple of times that I came in probably is not the good look today.

I think what I'd like to say is that I appreciate the fact that you guys have taken three months to try and take something that nobody was super happy with, but everybody felt the impetus to do something and to try and make it better.

So I commend you for doing that.

I do think we need to pass this ordinance.

I think we all understand that the status quo is not sustainable.

And while folks might have various ideas on the best way to address it, I do think this is an important step forward.

It's a foundation from which we can grow and continue to make good policy that tries to address all of our shared interests and all of our shared concerns.

You guys have a very hard job.

I don't envy you.

I wouldn't want your job.

But what you guys have done is you've tried to put your heads together to come up with a solution that can advance all of our shared interests and all of our shared concerns.

Please move forward with this ordinance.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Dennis Sills.

And Dennis will be followed by Steve Rubstello.

And then we'll go back to remotes.

Thank you, Dennis.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment.

My name is Dennis Sills and I work at Plymouth housing and permanent supportive housing provider to more than 1,200 chronically homeless adults in Seattle.

Plymouth intersects with addiction directly through its work as a human services provider.

Many of Plymouth's residents are in recovery and require supportive environments to achieve their individual goals.

Controlled substances in public spaces can threaten the success of interventions and increases the challenges of providing supportive services to those who choose to pursue recovery.

Plymouth staff are also affected by controlled substance use as they travel to and from work, as the majority of our 19 buildings are in the downtown core.

We have seen vandalism and violent incidents in the last 12 months in our buildings increase.

We are encouraged that this improved proposal is a tool that city can use to help facilitate diversion and recovery in our community to individuals in need.

Thank you.

Our last in-person public speaker for this group will be Steve Robustello.

My name is Steve Robustello and I'd like to say first off that Councilman Peterson must have a good idea because it's having a lot of trouble getting before the council.

And I think trees being protected from everybody but the developers who want to or the ones who are actually destroying most of them is a bit of a problem.

But also, since I'm here in a very short time, on your ordinance on substance abuse, it's time we do something.

One thing I haven't heard is what about the citizens of the city of Seattle?

You know, we have a lot of concern for some people, but not people.

And all drug addicts are not clear and present dangers to everyone else on the street.

But there are some that are.

And right now, with the police force down over 500, they do not come.

They may come for you, but they don't come for most of the rest of us.

And the Wayne Luke Museum is not the only place that has trouble getting some action.

So get your Act together, get the state and the county.

Thank you.

Our next remote speaker will be Josh Hu, and Josh will be followed by Sandy Shetler.

And again, you may need to press star six in order to be heard remotely.

Hi, Seattle City Council.

My name is Josh Howe.

I live in District 4, and I'm a constituent of Council Member Alex Peterson.

I am vehemently against CB120645 that criminalizes drugs.

This bill puts the responsibility of enforcement squarely on what we already know to be a racist, irresponsible, and actively harmful organization, the Seattle Police Department, the same police department that murdered John V. Kondula earlier this year and laughed about it, and that stops Black people at a rate seven times that of white people.

We've already seen San Francisco enact a similar new war on drugs, where overdose deaths have skyrocketed, where they had been declining for two years before it was enacted.

We need to be funding treatment evidence-based and effective approaches that actually treat people like human beings Please please please vote no new war on drugs.

Thanks for your time Thank you, our next speaker is sandy schettler and sandy will be followed by june blue spurs Go ahead sandy All right, looks like she's unmuted.

I'm not sure why we're not hearing Sandy.

Yeah, I don't see Sandy.

It's star 6. Sandy, you are unmuted.

Oh, now you're muted.

Go back again.

Star 6. There you are.

Thank you.

Sorry for that.

Yeah, thank you.

Council members.

I'm asking you to support the Snoqualmie Tribe and Councilmember Peterson's bill protecting culturally modified trees.

This was actually publicly promised to KOMO News in an interview in a formal statement on July 25th.

Recently, a Western Red Cedar was removed in West Seattle.

It was huge and old, and neighbors saw features suggesting that it might be culturally modified.

So they called SBCI and the intake staff said, there's no such thing as a CMT.

This kind of response makes our land acknowledgement seem hollow and performative.

Protection for CMT simply recognizes the existing sovereignty of tribes and it's already state law.

It also places Seattle on the right side of history.

So I hope you'll support it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is June Bluespruce, and June will be followed by Samuel Wolfe.

June, you may need to press star six.

OK, am I?

You're good.

Thank you.

Can you hear me?

Yes, sorry.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

My name is June Blue Spruce and I live in District 2. I urge the council to take the next steps to consider and approve proposed Bill TMP 9902 regarding culturally modified trees or CMTs crafted with the Snoqualmie Tribe.

In Ordinance 126821 the council protected Tier 1 or heritage trees from being cut under almost any circumstance.

These trees are valued.

One a beautiful black walnut lives in my neighborhood.

However, the method used to designate them was not related to any particular heritage or cultural context.

In contrast, CMTs are important to the indigenous peoples of the Puget Sound region and are specifically protected under state law.

It makes no sense to me that the council would go to such lengths to protect tier one trees while not extending protection to trees that are truly heritage trees designated as culturally important by the first peoples of this land.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Samuel Wolfe, and Samuel will be followed by Barbara Bernard.

Hi, my name is Sam Wolfe.

I'm a senior project manager for the LEAD program.

I coordinate the diversion services and case conferencing in North Seattle.

And I also have the honor of partnering with incredible community leaders in the Chinatown International District in Little Saigon to design street-based responses to drug-related crime in that neighborhood.

I wanted to say that the Behavioral Health Standing Committee in Council Bill 120645 is absolutely essential.

Designing an effective system of care for those caught up in chronic drug use is complicated, and we truly need all of the expertise that our community has to offer in order to create an effective response.

For a long time, we've been missing a steady source of guidance to policymakers from the people who are actually doing this work.

This community has some of the most committed and innovative practitioners of modern recovery services in the country, but those insights that they have don't always make it to those making policy.

FedCentral was not the drug of choice a few years ago and may not be the one that people are using a few years from now.

This legislation can be progressive if and only if it looks to solve this crisis as well.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Barbara Bernard.

Barbara will be followed by Sean Blackwell.

Hi, this is Barbara Bernard, District 6. Asking for your consideration of council member Peterson's legislation that protects culturally significant trees to be heard by voting this afternoon to put his legislation on the council's introduction and referral calendar.

We'll be grateful to any of the city council members who do the right thing today to support Seattle's tree canopy and indigenous tribes including the Suquamish tribes because they deserve to have city and state governments protect culturally significant trees.

and comply with state law to save trees like luma.

We were promised that corrections and additions would be made to the current tree ordinance and they have not yet been introduced.

So we'd like this to seriously be considered and introduced today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Sean Blackwell and Sean will be followed by Kim Butler.

Hello, my name is Sean Blackwell.

I'm a social worker.

I live in Belltown, and I help manage the lead diversion program in the Central District, Capitol Hill, downtown, Pioneer Square, Belltown, and Magnolia.

This past year, I've also coordinated the 3rd Avenue project in the downtown core.

To implement this ordinance in accordance with the spirit of those who are drafting it, those who are opposed to repeating the war on drugs, it's imperative that a plan be put in place measure the results.

To ensure we adhere to the spirit of this ordinance, it's imperative the ordinance maintain the provision that requires regular data collection and review.

The public deserves the information required to evaluate the success or failure of this ordinance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kim Butler and Kim will be followed by Kathleen Brose.

And Kim, you may need to press star six.

Okay, it looks like Kim is not unmuting.

Let's try Kathleen Brose, and we'll come back to Kim.

Kathleen?

Good afternoon council members.

My name is Kathleen Gross.

I am a lifelong Seattleite currently living in District 6. Please pass CB 120645 on substance abuse.

This is not a war on drugs but it is a battle to save all of Seattle.

We don't want to become another San Francisco.

Please focus on placing addicts into treatment and recovery facilities.

Please make downtown Seattle and its wonderful and diverse neighborhoods a great place to work, live and play again.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker will now be Kim Butler and Kim will be followed by Taylor Riley.

Go ahead, Kim.

Hello, Seattle City Council.

This is Kim Butler and I live in District 4. I have lived in Seattle my whole life and I am calling today to request that you allow Council Member Peterson's legislation protecting the culturally significant trees to be heard by voting this afternoon and to put his legislation on the council's introduction and referral calendar.

Allowing for this bill to be heard supports our perception that our city is responsive to the tribes and environmentalists protecting Seattle's dwindling urban forests and not just responsive to the money power and influence for profit developers.

Seattle's development and construction inspections can be can verify CMT status with the state of Washington with just a simple email.

The status designation does not slow down the development process at all.

Please do the right thing today and support Seattle's indigenous tribes its climate and environment groups and its future generations and put CMTs on today's agenda.

Thank you for your dedication to climate justice and for your support for Seattle's urban forest.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Taylor Riley.

And Taylor will be followed by Maylani Manduri.

Go ahead, Taylor.

Hi, my name's Taylor.

I live in District 3 and I'm a public health researcher.

I urge you once again to reject expanding the city's criminal code to prosecute drug possession and public drug use.

This is bad and harmful policy.

We have decades and decades of public health research that criminalizing drug use and possession will only make the overdose crisis worse.

This bill will undoubtedly increase overdoses deaths and racial disparities and arrest jail time and overdoses.

And you all voting for this will be responsible for that.

For a council who says they are committed to racial equity it is baffling you would give Seattle Police Department the discretion to enforce this.

SBD consistently stops and frisks Black and Indigenous people at much higher rates than White people.

We don't need police and criminalization to solve these very serious public health crises.

This will certainly make the situation worse and take resources away from what people actually need, housing, healthcare, and treatment.

Don't bring us back to regressive and racist war on drug policies.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our last speaker for this session of remote speakers is Meilani Mandery, and then we'll move back to in-person.

Go ahead, Meilani.

Hi, my name is Meilani.

I live and work in District 2, specifically in the Chinatown International District.

I'm urging the council to reject the proposed legislation that expands the city's criminal code to prosecute drug possession and public drug use.

The city, and my neighborhood specifically, needs effective and compassionate care for our most vulnerable neighbors.

That does not include criminalization and incarceration.

War on drug policies have always targeted black, brown, and poor people, and the adoption of this bill would be a racist step backward for the city.

We know criminalization is not a public health solution.

Please vote no.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, in-person speaker, is Andrea Suarez.

And Andrea, will you be followed by Faye Lopez Getley?

Hello.

Andrea Suarez with We Heart Seattle.

We are for passing this ordinance because this alone, Narcan's not working.

Four people a day are dying in King County.

112,000 people have died in our nation over fentanyl overdoses.

It's time for change.

It's time for including all tools, and that includes the tool of our police force.

It does not mean arrest, incarcerate forever.

It just means stop.

Arrest means stop.

It doesn't mean convict.

Stop the behavior that's harming you now, just like we wouldn't allow somebody to sit there and stab themselves in the neck and we would walk by.

Fentanyl, overdose.

Our first responders are responding at 15 a day.

Something's not working.

All tools on deck, all hands on deck.

Please pass this ordinance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Faye Lopez-Gatley, and Faye will be followed by Peter Condit.

Hello, and good afternoon.

My name is Faye Lopez-Gedke.

I go by she, her, and ella.

I am the Deputy Director of Purpose, Dignity, Action.

We operate CoLEAD, which is an intensive case management wing of LEAD Diversion Services, and we also provide project management for LEAD citywide.

The services offered through LEAD are based in principles of harm reduction, because that approach is both humane and often the most effective in engaging people on a long recovery journey.

While in LEAD, we meet people where they are.

We don't leave them there.

The goal is to support individuals over a long arc of change that reflects how complicated and nonlinear recovery is for most people.

When we have enough case management and housing, many people make a lot of progress and neighborhoods benefit.

We're absolutely committed to that vision, but we'll need the resources to do the job and fulfill the potential of this framework.

We cannot merely budget to maintain our current efforts, which have not been scaled to meet the current needs, much less those that would be essential to fill the need required by the proposed ordinance.

If we intend...

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Peter Condit, and Peter will be followed by Larry Marshall.

Peter Condit.

I don't see.

Hello, my name is Peter Condit.

Hello.

Hello.

My name is Peter Condit.

I'm against the new war on drugs bill.

One of the many problems with Council Bill 120645 lies in its reliance on officer discretion to decide which individuals are deserving or not of diversion.

As long as unconscious bias exists, officer discretion will produce racist outcomes.

Furthermore, we are not dealing with merely unconscious bias in the SPD.

We have seen violence, racism, and a lack of compassion throughout SPD's ranks.

For example, instead of accepting accountability, Carmen Best and tear-gassed Jenny Durkin deleted their text messages and retired.

More recently, we have heard odious officer remarks that Janavi Khandula's life had limited value.

These cops are allowed to inflict violence on folks and get to choose who goes into the criminal legal system.

And for what?

In this case, drug use.

That's not just.

Acting upon your feelings of discomfort or on your desire, mostly people over there, to make money from people going shopping, to use that to lock up unhoused folks is hateful and violent.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Larry Marshall.

Larry will be followed by Howard Gale.

Morning, Council.

Larry Marshall, I work at the Hampton Inn right here in downtown Seattle by the space, you know, and I thought about telling you guys about how my son was murdered this year.

16 had nothing to do with the incident.

But I look at it and say, violence is violence.

Drug is drugs, but we need to do something.

I've been here two years, moving back from Virginia, and 3rd Avenue has me worried all the time about my youngest daughter, 18, and then my younger one, 13. So if we don't do nothing, then what are we going to do, sit here?

I've already lost one kid.

I don't know about you guys.

My boss lost his son to fentanyl because he thought it was a Percocet.

So if we don't do nothing, then we're not holding nobody accountable.

I get it, SPD is the bad people, and everybody don't like them.

That's an individual person.

At the end of the day, you look at it, you can laugh about it.

You can laugh about it.

Each person by their own is accountable for their own actions.

And that's what we need to do, hold them accountable.

If we don't hold them accountable, then what?

Just like they don't hold us accountable.

So that's all we want to do.

But still, we still need to put people away because it's all about time.

People need time in jail to figure out what they need to do.

Just like if they had time in rehabilitation.

They just need time.

That's all it is, is time.

Thank you, our next speaker.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Howard Gale, and Howard will be followed by Kathleen Kirkhoff.

Good afternoon.

Howard Gale.

In 2020, just days before George Floyd's murder...

Your police chased Harry Caver, a black man experiencing a severe behavioral health crisis, with a dog and then murdered him.

You said nothing.

In 2021, your police rushed Derek Hayden, experiencing a severe mental health crisis, with guns drawn and murdered him.

You said little or nothing.

In 2022, your police sent a dog to bite the naked crotch of a Latinx man experiencing a severe mental health crisis and then shot him to death.

You said nothing.

This year, your police came hot and heavy with assault rifles drawn on a black teen on Capitol Hill, his potential murder only prevented by regular folks on the street.

You said nothing.

So why would a Seattle officer think that making jokes and heartless statements about Jadhavini Kundula cause you any concern?

This must be very confusing for officers.

Attack dogs and bullets appear not to offend your conscience, but words do.

You've ignored SPD violence, killing, and continuing abuse of people of color.

You have noticed, and either you do not care, you believe the person got what was coming, or you've decided your conscience simply depends on press attention.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kathleen Kirkhoff, and Kathleen will be followed by Rob Saka.

My name is Kathleen Kirkhoff and I'm in District Six.

I'm here to support Councilman Peterson's bill and how to put this, I looked up when Seattle was founded on Wikipedia and it was 1851. And they described the city was climax old growth forest with trees that were a thousand to two thousand years old and as high as 400 feet.

All we're asking is this has all been lost to the Snoqualmie tribe and to all of us.

And all we're asking is that you protect a little remnant.

And I don't understand why you can't find the will to even give it a hearing.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Rob Saka and Rob will be followed by Mike Stewart.

Good afternoon.

My name is Rob Saka from District 1. I live in Delridge with my family.

I have three young kids.

And I'll tell you, as a dad from Delridge, I know firsthand, and I'm here to testify in support of this drug use bill.

I'll tell you, as a dad from Delridge, I know firsthand that parents across this city, they have a reasonable expectation to be able to use our public parks and traverse along the sidewalks without having to see someone suffering from a debilitating drug dependency issue open.

And at the same time, it is also a reasonable expectation for people suffering from debilitating drug dependency issues to know that their city cares about them and truly cares and values their lives and their experiences.

And that's why this thing is the right thing to do.

We can all win in this.

We have a shared opportunity and a shared obligation to take the right action.

I heard some people pointedly call out certain council members.

I'll do the same.

Council Member Herbal, you sponsor this legislation.

Please do the right thing here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Mike Stewart and Mike will be followed by Scott Ingham.

I'm executive director of the Ballard Alliance here speaking today in support of the Ballard BIA renewal.

I wanted to thank Councilmember Nelson for her leadership and work over the past month to shepherd this through her committee.

And I'd also like to thank Councilmember Dan Strauss for his support for the BIA renewal, but also his partnership on many significant projects over the last several years, all of which have helped improve the vitality of the Ballard District.

At last week's Committee Economic Development Committee hearing, members had the opportunity to hear from more than 30 property owners, business owners, residents, and community partners.

Each shared their perspective about the Ballard BIA and the significant and important role that the organization plays within the Ballard community.

All of these supporters agree that the BIA has demonstrated a strong track record of leadership and the ability to get things done on behalf of Ballard.

To that end, we are asking for your support today of the Ballard BIA renewal, and encourage you to vote yes on Council Bill 12036. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Scott Ingham, and Scott will be followed by our last in-person speaker for this group, Nathan Fisher.

Go ahead, Scott.

I am Scott Ingham.

I am the co-chair of the Ballard Alliance Board of Directors and in following Mike, I just want to say it's been an amazing seven years since this council first authorized the BIA in Ballard.

We're back asking for a 12-year renewal.

And there's a lot of work to be done.

A lot of work has been done already in that seven years, and it was a fast seven years.

And we're asking you to support us again to give us that opportunity to continue to work with you, the city, and to work with our businesses and our residents and others throughout this community to keep doing the great work that has been able to be done because we have the BIA.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Nathan Fisher in person, and then we'll be moving to Jennifer Godfrey remotely.

Hello, I am Nathan Fisher.

I am one of the witnesses of the despair sweeping the city, people on the zombie drug.

There was someone who overdosed in the library across the street from the school I work and attend.

I agree with Sarah Nelson, something needs to be done.

However, we disagree on what that is.

I think we need to legalize and regulate our drugs so people aren't using fentanyl when they think they're using something else, and they have a community to go to.

They can't be oversold drugs that may kill them.

I don't think we need to further the police state.

If you guys really cared about the safety of the people, you would have been here in person voting for rent control.

I think we need a war on the drug manufacturers.

on the corporations that are pushing people into all of this despair, all of this homelessness.

Yeah, so please don't be a hypocrite.

If you actually care about people, help them.

Don't arrest them.

Thank you.

Next, we'll move to our remote speakers.

Jennifer Godfrey will be followed by Julia Shetler.

Jennifer.

Hi.

Thank you, Jennifer Godfrey.

And I'm calling to request that the Seattle City Council please vote today to put Council Member Peterson's legislation protecting culturally significant trees, PMP 9902, on the council's introduction and referral calendar.

Let's respect the Snoqualmie tribe who helped craft PMP 9902 by not delaying again.

We need to save the trees that protect the famine which feed our starving southern resident killer whales.

In addition to the carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, storm water retention that only mature trees can provide.

It would take decades or centuries for replacement sapling to do the same.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Julia Shetler.

And Julia will be followed by Wendy Kwan.

Hi.

Please vote in favor of putting the CMT protection legislation on the calendar.

This simple piece of legislation updates our tree code to reflect existing state laws surrounding the protection of CMTs, nothing more.

We have a duty to honor our government to government relations with sovereign indigenous tribes and respect the commitment Washington State has made to protect CMTs as archeological sites.

Even still, this piece of legislation has been blocked from consideration by the council three times already.

For-profit developers have argued that CMTs result in project delays.

This is false.

SCCI can communicate with the state at the speed of an email about tree protection.

Even if this did result in project delays, the high risk of destroying significant archeological sites in the process should not be enough, should be enough for us to support this legislation.

Without a tree sitter, LUMA would have been destroyed.

Archeological destruction is real and it's happening in Seattle right now.

please put this legislation on the calendar so we can try to stop it.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Wendy Kwon and Wendy will be followed by Alicia Kohler.

Hi, this is Wendy.

I'm a resident in Seattle for 19 years now, and I have not seen anything that works about drug use in public.

And everybody has say about this public drug use.

and like for who actually not benefit from, but I would say if this is put in place, it would benefit a lot of families.

Like we will not, I'm a mom of like a little kid.

We will not be walking by bus stop with like being like your addict using fentanyl, using crack.

And also if you have anyone past like Jackson and 12, That's a high school one box away from all the people are selling drugs.

If this law is passed, and that will benefit all the parents that have a kid study in that high school.

So please, council members, please pass this law.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Alicia Kohler, and Alicia will be followed by Joshua Morris.

Hi, my name is Alicia Kohler.

I live in District 3 and have experience with a loved one who was impacted by the failed war on drugs.

I'm asking council members today to reject the proposed legislation which would roll us backwards towards that failed war.

If council members truly wanted to help people suffering from drug use, as you allege, you would find the courage to adequately fund public health solutions that are proven to help those people into recovery.

Instead, today, you are seeking a cheap easy and violent solution that flies in the face of decades of evidence and prioritizes hiding a public health crisis from public view over providing actual relief to people who desperately need it.

This bill leaves vulnerable people's health and well-being in the hands of a police force that has repeatedly proven itself to have astounding disregard for, quote, just normal members of the public and begging council members to dig deeper into your moral conscience.

I hear people on this call who are distraught over overdose deaths in our city, and I would agree with them that these deaths are unacceptable, but people's lives are at stake.

Please vote against this bill.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Joshua Morris, and Joshua will be followed by Sarah Lidstrom.

Good afternoon, council members.

I'm Joshua Morris calling on behalf of Birds Connect Seattle, your local bird conservation organization.

We ask you to please add Council Member Peterson's bill protecting culturally modified trees to the introduction and referral calendar.

The legislation would help the city comply with state law, honor and respect tribes, and preserve archeological sites.

It deserves your consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Sarah Lidstrom.

Sarah will be followed by Christine Hein.

Sarah, you may need to, there you go.

There we go.

Hi, my name is Sarah Lidstrom, and I'm here to speak in opposition of CB120645.

I'm a public health epidemiologist specializing in the topic of substance use, and I also serve on the Community Advisory Committee for the Health Through Housing Initiative.

But I'm here only as a private citizen to express my concern about the misguided approach of this bill.

Seattle is one of the most highly educated populations in the United States.

Our current epidemic of substance use disorder should be something we are smart enough to approach without exacerbating harm.

This bill seeks to continue old, failed methods, hoping for new results.

If enforcement of this kind was going to work, the problem would have been solved by now.

History shows we cannot arrest our way out of a substance use crisis.

Data shows that arrests and busts are directly correlated to an increase in negative outcomes like fatal overdoses.

We know that arrests, interactions with the police, imprisonment are all things that cause trauma and increase harm.

These kinds of traumas are building blocks of substance use disorder and drive people further away from systems of recovery.

I'm asking as a resident.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is now Denise Hotchkiss and Denise will be followed by Rose H. And Denise you may there you go.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

City Council, I appreciate this time.

I am here today to talk about CBO 120645. I currently work as a case manager in a emergency shelter in North Seattle.

And I deal with people daily that are dealing with substance use disorders, and are housing insecure or are currently homeless.

I agree with what many of the speakers today have said.

Yes, we must do something.

We're in the middle of a crisis and we must do something, but this is not the solution.

We know from much research and our history that criminalizing drug use and putting people in jail will not help the problem.

It increases their substance use.

It does not.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Rose H., and Rose will be followed by Tim Moiseau.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

My name is Rose Harriet.

I am an attorney.

I am an advocate.

I work with young people who are surviving these violent racist systems.

I'm here today to tell you to not continue the racist, violent methods of the past.

The war on drugs we showed was a failure.

It showed it harmed people of color.

It killed our loved ones.

I'll say it again, it killed our loved ones.

I'm not here today as an attorney or even a youth worker.

I'm here today as someone who's survived my own addiction.

and that I'm sad to hear that I don't see more people here who have.

And the route that I was able to go was because the system did not suck me in, that I avoided being sucked into your prison.

My family, my brother did not.

And I can see the impact of incarceration is the reason why he's out on the streets.

That violence, that trauma is the reason that a lot of us used in the first place.

Thank you, our next speaker is Tim Moiseau.

And Tim will be followed by our last remote speaker in this group, Jade Weiss.

Go ahead, Tim.

Hi, my name is Tim.

I'm here today representing U of CW3000 to talk out against CD120645.

While we do appreciate Amendment D brought forth by Teresa Mosquedo, we still feel there needs to be more conversation around the implementation and funding of this proposed ordinance.

Committees need to meet to discuss and plan before this is put to a vote.

As it stands now, UFCW 3000 still opposes this ordinance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our last speaker remotely will be Jade Weiss.

My name is Jade Weiss and I just want to say I just want to start by saying war is never, quote, gentle, and to try to frame it as such is irresponsible, disingenuous, and a shamefully blatant attempt to absolve yourselves of your lust for enacting violence on our most vulnerable community members.

I urge council to vote no on the Primitive Council Bill 120645 and consider a recent study published by the University of Washington, where the findings prove that when accessing safe consumption sites, people who use drugs have a more efficient path to services after a crisis or overdose than they ever do when transported to the revolving doors of the emergency room or jail, options that statistically lead to death.

Further, local emergency service providers who participated in the interviews in the study noted that safe consumption sites create a healthier safe work environment for when they respond to those overdose calls.

Even the troops that you want to enact this violence disagree with you.

The study also notes that of 120 consumption sites globally, there have been zero fatal overdose, fatal overdoses, meaning safe consumption works.

First responders agreed that focusing funding on the...

Thank you.

We'll move to public commenters in person.

Our next speaker is Chris Gemmel, and Chris will be followed by Aretha Basu.

Looks like it's G-E-M-M-I-L-L.

Chris?

Chris.

Oh, you're going to pass.

Thank you.

Okay, our next speaker is Aretha Basu.

We know Aretha.

We do.

Good afternoon, Council Members.

Aretha Basu, Political Director of Puget Sound SAGE, here to ask you to vote no on this ordinance today.

We have decades of evidence that incarceration does not prevent overdoses, nor does it give people the help that they need.

This is a public health crisis, but this bill is not a public health approach.

What will truly help people is housing, safe lots, safe consumption sites, access to well-paying union jobs, all things that this council has supported in the past.

Adoption of this bill will increase harm at the hands of SPD and racial disparities in arrests and jail time.

We have no guarantee any of the promises of diversion or resources made in this bill will come to fruition.

We haven't seen the budget yet, and we all know that our city is facing a massive budget shortfall.

Please vote no today.

Do not let this be the legacy of this council.

Do not let this be the legacy of this city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Erika Rescher, and Erika will be followed by Bradley Dosh.

My name is Erica Rusher.

I'm a public defender in King County.

The councils vote today if you vote yes on this bill.

We'll invite Seattle police officers to approach someone who is not assaulting anyone, who is not trespassing, who is not threatening anyone, and who individual police officers assess whether or not a cigarette contains tobacco or cannabis based on looking at them.

That is deeply unjust.

All politics is local.

City prosecutors know how many little things can already get somebody arrested.

You know that they can go to the hospital if they have a drug problem.

you know there are other ways for them to be detained, all of them affecting a person's ability to access housing, education, and employment.

If you vote yes today, you do so knowing that these distinctions are based on race, class, and nothing else.

Thank you, and please take care of yourselves.

We're a community, we belong to each other, and have mercy for those who lost people.

Thank you.

Our next in-person speaker is Bradley Dosh, and Bradley will be followed by Maggie McKelvey.

Hello, my name is Bradley Dosh, and I'm a constituent of Seattle Council District 1. I'm urging you to again reject the proposed legislation that would expand the city's criminal code to prosecute drug possession and public drug use.

At Roos Young Adult Shelter, I spoke with many young people struggling with drugs, These people need care, support, and community, not more interactions with the police.

These folks are human beings, just like you and me, and deserve to be treated as such.

We should attack the roots of these issues.

As others have already stated, these include, but are not limited to, housing and food security, financial stability, health care, and education.

There is a multitude of evidence that incarceration does not prevent overdoses, nor give people the help they need.

It makes me angry that the city is considering this law, and I urge you to vote no.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Maggie McKelvey, and Maggie will be followed by Jem Wong.

And feel free to line up at both mics if you'd like to.

Good afternoon, city council members.

My name is Maggie McKelvey, and I serve on the operating board of the Ballard Alliance.

I'm here today to ask you to support the renewal of the Ballard BIA.

For the first seven years of Ballard BIA's life cycle coincided with unique and unprecedented times, a true testing ground for us all.

Everywhere, the need was for stability, resilience, and strong leadership.

I speak both as a longtime Ballard resident and as a Ballard business leader to express my profound gratitude for the active responsiveness, the sincere dedication, and the forward-thinking vision that the Ballard Alliance team provided through the Ballard BIA.

I applaud the Ballard BIA for affecting real solutions such as street cafes to help local businesses survive the pandemic and for successfully advocating for impactful long-term solutions such as a tunneled approach to light rail.

Please vote yes today on council bill 120634.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Gem I believe Wong and Gem will be followed by Shimona Marino.

I'm here primarily as a nurse, and so I want to say to the people who have spoken, I too have seen overdoses.

I too have done CPR.

I too have seen the uptick of people with substance use coming into the hospital.

And I too also have walked the streets of Chinatown supporting our unhoused neighbors, especially doing encampment sweeps, especially when their meds are being thrown out by SPD or by the city, especially also when parents have their kids' ashes been thrown out during encampment sweep.

So there's a lot of pain and suffering we all see on Chinatown streets.

One thing I see that these folks have in common is that a lot of them have cycled through King County Jail.

A lot of them have survived King County Jail, gone back onto the streets, gone back to substance use, and realized that King County Jail has just increased more trauma and has not solved their addiction issues.

And it's interesting for me to see some people in this space who talk about the CID and Torvin Jackson, and those same people who also oppose the shelter and treatment center that was being proposed a few months ago.

So the irony, the irony.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker will be Shimona Marino, and Shimona will be followed by Lily Hayward.

people to go, we have to stick to it.

I'm sorry.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Please, everybody, it's one minute.

Please listen for the chime and you have 10 seconds to wrap up your comments.

We don't like cutting people off, but please be mindful of the chime.

Madam Clerk, go ahead and call the next name.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Shimona Marino and Shimona will be followed by Lily Hayward.

Hi, my name is Shimona Moreno.

I'm the executive director at 350 Seattle.

I'm here to ask you again to reject the proposed legislation that will expand the city's criminal code to prosecute drug possession and public drug use.

Decades of research show that criminalizing drugs is ineffective and harmful.

Jails cannot solve a public health problem.

If anything, they make it worse.

According to Washington State studies that people who've been incarcerated were over 100 times more likely to die from drug overdose.

But this law isn't about helping people recover from addiction, or avoid overdose, or improve their quality of life.

This law is about dehumanizing drug users, destabilizing people in already precarious situations, and expanding the carceral system, which disproportionately harms black, brown, indigenous, and poor people.

How can we pass a bill without seeing the budget, which is coming soon, and without knowing for sure the promises of diversion?

going to happen, especially with the given massive budget fall that we have been told about, that we are being told about, that we're facing.

Knowing that, I vote no on this racist.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Lily Hayward, and Lily will be followed by Aidan Carroll.

Good afternoon Seattle City Council members.

On behalf of the nearly 2,500 members of the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, we encourage you to vote yes on Council Bill 120645. The Seattle business community supports an all-of-the-above approach to public safety and this legislation adds a tool to that toolbox.

As you deliberate today, please keep the intent of this legislation to get people treatment and enforce the law at the top of your mind.

We hope that the law in conjunction with the executive order that the mayor will release and any additional investments is simple and effective.

And we expect the results to make good on the intent, which means that in the coming months we will see more people in treatment, fewer people on the streets, and a decline in overdoses.

Please pass this legislation today and continue working to make our communities safer and better cared for.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Aidan Carroll, and our last in-person speaker for this group would be Saren Smith.

OK.

Some of you know I have Tourette's, among other things.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

And those of us with disabilities have to stand up for each other.

This law before us would exclusively target homeless people.

And homeless people almost universally have one or more disabilities.

Some had it before they got there.

And capitalism's response to inability is poverty, unless you're a wealthy family.

A lot more got it after they ended up on the streets.

And addiction is a disability.

We are sick and tired of being told, we know what's best for you, and we're going to forcibly tie you up for your own good, force feed you, force medicate you.

Side effects be damned.

It makes it a lot harder to accept help when it would actually help.

How can anyone go through that without losing trust?

Best case scenario, everyone's going to end up in treatment, and that treatment either is going to go to them instead of somebody else who already wants it.

That's what we're seeing with the shelters right now.

People who want shelter can't get it because other people are being forced into it through the sweeps.

Fix the housing crisis.

Meanwhile, provide services that work for people who are on the streets.

Because inpatient doesn't work after you end up back on the streets again.

You relapse.

Even if enforcement was random, it would still be disproportionate because people affected by the crisis here, quote-unquote crime, are themselves a disproportionate race, income, and specialty disability.

Thank you, our next speaker is Aiden Carroll.

I'm sorry, this is our last speaker in person.

And that's Soren Smith.

Hi, my name is Soren Smith.

I've been a Seattle resident for about 15 years.

I understand that some of the council members want to be able to tell their constituents that they're doing something about the drug use problem in Seattle, about the crisis of unhoused people in Seattle.

And myself and a lot of these people standing on the back wall as well want to see the council do something.

But unlike some people in this room, we care about what y'all do.

And we know after decades of research that criminalizing drug possession or drug use is not the answer.

I truly wonder whether some of the better dressed people in this room and some of the council members truly believe that people will decide to just stop being addicts if we only threaten them with enough prison time.

That is not how addiction works and pretending that it is is a dangerous and naive fantasy.

What we need is services, we need support, and we need to invest in alternative response models such as the CAHOOTS model in Eugene, the STAR program in Denver, and the community response model experimented with in Brooklyn just earlier this year.

Seattle deserves better.

Thank you.

Council President, it looks like we have about 20 more remote speakers signed up and approximately 35 in person.

Right.

Madam Clerk, thank you.

You read my mind.

I was just going to ask you.

We started public comment at 2.17.

It's well over an hour now, so this is what we're going to do.

We can go for 10 more minutes because we have seven matters on the agenda.

With the 10 minutes, are we going to go back to the remote batch?

I could do five remote and then five more in person and be done.

Let's do that and I want to encourage some folks that have come before.

We've heard you.

It's been noted.

And I just was hope that those that never had a chance to speak, get a chance to speak instead of those that have been here.

And again, I'm not commenting on the fact that you've been here, but we hear you loud and clear and thank you for coming again.

So we'll do starting when I get done speaking, we'll do 10 minutes and we will do 5 and 5 and then we will close public comment.

Yes, and we always take written public comment.

We have sheets here or via email.

Thank you.

All right.

Our next remote speaker would be Joe Kunzler followed by Richard Ellison.

Go ahead, Joe.

Thank you.

I want to thank the Council President for being fair with everyone and making sure remote has a chance to be heard.

I want to lend my voice in support of the Drug Enforcement Ordinance that puts treatment first.

I've had to deal with the homeless crisis, walking the streets of Seattle and all, and it is very frightening to have to deal with someone who's high on illegal substances, and it's very dangerous for someone with several thousand dollars of camera gear.

I've had to go out and get mace just as an emergency.

Heaven forbid I have to even touch the doggone thing.

With that, can we talk a bit about white collar crime?

Because there's a certain individual by the name of Alex Zimmerman who's committing horrendous white collar crime at the Public Disclosure Commission because he hasn't turned in a single piece of paperwork in two years of campaign.

I hope some of you who care about crime and law and order like I do will speak out against that as well.

I emailed one of the council members who's been pretty loud and clear in Dan Strauss about fighting dark money.

So we'll see where you are on that in the next couple of weeks.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Richard Ellison and Richard will be followed by BJ Last.

Go ahead, Richard.

Thank you.

My name is Richard Ellison.

I live in district four and council member Peterson's district, and I am in support of his bill that is trying to protect the culturally significant trees.

The city of Seattle had a little battle over a tree in my community where a huge western red cedar was under threat.

The community members had to climb into the tree to protect it, and then it was discovered it was a culturally modified tree by which local tribes stepped in and were that basically effective in trying to protect that tree.

We need to have a law that protects the trees of this kind throughout the city.

The city council has passed a long time ago a comprehensive plan.

And the comprehensive plan is that it'll be a leader, a leader in environmental stewardship.

This is a minimum leadership thing could be done is to protect these closely modified trees wherever they may exist.

It is something imperative that must be done.

And I urge the whole council to support this This bill by Congressman Pettis.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is B.J.

Last and B.J.

will be followed by David Cannondon.

My name is B.J.

Last.

I'm a Ballard resident.

I'm asking you to reject CB 12645. There's no such thing as a gentle war on drugs.

So the bill will kill people and destroy lives without having any impact on substance use rates.

And it's also absurd that after rushing this bill to council, not waiting the typical two weeks, you're now going to end public comment early.

There are a lot of people that have shown up.

A lot of more people showed up just back in June already to tell you what you already know on this, that this bill is just going to destroy lives.

You shouldn't be cutting people off now when you're pushing things through and trying to speed up process, giving people less time to ever get in touch with you before this.

I also want to talk about this bill is being pushed by the same people that are also pushing for budget austerity.

Councilors Nelson, Peterson, and Lewis, who voted for the bill and committee, also have been pushing for austerity since the Finance Committee last month.

Council Member Strauss is doing the exact same thing, talking about wanting to cut city services.

Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Seattle Association, have been pushing for this since the start.

They've been also trying to cut services for years.

If those groups actually want to fund services, they've had

Thank you.

Our next speaker is David Kankanenden, who will be followed by our last remote speaker, Yin Wai.

Hello, council members.

My name is David, pronouns he, him.

I live in District 5. I would like to speak to two different bills.

First, I am an occupational therapist in our trauma centers here in Seattle, and I would like to frame the opioid crisis as a public health crisis in this way.

We should not be criminalizing opioid use for the same reason why we wouldn't criminalize, you know, white sugars and processed foods and those consumption and possession and those types of substances that would say cause diabetes.

We wouldn't criminalize lack of exercise.

and we wouldn't criminalize poverty.

There's no reason why we should be criminalizing opioid use because it's a public health issue and it requires a public health response.

Second, I would like to, I would like council members to vote and to put the culturally significant trees bill on the proposals list.

Consider the heat dome effect and the importance.

Thank you.

And our last remote speaker is Yin Wai.

Dien, there you are.

Go ahead.

Hi, my name is Dien, I have she, her pronouns.

As a resident of B2, volunteer and homeowner in Little Saigon, I am not a supporter of criminalizing drug use.

The state sanctioned violence via sweeps and policing onto street folks have ripple effects.

Every day, my neighbors, workers in CID and visitors have their car windows smashed, especially after a sweep, when folks are destabilized.

Our mail and packages are taken.

My partner was at Wink Luke doing the hate crime incident last week, and what's missing from most media coverage was the dude was upset that his car window was smashed, as his car is also his home where he lives.

The city choosing violence via the criminal drug use only means more violence onto the broader community.

This past Sunday, at Iglo Mutual Aid and Tuman Tofu Vegan Deli, we picked up over five bags of trash, and volunteers gave away 100 boxes of Narcan.

Each one containing two nasal injections.

Volunteers are doing the work that public health and city should be doing.

We know that the police don't prevent crime.

They write reports for insurance claims.

Only we can keep each other safe.

Thank you.

We'll now move to our last five in-person speakers, beginning with Anitra Freeman.

And Anitra will be followed by Ahana Horn.

Is Anitra here?

Yes.

Oh.

Anitra Freeman from Weill.

One of the first people that Weill Women in Black stood for was Robin Langston, a homeless woman who was strangled to death while waiting for a treatment bed.

Every person that you force into treatment, you are denying a treatment bed for somebody who's out there asking for it.

And for every person you force into treatment who gets out and does not have housing, they're going right back out to the street and probably using again.

of this law isn't helping anyone.

It isn't helping the people who want you to clean up the streets.

It isn't helping the people who are using and dying of fentanyl.

It isn't helping the people who are waiting and asking for treatment.

Please, Councilmember Harreld, create resources instead of this.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Eliana Horne, I believe.

And Eliana will be followed by Kiska Kaye.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Eliana Horne.

I'm an attorney in immigration defense, criminal defense, and have worked on police accountability.

I'm also a resident in your district, Andrew Lewis.

I'm asking you to vote no on Council Bill 120645. I'm going to give the rest of my time to Nika Vincent.

Thank you.

My name is Nika Vinson.

I urge you all to vote no on this war on drugs bill.

The city council have stated that racism is a public health crisis and that they want to prioritize and reflect anti-racism and pro-equity investments.

However, this bill does the opposite and in fact puts discretion in the police hands who have proven time and time again that they aren't willing or capable to see the humanity with the members within our community.

In this current bill, In this current bill, police officers won't have to make an attempt to facilitate resources that we need.

Instead, they will arrest individuals to fill your jails and prisons, which ultimately is your goal.

Trusting the police to take accountability and operate in a way that creates a safe environment for any of us is insanity.

They continue to cover up and cover up and cover up.

I understand right now the political climate is shifting to the right, but it always swings back.

And we will continue to be here demanding justice and accountability.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Keisha Kay.

Keisha Kay and Keisha will be followed by Barry Blanton.

Hello, my name is Keisha.

I've been here before, I was here last week, and I'm here to speak in favor of this ordinance.

Making this a drug issue about the police is not gonna work.

The issue is drugs is a problem, people have addiction, and that's what we need to be focused on.

I don't think this bill is perfect, but I do believe that it's a step in the right direction to getting some resolve for the people who want to be safe in the streets.

We all deserve to be safe in our streets.

A plea to emotion, a plea to authority never works.

We can all say and we can all stand here and say that drugs will appeal to a certain race or not.

It's not about race.

It's simply about getting the drugs off of our street, keeping our streets safe for every single person, and coming up with resources that will help people who want the help.

Not everyone who's addicted to drugs wants help.

And I'm just saying please, please vote yes and keep the streets of Seattle straight safe.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Barry Blanton and Barry will be followed by our last speaker, Shannon Kelly.

Good afternoon.

My name is Barry Blanton.

I'm a principal at Blanton Turner.

and I've been actively engaged with the Ballard BIA as well as many other BIAs in the city for the last seven years since its inception.

Representing several residential and mixed-use buildings within the BIA boundary, I support renewing the Ballard BIA because it's uniquely focused on ensuring the safety and well-being of our community while creating a vibrant and thriving environment for our commercial tenants and our residents to live in.

The Ballard BIA has been an invaluable partner in helping us do that in a myriad of ways.

From clean and safe street programs, to marketing campaigns, from economic development to the creation of an active public arts program, our team at the Ballard BIA has established a strong track record over its first life cycle as a leader that gets things done on behalf of the Ballard community.

And that's why we want to see their work continue.

So please vote yes on Council Bill 120634 and approve the reauthorization of the Ballard BIA.

Thank you.

Thank you our last speaker today will be Shannon Kelly.

Hi, my name is Shannon Kelly.

I'm a social worker with the Public Defender's Office.

Council Member Lewis, Council Member Herbold, I know part of the reasoning you voted no the last time on this drug ordinance bill was because there was no infrastructure for diversion and the city randomly decided to drop their community court.

I appreciate your efforts to make amendments to improve diversion efforts.

The amendments are not good enough.

They will not get people into treatment.

There is no infrastructure set up to do that.

it will not send people to treatment, it will put them in jail and kill people.

So my only thought process is, really this is a question, voting yes on this, it either has to be intentional malice or severe cognitive dissonance because you can't say you care for people and vote for this because you'll kill people.

It's not too late.

So Madam Clerk.

That's it.

Okay.

Well, let me end with thanking every one of you that called in and every one of you that came to public comment and those of you that came again.

And of course, you can always submit and we have read and heard in our mailboxes, people's position on many of the matters that are on the, on today's agenda and your words are heard.

And I want to thank all of you, every single one of you.

All right, with that public comment is now closed and we will move on in our agenda.

So, let's go to the adoption of the IRC.

I move to adopt the introduction referral calendar.

Is there a 2nd?

2nd.

Thank you.

It's been moved and 2nd into adopting introductory referral calendar.

And I understand before I say, are there any comments?

I understand that customer Peterson has a motion for us customer Peterson.

Thank you, Council President.

Colleagues, pursuant to Section 3A of our City Council rules, I move to amend the Introduction and Referral Calendar to add TMP 9902 to formally introduce that council bill supporting culturally modified trees like luma and refer it to the City Council for consideration.

Second.

Thank you.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the introduction referral calendar by adding a bill as described by Council Member Peterson.

Council Member Peterson, would you like to address it?

And then I will open up the floor.

Thank you, Council President.

Colleagues, again, pursuant to Section 3A of our city council rules, I circulated the draft council bill before 5 p.m.

yesterday.

It was approved by central staff and the law department so that we could vote today to place it onto our introduction referral calendar.

what we call our IRC.

After crafting the legislation with the Snoqualmie tribe, this council bill regarding culturally modified trees like luma, requested for removal, was originally uploaded to our Legistar system at the end of August.

After additional preliminary feedback, the legislation was shortened and simplified and re-uploaded, still retaining its temporary number, TMP 9902. I want to thank central staff and the city attorney's office for their review of the legislation to confirm no issues.

We had a central staff presentation on the draft in my committee this morning.

I appreciate the chair of the Snoqualmie Tribe calling into public comment both this morning and this afternoon to reiterate his support.

I appreciate the dozens of people who called in today to express their support as well.

We're not here to debate the merits of the four-page bill and its contents because the motion before us is simply a procedural motion to introduce the bill so that we can, as part of our public process, discuss it, make final refinements in a future meeting.

Regarding timing, it could work best to vote on it at a full council meeting in early November to provide everyone with additional time.

Colleagues, please join me in voting yes today to enable this brief but vital legislation to be heard formally by the City Council process.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

I will go first and then I will open the floor.

Unfortunately, Councilmember Peterson, I cannot support your motion to amend the IRC to send this legislation to full council.

And let me tell you why, and many of the reasons you and I had discussed.

So a lot of this will not be new to you, but I would like for the public and my colleagues to know.

I wanna begin with is that I believe and I know that nobody here is against protecting culturally modified trees or disrespecting the Snoqualmie tribe.

The issue is not how and what legislative venue, the issue is what and how and what legislative process we use to get to that, to create an ordinance that does exactly that, that identifies, clarifies, substantiates, and creates a process expressed and codified in an ordinance or a law.

As you know, I'm not a fan of walk-ons because the issue is it turns city council into a committee meeting, a committee in which we already have a land use committee with subject matter jurisdiction to address these issues.

And as you know, I like to defer to the chair of a committee before I assign any issue to a committee because I think it's the right thing to do, it's the fair thing to do, and I rely and give deference to that committee chair because they are in those issues day-to-day more than the rest of us are because we are attending to our own committees.

Um, there are other means to achieve the same goal, that is protecting culturally modified trees, whether it's through a slide, whether it's through a director's rule, and also, as I've shared, through the Indigenous Advisory Committee or Council.

I think it's really unfair to take such a complex issue that we have been discussing for at least two months, and we have a standing committee to address it.

We have other stakeholders and other valuable resources to guide us, including the Indigenous Advisory Council, SDCI, and other tribes.

I think it's important to note that the Indigenous Advisory Council, with its nine members, has four sitting council members from Suquamish, Snoqualmie, Muckleshoot, and Yakima.

and we have yet to hear from other tribes as well.

Let me just add some more context here.

If we were to craft appropriate legislation, which we will do, we would work with, as we've seen, Dr. Allison Brooks, as you know, who is the State Historic Preservation Officer.

And I've worked with her in the past as well, and obviously trust her judgment and her expertise.

And I don't want to get into what we've heard in public comment from some other folks.

I do not buy into the narrative that this is either anti-developer or pro-developer, that this is either pro-tribe or anti-tribe.

It's not, and you're right, Council Member Peterson, it's about a process and getting to how do we protect that.

And I want to thank you because I know your original legislation had some components in there that I was not comfortable with.

And I want to thank you for removing that.

So we were laser focus on culturally modified trees.

So, I want to be able to be in a position to put this issue in the right committee so that we do craft.

a law based on federal and state laws that protect cultural resources.

I'm hoping that SDCI, because you don't need to reinvent the wheel here, there are federal and state laws, some that I helped write, some that I helped litigate when I was representing the lower Elwha and other tribes, exactly how we do government-to-government relations, how we do tribal consultation, and how we work to have a piece of legislation that reflects all of that.

This is the whole purpose this council and the council before and 2 mayors created the indigenous advisory council.

So we could lay these issues to the council to the council to do tribal consultation government to government to bring in.

I also don't buy into some of their concerns that somehow.

If we were to pass an ordinance like this, or put it in the and assign it to the full council.

That they will be required to examine 70,000 trees.

I don't think that's going to happen again.

I don't I want to defer to the committees to to the and other groups and not supplant my own judgment for theirs.

And I want to defer to those groups as well as the chair of land use.

And I do, again, want to say this with all sincerity, Councilor Peterson, you are doing exactly what I wish other electeds would do more of, and that is you reached out to two tribes for consultation.

And I do more than commend you for that.

This is what we've been working up to in our process in the last almost eight years to getting beyond a land acknowledgement, where we have had land-backed policies, right of first refusal, looking with OPCD and SCCI and doing tribal consultation on property and uses and housing.

And we've been doing that and now we're going to codify that.

I don't like to turn council meetings into committee meetings.

I don't like to bypass that process.

And again, I don't believe that we should buy into any kind of narrative that if we don't, if people today vote no, that they're anti Culturally modified trees again, it's about the process.

And again, I believe we need more thoughtful, careful.

A more thoughtful, careful process to create and craft this legislation that truly speaks to that.

If we already have laws on the book that give us guidance.

And also culturally modified trees is just not an opening or an opportunity to review and revisit people who are unhappy or happy with the tree ordinance.

And I think it's offensive at best to go ahead and use any tribe and their treaty right in their culture to come in and say, look, I have a problem with this.

And therefore I want to put forward the culturally modified trees.

But by the way, I want to discuss other issues as well, because I have a feeling that's what's going to happen.

And that's what I was, I was actually guarding against why I wanted this to go to a committee, including mine.

So let me be clear, this isn't an anti, development, pro-development, anti-tribe, for-tribe.

This is about crafting legislation, a law that brings government to government relations, consultation with the correct parties, that we get it on the books and that it's done right, and that we serve as an example To other city departments, whether it's S.

D. C. I department of neighbors.

All of them are willing partners.

I've had an opportunity to speak, of course, to Tim rain and in the mayor's office.

Folks from and of course, working and talking to other tribal leadership as well.

And I think you can understand that you have and I, again, commend you and thank you.

You certainly have lit the fire for robust discussion.

And this, I think this is the 1st time this has happened on this council besides me doing it that another elected leader.

Has understood reached out.

and actually has done tribal consultation.

And for that, I thank you, Council Member Peterson.

But sadly, I cannot vote yes with you today for the reasons I just stated.

Thank you.

I see Council Member Lewis has his hand up.

Council Member Lewis.

Thank you, Council President.

I'll be voting yes on this procedural motion today from Council Member Peterson on the underlying ordinance.

I appreciate for a lot of the reasons that you just stated, Council President, Council Member Peterson, bringing this issue forward to the Council.

My understanding is that other colleagues are working on similar proposals around what I think all of us would agree is important.

which is culturally modified trees and making sure that there are adequate recognitions and protections for culturally modified trees and collaboration with tribal leadership and with the state to identify those trees.

But I do want to state that my vote today is procedural to advance this idea forward.

I would want to do further consultation with tribal stakeholders as well as other colleagues on what the final state of the policy would look like.

But I appreciate Council Member Peterson getting this conversation started and look forward to deliberating with other colleagues on policies around culturally modified trees.

Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Council President.

Colleagues, I share the position of Council President.

I will also say that she shared my feelings in a more factual and in a better way than even I could, so I won't try to repeat what she has already said.

Just for the record, because it's now a public discussion, I am for protecting culturally modified trees.

We drafted a bill in early August, and once Luma was saved, we took a moment to ensure that we're doing it in the right way.

And Council Member Peterson, as I've said to you over the last several weeks, I remain open and excited to have this legislation in land use or in Council President's Committee.

As I've said over the last few weeks and just yesterday, I would love to work with you to make sure that our bills are in collaboration and not in conflict.

And I am here to say that I too would like to protect culturally modified trees I will now just share more private conversations, but when we spoke, I shared that land use committee was completely full this month.

We had a three and a half hour meeting.

I know Council Member Morales, you'd really wanted to have one of your bills shared as an informational item.

And I think there were some tough feelings towards me about not being able to have that on the committee, and you also shared that you could have it in your own committee, just like you did today, Council Member Peterson.

And it's not a personal, it's not about the policy, it was just that committee was over three hours long.

And so I again remain committed to working with you, should you desire to, to both create protections that protect culturally modified trees as tier one trees, and to make sure that our efforts are in collaboration.

Here on the record, the same conversation I've shared previously, I'm here to work with you.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you, Council President.

Council President, I very much appreciate what you said and what the Chair of Land Use has said as well.

I do want to thank Council Member Peterson for the work that you've done on this issue and appreciate that you have noted that you reached out to the Intergovernmental Relations Office and that you acknowledge and appreciate the government-to-government relations aspect that we need to be applying to this legislation in conjunction with what the state law Is and how we should be complementing the state law efforts to expedite our city discussions with the state partners to ensure that something like what happened with luma never occurs again.

I was 1 of the authors along with council member Peterson and council member Lewis excuse me, council member Peterson and council member Strauss.

on a letter that we sent to the department urging that collaboration and consultation with the state to protect LUMA.

I'm prepared to support legislation when it ultimately comes in front of the council, but I want to underscore the council president's comments and the urgency to treat this with integrity and with the timeframe that is necessary to ensure that it's done right and not just another check mark before the end of the year.

I look forward to voting on this.

at the appropriate time to make sure that it comes before the council.

I am very supportive of this legislation to codify our process to do consultation with the state partners.

But I don't think that it serves us well to expedite a process as the council president already articulated that does not give due diligence to the community partners and to the government relations that we need to take into account when passing the legislation.

given the short time frame that we have and the fact that budget is coming next Tuesday.

Thank you, Madam President.

And I'll be voting no on this introduction and referral motion, but supportive of the underlying bill that is being developed.

Are there any other comments?

Council Member Peterson, would you like to wrap us up before we go to a vote?

And then I have a comment to make.

Thank you, Council President.

Yes, I just want to encourage my colleagues to enable this, to free this legislation, to get it onto the IRC, to get moving on the public process, to, you know, do a consultation that has been done.

They are expecting action momentum here and we can do that by simply getting it onto the introduction referral calendar rather than debating the merits of the bill here.

As a legislator, I wrote the legislation, got it approved by the law department and when it introduced.

Thank you.

Well, I'll just add, Councilor Peterson, thank you for the robust discussion.

I know that you want, as you told me, light the fire.

I get it.

I'm with you.

We all want to protect luma and culturally modified trees, but I also don't want to undermine and take away the power that we gave to the Indigenous Advisory Council to address these very type of issues to consult with not only the mayor's office, but city departments.

And because I kind of know this stuff, there's a ton of federal and state laws.

It's not that hard.

We could literally do this through a slide or a director's rule.

There's so many different ways we could do this instead of just popping it in front of full council.

And I don't mean to sound negative, because I know how hard you've worked on this.

So I just want people to know that.

And I appreciate that you had folks show up and call and call in.

And I want to thank them for their support.

Not a lot of attention has been given to culturally modified trees as a cultural resource.

So I want to thank the Snoqualmie tribe and the chair, who I know personally, Chairman De Los Angeles and those folks.

So again, thank you.

So with that, Madam Chair, will you please call the roll?

Councilmember Sawant?

Yes.

Councilmember Strauss?

No.

Councilmember Herbold?

Yes.

Councilmember Lewis?

Yes.

Councilmember Morales?

Yes.

Councilmember Mosqueda?

No.

Council Member Nelson.

No.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

And Council President Quattus.

No.

That's six, sorry, that's five in favor, four opposed.

Okay, so the motion carries.

and the council bill is added to the introduction referral calendar and will come before full council during budget.

So that's going to be awesome.

I'll leave it at that.

Thank you very much, Council Member Peterson.

All right, so if there's no objection, the introduction referral calendar as amended will be adopted.

Is there any objection?

I just get a confirmation on the vote count.

I thought I heard five opposed and four in favor.

Oh, did I get in reverse?

Well, I don't know.

It could have been me.

Madam Clerk, I thought it passed.

Did I get it wrong?

No.

I show five in favor, four opposed.

Five in favor.

Correct.

I'm going to take it again.

Five and four.

All right, so hearing no objection, the introduction and referral counter is adopted as amended.

All right, let's move on to the adoption of the agenda.

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

Not seeing or hearing an objection, the agenda is adopted.

Let's move on to the consent calendar.

We will now consider the proposed consent calendar.

Items on the consent calendar include the minutes from September 12th, payroll bill 120662, and then we have the 18 appointments to the Get Engaged program, which were presented to the council yesterday, council briefing.

We have two appointments from the Economic Development, Technology, and City Light Committee for the Seattle Music Commission.

Are there any council members that would like to remove anything from the consent calendar?

Not seeing or hearing any objection, I move to adopt the consent calendar.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

Thank you.

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

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

Council Member Sawant.

Yes.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Council Member Herbold.

Yes.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

And Council President Juarez.

Aye.

None in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The consent calendar is adopted.

Madam Clerk, will you please affix my signature to the minutes and the legislation on the consent calendar.

So let's move on to committee reports.

As I shared earlier, we have seven items.

Item one is Council Member Herbold.

Items two and three are me, Council President Moraes.

Items four, five, and six are Council Member Nelson.

And item seven is Council Member Mosqueda.

With that, we will begin with item number one.

Madam Clerk, will you please read item number one into the record?

The report of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee agenda item one, council bill 120645, an ordinance relating to controlled substances, adding the crimes of knowing possession of a controlled substance and use of a controlled substance in a public place, amending section 12A.09.020 of the Seattle Municipal Code and adding a new section 3.28.141 to the Seattle Municipal Code.

The committee recommends the bill pass as amended.

Thank you.

Before I hand it to you, Councilmember Herbold, I want to make a note here for the public that we have four amendments that are labeled A, B, C, and D.

Amendment A is Councilmember Herbold, Amendment B and C is Councilmember Nelson, and Amendment D is Councilmember Mosqueda.

So how I would like to handle this legislation is allow Councilmember Herbold to address the base legislation go to all four amendments, A to D, and allow the sponsors to move and discuss and for comment.

And then at the end, open the floor at the end of whatever happens with the bill, amended or not, and then allow Council Member, open up the floor and then allow Council Member Herbold to close this out.

Does that sound like a plan, Council Member Herbold?

Sounds good to me.

Okay, great.

Okay, with that, Council Member Herbold, you are the chair of the committee, and the floor is yours.

Thank you so much, Madam President.

So, the bill before us clearly states that diversion, treatment, and other alternatives to booking and arrest are the preferred approach to incorporating a state law that already makes possession and public use of a controlled substance a gross misdemeanor.

This state law applies everywhere in the state.

So the state law that was adopted in May, making possession and public use gross misdemeanors, it already applies in Seattle.

Seattle can already arrest whether or not we act on this bill or not.

I see many of the signs in the room saying that this bill grants discretion to police officers.

It does not grant discretion to police officers.

This bill guides officer discretion that officers already have under state law.

to create a course of action that is based on a threat of harm assessment for pre-arrest diversion resulting in no arrest, and when there is arrest, pre-booking diversion to avoid prosecution.

This does not create new authority, it seeks to limit it in a way that does not exist under state law.

It does create new authority for prosecution.

And for that reason, it is so important to have ongoing review to ensure that the bill's goals of limiting arrest and prosecution are realized in implementation.

The amendment establishes a, the amendment that was passed in committee last week, establishes a behavioral health advisory committee to advise the city regarding the need for changes in police protocol, legislation, or other policy and provide data as recommended by the state and separately review for review by the city's Office of the Inspector General.

The legislation also requires reporting to this new committee of data, including demographic and other information related to individuals who are diverted prior to arrest.

and prior to jail booking when there has been arrest, and prior to referral if the city attorney is considering prosecution.

The intent is not only to align the data requirements under state law, but to add additional data collection requirements for the cohort of people that this law strongly recommends police do not arrest.

There is undeniably a racially biased history in this country in the enforcement of drug laws.

This history is a big part of the reason why so many do not trust the enforcement of drug laws.

And I believe we must face this history squarely.

During a previous briefing, the mayor's office noted that the approach is informed by a desire to balance public safety objectives with the mayor's own experience with the war on drugs.

In the mayor's legislation, it states, the city of Seattle recognizes that prior federal, state, and local drug offense law enforcement and policies, including the war on drugs, disproportionately impacted black, indigenous, and people of color and caused trauma and pain that lingers still today in these communities.

It further states that the City of Seattle is committed to not repeating the errors of the past and will work to have the implementation of this ordinance balance public safety with the well-being of individuals using controlled substances.

This is a commitment to not repeat the errors of the past and we need all of you to help ensure that in implementation that this commitment is realized.

This is why the policy statement emphasizing diversion in the city of Seattle is so important.

We know that even a small period of time in jail can result in people losing jobs, housing, and other important connections.

We heard early in public comment that a misdemeanor can have this kind of life-changing impact.

That's why specifically the emphasis on pre-arrest diversion is so important.

Unlike the Blake fix, it does not tangle people who are not harming others in the criminal justice system as a default approach.

In the first seven months of the year, the fire department reported an average of more than 11 public overdoses each day in Seattle.

Those are overdoses specifically occurring in public places.

It's important to address this.

Just this morning, I participated in an event reporting out on the efforts of the fire department's Health 99 overdose response team.

This is a pilot program, part of the fire department's mobile integrated health program.

Since its launch on July 7th, Health 99 has responded to 68 overdoses and conducted 20 client outreach visits.

It's also important to address implementation in a way that this law does not drive people into the shadows and thereby increase the likelihood of additional overdoses.

When people are forced into the shadows, there is limited ability for intervention.

We know that 40% of first overdose reversals given to patients on a fire department overdose recall, overdose reversal call were actually administered by bystanders.

The collaborative approach in developing this legislation, working with groups like LEAD, REACH, and We Deliver Care, again, are intended to to guide and limit officer discretion, and to identify people who this policy says loud and clear we don't think should be eligible for arrest, and steers that group of people to pre-arrest diversion.

This is not a option that was considered under the Blake Fix legislation at the state legislature, and I think it's an important element of this legislation.

If we don't act on this legislation, police will still be able to arrest people.

And I think it's really important for this council to guide the policies that define who and when people are arrested.

As the Council President mentioned, we have four proposed amendments.

I know Council Central Staff is available for questions on the amendments, and thanks in advance to the Council President's Office and the clerks for noting that we will need to suspend the rules should we have questions for the Central Staff.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Herboldt.

So what we'll do then is we'll start with the amendments.

And I believe you're first up, Councilmember Herboldt.

Apologize.

No problem.

Short and sweet.

Amendment A has been identified by central staff as a technical amendment to make technical and clarifying edits for consistency in drafting convention and ease of understanding.

And with your permission, I'd like to move Amendment A. Just hold on one sec.

Council Member Lewis, is your comment to the base legislation or are you trying to get ahead of Council Member Herbold on her amendment?

It's to the amendment, Council President.

So I may as well also second the motion to move the amendment.

OK, so we have a second.

Thank you.

And then with that, it's been moved and seconded.

to adopt Amendment A as presented on the agenda.

Council Member spoke to it, so go ahead Council Member Lewis.

Thank you, Council President.

I will be voting in favor of Amendment A, since it reflects largely technical changes to the bill that advanced out of committee.

As pertains to the other amendments, I'm going to be sticking to the compromise that we passed out of committee and voting against the following three amendments, and I'll make additional comments as we go through amendment by amendment.

But I do want to flag I will be supporting this amendment from Council Member Herbold.

Okay, so I'd ask all of you to keep your, your comments to the actual amendment that's in front of us.

So, thank you.

Council member Lewis.

Are there any other comments regarding amendment a.

Proposed by council member herbal customer.

Thank you very much and this may be some in reference to the fact that central staff can be here as well.

This moment was described as technical in nature, but I do have some concerns with point J and officers failure to comply with this section.

Section 3.28.141 shall not render an arrest unlawful if the arrest is otherwise supported by a probable cause.

My concern, and perhaps this is for central staff, is that this makes the bill's purported focus on diversion less concrete if we expressly say that this diversion framework doesn't need to be followed.

Is that in effect what we're saying here?

Because if that's the impact, then it does not feel technical in nature.

Okay, with that customer is your question directed into central staff.

Yeah, and appreciate them being here too, and that the good chair has offered for central staff to be here to answer some questions and pull counsel.

The reason that I'm asking this question is that.

the reason for the technical change that we heard is that counsel is empowered to tell the judges what makes an arrest unlawful.

Do you understand what I'm saying, Asha?

Yes, and I'm going to suspend the rules and let Asha answer.

Thank you, Council President.

So we're going to be doing a lot of this suspending to allow central staff.

Madam Clerk, is there a way I can just, do I have to do it every time or can I just do a blanket magic wand, suspend the rules, let them talk?

You can do a blanket suspend the rules to allow council members to ask questions.

Okay.

Great.

That's what I'm going to do.

Then that way, when questions come up, I don't have to keep suspending the rules.

So I'm going to do the overall magic wand, suspend the rules.

If there is no objection, the rules will be suspended to allow council central staff to present the amendments listed on the agenda and ask questions, answer questions.

I'm sorry.

Hearing no objections, the rules are suspended and we will now hear from central staff and floor is yours.

Asha?

Thank you.

Asha Venkatraman, Council Central staff for the record.

To your question, Councilor Mosqueda, the version that was passed out of committee, as you'll see from the struck language on the amendment, was to say that failure to comply with those sections would not be a basis to exclude or render inadmissible any obtained evidence.

As you mentioned, that is primarily a judicial decision and not a legislative one.

The intent here of this amendment is to clarify that the legislative body is saying that the arrest itself would not be unlawful if the arrest is otherwise supported by probable cause.

In that way, the effect is the same from either clause here.

It's just that the arrest being unlawful is not a judicial determination, it's a legislative one.

Okay, thank you.

Um, I, I think that I'm going to be voting no on this amendment.

I think we're making a choice here and the choice in front of us, in my opinion, I agree that there's technical aspects of this amendment, but the concern that I have with the component I raise is that.

we could be choosing to ensure that the diversion framework is adhered to, to tell the judges that an officer's failure to follow the diversion framework would make the arrest unlawful.

My fear is that this amendment instead proposes the opposite.

And I don't think that it is something I can support this afternoon.

Thank you, Councilor Mosqueda.

Are any of my colleagues have any other comments in regards to the amendment A as presented?

All right.

Councilor Herbold, is there anything you want to say before we go to a vote?

Sure, thanks.

Just to clarify, in all of these cases probable cause has already been established.

That is the assumption associated with this ordinance and so I think this is just consistent with that understanding that probable cause under state law has already been established, and I view this language consistent with the intent as established under the version that we voted out of committee.

Very good.

Thank you.

With that, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment A?

Council Member Sawant?

No.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Herbold.

Yes.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

No.

Council Member Mosqueda.

No.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

And Council President Juarez.

Aye.

Six in favor, three opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

Amendment A is adopted and the bill is amended.

So with that, let's move on.

We have another amendment in front of us.

Council Member Nelson, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much.

I move adoption of Amendment B. Second.

OK.

It's been moved and seconded to adopt amendment B as presented on the agenda.

Councilmember Nelson, the floor is yours.

All right.

I've been clear since day one that whatever law we pass must conform to the new state law making the knowing possession and public use of illegal drugs a gross misdemeanor, and that I would oppose any provisions that interfere with the city attorney's prosecutorial discretion or the mayor's authority to establish the policies and protocols by which SBD will enforce the law.

Council Bill 120645, as amended by the Herbold Lewis substitute, contains provisions that undermine executive authority, and that's what my amendments seek to remedy.

So, specifically, Amendment B eliminates Section 4, which establishes a behavioral health advisory committee which, quote, shall advise the Seattle Police Department and the Civilian Assisted Response and Engagement Care Department on an ongoing basis regarding any need for change in operationalized police protocols, legislation, or other policies.

That's a shortened read of that section four.

So why eliminate it?

Well, three reasons.

First of all, the mayor's executive order will determine police protocols relating to possession and public use offenses.

Second, the mayor already established a 24-member fentanyl systems work group.

Another advisory committee would be duplicative, probably.

And I'm wary of any committee that's tasked with parallel things with parallel subject matter that they will be weighing in on.

And also, finally, deciding who gets to be on this committee and how it will be structured is likely to be a long and contentious and distracting process when we clearly have a lot of really pressing issues on our plate.

So why go there?

And then finally, my last reason is I am all for additional reporting on individuals referred to diversion, but I think that's what the LEAD program staff probably already do or should be doing, and so why do we need an external committee to do that?

And more to the point, we passed Councilmember Peterson's reporting amendment, which will render the reporting this advisory committee will produce rather superfluous.

The effect statement for Peterson's amendment which I believe was amendment 5 that we passed last meeting.

This amendment would ask the office of the inspector general to work with SPD and other relevant departments to collect data and share data on what the council, with the council to help it evaluate how the policy guidance regarding diversion is impacting an officer's ability to do their job and provide recommendations.

And there's a long, long list of information that the amendment will require to be collected, everything from the number of overdoses, number of shootings where the drugs are a factor, number of 911 calls about use, number of contacts with individuals in pursuit of enforcing the ordinance.

number of attempts at diversion, et cetera.

And then most importantly, one of the last bullet points is any other information deemed by OIG as helpful for the purpose of review required by this subsection or providing written recommendations which impliedly is going to include relevant demographic information.

So basically, to recap, this steps on the mayor's ability to determine policing protocols and policy.

It creates an ambiguous extra commission that will duplicate a body of work that's already being done.

And OIG will already be tracking and reporting on this information.

And in my opinion, we don't need an extra group to duplicate work that's already being done.

That's it.

Oh, thank you.

Councillor Nelson.

I'm going to, Councillor Herbold, I hope you don't mind if I let Councillor Lewis go first, and then I will let you respond and then also do the closing comments.

Is that okay?

Okay, Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Council President.

I will be opposing this amendment today from Council Member Nelson.

The bill that passed out of committee reflects a number of different trade-offs, including the adoption of this important feedback loop of this committee to recommend consistent improvements, changes, ways to improve the public health and public safety policies of the measures that Mayor Harrell and the Council are putting forward.

I don't agree with the contention that this committee steps on the authority of the mayor's office.

It is supported by the mayor's office.

It was incorporated in consultation with the mayor's office through this process.

And I think they would be the better judges of whether this impedes or imposes upon their authority.

We as a council and a mayor create commissions all the time.

Councilmember Nelson recently was instrumental in creating a film commission, which is a great addition to the city's boards and commissions.

So I think this is consistent in that spirit of oversight, of creating feedback loops for our policies, and an important part of the bill that's in front of us today.

So I'll be voting no on this amendment.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

Likewise, I am not in support of this amendment.

I want to reference the testimony that we heard from from LEAD today about the importance of the work of this committee on an ongoing basis.

Given that this is a new prosecutorial authority, it's very important to have ongoing review to make sure that the implementation of the law is consistent with our intent.

That intent being to limit discretion, to limit arrests, and limit prosecutions.

The amendment establishes a behavioral health advisory committee to advise the city regarding needs for changes in the future.

for police protocol legislation or other policy and to provide data as recommended by the state's substance abuse and recovery plan.

The amendment that is being offered actually removes the request for demographic and other reporting recommended by the state's substance abuse and recovery services plan and And this section only requests a biannual report.

I also just wanna say for the record, I do not agree that this would undermine executive authority.

We consulted with the mayor's office about this.

It does not undermine the scope of work, the fentanyl task force that was established by the mayor.

And we have actually discussed the possibility of that group potentially taking on the work of this new Behavioral Health Advisory Committee once that group's work is done.

So, not seeing a lot of conflict there, just seeing the potential for a lot of good information to confirm that this law is being implemented in a way that's consistent with our intent.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

Okay, so we are going to Move to a vote on Amendment B. Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment B. Council Member Sawant.

No.

Council Member Strauss.

No.

Council Member Herbold.

No.

Council Member Lewis.

No.

Council Member Morales.

No.

Council Member Mosqueda.

No.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Councilmember Peterson?

Yes.

Council President Juarez?

No.

Two in favor, seven opposed.

Thank you.

So now I have some language here.

So the motion fails and the amendment is not adopted.

Is that correct, Madam Clerk?

That's correct.

Thank you.

Okay.

Yes, I'm sorry.

Amendment B.

fails and the amendment is not adopted.

Let's move on to Amendment C, which I understand Council Member Nelson will tee up for us.

Councilor Nelson, do you want to move your amendment?

Yes, I move adoption of Amendment C. Second.

It has been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment C as presented on the agenda.

Council Member Nelson, the floor is yours.

read the effect as written by central staff.

This amendment would strike a provision asking that SPD prioritize the use of officers with 40 or more hours of crisis intervention team training, that's CIT.

This removal of this provision would allow any officer, regardless of their CIT training, to respond to these crimes.

All right, so again, back to what I opened my comments with before talking about the specific amendments.

This provision, I believe, infringes upon the chief of police and, by extension, the mayor's authority to manage the police department and make deployment decisions.

While it provides some wiggle room based primarily on officer availability and location, the reality is that SPD is so severely short-staffed that they routinely have to bring in officers on overtime just to meet the basic patrol staffing needs.

And I don't know how many patrol officers even have 40 hours of CIT training.

So this priority will be very difficult.

to meet, and that presents serious legal concerns.

For example, the officer's decisions may be challenged in a lawsuit in part because the officer fell below the expected training level detailed by the ordinance.

And then there are even worse outcomes I'm not allowed to mention because of attorney-client privilege.

In closing, I'll just note that ever since I've been in office, council members Herbold and Lewis have championed a non-uniformed response to crisis calls because there's widespread widespread agreement that officers should not be serving as social workers.

And this provision, while I can see the logic and see that it would be helpful, goes in the opposite direction and does generate some problems that I think are concerning from a legal standpoint.

That's it.

Thank you, Councilor Nelson, and I'm going to do it again.

Councilor Lewis, I'm guessing that you want to speak to Amendment C, and then I'm going to let Council Member, unless other Council Members raise their hand in between, let Council Member Herbold close this out on this matter.

Councilor Lewis.

Thank you, Council President.

I'll be voting against this amendment.

The Chief of Police has not expressed a concern to the Council, to my knowledge, about the inclusion of this provision in the ordinance.

The provision is not so prescriptive as to require the use of CIT trained officers to respond to these situations, but merely a statement of preference from the council for officers with that training to respond.

My understanding from inquiries my office has made is that about 60% of the current police service does have this CIT training.

So it is a significant number of the officers in service who meet this definition.

There's enough flexibility in the current language that is not overly prescriptive.

And for that reason, I support keeping it in the ordinance.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

And Council Member Herbold, do you mind if I let Council Member Mosqueda ahead of you in the queue and then you can make your comments and close this out?

Absolutely.

Okay.

I can't hear you.

Sorry.

Absolutely.

Go for it.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you, Council President.

And now would be a good time to again, reiterate my appreciation for Melanie Cray on my office, who worked on the original language that was included in the substitute bill with Council Member Herbold and her office and central staff.

So thanks again to central staff, Asha Venkatraman and Greg Doss and the team from law who helped us review this language that we helped to include in the substitute to begin with.

That was a lot of work in addition to many other components that were stripped out of committee's final vote last week, but some of which remains in the bill.

My hope is that this continues to remain in the bill.

As we heard in committee when we discussed this bill, more than 50% and Council Member Lewis just said near 60% of SPD patrols have this 40 hour CIT training.

So I cannot understand why we wouldn't want the folks to handle interactions whenever possible, only if they have a CIT training.

I have similarly not heard any concerns about it, and it is, I think, a stretch to say that anybody has contacted the council officially on behalf of SPD, at least none to my office, to say that it would be hard to meet this standard.

This issue has not been brought up to us by SPD, and I don't believe in good faith we can say that we are prioritizing diversion when we aren't going to prioritize using officers who have enhanced crisis intervention training.

At the very least, I hope this amendment stays in the underlying bill, though there's a number of other concerns that I've raised.

This is an important component of making sure that those who are trained in this aspect are the ones deployed.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Mosqueda.

Councilor Herbold?

Thank you.

All I want to add is this was language that was included in the substitute upon Council Member Mosqueda's request.

I do support inclusion.

It does not create a mandate.

It creates a deployment preference that, as Council Member Lewis explained, is one that neither the Mayor's Office nor the Chief of Police have indicated is a preference that they can't work to try to consider in making deployment decisions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Herbold.

And with that, we are going to move to a vote.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment C?

Councilmember Sawant?

No.

Councilmember Strauss?

Yes.

Councilmember Herbold?

No.

Councilmember Lewis?

No.

Council Member Morales.

No.

Thank you.

Council Member Mosqueda.

No.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

No.

And Council President Juarez.

No.

2 in favor, 7 opposed.

Thank you, madam clerk.

The motion fails in the amendment.

Amendment C is not adopted.

Okay, let's move on to we have a amendment D from counselor mosquito.

So, with that customer, you want to move your motion.

Thank you madam president.

I move the council consideration of amendment D.

2nd, 2nd.

All right, it's been moved and seconded to adopt amendment D as presented on the agenda.

Councilor Mosqueda, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Madam President, and thanks to the Chair of Public Safety, Council Member Herbold, for her ongoing support of this issue.

I think that it's clear from the summary of this amendment, and thanks to the central staff again for working with my office and Melanie Cray for her steadfast commitment to continually be looking for ways that we could be putting additional sideboards into this legislation.

This change would require an officer to both make an assessment of threat to harm to others.

And make an attempt to divert when an individual only poses a threat of harm to themselves by changing the language to say that says may in sections G and H to shell.

This is an attempt to strengthen the diversion framework that is laid out in this bill that the sponsors have spoken to.

I acknowledge I raised concerns about Amendment A on some of these aspects, but Amendment D helps provide additional sideboards that the good chair of Public Safety was supportive of in committee as well, if I remember correctly.

Madam Chair, I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth or forgetting the process there.

The other amendments that were adopted in committee have slowly whittled down the teeth of this bill, and I can remain concerned that in the current form, there's merely a suggestion of diversion.

I've attempted throughout this process to help mitigate the potential harmed caused by the approach here to.

Double down on additional prosecutorial authority in the city of Seattle and ensure that we are pushing for and in fact mandating diversion wherever possible This is a small change that I think sends a strong message even though the language and the investments around diversion Indicate a huge question mark for our consideration as the budget has not yet been released We want to ensure that the statute directs officers wherever possible to default to the Pre-arrest aversion process instead of arrest and prosecution.

Thank you, Madam President Thank You customer skater and again, I'm gonna let customer Lewis go customer skater a herbal if that's okay customer Lewis Thank You council president.

I am I respect the the intent of the sponsor and bringing this amendment forward I still think, as I argued in committee, that the more prescriptive language is better reserved to executive orders, given that that is where the direct instruction from the chief and the mayor come in how these policies are to be carried out, and believe that that is consistent with the legal framework of how our government is set up.

Were this amendment to attach, I would still support the underlying legislation.

I think that ultimately the policy is going to be the same, whether it's in the ordinance or the ordinance complemented by executive action.

But given the trade-offs and negotiations between colleagues that we made in committee, I will, in the same spirit as rejecting Council Member Nelson's amendments, be rejecting this amendment today, though I do appreciate the intent of the author.

Thank you.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you so much.

I just want to clarify for my co-sponsor, and hopefully that might result in a reconsideration, but this amendment as proposed by Councilmember Muscat actually restores the language as proposed by the Mayor.

Support returning to that language and the policy intent of the mayor in that language it just as a reminder this bill is different than the version of legislation proposed by the city attorney and council members Peterson and Nelson and I'd really like to respect the work that the mayor did in bringing together a Group of stakeholders to work on this bill and develop a nuanced approach.

Thank you Thank you

Yes, or less is that a new hand or an old hand that's the old hand cancer present okay okay so with that.

We are going to go customer Nelson.

Just to note that I respect what Councilmember herbal just said, but the Mayor the Mayor staff was in support of the amendments that I made in committee that this amendment seeks to reverse.

Okay, thank you for that clarification.

I appreciate that.

Okay, so with that, I see no other hands up.

So Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment D as proposed by Councilmember Mosqueda?

Councilmember Sawant?

Yes.

Councilmember Strauss?

No.

Councilmember Herbold?

Yes.

Councilmember Lewis?

No.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Yes.

Council Member Nelson.

Nay.

Council Member Peterson.

No.

And Council President Juarez.

No.

Four in favor, five opposed.

So the motion carries, correct?

No, no, the motion fails.

Oh, it fails 5, 4, 4 in favor 5 opposed.

Okay.

Sorry about that.

I got.

I got friends helping me here on the count and getting confused.

So the motion.

Fails and the amendment is not adopted.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay.

All right.

So with that, the motion fails.

Amendment is not adopted.

That's Amendment D. Let's go back to the original base legislation.

I'm going to let Council Member Herbold have the last word, if that's okay, Council Member Herbold.

I see we have already Council Member Mosqueda.

Hand is up first.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you, Madam President.

I appreciate all of the work of central staff, the hard work that has gone into crafting legislation when we should have been on recess.

Even though there was an attempt to try to move this bill throughout recess, it has been something that council members have had to work on throughout the last few months.

It's unfortunate that we weren't spending our time working on where there's common ground.

I mentioned last week in committee that I think that there's a huge missed opportunity here.

This is an opportunity for us to come together as a city to focus on the areas of common ground.

What I hear from residents across the city is shared interest in helping people.

who are suffering.

We've heard people talk today about the seeing people suffering on our street and wanting to see those people get into treatment and services.

That's what proponents have said.

We've heard people say that there's a real urgency in making sure that our community who is dealing with the crisis of addiction gets access to substance treatment and counseling so that they can get clean and sober.

The problem is that this legislation does not address that.

The public commenters today said that they want to see people get into treatment and the help they need.

I do too, but this bill does not do that.

One public commenter said that they want to see people suffering on our street get into care services that the city offers, but this is not what this bill will do.

Asian Counseling and Referral Services said that they know that incarceration is not the answer to overdose.

But that is what this bill does by doubling down on the criminalization and incarceration approach by giving additional prosecutorial authority to the city attorney instead of relying on the King County prosecutor, addressing the resource issues that they've raised, and instead of addressing the ongoing investments needed for care, treatment, counseling, and compassion.

It does so unnecessarily.

As you heard from central staff, as we've seen in the memos, as the chair of public safety said, that the Blake bill that the state legislature passed earlier this year is already the law of the land.

It is not required for this city to double down on prosecutorial strategies to try to prosecute, criminalize, and incarcerate people who are dealing with the public health crisis of addiction.

The Blake fix at the state level is the law in Seattle.

What we could be doing right now, instead of giving additional prosecutorial authority to the city attorney, is we could be focusing on complementary components to that state law.

The city could be offering additional strategies to help make sure that people can have access to treatment, pre-arrest diversion strategies, compassionate counseling, and placement into care, housing, and services.

I wish we were here focusing on complementary aspects to the state law instead of doubling down on prosecutorial authority that only exacerbate why people are experiencing the public health crisis of addiction right now.

This bill does not address the root causes of addiction, mental health, substance abuse, and trauma.

Instead, the core tenets of this legislation give that additional prosecutorial authority to our city attorney to incarcerate people for public consumption and green light the process for arrest, arrest of a public health crisis.

I understand that there is an emphasis on pre-arrest diversion in this bill, but those sideboards are merely made out of cardboard if what we are doing is not following up that policy with actual dollars to increase, enhance, and triple our investments into pre-arrest diversion strategies.

We want to make sure.

that we are not offering a hollow promise with this legislation.

So while the emphasis is on pre-arrest diversion and not arrests, we are not actually able to follow through with that without assurances that there will be funding in the budget to provide, expand, and enhance diversion strategy.

It is a hollow promise to say that this is somehow prioritizing anything other than arrests and city prosecution without knowing that there is increased new funding for pre-arrest diversion strategies.

Given the background and the work that I've done in public health, and my commitment to addressing root causes of behavioral health and substance use disorder, as well as my duty as budget chair, I cannot in good conscience vote for this bill.

Because I want to be very clear, it is evident that there is not going to be additional funding for pre-arrest diversion strategies.

There is not going to be funding that will increase the pre-booking diversion programming in the upcoming budget.

Because even if we have the same amount of funding for pre-arrests and diversion strategies that we had in the previous year, even if it includes inflation, it will not begin to be enough funding to cover the additional costs that this law and prosecution will bring about.

And as budget chair, I mentioned, I wanted to correct the misinformation or the information that's out there that this bill somehow brings with it 27Million new dollars.

7Million that will be considered in council member Herbold's committee next week, which I look forward to supporting 7Million of that is underspend.

that we will be allocating to additional brick and mortar capital investments to try to have additional landing zones for people to go to.

But 20 million of that is spread over near 20 years.

And when you take away 20%, which will be administrative costs, we are looking at less than a million dollars a year for added investments into diversion strategies.

It's around $700,000 that's new funding that is being purported to come with this bill That is nowhere near enough to ensure that people are getting access to the treatment, to the care, and the services that is uniformly desired across our city.

Those who are concerned with this bill and those who are proponents of this bill, we are all asking for the same thing.

For more investments to go into making sure people can have a landing zone to get treated, to get care, to get off of substances, to have their mental health services met, their mental health needs met.

That is not what this legislation offers, especially with the sideboards that have been torn down in this legislation.

Next week is when the budget is released by the mayor's office.

The proposed budget is released a week from now.

I had asked for this legislation to be held for one week so we could see if the promised funding that was supposed to correspond with enhanced pre-arrest diversion strategies was actually included and at a level necessary to prevent officers from defaulting to arrest.

Because right now we don't have the infrastructure, the services, or the personnel needed to ensure that pre-arrest diversion is the priority and the default versus arrest and prosecution.

I hope we will continue to work on this in the upcoming year.

But I know that there will not be enough funding in the proposed budget to make this a true commitment that pre-arrest and diversion strategies will be the priority.

Instead, this will lead to increased incarceration, and when people who have substance abuse addiction are incarcerated, They are more likely to die while in jail, or they are more likely to die in overdose when released.

This is not a strategy to get us to the same thing that we all want, more people getting access to care and treatment.

This is not a strategy to ensure that the very people who are living outside and consuming outside get off of the substances they're using and get into care and treatment.

This will only exacerbate the situation that they are facing, and it will exacerbate the racial disparities that we currently see in terms of who is being arrested and incarcerated.

I'm saddened today.

that we're taking the step instead of complementing the state legislation that is already the law of the land, that already says that public use and consumption is not allowed.

We should be prioritizing strategies to get people into access and care services to complement what the county is doing through public health.

And instead, today, we're taking a step back.

I think that this is a sad day, and I hope that we will continue to right this wrong in the very near future and I hope that we will also be able to continue to work on where there's shared ground.

I want the same thing the proponents of this legislation want, for people to have the ability to get the services they need.

And I know that this legislation, by doubling down on failed strategies of the past, will not accomplish that.

I'll be voting no today, sadly.

Thank you, Councilor Mosqueda.

I see the order of hands here with Council Member Morales and Council Member Lewis.

Good morning, Council President.

Pardon me?

Councilor Morales?

Sorry, we couldn't hear you, yeah.

Oh, okay.

So when the hands were going up, I noted Councilor Morales was first, and then Council Member Lewis, and then Council Member Sawant, because I'm reserving the end for Council Member Herbold.

So with that...

President Juarez, Council Member Nelson was before me.

Oh, I just saw her hand.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

So let me put that in there.

Okay, with that, Council Member Morales, go ahead.

Thank you, Council President.

As we vote on this bill today, I have to say that I'm deeply frustrated and I'm deeply saddened.

I've experienced the loss of three family members to substance use disorder.

They were not a statistic, they were my family, they were members of our community, and they are deeply missed.

I know my own experience isn't unique, and I know several of my colleagues have shared similar experiences.

Unfortunately, what we are doing today is that even after a hard-fought debate from some of my colleagues who sit on the Public Safety Committee, the bill before us remains ineffective, it adds potential racial harm, and makes false promises at a time when folks are desperate for solutions.

This bill is unnecessary, dare I say performative, Without this legislation, as Councilmember Herbold has said, knowingly possessing a prohibited substance and using a prohibited substance in public are already gross misdemeanors.

Our state legislature clearly defined the prohibition of drug use in a public place.

Similar to the bill before us, the state law encourages local law enforcement and courts to divert, but does not require it.

As a subdivision of the state, our city police officers and our local judicial jurisdictions already have the power to exercise this authority.

Over the past few months, we were promised a dialogue across several different task forces to discuss this bill, but only one of those groups met.

Over the last few months, we were supposed to have an accompanying executive order detailing the policy directive that SPD would receive, but we've been met with excuses and delays for why we haven't seen that policy.

As Council Member Mosqueda said, we could have waited to take this vote in tandem with the release of the mayor's budget next week, where we would have a robust conversation about how we fund a system that addresses this public health crisis.

But instead, we're asked to take a blind vote today with yet another promise that we'll learn later of the executive's intentions, and we'll learn that only after we take a vote.

The bottom line is that this bill will not address the fentanyl crisis in any meaningful way.

While we sit here on the dais, people are dying, and we're spending a lot of energy on a bill that won't help them, and I frankly find it shameful.

A seminal study in Washington state found that in the two weeks following their release, people who had been incarcerated in state prisons were 129 times more likely to die from an overdose compared to the general public.

Watching people suffer on the street is painful.

We've all seen it.

And there are serious solutions that could make a difference.

But this bill offers none of them.

So let me tell you what this bill doesn't do.

This bill does not provide treatment.

The $27 million is not to scale up treatment options in the city that would serve the very large scale crisis that we have.

That money is coming to the city over the course of about 18 years, which is ultimately less than a million dollars a year for treatment.

Hardly enough of an annual investment to call this a serious solution.

On top of this, we have a looming budget deficit, as Councilmember Mosqueda mentioned, that threatens the supportive services that complement direct treatment funds.

This bill will not actually increase diversion.

because the LEAD program that we hope to send people to is already underfunded and over capacity, and there has been no real commitment from the mayor to address this in the budget cycle.

Plus, if the only way to get LEAD support is through law enforcement, then community referrals, which currently make up most of the referrals to LEAD, would be eliminated due to the limited space.

Passing this bill will also not stop people from doing drugs in public, especially since those targeted by this legislation already have no place to be out of the public eye.

And passing this bill will not create true public safety, despite what some media outlets have been claiming.

This bill is aimed at addressing visible disorder on the street, but it is not aimed at addressing the public health crisis.

Jailing people will not address their drug addictions.

If we wanted to address drug addiction, we wouldn't be focused only on those who use it in the streets where we can see their suffering.

We would be standing up real alternatives for everyone.

Let me be clear.

I understand that this bill is going to pass.

And so my question to my colleagues, my question to the mayor, is what are we doing, what are you going to do to follow the public health guidance on how to address the fentanyl crisis that Dr. Faisal Khan of our Public Health Seattle-King County Department has been clear about.

Dr. Khan has been clear that we need harm reduction, fentanyl test strips, naloxone distribution, healthcare for things like wound care for folks who are out on the street.

We need low-barrier housing for folks who are not yet in treatment or are not yet ready for treatment.

We also need abstinence-based housing for folks who are in treatment and want to stay sober.

We need treatment and management services such as access to medication, counseling, social supports, residential treatment, low barrier walk-in access.

These are the things that we could be funding.

These are the things we could be building the infrastructure for.

These are the things that we could be talking about instead of talking about a bill that isn't going to do anything.

This council This council has been working to address these issues for years.

We have passed legislation, we have allocated funding in past budgets.

And so I ask the executive, where is our alternative crisis response?

Where are the mobile clinics?

Where is our supervised consumption and care sites?

What is your commitment to partnering with the state and the county public health to get federal support?

These are all things that the council has passed in the last few years and we are waiting for that money to be spent and those policies to get implemented.

This issue has created a lot of division and misinformation in our communities, and my vote today comes out of a strong desire to stop the divisive conversations that garner one more click on a newsletter, or one more pledge of alliance to someone, or one more hollow press conference full of promises.

I hope that as we move into the budget cycle, we can work together to find the resources we need to earnestly address this issue.

I want to thank Council Member Mosqueda for her hard work to minimize the impacts of the decisions today, despite her strong reservations.

And I want to thank Melanie Cray on her staff, Asha Venkatraman on Central's staff, and Greg Doss.

And I want to thank my Chief of Staff, Alexis Turla, who's been tracking all of this work for our office, along with Council Member Mosqueda's staff.

With that, I will be voting no on today's bill.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Council Member Lewis?

Councilmember Lewis?

Councilmember Lewis, if you were not...

Sorry, I didn't hear you, Council President.

Yes, thank you, Council President, for recognizing me.

I want to start by thanking Councilmember Herbold for presiding over a long and deliberative process that was not part of our previous deliberations on a previous iteration of this bill in consultation with the mayor's office to come up with a package that's in front of us today.

The bill that is in front of us, I will be the first person to acknowledge is not going to be a panacea to solve every single problem that is associated with the fentanyl.

Epidemic I don't and I don't think anybody would argue that this bill in and of itself Is not going to be the magic solution that fixes the situation that we are facing the Hold on.

Look, I I listen patiently to everybody in the audience Let me let let me talk first and then you can you can jeer all you want to afterwards but I'm just gonna say that when we considered the previous policy and We were tacitly being asked to endorse a policy that was going to resolve our public health crisis in our courts.

That is not what's in front of us today.

It absolutely isn't.

We are setting up a process with Mayor Harrell, and I give Mayor Harrell a colossal amount of credit for the convening around the bill that's in front of us today, to emphasize warm handoffs to service providers, making full use of our diversion partners through Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion in cases where arrests and referrals do occur, pre-filed diversion programs that we did in our supplemental budget increase funding for by over one-third.

These are the kinds of interventions that we should be emphasizing to make sure that we're getting people into treatment, into diversion, into housing, all of the initiatives that this council funds.

One thing that I would point out through our partnership with Mayor Harrell, a lot of these initiatives, I would say respectfully to Council Member Rouse's points, a lot of these initiatives are moving forward.

We are launching an alternative dual dispatch response next month in October due to the work of Mayor Harrell and his team.

and Chair Herbold in Public Safety, where we have pushed that initiative forward.

Council Member Herbold, I'm sure, is going to speak to the post-overdose recovery team that Mayor Harrell and Council Member Herbold announced this morning at a press availability.

There are initiatives and programs and efforts that we are putting forward to lead with wellness, to lead with an emphasis on public health outcomes.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention that the power and authority that police reserve to make arrests under the post-plague fix exists regardless of what this council does.

A point that Council Member Herbold made earlier in our deliberations is that without this bill, the deliberative guidance that we've worked on with Mayor Harrell and crafted with Mayor Harrell does not exist as part of what factors into how that discretion is utilized and how it is used.

This bill does not give additional powers to law enforcement.

This bill gives additional guidance and an endorsement of that guidance to focus on public health best practices that are alternatives to incarceration and entering the criminal legal system.

So for that reason, I will be supporting this bill today.

But I do take on the remarks that Councilmember Morales put forward, that the remarks that Councilmember Morales put forward, that this bill in and of itself, if it is not supported by adequate investments, in the public health and diversion resources that we advocate for is not going to have the impact that we all want it to see.

So with that, Council President, I will yield back to you.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

And next in the queue is Council Member Nelson.

Councilor Nelson?

Councilor Nelson?

I can't hear you.

Thank you very much.

So the drug crisis we see playing out on our streets is the most crushing public health and safety issue of our time.

In 2022, Washington had the highest number of overdose fatalities in the nation, the vast majority occurring in Seattle.

And so we have a moral obligation to do everything within our power to reverse this devastating loss of life and associated harm to our community.

And yes, that includes law enforcement.

Because simply throwing more money at existing strategies will change nothing.

It took two years at a special session for the state legislature to fix Blake and make the knowing possession and public use of illegal drugs a gross misdemeanor.

Final votes were 43 to 6 in the Senate and 83 to 13 in the House.

And now every municipality in the region, and I think in the state, has conformed to that state law.

Meanwhile, it's been almost six months since I proposed my original legislation, and in June, we came close to conforming with state law, and that failed, and I applaud Mayor Harreld for bringing us back to the table.

This is not a perfect bill, but it's time to get this done, because every day we dither, people die.

Are you finished with your comments?

I'm sorry, Council Member Nielsen, yes?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

So after Council Member Nelson, we have Council Member Sawant.

Council Member Sawant.

Thank you, President Morris.

Thanks to everyone who demanded that the City Council vote against this legislation.

I will be voting no on this bill, which is attempt number two by the city's Democratic mayor and city council members to do the bidding of the Chamber of Commerce and empower Republican city attorney Ann Davison to decide when to prosecute and criminalize instead of referring someone to treatment for addiction.

There are many words in this bill about behavioral health, addiction treatment, diversion programs, which are all important for working people and the community.

However, all of this is aspirational language in the bill at best and an intentional smokescreen at worst.

The substantive portion of the bill, the part that actually has legal enforceability, is exactly identical to the war on drugs bill that community and union activists and my council office succeeded in narrowly defeating in early June.

We were able to do that because we clearly exposed, among other things, the disingenuousness of Council Member Lewis, who was about to vote yes on the bill while calling himself a progressive and Labor Democrat, and who was ultimately forced to vote no.

Just like that previous bill, the real effect of this legislation today is to allow the political establishment to prosecute and destroy the lives of those who need medical treatment, affordable housing, and jobs.

And let's be clear, the current city attorney, Ann Davison, joined the Republican Party after Trump was elected.

After Trump was elected.

In 2020, she recorded a video for hashtag walk away, a campaign that held events supporting Donald Trump and was started by a January 6 rioter who was arrested and later convicted.

She also promoted a right wing attack on homeless people, labeling them a quote unquote COVID threat.

Prosecution and incarceration is stunningly divorced from the conclusions of statistical and scientific evidence that addiction is a public health issue and requires public health solutions.

Despite press announcements, Despite press announcements from the Democratic establishment boasting a $27 million, supposedly a $27 million investment in addiction recovery services, this bill does not include one penny for treatment services and will ultimately divert more and more public resources towards imprisoning poor people and black and brown people, rather than helping people with addiction gain access to services that have been proven to help, such as methadone clinics, let alone addressing the crisis of poverty by taxing the wealthy to fully fund education, housing, healthcare, and living wage jobs.

As I said, much of this bill urges Seattle police to use arrest, diversion programs, behavioral health, and referrals to addiction treatment services when possible.

However, the bill does nothing to actually make that happen.

Right now, without this bill, Seattle police have the discretion and power to decide whom they will arrest for using illegal drugs and whom they will refer to services.

That power is not being changed by this bill.

The thing that changes is to which prosecutor arrested individuals are sent.

The idea that the Seattle Police Department's behavior will change based on the non-binding recommendations in this bill is simply not credible.

Seattle police officer Daniel Auderer cackled in response to the death of Janavi Kandula, a young Indian exchange student after she was run over by officer Kevin Dave's police vehicle, saying her life, quote, had limited value, end quote.

Auditor's actions are far from an exception in police departments nationwide under both Democrats and Republicans, which use excessive force with impunity, especially against the poor, those facing mental health challenges, women, and marginalized communities.

Does anybody honestly think that officers like Auditor will care about a recommendation to consider behavioral health?

In reality, this bill shows a dishonest response to the fentanyl crisis, which has reached tragic and frightening proportions.

The opioid epidemic is affecting vast swaths of the American working class and poor, but the crisis is especially severe in communities of color.

From 2019 to 2020, overdose deaths increased 44% for Black people and 39% for American Indian and Alaska Native people.

Most people who died by overdose had no evidence of substance abuse treatment before their deaths.

According to a February 2nd, 2022 report from the Stanford Lancet Commission on the North American Opioid Crisis, 1.2 million people in the US and Canada will die of opioid overdoses by the end of the decade without urgent intervention.

Half a century of the so-called war on drugs has proven one thing, criminalization of addiction will absolutely not address the nation's raging opioid crisis.

Drug overdose is the leading cause of death following release from the criminal justice system internationally.

The majority of overdose deaths are opioid-related, and individuals released from prison in Washington state had 129 times greater risk of drug overdose in the first two weeks post-release relative to the general population.

The majority of these overdoses involved opioids.

Seattle's and Washington State's democratic establishment have outrageously spent decades refusing to support even minimal solutions that are statistically proven to work, such as safe consumption sites, aka CHELS, community health engagement locations, and fully funded public services, let alone rent control, taxes on the wealthy to fund what we need.

In 2017, my office and the People's Budget Movement won a budget amendment to fund establishing a CHEL, but mayor after Democratic Party mayor has refused to use those resources for that purpose.

Instead, Seattle Democrats pushed through a shameful Seattle Police Officers Guild contract that has stood in the way of any police accountability ever since.

I was the only no vote on that contract.

Every Democrat on the council that year voted yes, including the now Mayor Harrell and current council members Herbold, Juarez, and Mosqueda.

Instead of criminalizing those caught up in the cycle of the opioid crisis, it's time that we go after its billionaire architects, but neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are going to do that.

Where are the criminal charges for big pharma billionaires who have made hundreds of billions of dollars from selling dangerous opioids?

That is the incarceration of the billionaire Sackler family whose fraudulent marketing of OxyContin has killed thousands.

The opioid crisis and the pharmaceutical industry's role in it, and the refusal of the Democrats in Washington State and in Congress to fight for Medicare for all, helped demonstrate the failures of the for-profit healthcare system and of capitalism itself.

The need to prescribe as much of their product as possible in order to increase profits for their billionaire shareholders puts these drug companies in direct opposition to the interests of ordinary people.

That is why, as a socialist, I believe that the big corporations should be taken into public ownership under democratic workers' control.

I also want to register my opposition to the decision to push this vote to today rather than next week when it would have naturally come to the City Council.

Calling the vote one week early has caused it to conflict with the important rally organized by the Coalition of City Unions happening now outside City Hall.

The Harrell administration is scandalously attempting to force city public sector workers to accept a contract with wages that fall far, far short of the breathtaking and unprecedented cost of living in our city.

I urge any media here covering today's vote to also talk to the essential city workers fighting for a decent contract.

The so-called war on drugs was created as a weapon aimed at reestablishing the mythology and stigma of black criminality that has been a core ingredient of the racist narrative in the United States.

It was also a direct attempt to undercut the radicalization of a generation of black youth coming out of the black liberation movement of the 1960s and 70s and to prevent them joining in solidarity with radical-minded white youth for a multiracial working-class fight back against the ruling class.

The war on drugs ravaged entire communities and only helped exacerbate the opioid crisis.

I will be voting no, but I also urge working and young people who spoke against this bill to sign the 2023 People's Budget campaign petition that community organizers from my office are circulating.

The rich have become even richer.

Seattle has more billionaires than any other U.S. city.

The People's Budget this year is demanding that the Amazon tax, which our tax Amazon movement won in 2020, be increased to fully fund services, housing, and jobs.

Winning that people's budget demand is the most immediate task of activists and union members in the next couple of months here in Seattle.

But in addition, working people need to fight to force a democratic establishment to fire Seattle police officer Auderer, who is the vice president of the Police Officers Guild, and Mike Solon, the president of the Guild.

We also need to fight to win an elected community oversight board with full powers over the police, including hiring and firing and policies and procedures.

Last but not least, the fact that this bill is going to pass today on a city council with eight Democrats and one socialist should be a reminder that the Democrats, no more than the Republicans, represent working people.

Poll results published just today show that four times as many Americans have unfavorable views of both parties today than they did in 2002, an all-time high, with Republicans and Democrats equally unpopular.

Working people in America urgently need our own political party solidarity.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

I have a few words and then I'm going to hand it off to Council Member Herbold to, as a sponsor, to respond and wrap up her comments and do her closing statement.

I just want to share, I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time on this, it's already been said.

The Washington State Supreme Court struck down Blake in 2021. So we fast forward to today, it's been two years and seven months.

We know that the state legislator address this in May of 2023, this different bill was in front of us proposed by council member Nelson and Peterson on June 6, and it failed 5, 4. And then we went back to the drawing board and here we are today.

So I just want to thank council member her bolt for her sturdiness and working with and doing this work to get us to where we are today.

It is not the perfect bill.

We need order because everybody gets a chance to speak.

You had a chance.

So, if you, I don't want to have to have people removed.

That's ridiculous.

Just let me speak.

Thank you.

So, with that.

Some of us were here during the war on drugs, and that's arguable about whether or not that's what we're looking at today.

I agree with customers to want about the Sackler family and the issues that we dealt with in the lawsuits and the settlements that are coming through.

This was not done 1 week early.

It was done in discussion with the chair who I always defer to a chair of a committee to see what meets their needs and central staff.

And with that, I will be supporting this.

Is it the best?

No.

Is it an answer to everything?

Absolutely not.

But I am confident.

And regardless of anyone's political affiliation, whether they're a Republican, a progressive, a socialist, a Democrat, I really don't care.

What I do care is about the loss of life, public safety.

That everyone should be safe, everyone should be able to use our parks and streets and that we start with as the state bill, the Senate bill started with, if you read the very 1st paragraph, this is a therapeutic approach to a public health.

Emergency and we, as elected officials.

We're still human.

We're trying to do the best we can do with what we have here.

And this is not the end.

This is the beginning on how we address this crisis in our city with a model that starts with treatment first.

And I don't believe we're doubling down.

I don't think we're giving more prosecutorial power.

I think we're following the law to the best of our ability.

I want to thank Council Member Lewis and Council Member Herbold for working closely for standing up alternative methods for addressing people who are in distress and mental health.

And also, I completely understand what Council Member Esqueda is saying about where is the money going to be for this?

And we still have these questions that need to be answered and they are big questions.

But again, we have to look at how we move forward as a city.

and how we heal.

And I'm not going to conflate all the other issues that are going on out there.

I want to focus on this bill and what we're doing here today.

So thank you.

And with that, I'm going to hand it over to Council Member Herbold to close this out.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you, Madam President.

Many of you have spoken today about the use of discretion by officers.

First, without passage of this law, under state law, SPD can and likely will arrest.

This bill has absolutely no impact on that.

Secondly, officers exercise discretion every day with decisions full of implicit bias in their law enforcement choices.

The threat of harm analysis is intended to be guidance for how to make the discretionary decisions law enforcement would otherwise make under the authority of the Blake Fix.

This legislation does not add discretion.

We are narrowing it.

And without passage of this law limiting arrests, I believe more harm would be done, not less.

Officers have mostly unfettered discretion.

The threat of harm analysis, again, is intended to rein in that discretion that will otherwise be permitted under the Blake fix if this law is not passed.

It is intended to help officers mitigate their own implicit bias And if implemented correctly, the entire cohort of people who are not at risk of harm to others, yet otherwise eligible for arrest under state law, will instead, by this law, be diverted to pre-arrest with no criminal legal system involvement.

That is not something that is contemplated by the Blake fix.

And without passage of this law, it wouldn't be contemplated.

Again, this desirable outcome is already, in some ways, city policy, but only by budget support of LEAD and the relationships that LEAD has facilitated with individual leaders of SPD who are supportive of LEAD.

This Seattle bill will enshrine what has primarily been a funding policy, will enshrine this approach in city law and in city policy.

LEAD reports that a U.S. research team has found that LEAD's benefits have been distributed proportionately to BIPOC participants.

This bill supports building this approach into Seattle's legal framework for responding to drug activity.

We believe it's possible to create a diversion system that actually advances race equity.

Sometimes, as a legislator, you have to be able to say no to get to a better version of yes.

In June, a majority of this council said no, and that created a path to a bill that creates guidance for discretion, guidance that would not exist without this bill.

All the while, arrests could continue under the Blake Fix.

It also includes a clear statement to prioritize the use of diversion that would not exist without this bill.

I agree with those of you who say that this law isn't a solution.

I never thought it was a solution.

It is one piece of policymaking that for the first time ever, pre-arrest and pre-booking diversion are enshrined in the law of Seattle as the preferred approach.

To those of you calling for other interventions, I just want to, for the record, note that last month this council passed $1 million in funding that I proposed to support treatment in motion, a mobile medication vehicle at three additional locations, with the capacity to serve up to 360 more people each day.

And next week, I'll be hearing legislation in my committee to appropriate $7 million in support of Mayor Harrell's $27 million investment announced in his April executive order.

And this $7 million will support an overdose recovery center so Health 99, the fire department's overdose response team, has a location to actually take people after non-fatal overdoses.

to recover, get stabilized on medication, and access resources.

As Councilmember Lewis mentioned, the 911 Community Responder Program is being launched next month.

And further, for the record, to my colleagues referring to safe consumption site funding, the Council's $1.5 million for a safe consumption site was already allocated by King County Public Health in 2021, and King County Public Health did so consistent with the advocacy agreement that funds could instead be spent for something other than a bricks-and-mortar facility.

The funds were sent to Evergreen Treatment Services, the People's Harm Reduction Alliance, and HEPP for a broader scope of harm reduction investments than previously provided at locations where drug users receive services.

And I want to quote from Yes4SCS's 2020 letter.

Supervised consumption services implemented at existing low-barrier social service locations is an evolution in strategy for local SCS operation and an acceptable alternative to a standalone site that is practiced internationally.

It's likely to serve more people and is supported by data.

through its public health contract, the City of Seattle Human Services Department can move the available $1.5 million in SCS funding this year to that contract.

So just because this issue comes up a lot, I wanted for the record to explain where those funds were used and that they were used consistent with the advocacy.

of yes for SCS.

In closing, I want to thank Council Central staff, Asha Venkataraman and Greg Doss, as well as Newell Aldrich in my office for their work on this bill.

It's been a lot.

I thank the mayor's office for their availability during the process and really whether or not this policy functions as intended is really dependent on our close watching of the data that we receive moving forward after implementation.

Thank you.

Thank You councilmember Herbold and with that will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the council bill as amended.

Councilmember Sawant.

Councilmember Sawant.

No.

Councilmember Strauss.

Yes.

Council Member Herbold.

Yes.

Council Member Lewis.

Could the clerk please repeat?

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

No.

Council Member Mosqueda.

No.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

And Council President Juarez.

Aye.

Six in favor, three opposed.

Thank you.

The council bill passes as amended.

The chair will sign it.

Madam Clerk, please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

Let's move on to agenda item number two.

Will you please read item number two into the record?

Not helpful.

Item number two, please.

Item two, council bill 120654, an ordinance relating to city employment, commonly referred to as the third quarter 2023 employment ordinance.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I move to have president.