SPEAKER_37

All right, good morning.

The July 2nd, 2024 meeting of the Select Committee on the 2024 Transportation Levy will come to order.

It is 9.34 a.m.

I am Rob Sacca, chair of the Select Committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Kettle?

Here.

Council Member Moore?

SPEAKER_22

Present.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Morales?

SPEAKER_20

Here.

SPEAKER_39

Council President Nelson?

SPEAKER_20

Present.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Rivera.

SPEAKER_10

Present.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Strauss.

Present.

Council Member Wu.

SPEAKER_03

Present.

SPEAKER_39

Vice Chair Hollingsworth.

Present.

Chair Saka.

Here.

Okay, Chair, there are nine members present.

SPEAKER_37

All right, if there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

All right, good morning, good morning, and hello.

Welcome, everyone, colleagues, members of the public, people viewing online or on the Seattle channel.

Welcome to what we are hoping is the final meeting of this select committee on the 2024 transportation levy.

When this committee began its work way back in May, which seems like a long time ago now, I kicked off our very first meeting by reminding us of the incredible opportunity that is before us.

an opportunity to really roll up our sleeves and build a better future for Seattle and a responsibility to deliver the everyday basics in an extraordinary way.

This is now the seventh meeting of this very select committee over just the past two months.

Two of those meetings have been public hearings exclusively focused on hearing directly from our community.

Like myself, I'm sure that each and every one of you all have also spent many more weeks, days, and hours talking with people and working with analysts.

Now is the time for action.

We've got one chance to get this right.

While we have a lot of work to do here today to take important votes on amendments, I have no doubt that this committee will send a levy package to the ballot that meets the moment and delivers on the bold basics I will begin our meeting by proposing a revised chair's amendment.

As you'll recall, I proposed my initial chair's amendment on May 31st.

Since then, I worked closely with each of you colleagues, our community, and other stakeholders to get feedback, drive consensus, and fine tune the details of this proposal.

Through that very intensive engagement and process, I heard loud and clear that we need a balanced proposal.

We need a levy that delivers on the basics of maintenance and modernization.

And we need to be mindful that this will have a real impact on people's bank accounts and livelihoods.

This isn't monopoly money we're talking about here.

We're asking real people to make a sacrifice in exchange for a safer, more efficient, and better maintained transportation system that benefits all of us.

Through collaboration, consensus, and yes, compromise, I am proud to present a proposal today that does both.

It's a proposal that we can all be proud of and unite behind.

We'll hear more from central staff momentarily, but in brief, This revised chair's package will fund maintenance and modernization projects.

It will invest in our safety, economy, and climate.

And it will bring more accountability and transparency over levy spending to make sure we're truly achieving our intended goals.

This levy proposal will do all of that without increasing the cost to taxpayers compared to the prior chair's amendment.

Importantly, this proposal would also create a new brand new program, an innovative set of new programs to help mitigate the adverse effects of the taxes on our most vulnerable.

It does all that by including funding to ensure people who qualify for tax exemptions and exceptions, like many of our seniors, people with disabilities and disabled veterans are taking full advantage of those tax breaks and made aware of them.

I thank each of you, colleagues and our central staff, members of the public, for your hard work and collaboration that helped get us to this very moment.

It remains to be seen, to be honest, it remains to be seen where we'll land with our final levy proposal after today's series of votes.

However, I am confident absolutely confident that because of our very intensive engagement, rigorous debate, and strong collaboration across differences, all that has resulted in making this, the final thing we do pass today, a much stronger levy package to send before voters.

We are at the finish line.

We are at the finish line, colleagues.

It's time to lean in and finish strong.

Let's go.

Vice Chair Hollingsworth, sorry to put you on the spot.

But do you have any additional comments?

SPEAKER_17

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't have any comments.

I'm looking forward to hearing the public comment from folks.

And I know that you've worked really hard.

So I just want to thank you for all the work that you've done.

I know this was a heavy lift of a transportation levy that's going to have an impact on our city.

And I appreciate you always putting me on the spot.

I know that you will.

So thank you so much.

And looking forward to the discussion today with the rest of the council.

SPEAKER_37

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair Wyatt.

I do appreciate your strong collaboration and involvement and wise guidance and SAGE Council, not only here at the dais, but behind the scenes as well and working with me to craft our proposal here.

In any event, thank you.

Well, that's it.

I suppose we will now move on to the hybrid public comment period.

Public comments should relate to items on today's agenda.

and within the purview of this committee.

Clerk, how many speakers are signed up today?

SPEAKER_39

Chair, currently we have about 33 in-person speakers signed up and there are 11 remote speakers.

SPEAKER_37

All right.

Each speaker will have approximately one minute.

We will start with in-person speakers first.

Clerk, can you please read the public comment instructions?

That's disruptive behavior.

We are trying to conduct important council business.

If you signed up, you will have an opportunity to speak.

All right.

Go ahead, clerk.

SPEAKER_39

Okay.

The public comment will be moderated in the following manner.

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

Speakers will alternate between sets of 10 in-person and 10 remote speakers until the public comment period has ended.

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left of their time, and speakers' mics will be muted if they do not end their comments within the allotted time to allow us to call in the next speaker.

And the public comment period is now open, and we will begin with the first in-person speaker on the list.

So our first in-person speaker is Heather Kurtenbach, and followed by that will be Kiera Lisi-Katos.

SPEAKER_15

Good morning, Council.

For the record, my name is Heather Kurtenbach, Political Director for Ironworkers Local 86 and also the Vice President of the Seattle Building and Construction Trades Council.

Here today on behalf of over 20,000 construction workers and their families across the region and the 19 affiliate unions, I'm here to express our strong support for this levy.

I have a lot more on my page than one minute, so I'll keep it brief and then I'll submit written, if that's okay.

So we strongly encourage you to support this package and move it forward.

The investments in this levy will improve transportation in Seattle, also creating thousands of good living wage family jobs for skilled craftspeople.

friendships and training, and they will create pathways out of poverty for women, people of color, veterans, and others who are disadvantaged in the construction careers.

We appreciate your consideration of moving this package forward today.

Thank you for your leadership, Chair Saka, and to so many of you who have helped get this proposal to its final form.

SPEAKER_99

Am I done?

Sorry.

SPEAKER_15

Anyways, please pass it.

We love it.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_36

Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Our next in-person speaker is Kiera Lycee Gatos, and followed by that will be Rachel Smith.

SPEAKER_12

Good morning, Chair Saka and select committee members.

I am Kyra Lissakatos with the Downtown Seattle Association.

As you finalize this transportation levy, we want to thank you for incorporating our key priorities to invest in a vibrant downtown, prioritize safety, make transit more reliable, and keep our streets and bridges in good condition.

We urge you to preserve 15 million for downtown.

Downtown Seattle is everyone's neighborhood, and these investments are critical for a neighborhood that welcomes millions of people to work and visit, as well as for the more than 100,000 people who call downtown home.

Keep the levy affordable.

Do not increase the total size beyond the chair's proposal to keep it affordable for our residents and businesses.

Bolster accountability.

Approve the chair's amendment and spending restrictions, and resource the levy oversight committee to provide independent review.

Set achievable goals and be ready to deliver.

Approve a levy plan that can be realistically accomplished in eight years.

Increase public confidence with the delivery plan so that SDOT can quickly implement these transportation projects.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Thank you.

Our next in-person speaker is Rachel Smith, followed by that is Jerry Poor.

SPEAKER_02

Good morning.

My name is Rachel Smith, and I am here today on behalf of the nearly 2,500 members at the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce.

The Chamber enthusiastically participated in the development of the proposed transportation levy because a thriving, equitable regional economy, which is our mission, is predicated on Seattleites being able to safely and reliably travel within the city and to surrounding areas.

We thank Chair Saka and the council for your consideration of Mayor Harrell's proposal and your efforts to strengthen accountability.

And we urge you not to increase the proposed levy beyond the 1.55 billion proposed in the chair's amendment.

We believe SDOT can deliver this package and it strikes the right balance in meeting our pressing transportation needs and keeping in mind voter concern about affordability.

We also ask that you remove the directive to study transportation impact fees as a possible funding source.

Last year, the business, affordable housing, and labor communities came together in opposition of that, and we believe the funding task force is the appropriate place for a conversation about alternative funding.

Thank you again for your work on this important levy and your time today, and let's get it done.

SPEAKER_36

Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Our next in-person speaker is Jerry Poor, and followed by that will be Tia Petrovich.

SPEAKER_14

Select committee members, I'm Jerry Poor from the Port of Seattle, and my comments support funding to invest, funding SDOT investments in multiple modes at the $1.5 billion level.

We specifically ask that you support the freight funding at 45 million as proposed in the original Chair's amendment from June.

Thank you to many of you who have supported safe and efficient movement of freight and goods.

The protection of the manufacturing and industrial centers are the underpinning to livability in our city and critical to living wage jobs in our new economy.

We need to ensure that the freight network has full funding and flexibility to address the overflowing needs for simple pavement repairs and fixes in the Duwamish, Soto, and Binmec.

This program provides funding for underfunded minor and last mile truck streets which are otherwise overlooked, intelligent transportation improvements.

Please support the increased freight budget of 45 million.

Thank you for your commitment to work together to improve safety, equity, and sustainability, and finally invest in freight mobility

SPEAKER_39

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Our next in-person speaker is Tia Petrovich, and followed by that is Alex Zimmerman.

My name is Tia Petrovich.

SPEAKER_24

I'm a 30-year resident of Pioneer Square, and I want to thank you for this opportunity to share my thoughts on the levy.

My councilman, Rob Sacca, has worked long and hard to bring this new levy forward.

The proposed levy takes care of both our essential needs like bridge repair, repaving streets, new sidewalks, but it also looks proactively into our future to connect neighborhoods and invest in safe, modern, and reliable, well-maintained transportation systems for everyone.

Transit links people to housing and to jobs and to our beautiful city, and the levy links people to these opportunities.

The levy that Council Member Salker proposes is balanced and it's practical.

And as a Seattle property owner, I'm very proud to get behind this levy and I encourage you to vote to support it.

I also signed up remotely, so when that happens, just skip me.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_36

Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Okay, thank you.

Our next in-person speaker is Alex Zimmerman and followed by him will be Constance Slotnick-Wilson.

SPEAKER_16

Thank you very much, yeah.

Yeah, my name is Alec Zimmerman.

My name is Alec Zimmerman.

And these 750,000 idiots and slaves deserve a council like you.

You give one minute for the last meeting for almost $2 billion, yeah?

Look this, slap very quiet.

Typical for Seattle.

750,000 idiot never wants to end up in top command.

Give us a little bit more time.

Give us one minute more for speaking.

No, you not care about this.

This 750,000 idiot deserve you because you doing exactly same like a Nazi, Gestapo, fascist, bandita.

You are this, but...

Game will finish right now.

Yeah.

America start big greed again.

Stand up, America.

Stop this Nazi pig.

SPEAKER_39

All right.

Our next in-person speaker is Constance Slotnick-Wilson, and followed by that is Janice Stamm.

SPEAKER_09

I'm Constance Slotnick Wilson, current president of the Ballard Landmark Resident Council.

It is my understanding that $20 million will be taken from the fund for the upkeep of the arterial streets that will benefit all Seattleites and will be used to finish the bike trail down Leary Avenue, which will ultimately endanger our residents.

on Leary.

Over 160 elderly and handicapped people live in our building and must cross the area of the proposed bicycle path to get into cars and other vehicles.

We do not oppose the Burke-Gilman Trail, but we do oppose having the trail go past our front door.

It is dangerous.

Please vote no on the amendment.

SPEAKER_39

Thank you.

All right, our next in-person speaker is Janice Stamm, and followed by that will be Deborah Curtis.

SPEAKER_20

Good morning.

My name is Janice Stamm.

I'm nearly 82 years old, and I live at Ballard Landmark.

The proposal to put the bike trail down Larry Avenue is dangerous to us.

When I go out to walk, I can barely see.

I'm nearly blind.

To have the bike trail this close to the sidewalk is a danger to all of us.

Most of us have some impairments of some kind that keeps us from walking steadily and safely.

A bike trail represents a threat to that.

So Estad has worked with us to try to come up with a concession, the cutout.

We thank them for that, but it won't work.

Please vote no on the amendment.

SPEAKER_36

Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Our next in-person speaker is Deborah Curtis, and followed by that is Riley Atkinson.

SPEAKER_58

Good morning, my name is Deborah Curtis.

I am also 87 years old and currently live at Ballard Landmark, senior residence.

And I come before you today to assert that the missing link of the Berkman Trail not be relocated down Leary Avenue in front of our building as it represents a significant safety hazard for both myself and my neighbors.

To optimize strength and fitness every day, I walk from the building and throughout the neighborhood, frequently crossing Leary Avenue.

As well, I take the 40 bus to and from Benaroya Hall and elsewhere in downtown Seattle.

Healthy businesses, loyal patrons, and a safe environment contribute greatly to the vibrant community that Ballard has become.

Let's ensure it continues to be that for us all.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Our last in-person speaker before alternating to remote is Riley Atkinson.

SPEAKER_21

My name is Riley Atkinson.

I'm 87 years old and live in Ballard Landmark Senior Community at 5433 Leary Avenue.

I'm here because of very serious safety issues.

As you know, the city plans to build a bicycle path along Leary Avenue on our side of the street.

The mixture of seniors and bicycles would be a disaster waiting to happen.

Entering and exiting our front door would require our seniors to cross the path.

Many of our residents have problems seeing, hearing, not to mention mobility issues.

Walkers in wheelchairs do not move quickly.

So our seniors would be at serious risk of collisions with bikes.

Further, the access of people to and from emergency and service vehicles and friends and family vehicles would quite likely be compromised.

We are not against a fix for the missing, but we urge you to vote against the amendment for the levy.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_36

Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Okay, now we are alternating to remote speakers.

Our first remote speaker is Kate Rubin, and followed by Kate will be Megan Cruz.

Just a reminder to remote speakers, once you hear you have been unmuted, you will have to press star six.

SPEAKER_38

My name is Maxine Schiffman.

I moved into Ballard with my husband in January of this year.

He's 89 and I'm 88. I'm here to protest the building of the bike trail portion of the Burke-Gilman Trail of the Missing Link Project.

I'm opposed primarily because of the safety hazard to myself and all of my fellow residents.

I have a hearing problem, which would make it difficult for me to hear bikes coming, and because I trip and fall a great deal, I always look at the ground when I walk.

Therefore, I'm not aware of bicycles coming.

I have the experience of being struck by a bicycle as I was crossing the street in Washington, D.C.

in the 1980s, and I still have the scar as a reminder of that terrible experience.

Therefore, we have a vulnerable population, one that the city should value, and any design that does not take this into consideration is flawed and should not be used for .

Thank you.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Okay, back to remote speakers.

Kate Rubin, are you still there?

Okay.

SPEAKER_51

Good morning.

My name is Kate Rubin.

I'm the co-executive director of Be Seattle and a renter in District 2, where we bear the brunt of Seattle's traffic theft.

I'm calling today to urge you to support Councilmember Morales' amendment increasing the transportation levy to $1.7 billion.

Seattleites are willing to invest in a safer, more accessible, and sustainable transportation system.

Our neighbors are dying from preventable collisions, and transportation emissions are our largest greenhouse gas contributor.

It's unacceptable that disabled people, children, and elders face disproportionate risks on our streets.

We can't afford to pit essential programs against each other.

We shouldn't have to choose between new sidewalks and repairing existing ones or between safe roads for kids and equity-based neighborhood projects.

We need more sidewalks and improved transportation options to make our beautiful city accessible to the people who live, work, and visit here.

Please support a $1.7 billion levy that invests in our future.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Our next remote speaker is Megan Cruz, and followed by Megan will be Sonatina Sanchez.

SPEAKER_49

Good morning.

I'm Megan Cruz in District 7, speaking in favor of the latest amendment that supports freight safety and growth.

I encourage you all to pass Chair Saka's $45 million freight budget.

This is to fund critical road repairs and to plan for new transportation infrastructure like off-street truck loading.

Freight and delivery trucks are growing faster than all the other modes of transportation in Seattle.

Studies here show that when these vehicles can move safely and easily through our streets, it makes our roads safer for all users, and it reduces congestion and pollution.

This levy increase will go directly to helping do this.

In addition, on resolution 32-137, I support council member Kettle's amendment for special oversight of public safety across all transportation modes.

especially those of our first responders.

Thank you all for your work on these issues, your consideration.

SPEAKER_36

Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Okay.

Our next remote speaker is Sonatina Sanchez, and followed by Sonatina will be Tiffany McCoy.

SPEAKER_52

Hello.

My name is Sonatina Sanchez, and I am calling in support of Councilmember Morales' amendment to raise the levy to $1.7 billion.

A poll conducted by Change Research found that 79% of voters would approve this level of funding and that two-thirds of those would go even higher for bringing $1.9 billion levy when told it would build more sidewalks and safety projects.

We can't pit vital priorities against each other.

We need to both build new sidewalks in the areas of Seattle without current access to the last mile to connect to our transit system.

And we need to also repair sidewalks all over the city that are currently a danger to our neighbors.

We also shouldn't be able to have to choose between public open space so our neighbors can gather or protected bike lanes so we can get between our neighborhoods and visit our friends and family all over the city.

We need all of these things and polling shows that voters will pass a levy that funds them.

SPEAKER_39

All right.

Our next remote speaker is Tiffany McCoy and followed by Tiffany will be Ethan Robinson.

SPEAKER_48

Good morning council members.

My name is Tiffany McCoy.

I'm the policy and advocacy director at House Our Neighbors.

I'm also a District 1 resident living in the Arbor Heights neighborhood and I am a homeowner.

I'm calling to support Council Member Morales' Amendment 2 to increase the transportation levy.

I am personally happy to spend more in property taxes to fund these critical non-car transportation projects identified in this amendment.

And I agree, we do only have one chance to get this transportation levy right.

For right now, pedestrians, cyclists, Seattleites are being killed on our streets weekly due to cars and non-safe roads.

This transportation levy needs to invest in the safety and the prevention of these vehicular deaths.

Going back to basics would mean ensuring the safety of Seattleites who get around our city outside of their car.

The climate crisis is here.

Going back to basics would also look like building up our green infrastructure for walking, rolling, and biking.

Please pass Council Member Morales' amendment.

SPEAKER_39

Thank you.

Our next remote speaker is Ethan Robinson and followed by Ethan will be Marissa Parshottam.

SPEAKER_44

Good morning.

My name is Ethan Robinson and I am the advocacy organizer at Habitat for Humanity Seattle King and Kittitas counties.

I'm here to express our strong opposition to the proposed amendment that would open the door to and likely result in a transportation impact fee on new development.

Whether in this amendment or another, a transportation impact fee risks exacerbating our housing crisis.

When this was considered last year, our Friends with Tightline highlighted the negative impact similar fees had in Portland.

These fees reduced housing production, increased the burden on affordable housing types, and disproportionately affected renters and new homebuyers, those least able to afford it.

It is one thing to implement a fee on more expensive housing to pay for affordable housing, like programs like MHA.

But implementing fees on housing to fund transportation projects only stifles housing production at a time when we desperately need more housing.

Additionally, the process is concerning.

The mandatory housing affordability program underwent extensive hearings and over a year of public debate.

We urge you to reconsider this amendment.

Thank you for your leadership and service.

SPEAKER_39

Thank you.

Our next remote speaker is Marissa Parshottam, and followed by Marissa is BJ Last.

SPEAKER_51

Hi, my name is Marisa Parshotem.

I'm a volunteer with Lake City Collective in District 5, a resident of District 4, and a member of SDOT's Transportation Equity Workgroup.

I'm here to voice my support for the $41 million neighborhood-initiated safety partnership program and the levy proposal by Mayor Harrell.

As stated in previous City Council meetings and letters supported by the TEW, We are disappointed in some members' lack of commitment to the Race and Social Justice Initiative through cuts to this program that build equitable investment centering low-income BIPOC immigrant, refugee, disabled, and aging communities.

The TEW urges you to support the original proposal by the Mayor and Councilmember Morales' Amendment 6 to reinstate the $41 million investment.

Again, we'd like to thank her and Councilmember Hollingsworth for meeting with TEW members to cultivate partnerships and build equitable transportation outcomes for BIPOC and underserved communities.

SPEAKER_39

Thank you.

Our next remote speaker is BJ Last and followed by BJ will be Lake City Collective.

SPEAKER_63

Morning.

My name is BJ Last.

I'm Ballard homeowner.

I'm calling in support of Council Member Morales' amendment to increase the transportation levies to $1.7 billion.

and really increase actual spending on pedestrian and bike infrastructure to actually try to make our transit network more safe.

I really don't support the current levy because it's really car-centric and reinforces which areas of the city have safe pedestrian and bike infrastructure and which areas of the city doesn't.

It really reinforces which areas of the city traffic deaths are always concentrated in.

So the current proposed levy, some examples, like it cuts new sidewalk funding to fund sidewalk repairs.

So I guess I should give up on Everson sidewalks north of 85th or anywhere else in the city that doesn't have them.

But hey, at least the sidewalks outside of Amazon will always get repaired promptly.

Guess I'm like, what, 48 hours on that one?

This also cuts that equity-focused neighborhood safety program, which is, again, another great way to help make sure that transportation deaths remain deeply concentrated in District 2

SPEAKER_39

Thank you.

Our next remote speaker is Lake City Collective, and followed by Lake City Collective will be Kathy Ricciuto.

SPEAKER_62

Good morning, members of the committee.

SPEAKER_43

We are Lake City Collective.

SPEAKER_62

And we are here taking time from our summer camp to speak before you.

We recently discovered that our community led a little group, Healthy Streets, a project was removed from the list of initial street and public spaces projects and so last week we last we start people from across the u.s and canada who came to visit our project is that unique but with me i have members from kids to seniors that would like to share why this is important i'm peggy hernandez the little brook space healthy street was an idea from the community by the community for the community

SPEAKER_47

The programs and activities have been implemented by neighbors who have been unseen and unheard forever.

We need that the project that the neighbors wish for this plaza to be completed.

This is a climate, race, and social justice project and has to be.

SPEAKER_39

Okay, our last signed up remote speaker is Katie Ricciuto.

SPEAKER_50

Hello, Chair Salka and Council Members.

I'm Katie Ricciuto from the LIDD I-5 North Stakeholder Group.

I want to thank you all for your work on this important transportation levy and express our group's support for the Chair's revised levy package.

I also want to specifically express thanks and support to Council Member Strauss for his amendment to study funding for highway LIDDs in North Seattle.

Studying the feasibility of transformational projects such as this is the first and important step to help reconnect communities divided by highways.

It will also help us prepare to realize community benefits like housing, open space, bike and pedestrian pathways, and more from any future work WSDOT must do to upgrade I-5 through Seattle.

Projects such as highway LIDS will benefit tens of thousands of people in our city, and I ask you to preserve funding for LIDS studies in the final levy package.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Thank you.

All right, back to in-person speakers.

Our first in-person speaker is Stefan Guild, followed by Stefan will be Maxine Schiffman.

SPEAKER_29

First one was the lady that went last.

SPEAKER_34

Can you hear me now?

Yes, sir.

My name is Steven Guild.

I live at the Ballard Landmark Senior Community, and I've been there for seven years.

I'm co-chair of the Resident Safety Task Force.

I've been deeply involved with the Missing Link Project I'm 83 years old.

I'm kind of the youngster here.

And I chose to live at Ballard Landmark because it's a place that's safe and secure as a home.

And I know others are here for the same reason I planned, that others are here for the same reason.

I plan to live there for the remainder of my life, hopefully safe and secure.

The present plan, Mrs. Glink's plan, is not safe or secure, and it certainly is not.

Pay attention to the health and dangers that arise.

I'm not a protester.

I've tried to work cooperatively with the city.

Thank you, sir.

SPEAKER_39

Okay, thank you.

Our next in-person speaker is Maxine Schiffman, and followed by Maxine will be Eugene Wasserman.

SPEAKER_38

I believe I already spoke, so thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Okay, our next in-person speaker is Eugene Wasserman, and followed by Eugene will be Susan Kirshner.

SPEAKER_56

Hi, I'm Eugene Wasserman from the North Seattle Industrial Association.

First, we want to thank the chair and everybody for putting additional money into freight mobility.

We're very happy about that and are in recognition by the council.

But one thing that's missing from the package is the Bird-Gilman Trail extension, or the missing link, as you've heard.

The route that the city is looking at as planned is the safest route.

through ballot if you want to have the missing link completed.

We have fought the other proposals, which were being unsafe, and we truly believe they are.

We feel that the city could work with the group that's here today, and it's only one group, it's not like the whole street, and find a way to do this.

If the city cannot find a way to do this, then you might as well rip out the bicycle stuff from your plan, because this will occur wherever you have bicycle paths going in front of multifamily buildings.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_36

Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Okay, so our next in-person speaker is Susan Kirshner, followed by Susan will be Howard Greenwich, and followed by Howard will be Kathy Dunn.

SPEAKER_04

Hi, my name is Susan Kirshner, and I'm also a resident of the Ballard Landmark.

I moved there six months ago after my husband died to be less isolated and part of a community.

So I've seen the mobility problems with people and emergency vehicles also.

You know, I greatly support bicycle commute.

My nephew works for the city and commutes by bicycle every day, and I love him.

I also love living in Ballard, and I myself have a problem with vision and depth perception, so it's hard for me to be aware of my surroundings while I'm stepping off a curb or into a vehicle.

So I greatly support public transportation, but I think that this piece of the bicycle trail should be reconsidered.

Thank you for listening.

SPEAKER_39

Thank you.

Okay, one moment.

So...

Okay, so our next in-person speaker is Howard Greenwich followed by Howard will be Kathy Dunn and followed by Kathy will be Tyler Vasquez.

My co-clerk has let me know that to move things along faster, it would be great if you could line up at the microphones if you are next.

So again, Howard and then followed by Howard will be Kathy Dunn and Tyler Vasquez.

SPEAKER_67

Good morning, Chair Saka.

Good morning, council members.

I'm Howard Greenwich.

I'm the research director for Puget Sound Sage.

I'm here to urge you to support Council Member Morales' Amendment 2, which would increase the levy by $150 million and include $5 million for community-led planning around new light rail stations in the CID and Graham Street.

When the Move Seattle levy was put on the ballot in 2015, Seattle was still emerging from the Great Recession, and city leaders were worried that working class voters in southeast Seattle would vote no on that property tax.

SAGE and BIPOC-led community groups in the Rainier Valley advocated to include $10 million in seed funding for a new Graham Street station from the proposed levy as a tangible benefit to the community.

Council included it, and the levy won.

But the $10 million in levy funds were never spent on Graham Street.

We are asking you to include $5 million for community-led planning around the CID stations and the Graham Street station to make good on that promise.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Our next in-person speaker is Kathy Dunn, followed by Kathy will be Tyler Vasquez, and followed by Tyler is Erin Musser.

If you are able, please line up at the microphones if you know you are next.

So, Kathy.

SPEAKER_40

I'm Kathy Dunn with a K, not a C.

I strongly support Tammy Morales' amendment to increase that transportation levy for public safety because that's our number one priority and there are so many vulnerable people walking, biking in wheelchairs in this city.

I used my bike, I'm 73 years old, I used my bike to get here and today I'll be riding on Fifth Avenue with speeding traffic in the lane, on my bike, on Fauntleroy Way, where we're going to pave in the transportation levee.

Let's put a bike lane on there because I can't bike.

I'm biking and speeding traffic.

I'm 73 years old.

I'm getting more and more scared.

And I just think that people will vote for this.

This is our chance to get...

a good, solid levy that's actually gonna hold us through eight years.

And there's so much that needs to be done, so many missing links.

Every day, almost every week, I bike on Fauntleroy Way.

SPEAKER_36

Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Okay, our next in-person speaker is Tyler Vasquez, followed by Tyler will be Aaron Musser, and followed by Aaron will be Cecilia Black.

SPEAKER_28

Good morning, Select Transportation Committee.

My name is Tyler Vasquez, and I'm the Seattle advocate for Cascade Bicycle Club.

We are happy to see that Chair Saka's package mostly retains the mayor's proposal.

As a result, this investment will fill gaps in our bike network, maintain bicycle lanes, and invest in South Seattle.

Additionally, we are supportive of amendments that add additional funding to the bike program.

These amendments are CM Strauss' Leary Way project and CM Morales' amendment.

This levy proposal provides fundamental essentials for people biking and traveling throughout Seattle.

Thank you for listening to our public comment.

Also, thank you for all the work that you've done listening to many constituents throughout Seattle.

We look forward to seeing the final voted proposal and we look forward to the voters voting on this in November.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Thank you.

Okay, our next in-person speaker is Erin Musser, and followed by Erin will be Cecilia Black, and followed by Cecilia will be Judy Smith.

SPEAKER_23

Good morning, my name is Erin Musser.

I represent the Disability Mobility Initiative, and I want to thank all of you for being here through this short little time of working with us.

I appreciate all the time.

Council Member Stock, I appreciate you coming and speaking to us.

I highly, highly hope that we can have Tammy Morales' initiative, her amendment, I mean, that would be so great.

You may have seen me on the front page of the Seattle Times talking about how an inch on a wheelchair, if there's a bump, represents a foot.

on the street for a person who's walking or driving.

Imagine me going over an inch on the sidewalk.

Imagine you going by on the freeway, you go over a foot long, a foot high bump.

Your coffee would go everywhere and you would still say, when is the city going to fix these streets?

SPEAKER_36

Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Okay, our next in-person speaker is Cecilia Black, and followed by Cecilia will be Judy Smith.

SPEAKER_64

My name is Cecilia Black and I am a community organizer at Disability Rights Washington.

Between 2016 and 2020, people with disabilities were involved in 4% of total vehicle accidents and yet accounted for 53% of people killed.

When 60% of our streets are inaccessible because of broken or missing sidewalks, we have to put our bodies in the line of traffic to leave our houses.

Every member on this council has flagged or proposed additional funding for projects that will make our transportation safer and more accessible.

But this funding will have little impact if it comes from cuts to equally vital programs.

I urge you to support Council Member Morales' amendment and fund these projects by increasing the levy.

While roads need to be maintained, their neglect is nowhere comparable to that of sidewalks.

And I'm incredibly disappointed to see sidewalk repair and sidewalk compliance FTE less durable infrastructure funding.

Lastly, we have a housing affordability crisis, not because we need to fund a better transportation system, but because of our land use decisions and housing policy.

SPEAKER_39

Thank you.

Okay, our last in-person speaker for this section is Judy Smith.

SPEAKER_41

Good morning.

My name is Judy Smith.

My 74-year-old husband and I recently bought e-bikes, and they have flattened the hills around our home in the Eastlake neighborhood.

Riding our bikes is often faster than driving and parking, and it's always a lot more fun.

As an aside, we're looking forward to the protected bike lanes on Eastlake Avenue.

They can't be built fast enough, and neither can other protected bike infrastructure.

I have found that there are many missing links where bike lanes suddenly come to an end, but the Ballard Link is one of the worst for so many people, and I'm glad it will finally be addressed with this levy.

Let's follow the example of other great cities around the world that prioritize walking, biking, and transit.

More people now bike in Paris than drive.

And that has happened just in the last few years with the Parisian mayor's aggressive bike infrastructure plan.

Let's pass the full levy and make walking and biking easier for our health and the health of the planet.

SPEAKER_99

Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Thank you.

Okay, Chair, we've had some people sign up remotely, so I'm gonna switch to that, if that's all right.

So I'm seeing some names, and they're not present, but just in case, Diana Valdez.

Diana, I'm not seeing Diana online.

Okay.

Alexis Osorio, I'm not seeing Alexis.

Oh, OK, I see Diana.

So, Diana.

OK, I see you online.

Hello?

We can hear you.

Can you hear us?

Yes.

SPEAKER_54

OK.

Hi, my name is Diana Valdez.

I'm a summer camp organizer in the Lake City Collective, and I would like to bring our kids to the community and have the budget back to bring a water feature, a water feature for the benefit for the kids.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_55

My name is Diana and I'm 16 years old.

Our apartments are very hot and our moms are not able to take us to other places to refresh.

We want our idea.

of the plaza to have resources and become a reality.

SPEAKER_43

Hi, my name is Ainsley Garcia Hernandez.

I'm seven years old.

With the plaza, I now can play and have met other children like me.

I like being outside.

SPEAKER_61

Hi, my name is Alexis Osorio.

I am 18 years old.

I am a member of Lake City Collective.

At the Healthy Street Plaza, we as a community are building so I can play and hang out with my friends before I couldn't.

SPEAKER_57

Hi, my name is Edgar, and I'm 17 years old, and I've been a member for Lake City Collective for a very long time.

Our community is just a plaza.

The open community is packed together for kids to enjoy their childhood.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Chair, it looks like we had multiple people sign up using the same phone number.

Is it okay if we proceed as if they're all registered individually?

SPEAKER_35

Yeah, that's fine.

Okay.

And then we'll pivot back the cycle to the in-person.

Okay.

SPEAKER_39

Okay, you are unmuted again.

If there's any other people who want to talk, we have Maria De Los Santos.

SPEAKER_38

Okay.

SPEAKER_62

Okay.

Hi, I'm Maria.

I am 71 years old.

I would like a water feature.

Two years ago, there was a senior like me who died because of the heat.

So that's what I want.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_53

Hello, my name is Aiken.

I'm 11 years old.

I have friends in other neighborhoods who have a spray park near their houses.

I would also like a water feature near a community's apartment buildings.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

OK, I think everybody who is signed up spoke.

I heard everyone's name, so we're going to go to our next remote speaker, who is Alberto Alvarez.

SPEAKER_07

Hi, good morning, Council.

The average commute time is at least 30 minutes on a good day.

Often with gridlock traffic, this can be 45 minutes to an hour.

Though it is good to provide better roads for car traffic, it's just as important to give people who walk, bike, or roll the right circumstances to get around the city.

Sidewalks are in severe disrepair, or worse, nonexistent.

Bike paths are not well separated from cars.

If your plan is to get people down into the downtown core, they need better options.

Driving is not always the best option.

It's in fact far more costly.

You have to give people who use these services like sidewalk and bike paths a lot better options.

Please support the Morales amendments.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Thank you.

Okay, Chair, that was all of our remote speakers currently.

So we'll be switching back to in-person.

So same as last time, our first in-person speaker is Brittany Brost, followed by Brittany will be Parker Dawson, and followed by Parker is Lilitha Williams.

If you know you are next, please try and line up by the mics if you can.

Thank you.

So Brittany Brost is our first in-person speaker for this set.

SPEAKER_13

My name is Brittany Brost.

I'd like to take a moment to say that you should support the amendment to increase the levy.

It's the only way to prioritize people walking, rolling, biking, and transit.

Otherwise, you're pitting everything against cars.

As someone who cannot drive and will never be able to drive, it's the only way to get around this city.

is by either walking, biking, or taking transit.

Unfortunately, this city is not super accessible in that aspect.

If I go south of I-90, I run into problems, because there's not a lot of transit at times, and the sidewalks are sometimes non-existent.

If I go north, well, sidewalks aren't there, and the transit isn't the greatest.

Unfortunately, this city is very car heavy, and that's been a factor since the 1950s.

Unfortunately, that wasn't your fault, but you have the chance to correct that.

Council Member Morales' amendment helps do that.

Go big and hit Vision Zero.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_36

Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Okay, our next in-person speaker is Parker Dawson, followed by Parker will be Lilitha Williams, and followed by Lilitha will be Eric Blumhagen.

SPEAKER_31

Good morning, Parker Dawson with Master Builders, speaking in opposition to Amendment 7, as well as a small portion of Amendments 1 and 2. In November, your constituents will be voting on a billion and a half dollar levy, with the expectation that their hard-earned dollars are going to build real things.

and not study yet more ways to tax them later.

Bearing within it a task force study remote, sorry, to study quote unquote supplemental funding sources is a betrayal against the purpose of this levy and to all the voters who you're asking to approve this measure.

Whether $1 or $5 million, the request to study alternative funding sources like impact fees is tone deaf to our decade-long housing and affordability crisis and is an inappropriate allocation of dollars that really should be used to build the sidewalks, the bridges, the roadways that we desperately need today and that this levy was designed to deliver.

Thank you.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Okay, our next in-person speaker is Lilitha Williams, followed by Lilitha is Eric Blumhagen, and followed by Eric Blumhagen is Matthew S.

SPEAKER_45

Hey, my name is Lalitha Williams and I'm from WSOS, but I'm also here as a senior.

That sounds funny, a young senior.

We're here to support the amendment by Council Member Morales.

It makes it possible for everybody to get where they gotta go.

It includes everybody, the young people, the old people.

It puts the money back in the equity focus programs.

And it doesn't pit us against each other.

It helps everybody get where they have to go.

And before now, I wouldn't have thought that that was important.

But since I'm aching and slow, I really appreciate the effort that she made to support my population because we're not often really thought about, even though I'm a young one in here.

So thank you.

SPEAKER_36

Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Okay, our next in-person speaker is Eric Blumhagen, followed by Eric is Matthew S, and followed by Matthew S is Tyler Blackwell.

SPEAKER_00

Hello, I'm Eric Blumhagen.

Please vote no on Amendment 3. I'm a bike commuter, and I very much want the missing link to be completed, but Leary is the wrong place.

Safety first.

You've heard from seniors.

But Leary is also more dangerous for bicycles than the Shul Shul route.

It crosses more active driveways and side streets.

Community input.

The Shul Shul route was preferred by an overwhelming majority of trail users.

Fiscal responsibility.

The request for the missing link is $20 million, four times the cost of the Shul Shul route.

And that's likely to grow because of undergrounding utilities.

The main argument for the Leary route is the desire to do something.

However, we shouldn't choose a lousy plan because the better plan is held hostage by a few businesses and their lawyers.

Leary is the wrong place for a bike trail.

It's wrong for seniors, wrong for cyclists.

I ask you to vote no.

Thank you.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_37

All right, members of the audience, please refrain from clapping and cheering and all that stuff after public comment.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Okay, our next Amberson speaker is Matthew S., followed by Matthew is Tyler Blackwell, and followed by Tyler Blackwell is Marshall Bender.

SPEAKER_01

Well, good morning, President Nelson, Chair Saka, Vice Chair Hollingsworth, and members of the Select Committee.

My name is Matthew Sutherland, and I am the Advocacy Director at Transportation Choices Coalition.

We are a nonprofit that supports safe, equitable, and sustainable transportation for all Washingtonians.

I want to speak to you today about equity.

The transportation levy is a once-in-a-decade opportunity to make Seattle a more equitable city.

But to succeed, we must fund programs like the Neighborhood Initiated Safety Partnership Program.

This program ensures that everyone can participate in a process to improve their own neighborhoods.

Based on recommendations from the Transportation Equity Work Group, it would allow SDOT to work especially with marginalized and vulnerable communities to meet their needs.

It has generated excitement from a broad coalition of stakeholders and would motivate voters across the city.

Cuts to this program would hold back our city's equity progress.

We ask the council to support amendments that would restore full funding to this critical program.

Thank you for your time.

We look forward to continuing to work with you on a strong equity focused proposal to bring to voters.

I look forward to seeing you out on the trail advocating for this levy.

Thanks.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Okay, our next in-person speaker is Tyler Blackwell, followed by Tyler is Marshall Bender, and followed by Marshall is Nick Citelli.

Again, if you know you are next, please try and line up if you can.

SPEAKER_05

Good morning, select committee.

My name is Tyler Blackwell, and I am the transportation planner for the Soto Business Improvement Area.

We represent about 1,200 businesses south of downtown in the industrial district, and we advocate for safety and connectivity for all modes.

Freight is one mode that has been underfunded and understaffed despite being essential for all of us here today.

A new freight program with proper funding would allow for the development of industrial great vision zero design strategies, the maintenance of last mile connections for serving critical infrastructure, and the ability to leverage funds for additional freight projects.

Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter and for the levy as a whole.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Okay, our next in-person speaker is Marshall Bender, followed by Marshall is Nick Citelli, and followed by Nick Citelli is Rita Holzman.

SPEAKER_25

Okay.

Hello, council members.

My name is Marshall Bender.

I'm a resident of District 5 living near Northgate Station.

And I'm here to advocate for a yes vote on Council Member Morales' Amendment No.

SPEAKER_99

2.

SPEAKER_25

We need more funding for transit.

Where I live, there aren't even sidewalks.

So I'm very lucky to be an able-bodied person.

But if I were in a wheelchair or had mobility issues, I could not get around where I live.

So we need to build more sidewalks.

Also, we need to save the 20 bus.

Where I just moved, the 20 bus is a great neighborhood connector.

And if we were to delete this from service, students, disabled people, older residents, children, everybody would be left out of taking the bus.

So we need more money.

We need to invest in bike infrastructure because people die on our streets every single day.

They die over there.

They die in my neighborhood.

They die in South Seattle.

And nothing gets done about it.

I don't own a car.

I'm a member of the Transit Riders Union and I do that as a political choice, but mainly we just need to do this so people can stop dying on our streets.

It's a tragedy and it should not happen.

I lived in Europe just for the past nine months in Vienna.

People don't die on the streets there, but they do here.

We can change that right now.

Vote yes on her amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Okay.

Our next in-person speaker is Nick Citelli and followed by Nick is Rita Halsman and followed by Rita is Charlotte Stark.

SPEAKER_30

Hi, my name's Nick.

I'm a District 3 voter and I don't drive.

We need a larger and more ambitious levy, so please vote yes on Council Member Morales' amendment to increase the size of it.

Polling consistently shows that Seattleites want more sidewalks, more bike lanes, and more bus lanes.

This is a way to connect our communities together, allow people to get to different districts.

I don't even shop in District 2 at all because if I bike there, I'll die.

I don't go to District 5 because if I walk there, there are no sidewalks and I'll die.

Same thing for transit lanes.

There's no buses that are fast connecting our neighborhoods together.

And this means that it's bad for small businesses, bad for the economy, and bad for safety.

You've heard from so many people here now that there are people dying on our streets because they don't feel safe going around.

There are hundreds of thousands of more people that don't go anywhere because it's not safe, and they know it's not safe to do that.

That means that they're not shopping in our communities, they're not staying in Seattle, and they're not doing things to make our communities more vibrant.

Please support Council Member Morales' amendment to increase the size of the levy.

Don't pit these modes against each other.

We need more sidewalks.

We need more bus lanes.

We need more bike lanes.

We need to fulfill our commitment for Vision Zero, which is increasingly looking like we're not gonna make that goal at all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Okay, our next in-person speaker is Rita Holzman, followed by Rita is Charlotte Stark, and then followed by Charlotte is Morgan Putnam.

SPEAKER_68

Good morning.

Thank you for all the excellent work you have put into the amendments you will be reviewing today.

My name is Rita Holzman.

As you may recall, I am the widow of Steve Holzman who died last December as the result of a collision between a motorist and Steve who was biking in our West Seattle neighborhood.

Given the circumstances of my husband's death and the alarming number of other recent deaths, traffic deaths and serious injuries on Seattle streets, It would be hard to overstate how important it is to me that we as a city prioritize traffic safety no matter whether you are traveling by private car, commercial vehicle, public transportation, in a wheelchair, or on foot.

Therefore, I am pleased to see the emphasis that has been placed on safety improvements for all modes of transportation.

For Seattle to continue to thrive economically, we must also be able to thrive socially and be safe physically.

The amendments under consideration today offer some excellent opportunities for balancing those needs, and forward-thinking ways.

Please vote thoughtfully and compassionately on them.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next in-person speaker is Charlotte Stark, followed by Charlotte is Morgan Putnan, and followed by Morgan is Carlo Alcantara.

SPEAKER_69

Good morning to you.

I am president of Alki Community Council, a resident, obviously, of District 1 and resident of Alki for the last four and a half years.

I'm speaking on behalf to support Councilman Saka's levy for four reasons.

Primarily, Alki is in crisis.

We have a public safety crisis on our streets associated with the dangers of street racing that can be mitigated with traffic calming and other traffic measures such as traffic cameras.

We're looking forward to working with Councilman Saka further and with the entire City Council to address these issues because we've lost too many young people to the violence and the street racing as well as a profound amount of hit and runs.

In addition, we have the Seattle Bridge, the funding for bridges, which we fully support, repairing, which was repaving roads, which was a number one priority, and also oversight and transparency.

SPEAKER_99

Thank you.

SPEAKER_36

Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Thank you.

Our next in-person speaker is Morgan Putnan, followed by Morgan is Carlo Alcantara, and followed by Carlo is Steve Rubistello.

SPEAKER_26

The current levy is too car-centric.

It's also expensive.

To do more, we have to spend less and be more creative.

$126 million for sidewalks is $250,000 per block.

which is interestingly less than what we spent historically, so that's probably not even right.

But $250,000 per block is a lot.

Why don't we just take some of the street?

Let's just give it to pedestrians and cyclists.

We can do that for far less with traffic calming devices.

That sounds a bit crazy, but consider the benefits.

You're going to improve cyclists and pedestrian safety.

You're going to reduce water runoff.

By the way, there's a $600 million wastewater project in Ballard, single project.

Wastewater is a big deal when you paved a city within an inch of its life.

Most critically, it reduces the amount of additional infrastructure that we have to pay for.

So I realize it's the 11th hour and you're going to take a vote.

Please ensure this levy allows flexibility.

SPEAKER_39

Thank you.

Okay, our next in-person speaker is Carlo Alcantara, followed by Carlo is Steve Rubistello, and followed by Steve is Clara Cantor.

SPEAKER_06

Hello again, everybody.

I think I've met with almost everyone here on the council so far.

But again, my name is Carlo.

I'm a D5 resident.

I volunteer my time, my free time with the Aurora Reimagined Coalition.

I'm here to urge you to support Council Member Morales' $1.7 million amendment to the levy.

If you didn't know, last night, another woman was killed on Aurora Avenue North at 10 p.m.

riding her motorcycle when she was struck by an SUV.

She was heading south through the Wallingford-Fremont section.

This is just another death that could have been prevented by better street reconfiguration and something this levy can help to do and help us accomplish.

To reflect on your remarks this morning, Chair Saka, I wanted to ask that you also please consider not just the monetary sacrifice that we ask our residents to make, but the continual sacrifice that we can avoid on our streets that people are already making on their way to work, on to school, and to and from their homes.

So please support this amendment to increase the levy to $1.7 million.

Thank you.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Okay, our next in-person speaker is Steve Rubistello, followed by Steve is Clara Cantor, and followed by Clara is Kat Munson.

SPEAKER_66

I hear a lot about safety and Aurora Avenue has been a concern of mine.

Your reduction of four lane roads to two lane roads is not given the safety you've all talked about.

Matter of fact, we're having more people actually getting hurt because we have fewer people on the road and more congestion because of the fact that we've reduced capacity.

Now on Aurora, you probably are not aware Well, you may be aware of the, there's a few overpasses for safety, which are generally not maintained very well.

But I bet most of you don't know there is a underpass, excuse me, there was an underpass for pedestrians.

City closed it many years ago.

Safety seems like a beacon of use.

just before you do the switch.

Right now, you should be looking at how much of this proposal really goes to safety, and I mean, the long run.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Okay, our next in-person speaker is Clara Cantor, and followed by Clara is Kat Munson.

And so far, that is, I think, our last in-person speaker.

SPEAKER_42

Hi, my name is Clara Cantor.

I'm a community organizer for Seattle Neighborhood Greenways.

You have heard from dozens of different speakers tonight.

You've heard, you've had 1600 emails asking you to prioritize a larger levy of at least 1.7 billion.

I'm asking you to support Councilor Morales' amendment.

All of these people have been prioritizing Vision Zero, asking for bike lanes, neighborhood projects, freight projects.

We absolutely cannot pit these needs against each other when we have the ability and the means to fund all of them and actually have a transportation system that works for all of us, including the 40% of Seattle that doesn't drive.

Polling shows that 79% of Seattle voters will support the size of that levy.

In fact, the city's own polling shows that the only salient argument that actually decreases support amongst voters is that it doesn't go far enough.

This amendment will dramatically help the levy gain more support this fall, especially from strong supporters who are essential to winning the levy campaign.

The increase will cost average homeowner- Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Okay, our final in-person speaker is Kat Munson.

SPEAKER_08

Good morning, Council Members.

My name is Kat Munson.

I'm the Policy and Campaigns Associate at Real Change Homeless Empowerment Project.

I'm also a resident of District 4, where I've been a homeowner for over 20 years.

I strongly urge you to pass Council Member Morales' proposed amendment increasing the levy to $1.7 billion.

It would truly be a privilege as a homeowner to pay an incrementally small amount to see all crucial investments in sidewalks and safety implemented and not have to see choices made between those that improve the quality of life and even preserve life for those who take public transit, walk, bike, and roll.

As a representative of our Real Change Street Paper vendors, whose relationship with police is tenuous at best, I'd also like to specifically address public safety on transit.

Armed officers do not belong on public transit.

Full stop.

Transit safety should be centered in a comprehensive approach that includes pedestrian lighting, clean buses and trains, social services, and other non-enforcement personnel.

Please vote yes on Councilman...

SPEAKER_36

Thank you.

SPEAKER_39

Chair, I believe that was all of our signed up speakers.

SPEAKER_37

All right.

Well, thank you members of the public for sharing your feedback here with us.

Many of which for multiple times throughout the course of this past two, two and a half months.

We will now move on to our first item of business.

Will the clerk please read the short title of item one into the record.

SPEAKER_65

Agenda item one, council bill 120788, an ordinance related transportation providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the city at an election to be held on November 5th, 2024, a proposition authorizing the city to levy regular property taxes for briefing discussion and possible vote.

SPEAKER_37

All right, thank you.

And it looks like Calvin Chow, our central staff policy experts has joined us at the table.

Calvin will provide us with the high-level overview of amendments 1 through 8. After his presentation, I will move the bill, the main bill that was transmitted, and then the revised chair's package.

And then each sponsor will move their respective amendments.

And after receiving a second, Calvin will provide a more detailed overview of each individual amendment before voting on each individual amendment.

So a little more complex, a lot more complex, to be honest, than the items that have come before us, many if not all the items that have come before us so far this year.

So what's going to happen is after, well, Gonna pass the baton, pass the mic over to Cal in a moment, but what's gonna happen, colleagues, is we're gonna move to consider the original transmitted levy legislation.

That point, but we're not gonna vote on it.

At that point, we're gonna move to consider the quote unquote revised chairs package.

That is revised chairs package amendment number one, version two, the one that I mentioned in council briefing yesterday, but we're not gonna vote on it.

Then we're going to take up individually every last individual council member amendment.

So we're not gonna vote on the first two items that we move because all the council member amendments are PEG two and modeled after and used as the base, the revised chairs package.

And so we will then take up amendment number two, which is council member Morales' amendment.

If that amendment passes, it would therefore obviate the need to discuss and consider the subsequent amendment because it captures and picks up those amendments.

At that point, we would then move on to the, and vote on the amendment number one as amended by potentially Councilmember Morales's amendment.

If Councilmember Morales's amendment does not, amendment number two does not pass, then we will in turn take up each individual item and vote on each individual amendment before reverting back and finally voting on a potentially amended form of the quote unquote revised shares amendment, which is again, amendment one, version two for those following along.

So complex procedurally, if you have any questions, just let me know, but here we go.

So go ahead, Cal.

SPEAKER_60

Good morning council members, Calvin Chow with council central staff.

My overview, I actually just wanted to say the same thing that council member Salk did that There are eight amendments in front of you, seven on the agenda, and another one from Councilmember Nelson that is a walk-on.

Amendment number one is the chair's revised package, and it will become the new base.

You will hear it and we will discuss it, but we will not be voting on it until we hear all the remaining amendments, because those remaining amendments do change the chair's package.

Once we've heard all the amendments and voted on the remainder, we will come back to vote on amendment one and then vote on the underlying legislation so with that council member if you're ready i can go over your amendment one sure okay so amendment one version two is uh from council member saka it is the revised chairs package i'll try to um focus on the changes from what was presented in committee two weeks ago This amendment, if you recall, increases the size of the levy from 1.45 billion to 155 billion.

It raises the estimated bill from about 467 to about 499. Cal, pardon me.

SPEAKER_37

I'm wondering actually if, maybe this is a question for our clerk, should we move the base originally transmitted bill first before we enter into discussion?

Yeah, yeah.

So let's do that.

So pardon me, Cal.

We'll get back to you in just a moment.

So I move that the committee recommends passage of Council Bill 120788. Is there a second?

Second.

It is moved and seconded to recommend passage of the bill.

Are there any comments?

All right.

Hearing none, I move to amend council bill 12077, or excuse me, I move to amend council bill 120788 as presented on amendment number one, version two on the agenda.

Is there a second?

SPEAKER_17

Second.

SPEAKER_37

All right, it is moved and seconded to amend council bill 120788 as presented on amendment one, version two.

Before I address this amendment, here we are.

We have Cal, our central staff expert, to provide an overview, and this is an opportunity, colleagues, for you all to ask policy-related questions after he's done.

So I apologize for jumping the gun, but- No, no, no, no.

Jumping back into it.

No, yeah, you're right on track.

Fortunately, I have a handy script here.

SPEAKER_60

So most of the changes from the draft chair's package are included in the spending breakdown.

So this is the attachment A.

As you recall, the chair's amendment adds $7 million for safe routes to schools, adds $7 million for a new neighborhood-scale traffic safety program.

It reduces $15.5 million from the neighborhood-initiated safety program.

It adds $6 million for the transit passenger safety program.

adds $48 million for new sidewalks and includes some language about prioritizing locations within one mile of schools and transit stops, as well as identifying expectations that programs be delivered in District 5, District 2, and District 1 proportional to where the missing sidewalks are.

It adds $15 million for sidewalk safety repair, $10 million for electric vehicle charging, $20 million for freight and goods movement, including $5 million for Leary Way industrial zone safety and $5 million for a port connection program.

It adds $1 million for oversight committee auditing and professional services.

It adds $1.5 million for property tax relief, outreach, and education.

It includes a new section, the durable infrastructure solution program moves to the good governance and equitable implementation initiative element.

And it calls for the development of a long-term strategy for sidewalks, bridges, and roads.

It would revise the roadway maintenance program to highlight, to remove 35th Avenue Southwest Morgan to Holden and add 35th Southwest Alaska to Morgan instead.

It revises that program to include Fauntleroy Way.

It revises the Vision Zero element to identify Rainier Avenue South on the list of priority corridors.

It revises the protected bike lanes program to add 12th Avenue from East Madison to Jose Rizal Bridge.

It adds North 137th and Roosevelt Way to the crossing improvements program.

It includes a revised language for the Aurora Avenue North Safety Program.

It adds Northwest 6th Avenue from Northwest 58th to Carkeek Park from the Green, excuse me, to the Neighborhood Greenways Project.

It makes changes to the description of the Ballard and Magnolia Bridge descriptions.

It includes pedestrian improvements on Ballard Avenue and, excuse me, to Ballard Bridge and the potential for replacement studies, seismic improvements, and emergency access to the description of the Magnolia Bridge in the Bridge Structural Repairs Program.

It makes revisions to the transit improvements and light rail program to add access improvements to sound transit light rail stations and future sound transit system expansion.

It creates a new category for development of private funding strategy for living I-5 by and removes 500,000 from protected bike lanes to cover that cost.

It revises the urban forestry program to highlight the support for the central waterfront project and the Pike Pine corridor landscape maintenance.

It revises the pedestrian bike, excuse me, the protected bike lanes improvements to highlight a project in honor of Steve Holzman.

And it revised the transit access and access to light rail program to include supporting community-based planning for the Graham Street and Chinatown International District light rail stations.

The package establishes new eight-year levy appropriations for the entire levy.

This is similar to what was established in Move Seattle.

It reestablishes the chair of the Transition Committee as a member of the Levy Oversight Committee, and it adds an aspirational goal for two of the members to have auditing experience.

It also requires dashboard reporting of levy programs, again, similar to what has been in place for Move Seattle, and it identifies Attachment A as the basis for reporting on accomplishments.

And lastly, there are a number of changes to the recitals.

And Councilmember, unless there are questions, I'll turn it back to you.

SPEAKER_37

Yeah.

Thank you.

So colleagues, are there any policy related questions for central staff?

All right.

Hearing me double check here.

Council member Strauss, go ahead.

SPEAKER_59

Thank you, chair.

I don't have a question.

Is this a time to make a statement?

SPEAKER_37

Um, Let me go ahead.

If it's a statement, let me go ahead and tee it up in my own words, I guess.

And then we can open it up for comments and additional questions, if any.

So I guess first off, a quick housekeeping item.

I...

So what we're considering here is very complex, highly technical, nitty gritty transportation policy and resourcing and planning.

We're making those decisions right here through the course of this levy in these conversations.

And again, highly complex, very technical, And so I asked Cal to create two versions of Amendment 1. One that is essentially a red line, kind of track changes version.

One that includes that, those red lines and track changes, and is also annotated to to help facilitate review by members of the public so we can better understand.

I know what's going on here.

And colleagues, I know you all know what's going on here.

And I've seen and I've had one on one offline conversations with you all.

And I've seen some people have charts up on their on their on their offices with like mapping out like this, where this comes from and who's the source and why.

And so I like I'm familiar with with tracing the arc of each and every one individual council member amendment and how it ended up in the quote unquote revised chairs package.

But I did ask for that.

So the annotated version to again, help facilitate review here.

And so thank you Cal for creating that.

And so housekeeping aside, colleagues, this revised chairs package, it's a balanced proposal.

It's specifically designed to consolidate and harmonize to the full extent possible the various amendments from individual council members.

It's the direct result of consensus, collaboration, and again, compromise, all of which are reflected in one comprehensive proposal.

It's specifically structured to help streamline voting on this very complex technical topic.

Otherwise, if we didn't have as many of these consensus items baked in one package, we'd be here all day and voting on individual elements all day.

So, you know, therefore it's possible that we might not potentially love each and every individual element or feature contained in the broader chairs package proposal.

But the goal is for us to like the entire package, enough to enable this body to consider it as one amendment for purposes, again, of streamlining and simplifying our final voting today.

So, in any event, also, colleagues, as you've heard, this revised chairs package has been improved, improved greatly by each and every one of you.

Just to name a few of those improvements, Councilmember Morales, because of your work, In dedication, this revised package includes a stronger focus on Vision Zero and bicycle safety improvements in the South End, critically needed investments.

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

We're putting more funding to pedestrian safety improvements and the creation of net new sidewalks in places where they don't exist, especially District 5. but not just District 5. So thank you for your advocacy on that.

That's also complimented by your advocacy, Vice Chair Hollingsworth, to secure more funding to fix already existing sidewalks that we know, some of which are in a bad state of disrepair.

Thank you for that.

That along with your advocacy and tireless efforts, Councilmember Rivera, for ensuring that our kids have safe routes to schools.

And in turn, that will ensure that this levy is actually serious about keeping people safe on our streets.

So I appreciate your partnership.

There's multiple ways, colleagues, to influence and shape the contours of this levy.

There's the amendment process.

And we've seen a few of them.

And then there's the pre-introduction process.

Making sure we shape what the revised chairs package looks like at the front end, rather than go in the amendment process.

And we've taken a mixed approach to all of that.

All of it is important and welcome.

But again, Council Member Rivera, appreciate your thought partnership on crafting the package here.

Council Member Strauss.

together we've included a critical critical funding for many district six priorities a lot of them including bridge maintenance and modernization for ballard for the ballard and magnolia bridges along with funding for specific new freight investments that will help keep our economy moving council member kettle You've been another strong champion for freight and cargo mobility in this levy package.

I appreciate your leadership on that.

In addition, your feedback and consultation and advice has resulted in important call-outs that will ensure that our levy projects take the needs of our emergency responders into full account and consideration.

But to be honest, I would expect nothing else, nothing less than from the chair of our public safety committee, always finding a public safety tie.

And there is a strong nexus.

So thank you for your point of view and your leadership on these.

Council Member Wu, you have been an incredible champion of environmentalism and sustainability and our work to address climate change through this package.

So I appreciate you and all you do.

Last but not least, Council President Nelson, your continued support for a levy that builds in strong oversight and accountability has been critical.

You're the true architect.

You're the original architect of the good governance that seems to predominate this body here.

So I appreciate your leadership and conversations helping to strengthen what we have here.

I want to talk for a moment about one important addition that I made that I believe is truly emblematic of this levy proposal's overall focus on safety.

My revised proposed package will call for the creation of a protected bike lane project in West Seattle to be named in honor of Steve Holzman.

Steve, I was a leader in the Seattle cycling community.

In December, tragically, he was riding on Marine View Drive and he was hit and killed by a person in a car.

I know how important Steve was to both his loved ones and our broader community.

including his wife, Rita, we've seen here show up over and over again.

They have been here just about every single meeting, reminding us, demanding that we, as a body, as a council, as a city, need to do a better job of protecting people on our streets.

And through this levy package, we will.

It's only right that this project be named in Steve's honor, not just in remembrance of Steve and his legacy, Rita, but as an important reminder to all of us just how critical these investments are in people's everyday lives.

Thank you, Rita, for continuing to show up.

Thank you for your Advice and suggestions and conversations offline.

Thank you to Steve's brother as well.

Steve's life mattered.

And so do the countless lives of people that we've lost on our roads.

Over the years.

It is my hope and expectation that this levy will be the start of something that can help put us on a better track and better footing to make much better progress in achieving our Vision Zero goals.

All right, so moving on.

I welcome any questions, comments, feedback.

Council Member Strauss, this might be a good time for you.

SPEAKER_59

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for your comments.

I'm just going to pull up my notes.

I want to thank you for including all of my citywide or definition change amendments and my two amendments that were district specific and are not just D6 projects.

They are also D4 and D5 projects.

I absolutely appreciate including all these amendments in your chair's package.

The amendments that I included Don't just touch District 6. They touch District 1, District 4, District 5, 6, and 7. And so I just wanted to clarify, you mentioned that I'd gotten a lot of District 6 projects in there.

There were two that also are broader than just my district.

Colleagues, I will be bringing my three district-specific amendments forward as standalone amendments shortly.

I just want to take this moment to discuss the changes to the freight programs, which I put forward previously as the Leary Way investments.

I realize that because I was short on time at our last committee meeting, I didn't finish my point entirely.

I spoke of changes within the industrial and industrial buffer zones that increase office space and housing, but I didn't mention that these changes already occurred, and the point that needed to be made is that the movement of freight and goods through these change zones is even more important now than ever because these new zoning changes that we have already made create new pressures on our industrial zones.

During these zoning changes, we did increase the protections for the manufacturing, maritime, and logistics zones.

And so while there was a little bit of flexibility put on the buffers and the edges, we increased our dedication to our manufacturing, maritime, and logistics zones.

As a budget note, these are the industries that are outperforming national averages in our city as compared to the rest of our revenue sources.

To make my request in the levy more focused, I worked with the Chair, Chair Saka, to update the language.

Just to say specifically, rather than having $10 million in one item, we put $5 million into two items, $5 million used for spot or corridor improvements connecting the maritime manufacturing logistics zones within the Ballard Interbay North End Manufacturing and Industrial Center, the NMIC, to the lifelines of Interstate 5 or State Route 99. The other $5 million within the freight line item will be used for spot or corridor improvements connecting the Port of Seattle facilities through SOTO to Interstate 90 or Interstate 5 I believe that these changes will keep our goods moving and better connect our port to I-90, which is a direct connection to the heart of America and all the way out to Boston.

Chair, thank you for including these aspects within your chair's package, and I look forward to voting yes.

SPEAKER_37

Thank you, Councilmember Straussen.

I'll echo the sentiment that you expressed, like your amendment, your amendments were Broadly speaking, they're absolutely citywide projects and initiatives.

What we're doing here, colleagues, friendly reminder, we are crafting the best transportation package proposal for our entire citywide transportation system.

It is true that there are certain individual projects that are cut and proposed in individual districts, but we can't, Like people aren't confined to one district and like there's so much cross-pollination and there are so many dependencies and interdependencies between projects, roads and bridges in one district and another.

And so, anyway, I agree.

Council Member Strauss, citywide and every last one of us, yourself included also got some, there's some nice things in there that we can all be proud about.

So in any event, Council Member Morales.

Thank you, Chair.

SPEAKER_18

Sorry, I'm still getting over a longstanding cold apparently.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

I wanna thank you and your staff, Layla and Elaine and Calvin on central staff.

You've all been working really hard these last few months and you deserve kudos for advancing a strong package.

I also want to thank you for meeting with me several times over the last few months to discuss my priorities and for incorporating many of them into the package, including connecting bike fragments in South Seattle and incorporating my focus on Vision Zero for more and better sidewalks across the city.

So I want to thank you for that.

um as my colleagues know i do have an amendment that we'll be voting on later uh to expand the levy and i'll discuss that at that time um but i do want to thank the chair and his team for some really strong work thank you thank you and i and i share i appreciate the partnership and um i want to pass through all all the praise and kudos and thanks to

SPEAKER_37

my own team as well, Layla Kassar and chief of staff, Elaine Ko, as well as our central staff experts, Calvin, Amelia, Jody, so many of our clerks and people like, it's a lot to do this.

And I'm chair of this committee, but there are so many people that members of the public just won't see or are less visible, but their work made this thing better.

So, and I'm grateful for their guidance and counsel and hard work.

So thank you.

Council Member Kittle.

SPEAKER_29

Thank you, Chair Saka.

And yes, thank you for your collaboration early and often.

I really appreciate it.

It's been fantastic.

Also, thank you to the colleagues here in the dais and remote for the discussions that we had.

And also to Mr. Chow from Central Staff and his advice and counsel as we went through this process individually and collectively.

HERE.

I also want to thank the community, the public speakers, the groups that have come many times.

As the chair has noted, we've had many repeat people.

I appreciate the effort that it takes to come here and to testify through public comment.

Thank you very much.

Also, thank you to the groups who've commented here, but also I've met in my office or in different locations.

And to the D7, the District 7 community, particularly the District 7 Neighborhood Council, which has...

you know, done such a great job in terms of, you know, giving advice and also to, you know, we have a base here that we were working from.

So thank you to Mayor Harrell and Director Spatz who are sitting here in the audience and his team behind him and the best briefer that exists here in city government that's behind Director Spatz there.

Thank you all.

And I believe in this levy for its balanced approach to the nuts and bolts needs that we have in our city for our transportation.

Number one is vision zero.

We have to work the issues.

Sidewalks has been so key.

You know, the bike lanes, other efforts to address traffic and pedestrian safety.

IT IS SO FOCUSED AND SO NEEDED THAT WE HAVE.

I ALSO WANTED TO NOTE THAT WITHIN VISION ZERO, THESE NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY FOCUS FUNDS ARE ALSO IMPORTANT.

WE HAVE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT FUNDS, BUT THEY KIND OF DO THE SAME THING.

AND I JUST WANTED TO PLEDGE AGAIN THAT FROM THE DISTRICT 7 PERSPECTIVE, THOSE FUNDS WILL BE FOCUSED ON VISION ZERO, TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR BECAUSE I RECOGNIZE THAT THERE'S DIFFERENT TYPES OF NEIGHBORHOOD FUNDS.

But for District 7, they're all going to kind of go for the same place in terms of Vision Zero.

Second bridge is so important.

You know, as we know in District 7, you know, the Magnolia Bridge, the flyover...

you know, the Dravis and Emerson Bridges, the Ballard or Fremont Aurora Bridges, the I-5 Bridges.

I've said many times District 7, in reality, is a peninsula.

But it's also a connection to all the other districts, Districts 5, 4, 3, 2. Not so much District 1, but District 1 with West Seattle Bridge knows how important bridges are.

So thank you for your leadership on ensuring that bridges we're so, you know, central to what we're doing.

Also for sustainability, you mentioned Council Member Wu, but thank you as well for your investments in EV, because this is important, you know, in terms of the sustainability.

But it's also important, you know, to ensure that we have, you know, this goes through roads, that our buses, our electric buses have somewhere to go over.

I think that's a point that's often missed, and I just wanted to highlight that, because our Our arterials do carry our electric buses.

For freight, thank you for your leadership on this and for the community that stood up on this issue.

You've heard the speakers here.

It is so important.

It's so important related to our port.

But it's also important for that neighborhood piece.

As I mentioned in, I think, the last meeting, food deserts could be the lack of a grocery store.

But food deserts can also mean you can have a grocery store, but if freight can't get the goods to that grocery store, you end up in the same place.

And so this is why freight is important.

And on this point, I'd like to thank you, Council Member Strauss, who's a partner on this piece, along with yourself, Chair Saka, and others here on the committee.

Lastly, good governance underlines everything.

And thank you, Council President, for your leadership on this.

And this is something that we need to build on.

The oversight committee is fantastic.

I'm not sure if the executive truly loves it, but I think they'll learn to.

And I think it'll be fantastic.

So bottom line, I support this chair's package.

So thank you.

SPEAKER_37

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

Council Member Rivera.

SPEAKER_10

I just want to...

Thank you, Chair.

Can I clarify?

We're not yet voting on this.

SPEAKER_37

Not voting, but, you know, ripe opportunity, if you would so like, to comment on the revised Chair's package, which specifically is Amendment 1, Version 2. Yeah.

SPEAKER_10

And will we have an opportunity to comment on it after we go through all the amendments?

Or should we comment now?

Sorry, point of clarification.

SPEAKER_37

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Now would be preferred, but we'll find time later too.

SPEAKER_10

Then thank you, Chair.

Then I'll say I too want to echo the gratitude to our staff, Calvin Chow, and folks in your office, Lela and Elaine, and all the folks that help and support us.

as we are deliberating on all the legislation, and in particular this legislation, which was, as Council Member Hollingsworth mentioned, a heavy lift.

Council Member Saka, I appreciate all your efforts, because I know you work diligently to meet with all of us individually behind the scenes to have thoughtful conversations about how to best incorporate the needs of our particular districts in the package as much as possible.

We know that the lists and the inclusions are not exhaustive of what's needed in the city.

And yet, I will say, as you and I discussed, adjusted for inflation, the levy renewal would have been 1.2 billion relative to the original move Seattle levy.

This package, of course, adds another $350 million to that in order to address the need for increased infrastructure repairs, expansion of much needed sidewalks across the city, including the repairing of sidewalks across the city.

And of course, of particular importance to constituents in the D4, addressing pedestrian safety and safe routes to schools.

We have 22, I've said we have 22 schools in our district and it's important to ensure that students have routes that are safe, walking to and from school or riding to and from school or taking buses to and from school.

I deeply appreciate your efforts to work with me and my colleagues on this large and complex project.

You also incorporated my changes to ensure accountability because this is a big package.

You and your staff worked diligently with us to ensure the chair's package reflected our needs, as I said earlier, as much as possible.

And of course, all the transportation improvements and work in this levy are needed across the city for the benefit of all the residents of Seattle as we move from one district to another as residents of the city.

I also appreciated the feedback, very importantly, from the D4 constituents.

I know this is a lot to ask of residents.

There were many needs to balance to ensure roads, bridges, sidewalks, and Vision Zero goals were addressed.

Because of the size of this package, I worked with you, Councilmember Saka, to incorporate changes to add back the accountability language from the Move Seattle levy requiring SDOT to come before council for any reallocation of more than 10% between the identified 11 categories in the package, thereby giving council an opportunity to weigh in on changes and also to ensure that investments are being carried out across the city.

the entire city.

So I wanna say again, a gratitude to the D4 residents who not just came in chambers, who called, who wrote, who talked to me at the various community meetings that I've attended throughout this process that were not particular just to the levy, but just as I was out in community, I heard a lot, people are paying attention to this levy.

And it is something that we're asking residents You know a lot of.

And that is something that I know you weighed.

I know I weighed.

Many of our colleagues weighed as well.

So thank you.

SPEAKER_37

Thank you, Council Member Rivera.

Facts, you did push hard for stronger accountability and controls and matching sort of verbiage from the 2015 ordinance authorizing the levy to this one.

And so, again, you know, like this levy is better because of you and every last one of you colleagues.

All right, let's see.

Council President Nelson, go ahead.

SPEAKER_11

Thank you very much.

Just real quick to orient my colleagues to some of the comments that I'll be making later in response to some of these amendments and also just to off the tone that I would like to strike, which is one of gratitude, Chair.

As you'll recall, my initial feedback to you when you were asking council members what they wanted, I said, well, don't make it bigger than the mayor's levy and focus on maintaining our existing infrastructure because, as they used to say, and the saying I grew up with was, a stitch in time saves nine.

And by that, I was really concerned about getting a handle on our maintenance backlog because filling potholes and...

And fixing sidewalks all the time gets more expensive if we're not, you know, making sure that we're repairing on a regular schedule.

All of that aside, I did put forward an amendment to transfer 20 million of the additional, well, of the doubling of the mayor's original amount for sidewalks.

So the mayor's proposal had 63 million for new sidewalks.

You put in an additional 63 million.

I put forward an amendment to transfer 20 million to sidewalk repair.

and I really appreciate you carrying that sentiment forward.

It was reduced to 15 million, which is fine, and that maintains the proportion of new versus repair sidewalks in the mayor's budget, but thank you very much for hearing me.

It wasn't clear to me that SDOT had the capacity to even do that much more work, and I'm skeptical still, but we'll see with the implementation plan, but I really do appreciate you not pushing back on that impulse to make sure that we were prioritizing repair also.

I also want to thank you for including the the annual allocation for right-of-way improvements that were contractually obligated to perform or to provide as part of the waterfront project.

And I'll mention that there is a change to my, I have an amendment that just adds a tweak to that, but I wanted to thank you for that.

And then finally, I had initially asked the chair to include 7 million for a new, not a new, a revamped neighborhood street fund program.

In response to feedback from public comment, And that was previously funded under the move Seattle levy.

Unfortunately, that was not included, but I appreciate that you did include a 7 million for a neighborhood scale traffic safety program, which can support many of the same projects and the same sort of spirit.

So I know how hard you work to reflect council members priorities in here as a citywide, I do have a different perspective.

I acknowledge that and I think you did the best you could and thank you very much for all of your work.

SPEAKER_37

Thank you, appreciate that.

Let's see, Council Member Moore.

SPEAKER_22

Thank you very much, Chair Saka.

And I, too, just want to take this opportunity to thank you for all the collaboration that you participated in with myself and with all of us, actually.

It felt like it was a very collegial and thoughtful process, and I cannot be more grateful than your willingness to continue to hear me beat the drum about more and more and more sidewalks.

and looking at a way to really try to be equitable in the distribution of sidewalks across our city.

I know not all districts benefit from it, although they all benefit from sidewalk repair, and I appreciate the emphasis on providing more money for sidewalk repair.

But anyway, I just wanted to thank you for listening to that I did drop a number of my amendments because I had to decide what what is most important to my district and really to the city as a whole and it came down to sidewalks and making sure that that's where I focus my energies and then also looking at the accountability piece and I appreciate you working with me around the infrastructure solutions and getting some clarity and some timelines there for the larger big projects ahead of us, and giving us, allowing the department to use whatever timeframe they need, but giving them a date upon which they need to get back to us about what those ideas are for how we're going to address some pretty major challenges going forward.

So anyway, I do think you came up with a great package.

As you said, it's a give and take.

I'm always gonna vote for more sidewalks.

But anyway, thank you so much for your collaboration on this.

SPEAKER_37

All right, thank you.

And Council Member Wu.

SPEAKER_03

I'll make this really quick, because I know we want to get to the votes.

But I also want to echo my colleagues' thank you and gratitude to you and your staff, as well as central staff, and to the public for sending in all the comments.

I'm so excited that this package will do the most amount of good for the most amount of people, especially investments in sidewalks and bridges and all the basics.

And so I want to thank you for the collaboration.

Council Member Saka has been meeting with many of us once a week and just cornering us in the hallways and talking about his package and all the new and different amendments being proposed.

So I know a lot of work went into this and thank you so much.

SPEAKER_37

Thank you.

Thank you all.

And again, I'll pass through and all the praise and gratitude to my staff and our shared central staff experts for all their hard work on this.

It's a lot, but we're almost there.

So, and a couple comments calling out the smaller scale.

So that was probably the biggest, as we can probably see in this revised package, that was the biggest tension area.

We all agree on the need for smaller scale neighborhood level safety improvements.

Question is, you know, so you can call it Safe Routes to Schools.

You can call it like District Project Fund, where I think the idea, although there's no clear guidance or direction yet, that'll come later.

But District Project Fund, where we individually, like as council members get, like determine which specific smaller scale projects in our districts would be covered or What I did now is create what we did in this revised shares package is create a fund that could be allocated towards all the above or one of those things or like something else to cover those specified items in that as described specifically in that category.

But so we all agree that we need smaller scale safety improvements.

The question is who decides?

And so, you know, this final revised package where we landed, I think reflects a consensus and helps us move this thing along as well.

So, and finally, I will note that, and I think it's clear, but just for crystal clarity, we are not voting on Amendment 1 just yet, which is the revised chairs package at this point, because Amendments 2 through 8 are amendments to what is now the base chair's revised package.

So we will get through these amendments before finally voting on the revised chair's package.

All right.

That said, I will, are there any comments?

Any final comments on amendment one, version two?

SPEAKER_18

Mr. Chair?

Yeah.

I move Amendment 2 as presented in the package.

SPEAKER_22

Second.

SPEAKER_37

All right.

It has moved and seconded to Amendment 1, Version 2 as presented on Councilmember Morales' Amendment 2. Before the sponsor addresses it, I will ask central staff to provide an overview of this.

And this is an opportunity...

colleagues for you all to ask policy related questions if you have any.

SPEAKER_60

So council members, amendment number two would increase the size of the levy to 1.7 billion.

This would increase the average, excuse me, the median assessed value property tax to approximately $547 in the first year.

It would revise the eight year levy appropriations consistent with a $1.7 billion levy.

And it would make a number of revisions to the spending breakdown.

This includes adding back funding for the neighborhood-initiated safety program, adding $30 million for Arturo Roadways to cover some of the council priorities that were established in the chair's package, add $5 million specifically for the Graham and Chinatown International District light rail station stationary planning, Add $14.5 million for new sidewalks, $10 million for sidewalk safety repair, $5 million for crossing improvements, $5 million for neighborhood greenways, $20 million for protected bike lanes, $20 million for the Brook Gilman Trail extension.

It would also add $10 million for the Ballard Avenue curbless street proposal and $15 million for the urban forestry to support planting of street trees and maintenance and equity priority areas.

SPEAKER_37

All right, Council Member Morales, as sponsor of Amendment 2, you are recognized in order to address it.

SPEAKER_18

Thank you very much, Chair Saka, and thanks, Cal.

Before I get into my amendment, I want to take some time to ground us in why I think we're all hearing this transportation levy is so important.

I've spoken many times about the high rate of traffic fatalities in my district, but the fatalities are happening all over the city.

and increasing our investment in public safety infrastructure would dramatically change our ability to achieve our Vision Zero goals.

And so I wanna honor the families and the individuals by reading out the names of people who have died on our roadways this year, as of July 2nd, 2024. On January 11th, Brian was killed while walking on Elliott Avenue and struck by a motorist.

On January 14th, Moosey was driving on MLK and killed in their vehicle.

On January 24th, Nicholas was walking between 4th and Diagonal Avenue South when he was struck and killed by a car.

On January 27th, Yasmine was in a car on Airport Way when she was struck and killed by another vehicle.

On March 1st, Nyet was walking on 15th Avenue Northwest when they were struck and killed by a car.

On May 1st, Forest was on a motorcycle on 1st and Lucille when they were killed by a dump truck.

On May 7th, Petrina was walking on Union Street when she was hit by a car and passed away due to a head injury in the hospital days later.

On May 23rd, we saw three transportation-related deaths in one day.

Stephen was walking on Aurora when he was killed by a vehicle.

Jacob was on a motorcycle when he was hit on Aurora and 137th.

Suzanne was killed in a car on 4th and Washington when she was rear-ended.

On May 24th, John was walking on Olive and Minor when he fell on our sidewalk and was hit by a car.

On May 26th, Cheryl was hit by a car on 12th and Weller.

On May 29th, Eunice died while traveling in a car on MLK Way.

On June 3rd, an individual on a motorcycle was killed at North 80th Street.

And we just heard during public comment that someone else died on Aurora last night.

Over the last few months, we as a council have heard loud and clear from constituents across every district in the city that people want a bold transportation levy package that prioritizes safety investments for all of us.

As we've all said, this council has a once in a decade opportunity to shape our city's transportation investments to center mobility and safety for everyone who uses our streets.

And while Seattle has had a goal to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries since 2015, we've seen fatalities increase across Washington State and across the city.

So at the last select committee, I worked with my team and with central staff to add up the proposed amendments of every council member for sidewalks, pedestrian improvement, freight, and more.

And those things totaled about $150 million.

Increasing the chairs package will cost the average homeowner an additional $48 a year, or about $4 a month.

That means for an additional $4 a month, we can implement a levy package that prioritizes safety and incorporates every council member's amendments without pitting our amendments against one another and without reducing funds from one priority category for another.

I do wanna call out one element in this amendment, the Neighborhood Initiated Safety Partnership Program.

As somebody has said recently, this program is important because it starts to repair the harm that started when we built our highways and freight routes through BIPOC communities and low-income communities, not just in the South End, but in West Seattle and North Seattle and the Central District.

This program is important.

It is not just another community pot of money.

It is very specifically meant to address the racial equity harms that have been caused throughout our community, particularly areas with high equity analysis.

So it helps ensure that the needs of communities of color and vulnerable communities are met by co-creating projects with the community.

with the community, focusing on relationship building with our neighbors and incorporating communities into the decision-making process.

So while I am very excited about the idea of having discretionary funds for each district council member, I think it's really important that that not come at the expense of this program that was very intentionally created.

to address very specific harm across the city, but particularly in communities of color across the city.

We can't put a price on safety, and safety comes in all forms.

We have the power to do something about all of these collisions and deaths that we keep hearing about.

And my amendment would fund every council district's priorities, every safety priority that was identified by my colleagues.

And I will say that if this passes, it would also get us closer to ending discussion on this particular agenda item, since most of the subsequent amendments are already included here.

These are investments in our community's health and safety.

These are basic public safety infrastructure, and they will improve our city for decades to come.

We can't afford to wait to be bold in our vision of what Seattle streets could look like.

Lives are quite literally depending on it every day.

Colleagues, I know this is a big ask.

I think we've all demonstrated our commitment to keeping our neighbors safe, and I ask for your support on this amendment.

SPEAKER_37

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Council Member Moore.

SPEAKER_22

Great, thank you.

Thank you very much.

I wanted to thank you Councilmember Morales for your bold initiative to build on an already robust package for an inclusive levy that really would deliver on all the various competing transit priorities, all of which are important to our community.

and all of which ultimately focus on making this a safer and more equitable community and one in which all modes of transportation are of equal value and are equally accessible.

provide equally for all.

So it is a big ask, but I think I appreciate you being willing to put it out there for our consideration.

I appreciate your speaking with my office and I know all the other offices about what is it that we are hoping to achieve with this and being willing to run with that and give us an opportunity for that additional consideration.

And as I said in my earlier remarks, I will always vote for more sidewalks because I really do believe they are fundamental to a truly fair and equitable pedestrian.

Well, they're fundamental to a city and to pedestrian equity and mobility.

So for those reasons, I am going to be voting in favor of your amendment.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_37

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

Council President.

SPEAKER_11

Thank you.

I am concerned about this amendment because I feel that if passed, it could put the passage of the transportation levy in jeopardy at the ballot box in November.

And that would be disastrous for the future of our growing city.

We've heard that our residents are being squeezed out of Seattle and displaced.

And that's largely due to increasing housing affordability.

Unaffordability.

And polling on this specific ballot measure may indicate a soft willingness to pay incrementally more from up to 1.7, but these polls, whenever they're put before the voters or likely voters, no matter what the ballot measure, be it housing or parks or transportation, never really tells the voters how much they're already paying in an aggregate based on...

the cumulative increase of each of our levies.

And so I am concerned about how much this will add to the cost of not just property taxes, but people's rents.

And we do need to...

recognize that even in progressive Seattle, tax fatigue is a thing.

We hear it more and more, and there are other polls that suggest the same.

Our people, our voters, our residents want to see that we are delivering on basic services first before being asked to pony up more money.

So the size is...

is one factor, but as I said in my opening comments, I'm also concerned about SDOT's ability to deliver on an increased list of projects, not necessarily list, but increased amounts per the categories in attachment A.

According to the Q1 report, levy report from 2024, which was dated June 7th, it appears that there was $19.9 million of underspend in Q1.

And so the state legislature has strong guardrails on allocations for different projects, and I recognize that we will be asking SDOT to put forward an implementation plan, but that is...

I just think it's wrong to collect more money than we're actually able to spend on projects that we say are essential and that quarter to quarter and year to year get unbuilt.

So that is why those are the two main reasons why I will be voting against this.

But my vote is not a vote against...

against Vision Zero, against safety.

Clearly, that is important.

I think that there are other ways that are also mentioned in the resolution, other ways to improve safety, which does have to do, as some of the public commenters have mentioned, on enforcing our existing traffic laws and making sure that the revenues from our traffic enforcement cameras are being used for safe routes to school and other measures.

So I don't think that anybody here is against safety, no matter what their vote on this particular amendment, but I just wanted to signal why I will be voting no.

But thank you very much for bringing forward the sentiments that we all share, Councilmember Morales.

SPEAKER_37

Thank you, Council President.

Councilmember Kittle.

SPEAKER_29

Thank you, Chair Saka.

And thank you, Council Member Morales, for this amendment.

I appreciate very much the need for more transportation infrastructure to include what is in this amendment.

Though so often over the years, I've noted the inflationary aspects of council actions from working in the community in Queen Anne and other areas within District 7. And I've seen how the impacts are real.

You can just try to get a new roof.

Get your house painted.

Replace a galvanized water line.

We just had a committee meeting with Seattle Public Utilities talking about, you know, supporting side sewer line, you know, replacements because of the high costs.

And thinking about SPU's rate charges or Puget Sound Energy, Seattle City Light.

We're on the regional water quality, you know, looking at what's in the future.

The rate pieces are going to be climbing.

And this is all expensive due to the, you know, the local inflationary pressures.

And I know this sounds very much like a homeowner kind of conversation right now, but it's also for renters.

For every landlord who's dealing with these same pressures, this gets passed to renters as an expense in that business.

And one thing I wanted to highlight, too, that the 800K number is a number that's pushed out.

But that's what King County assessors say.

Somebody may have bought that house at $200,000.

So that 800 is a four times, and usually people buy, particularly in this market, at the top of their budget and what they can afford.

So even if they bought it at 400, that's a doubling.

So these tax rates and the charges that show up double or quadruple what may be.

So it's not like everybody's bought that house at 800K and has this, oh, it's just going to be four.

It is based on the economics of each family in terms of where and how they bought their home and how it plays out.

And this goes for above it as well in terms of maybe 800 was the limit for that family, but their home is much more now.

That is, again, pressures that each of these families are facing.

And often, this challenge is that there's limited capacity.

This is something that Council President was just alluding to.

And when demand outstrips it, we end up getting less for each dollar spent.

This local inflationary piece, in terms of what the council's doing, the amount of money we're placing, which is all very good in a sense of what we're trying to achieve, But it also has inflationary pressures locally, which in turn means we get less for each dollar spent as we move forward.

So we need to be mindful of that.

And also I should note that becoming a stay-at-home dad, which I'm quite fortunate and privileged to have been before I took on this role, helps inform my perspective as well.

Because I saw firsthand how families navigate trying to afford life in Seattle.

At first I saw it with child care.

Again, I was very fortunate to be a stay-at-home dad.

in terms of the challenges that families were facing on that.

But even in the basic necessities, you know, with the pandemic, everything increased.

I know very well that a half-gallon milk went from $2.67 to like $4.99, and this has crossed the board.

So these pressures are on those families, whether you're a homeowner, whether you're a renter, whatever it may be.

And I'm concerned generally, you know, about the affordability crisis that we're facing.

I'm very concerned because there's rumblings about it now.

I've seen it in Seattle Times.

I've seen it in The Stranger.

But my concern is when we get to November, things like this tend to, you know, build up and it may, But at risk, the levy.

So as much as I appreciate and support very much the different pieces in the amendment, I will be voting no on it for those very reasons.

Thank you.

Council Member Wu.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

I want to thank Chair, Council Member Morales for putting together this package.

Well, I do acknowledge that getting our Goal to Vision Zero, or achieving our goal to Vision Zero is of paramount importance.

People are dying on our roads, and that is important.

And we should all work towards Vision Zero.

I am really worried about affordability.

I read the Racial Equity Toolkit, where they did analysis on the impact of taxes on low-income and BIPOC communities in Seattle.

They did analysis on that.

I kind of bookmarked it.

But to sum it up, I think our tax system in Washington disproportionately impacts specific racial populations, communities of color, aging adults, low-income communities.

Key findings, property taxes have more of a negative impact on BIPOC renters.

100% of these taxes are passed from landlords to tenants.

There's other key findings here that makes me really worried about affordability regarding these key communities that have not seen benefits to transportation investments through the property taxes, especially in our communities of color.

And so I'm really worried about affordability, and I'm also really worried, as many have said, the risk that this does not pass.

And then we would not have any funding for any transportation, I guess, projects going forward.

And so I support Council Member Saca's amendment because I think that strikes a good balance.

I would love to be able to support Council Member Morales, but I think we would have to go to the state level and really advocate For progressive taxation, we have one of the most aggressive systems in the nation.

And I think we need to first attack that before leveraging more transportation taxes in our levy.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_37

Thank you.

Council Member Rivera.

SPEAKER_10

Thank you, Chair.

I want to acknowledge and I appreciate Council Member Morales coming to talk to me about this bill because I always appreciate the partnership.

And as you've heard me say a million times, we can agree to disagree.

But it's important that we always work together and always reach out to each other when we have an idea.

And so I appreciate the collaboration there or you coming to talk to me about this particular issue.

a package add that you've made I will say that we've heard from other council members up here about the concern about the increase in the funding for the levy overall when the mayor sent down his package I heard from constituents who are very concerned about the they had sticker shock and we've we've added to it as we've talked about we've talked about why This would be even an additional ad, and it is one that folks in the district and that I've heard at various community meetings have concerns about.

Folks are coping with inflated prices of everyday necessities, particularly post-pandemic, and they're feeling overburdened, and I'm really sensitive to that.

We also know, and I will say, renters also are impacted by this because oftentimes property owners, when their property tax increases, they pass on or have to pass on some of that cost to renters, which we know also overwhelmingly impact folks that can't even afford to purchase their own homes in the city.

So I'm sensitive to that as well, and I'm sensitive to the cost to folks in underserved communities that are impacted by this price increase.

We also know and I've heard about a shortage of construction workers in the city, which has impacted our ability to deliver projects on time.

We know that we're still completing projects from the original Move Seattle levy.

Those are not completed, and I've heard from constituents who are very concerned about that.

And so, you know, that is real.

You know, we can add the costs, but if we can't deliver on the projects because we don't have the people power that we need to complete the projects.

It's not going to make the difference that we all really want to make together.

I do believe that we all sitting up here and working with our constituents, whether they're district or citywide, all have all care about and agree that we need to make investments to pedestrian safety and Vision Zero.

We need more sidewalks.

We need safe routes to schools.

We need to improve roads for not just folks that are in cars, for our transportation system, which I'm always advocating for people to take.

And I think we all agree on that.

And so I appreciate your efforts, Council Member Morales.

I will be voting no for the expansion based on my concerns just in general about continuing to increase this package and from what I've heard from my constituents, but appreciate your thoughtfulness.

Thank you, Chair.

SPEAKER_37

Thank you.

Council Member Strauss.

SPEAKER_59

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, colleagues.

I just wanted to take a moment to clarify for you colleagues, while I appreciate the amendment, the sponsor did include my amendments within this package before checking in with me.

I will say I absolutely appreciate being thought of.

So as I said to you in private, I say in public, thank you for including me within this.

I will say two of my three amendments, I believe, are able to be funded with unaccountable funding line items within the current levy.

I DO APPRECIATE BEING INCLUDED IN HERE.

HOWEVER, I WILL BE ABSTAINING ON THIS MOTION TODAY.

THANK YOU, CHAIR.

SPEAKER_37

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

ARE THERE ANY FINAL COMMENTS ON AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO?

COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA.

SPEAKER_18

Can I just make a final remark?

Thank you, colleagues.

I appreciate understanding where everybody's coming from.

I will say that just for the viewing public, we did receive thousands of emails and dozens of folks came and testified about their willingness to support a levy at this size.

Our city's polling also supports a $1.7 billion levy and even demonstrates support for a $1.9 billion levy.

I will note that inflation for SDOT projects is up 67% over the last levy, when the last levy was passed, which is of course part of the reason why we need additional funding to complete the projects.

Nevertheless, I think I know where this is going.

I do hope that my colleagues who are worried about the impact of property taxes as one of the few tools that cities have to pay for local government services will support greater progressive revenue in the fall as we have that discussion about how we're going to pay for the things we need to pay for in this city.

Ultimately, whether or not this levy passes is not up to the council.

It's up to the voters.

And voters have demonstrated that they support investing in a transportation system that gives people choices for how to get around safely, conveniently, and affordably.

I think we've heard for the last several months that folks would support this kind of a levy.

And I will close there.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_37

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

All right, if there are no final comments on the proposed amendment number two, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of amendment number two?

SPEAKER_39

Okay, Council Member Kittle?

SPEAKER_29

No.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Moore?

SPEAKER_22

Aye.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council President Nelson?

SPEAKER_09

No.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Rivera?

SPEAKER_09

No.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Strauss?

Abstain.

Council Member Wu?

SPEAKER_03

No.

SPEAKER_39

Vice Chair Hollingsworth?

SPEAKER_03

Nay.

SPEAKER_39

That was a no?

Okay, cool.

Chair Saka?

No.

Okay.

So, Chair, that is two in favor, six opposed, and one exception.

SPEAKER_37

All right.

The motion fails and Amendment 2 is not adopted.

Are there any further comments?

So this is where we're going to pick up the movement and introduction and consideration of subsequent Councilmember amendments in numerical order.

So again, the motion fails and Amendment 2 is not adopted.

Are there any comments on Amendment 1, Version 2?

And this is where Council Member Strauss will come in and...

Here, just checking.

SPEAKER_59

Are you hoping to move Amendment 3 or are we going back to Amendment 1?

That's right.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

I move Amendment 3 to Council Bill 120788. Second.

SPEAKER_37

All right.

It is moved and seconded to amend specifically amendment, and if I'm wrong, correct me, I think you were talking about moving and seconding amendment one, version two, as presented in council member Strauss's amendment three.

SPEAKER_65

Council member Strauss was amending the chair's revised package in amendment one, version two.

SPEAKER_37

So everything I just said, before the sponsor addresses it, I will ask central staff to provide an overview of this.

And this is an opportunity for members to ask policy related questions.

SPEAKER_60

Council members, amendment three from council member Strauss adds a new program for the Burke-Gilman Trail extension along Market and Leary Avenue in the bicycle safety element.

It adds 20 million for this purpose and it reduces 20 million in the arterial roadway maintenance program.

That funding is earmarked for grant match and project readiness within the Paving Program.

SPEAKER_37

All right.

Thank you, Calvin.

Council Member Strauss, as sponsor, you are now recognized in order to address it.

SPEAKER_59

Thank you, Chair.

This will probably be my longest speaking portion of the meeting, so apologies in advance.

And I'm going to address the funding, stakeholder outreach and input, including the work between SDOT and the residents of the Ballard Landmark, and then a quick summary.

And, Chair, I heard from the last time, the last committee meeting, that I was breaking up and hard to hear.

So if that's happening, please just interrupt me.

The funding for this amendment comes from – utilizes the grant match and project readiness line item within the arterial roadway and maintenance.

This funding does not cut any projects.

In effect, this line item is unaccountable funding because it's a $26 million that are not associated with any single project.

Yes, there are oftentimes cost overruns on projects and additional There's just additional money for projects, and that's throughout.

In the past, we've oftentimes used real estate excise tax to fund those types of gaps.

Real estate excise tax has been down for the last few years, which is why you haven't heard about it being used.

And when it does return, because it will, we will see it used regularly for this type of project in particular.

Centering in back on the – and so, essentially, this amendment brings accountability to a line item that is not associated with any project in the levy, any one project within the levy.

What this project does do is complete the missing link of the Burke-Gilman Trail.

As I said last time, my first meeting of the Burke-Gilman missing link was in 1994, 30 years ago.

And over these last three decades, we've witnessed inextricable conflict In my time in office, I've proposed a new way of completing the missing link that has broad support from both the bicycling and industrial stakeholders.

I'll get into talking about this outreach right now, but as you heard today, possibly for the first time in my life, both the North Seattle Industrial Association and the Cascade Bicycle Club spoke at public comment in support of this amendment.

There have literally been press conferences in the past that have occurred completing the missing link, and yet it is still not complete.

Today, we do have broad support before doing a press release or a press statement.

As I mentioned at the last meeting, some commercial businesses still have some concerns, and SDOT is working directly with tenants along the route and property owners to meet their needs.

The Ballard Landmark residents are a group that SDOT is continuing to work with directly.

I've met with them a number of times and as the 30 percent design of this project is published shortly you'll see many of the concerns from the residents address and i will still say that there is more work to do to make the trail even safer for the residents between the 10 and 30 percent design sdot met many times with the residents of the landmark and there are changes to the design which will be published at 30 percent As well, between 30% and final design, there will be many benchmarks, 60, 80, 60, 90% designs, and there will be more opportunities to improve how this design works for the residents of the Ballard Landmark.

On the website today is the 10% design, where the front door of the Ballard Landmark does open up to a 10-foot sidewalk with a 10-foot trail and then a 5-foot buffer.

And residents are correct that in the 10% design there is no buffer between the sidewalk and the trail in front of their front door.

When SDOT releases the 30% design shortly, you will see the product of SDOT working with the landmark residents.

There will be a full side, the 10-foot sidewalk at the front door, and then separating the trail from the sidewalk will be the Bowery landmark driveway so that seniors don't have to cross the trail to reach their cars and to create the largest possible buffer between the full sidewalk and the trail.

I know SDOT and I know I am committed to creating a safe environment in front of the Ballard Landmark because their safety is the key to the success of completing the Burke-Gilman Trail, missing link.

And I will take this moment to say we will continue to work with these residents because we have to make it as safe as possible.

I'm going to now shift into summarizing about this amendment.

In last year's maritime industrial zoning changes, zoning changes in the industrial zone since 2007, we added flexibility to Leary Way, which and increased protections for industrial zoning on Shel-Shell Avenue.

Leary now has zoning that allows some housing and a commercial zone, whereas Shel-Shell is now within the most protected industrial zone in our city.

I'll also address some of the public comments that I heard today and I shared this last time.

Yes, this amendment is more expensive than putting a 10 foot wide strip of asphalt through an industrial zone because the proposal that is before you today fixes the broken sidewalks.

It creates a 25 to 35 foot wide area that includes the sidewalks, multi-use trail and buffer zones as compared to which is a narrow strip of asphalt through an industrial area without a sidewalk.

Supporting this amendment, and I'm just going to close here, Chair, supporting this amendment, colleagues, gives you an opportunity to help put a three-decade argument to rest and be assured that we will continue to work with the residents of the Valley Landmark to ensure their safety.

And again, summarizing here, never before have I ever heard North Seattle Industrial Association and Cascade Bicycle Club on the same side of a Burke-Gilman issue.

Thank you, Chair.

SPEAKER_37

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

Are there any comments on Amendment 3?

Council President Nelson.

SPEAKER_11

I just have some questions right now for central staff, Cal.

So this uses $20 million of a fund that is in total $26 million, is that correct?

SPEAKER_60

The executive has estimated as part of the paving program that $26 million would be available to do some project readiness and to go seek additional grants be available for grant match.

And that is the line item that council member Strauss has identified.

SPEAKER_11

Okay, so I've asked this in the past, not in as clear of a way, but how much, so it would leave $6 million left in a grant match program, and so have you looked at what projects could potentially lose that match if this was to go forward and the $20 million could be used just for this one project?

SPEAKER_60

The projects aren't identified at this time.

It's money that's set aside over the course of eight years of the levy, the idea being that as grant opportunities rise, then that is a revenue source that you would have available to look for those opportunities.

But at this time, I'm not aware of specific projects that have been identified.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

SPEAKER_29

All right.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_37

Councilmember Kittle.

SPEAKER_29

Thank you, Chair Osaka.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

You know, I definitely look for a solution to the Burt Gilman trail, but I wanted to ask Mr. Chao regarding the, you know, kind of following up on the council president, the grant match and project readiness piece.

Usually, using the last levy, you know, this grant money, the 26, which would be allocated between this and the next amendment, what would that be expected to generate in terms of additional monies that are being matched to that grant?

SPEAKER_60

I don't know what the current estimate is for road projects, but I believe I would expect something on the order of maybe about 40 to 50% type of leverage is what I would expect.

But honestly, I have not looked to see what our requirements have been or our success has been on grants with Move Seattle.

SPEAKER_37

So I note that we have...

leaders from SDOT in the audience.

I know they weren't on the agenda, but Bill Laborde, would it be out of order if we asked them to come and comment on that?

SPEAKER_99

You can invite.

SPEAKER_37

Yeah, so you're invited up here if you'd like.

SDOT, Bill Laborde to...

What's that?

SPEAKER_33

What's that?

Yeah, that's fine.

40 to 50 is about the right range for projects that we can leverage with federal dollars.

So we would only, there are projects that would not be eligible for federal funding, but for the projects that would be eligible, that would seek federal funding for, we would expect a 40 to 50% range in leveraging.

SPEAKER_29

So possibly the $26 million could mean $40 million.

So this is a $40 million decision regarding the sourcing of this, essentially, roughly.

I'm not asking for any direct, you know, at the top end, $40 million.

And we could address this also through the regular budget process as we work through SDOT's budget, you know, in the standard budgeting process.

SPEAKER_60

Are you speaking about the Berkman Trail proposal?

Yes.

Yes, you could.

SPEAKER_29

And to be honest, the next one too.

SPEAKER_60

Yes, you could.

SPEAKER_37

Thank you.

Are there any final questions or comments on amendment number three?

I will, so Council Member Wu and then Council Member Strauss, go ahead, you can comment.

SPEAKER_03

What projects have typically been funded previously from this project funding?

Sorry.

SPEAKER_60

The idea is that as grants become available, then we look at what is in our roster and we identify which of our projects that are in the works or ideas for projects that we hope to get done and try to match them up with the grant availability as those programs go.

I'm off the top of my head.

I'm not sure which specific paving programs have received federal funding, but it is a big part of how we do fund these capital projects.

SPEAKER_03

What was the funding for it last year or last levy?

SPEAKER_60

The amount of leverage we had in New Seattle for paving.

SPEAKER_65

Paving?

SPEAKER_60

Yeah.

Sorry, staff will be trying to answer that question.

Apparently there's about a hundred million dollars.

SPEAKER_37

Council member Wu, or you have any other?

Oh, okay.

That was awkward.

All right, cool.

Council member Strauss.

SPEAKER_59

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, colleagues, for some really good questions.

I'm just going to summarize what we've all heard, that the projects that would utilize the funding within this line item are unknown.

What I'll also share is some historical context is that what has been done in the past are projects that need match or additional funding in these moments to receive federal or other grants.

These projects receive increases in the annual or biannual budget.

whether it is from REIT, real estate excise tax, or general fund, or a mixture of both.

And so I will note in this moment that if grant match needs arise for projects within the arterial roadway maintenance subset, we will be ready to support these efforts, as has been done almost every year of the past levies.

Because what is maybe not widely known is that REIT and general fund dollars are added to SDOT's budget every single year.

And we always are above the minimum general fund requirement that is explicitly stated in the levy.

And so while what we have are a number of known unknowns, what I can also share is that there is a pathway to making sure that SDOT, these projects, and our city are whole.

while you are able to support this amendment that increases accountability within this levy.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, colleagues.

And thank you, Bill, for jumping in there.

SPEAKER_37

All right.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

So I'm seeing no other hands or comments.

So if there are no final comments or questions on this amendment number three, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of amendment number three?

Oh, excuse me, Council President, go ahead.

SPEAKER_11

Do we have the same level of federal funding in the past recent years?

I mean, has our reliance on gap funding increased?

SPEAKER_60

I would say that right now the levy is not pledging as much of a leverage commitment as we anticipated in Move Seattle, partly because we we don't necessarily know what the grant environment's gonna look like over the next eight years.

So we are trying to be a little more conservative in our estimates of what grants might be available.

But beyond that, I don't know specifically what was promised at that time.

SPEAKER_11

Okay, because it's my understanding that the administration has recently lowered the grant match threshold for municipalities to 20%.

And so that I was just wondering how, when we're talking about the number of projects and how far that money could go, that's what's factoring into my thinking as well.

Thanks.

SPEAKER_29

Okay.

SPEAKER_37

Council Member Kittle.

SPEAKER_29

I was just curious since we do have the bench, you know, does SDOT have a formal position related to the, you know, the grant match line item as relates to these two amendments?

You're welcome to come comment on it.

And to basically...

If you so choose.

And it lines up with what Councilmember Strauss.

Again, I support the idea.

My concern is, you know, are we, you know, giving up, you know, that 40%, you know, that 40%, 50%?

And could that be taken care of in the, you know...

Because I'm pledging to support the Burt Gilman process and also the 14th, definitely the 14th.

But, you know, how best to do that?

SPEAKER_32

Good afternoon, Greg Spotts, SDOT Director.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this with you.

SDOT doesn't have a position on this particular amendment, but to explain the thinking of the executive in making the original levy proposal, the thinking was to be positioned well to respond quickly when grant opportunities arise and take advantage of them.

The current levy to move Seattle attracted more than $400 million of grant money.

That's significant for a $930 million levy.

So the thinking of the executive in proposing it as it is was to have a ready source of match money so that if a grant came along that was well aligned with one of our projects, we wouldn't have to potentially pursue some sort of council process to identify matching funding, and we could get an application in by the deadline having a project readiness fund of match money available.

That was the thinking.

SPEAKER_29

Thank you.

Thank you, Director Spatz.

And I just wanna say, I support both projects, but I wanna support Council Member Strauss as the budget chair to work through the SDOT budget to get both.

Both are very important, the first two.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

SPEAKER_37

Any final comments or questions, colleagues?

All right, Council Member Strauss.

SPEAKER_59

Thank you, Chair.

Just using the typical procedure that is present in all meetings where the sponsor of the amendment has the last word, that's all I'm saying here.

I think that the questions are real and that, again, I pledge to make sure that if grant match opportunities come up quickly, that we will be able to respond quickly.

I think that there are more mechanisms available to us than what Director Spatz just alluded to and is overall correct.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_37

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

All right, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of amendment number three?

SPEAKER_39

All right, Councilmember Kittle?

SPEAKER_37

No.

SPEAKER_39

Councilmember Moore?

No.

Councilmember Morales?

Yes.

Council President Nelson?

SPEAKER_55

No.

SPEAKER_39

Councilmember Rivera?

SPEAKER_55

No.

SPEAKER_39

Councilmember Strauss?

SPEAKER_10

Yes.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Wu.

SPEAKER_20

Yes.

SPEAKER_39

Vice Chair Hollingsworth.

SPEAKER_17

Yes.

SPEAKER_39

Chair Saka.

No.

Chair, that is four in favor and five against.

SPEAKER_37

All right.

The motion fails and amendment number three is not adopted.

Are there any comments on amendment one version two?

And this is where council member Strauss amendment number four would come in.

SPEAKER_59

Chair move amendment four to your chair's package.

SPEAKER_10

Second.

SPEAKER_37

Second.

All right.

It is moved and seconded to amend Amendment 1, Version 2 as presented on Amendment 4. Before the sponsor addresses it, I will ask central staff to provide an overview.

And this is an opportunity for members to ask policy-related questions.

SPEAKER_60

Council Member, Amendment 4 from Council Member Strauss would add the 14th Avenue Northwest to the list of projects for the paving program and the arterial roadway maintenance program.

The anticipated cost of this project is $6 million.

And again, it would identify the same, would intend to use the same line item for grant match and project readiness.

SPEAKER_37

All right.

Council Member Strauss, as sponsor, you are recognized in order to address it.

SPEAKER_59

Thank you, Chair.

I won't address the funding source.

Just to state that if you go out to 14th Avenue Northwest, you'll find a street last updated in the 1930s.

There are train tracks in the road that have been there since the train bridge was there, since before 1936. The medians are dirt rock and potholes large enough to eat your entire tire.

The medians also create eight points of conflict in each intersection.

My proposal removes the 100-year-old railroad tracks and puts travel lanes down the center of the right-of-way, reducing the points of conflict from 8 to 4, which is more similar to most intersections, and retains parking by moving the parking off the median to back-angle parking along the street.

SDOT recently added four-way stops to the intersection after many collisions that rolled vehicles over and pushed vehicles at high rates of speed into buildings.

And while these stop signs have To date, stopped these collisions that roll cars over and damage buildings.

They have not stopped the collisions.

In summary, the proposal removes dangerous points of conflict for people, updates the roadways so that we do not have errant 100-year-old railroad tracks, and prepares us for the incoming light rail station.

Thank you, Chair.

Nothing more to add, Barry, or to Yabo?

SPEAKER_37

All right.

Colleagues, any other comments, questions on amendment number four?

Hearing none, I will say out of all the amendments I've seen from Council Member Strauss, this one is the least costly and I'll leave it there.

Go ahead, Councilmember Kettle.

SPEAKER_29

Thank you, Chair Saka.

I appreciate the opportunity.

And again, this is of the three, the one I support the most.

But as noted by Director Spatz, you know, from a good governance point of view, in terms of how you structured that program and to be nimble to attract more money, I think it's just a smart way of doing business.

I recognize the points in terms of the sponsor, Councilmember Strauss.

But I will say publicly here now that I will, if this does not pass, that I will work with Council Member Strauss through the normal budgeting process to ensure the 14th Avenue is done.

All right.

SPEAKER_37

Any other comments on Amendment 4?

If not, Council Member Strauss, you are recognized for the last word.

No further comments, Chair.

All right, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 4?

SPEAKER_65

Council Member Kettle?

SPEAKER_29

No.

SPEAKER_65

Council Member Moore?

No.

Council Member Morales?

SPEAKER_49

Yes.

SPEAKER_65

Council President Nelson?

SPEAKER_49

No.

SPEAKER_65

Council Member Rivera?

SPEAKER_49

No.

SPEAKER_65

Council Member Strauss?

SPEAKER_49

Yes.

SPEAKER_65

Council Member Wu?

Yes.

Vice Chair Hollingsworth?

SPEAKER_37

No.

SPEAKER_65

And Chair Saka?

SPEAKER_37

No.

SPEAKER_65

That's three in favor, six opposed.

SPEAKER_37

All right.

The motion fails and Amendment 4 is not adopted.

Are there any comments on Amendment 1, Version 2?

Council Member Strauss, this is your other amendment.

SPEAKER_59

Thank you.

I move Amendment 5 to your chair's package.

SPEAKER_18

Second.

SPEAKER_37

All right.

So we're considering it.

This is Amendment 5. Okay.

It is moved and seconded to Amendment 1, Version 2, as presented in Amendment 5. Before the sponsor addresses it, I will ask central staff to provide an overview of this And this is an opportunity for colleagues, for you all to ask policy-related questions.

SPEAKER_60

Council Members, Amendment 5 from Council Member Strauss adds a new category, the Ballard Avenue curbless street project in the People, Streets, and Public Spaces element.

It adds $5 million for this purpose, and it takes that money from the new sidewalks program, $2.5 million from new sidewalks, and $2.5 million from sidewalk safety repair.

SPEAKER_37

All right.

Council Member Strauss, as the amendment sponsor, you are recognized to speak to it.

SPEAKER_59

Thank you, Chair.

This is a new type of street that we're proposing listed here as a curbless street, but it could also be considered a sidewalk street because the level of the sidewalk and the street are the same so that we are able to better use the sidewalk space and the street space.

My original amendment used sidewalk funds and electric vehicle funds.

The proposal here is only using sidewalk funds because I'm trying to keep my amendments within the type of funding that is like what the project is.

However, you're noticing that that is not falling on listening ears.

Colleagues, if you support this project but not the funding source, please do work with me.

Let me know.

I'll try to find another funding source.

Still, I believe the sidewalk funding to be an appropriate source because we have heard from analysts it's unclear that SDOT can deliver the sidewalks we desire, even if we put that money there.

And this project will move forward our sidewalk policy.

What we've been doing for the last 4 years is creating a cafe and merchant street on Ballard Avenue and since the beginning there's been a desire to have pergolas against the building of Ballard Avenue rather than in the street.

By doing so it will create much more welcoming environment, better fabric of the neighborhood because when you have a sidewalk going through your cafe it feels different than if you can imagine yourself in a Parisian cafe up against the building where people are walking in the street.

So I want to be clear we're not removing cars from Ballard Avenue.

We're not removing parking or thing.

The operations will be similar to how they are today.

The reason that we need to make this a sidewalk street is because if there is a curb, you can't have the pergola up against the building.

If you do people, you'll then have to have a curb cut at every single entrance to a building.

and that just doesn't operate well.

So the proposal here is to create a curbless street or sidewalk street to make the street work better, put pergolas against buildings and create more space for business activity.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, colleagues.

SPEAKER_37

All right.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Colleagues, any comments, questions?

Council Member Moore and then Council Member Morales.

SPEAKER_22

Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, I just want to be clear that I will be voting against this, and I also voted against the other two, obviously, and not because I don't support the underlying projects.

I do support the underlying projects, and as Councilmember Kettle has mentioned, I will I'd be happy to work with Councilmember Strauss on finding another way to budget.

My objection has been to the funding sources in all three of these, and clearly my objection is to taking from sidewalks both the need for alternative sidewalks as well as the need for sidewalk repair.

The amount of money for sidewalks has continued to be whittled down.

And we do have a commitment from SDOT.

They are able to deliver on what we have in the chairs package.

And I am concerned about undermining their ability to complete that work and looking at alternative sidewalks, which is a major portion of the intent of the package here.

It's not to the underlying project that is the objection.

It is to, and again, we're in this position of having to pull from one bucket to another, but that's my position.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_37

Thank you.

Council Member Morales.

SPEAKER_18

Thank you chair i'm going to be abstaining on this amendment, but I do want to say, I think the idea of curbless streets and this sort of pedestrian eyes to pathway through our neighborhoods is really important.

I like Council member more struggle with the particular funding source, but I think this is a great example of the direction we should be moving as a city to make our streets.

at least in commercial areas, to make one sort of pedestrianized street available so that people can navigate through the business area in our neighborhoods safely.

But I will be abstaining on this particular amendment.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_37

Thank you.

And Council Member Rivera.

SPEAKER_10

Thank you, Chair.

And I echo my colleague's sentiments about the funding source.

Council Member Strauss, I very much appreciate you bringing these amendments forward and agreed on the underlying would love to see this in many of our across the city in many of our districts and just across the city but you know wanted to acknowledge and appreciate your efforts and I also it's my understanding that you know attachment a is not meant to be exhaustive and I know that in the implementation process there will be an opportunity I believe to address some of these particular projects as well of the projects that were named in all your amendments.

So thank you, Council Member Strauss.

SPEAKER_37

Yeah, thank you.

And Council Member Strauss, you know, I echo that sentiment as well.

I do.

I strongly support the underlying projects, probably in that exact order, how they appeared here from an amendment perspective.

And I know how critically important closing out the Burt Gilman trail, like actually addressing finally once and for all the missing link in our city is to you, to District 6, to the entire city.

And I'm committed to working alongside you and partnering together through the budget process to actually properly fund this.

Again, I just, my underlying concerns rest in the funding source, not the project.

And I do support the projects.

So in any event, colleagues, any final questions, comments?

If not?

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for your thoughts.

Yeah, go ahead.

You get the last word.

SPEAKER_59

Yeah, just saying thank you for your thoughts.

Nothing further to add.

All right.

SPEAKER_37

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 5?

SPEAKER_39

Councilmember Kettle?

No.

Councilmember Moore?

SPEAKER_18

No.

SPEAKER_39

Councilmember Morales?

SPEAKER_18

Abstain.

SPEAKER_39

Council President Nelson?

SPEAKER_18

No.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Rivera?

SPEAKER_10

No.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Wu?

SPEAKER_49

No.

SPEAKER_39

Vice Chair Hollingsworth?

No.

Chair Saka?

No.

All right.

Chair, that was one in favor, seven opposed, and one abstention.

SPEAKER_37

All right, the motion fails and Amendment 5 is not adopted.

Are there any comments on Amendment 1, Version 2?

Council Member Morales.

SPEAKER_18

No.

Is that me?

Yeah.

Yes, we're on number six now, aren't we?

SPEAKER_27

Yep, yep, yep.

SPEAKER_18

Okay.

Sorry, everyone.

Okay, so this is an amendment to...

Oh, Cal, were you going to...

I move amendment six.

Second.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_37

All right, it is moved and seconded to amendment one, version two, as presented on amendment six from Council Member Morales.

Before the sponsor addresses it, I will ask Cal...

to provide an overview.

And this, colleagues, is an opportunity for you all to ask policy related questions.

SPEAKER_60

Council Members, Amendment 6 from Council Member Morales adds 14 million to the Neighborhood Initiated Safety Partnership Program, and it reduces 14 million from the District Project Fund, which would eliminate that program from the levy.

SPEAKER_37

All right.

Council Member Morales, as sponsor, you are recognized in order to address it.

SPEAKER_18

Thank you, Chair.

I want to just reiterate what I said about this earlier in my other amendment, which is that this program is important because it starts to repair harm that started when we built our highways and freight routes through BIPOC communities and through low-income communities.

in many different parts of the city.

The levy proposal as transmitted by the mayor does include this program.

It equips SDOT with the resources to invest in historically under invested communities and focuses investments in areas of high equity priority.

These levy investments provide access to opportunity and benefit people across districts, and we know that transportation is essential to access key services like jobs and education and healthcare and entertainment even.

Addressing transportation inequities helps to reduce disproportionate rates of illness, death, social isolation, poverty, the long-term impacts of pollution, and limited access to opportunities and wealth.

Some of the key equity principles that are included in the Seattle Transportation Plan that we passed last year guide this levy proposal.

Those principles include centering the voices of communities of color and underrepresented groups in planning and decision-making processes.

addressing inequities in the transportation system by prioritizing investments for impacted communities, removing cost as a barrier so everyone can take the trips they need to make throughout the city, and supporting shifts towards non-punitive transportation enforcement approaches that reduce harm and enhance public safety on city streets.

So this amendment incorporates guidance from the Transportation Equity Work Group and is rooted in the current Levy to Move Seattle's Equity Work Plan.

Programs like the People, Streets and Public Places and this Neighborhood Initiated Safety Partnership Program help ensure that the needs of communities of color and vulnerable communities are met.

by allowing communities to co-create projects, by focusing on relationship building and incorporating communities into the decision-making process.

And as I said before, I share the excitement about the idea of district council members having a small pot of discretionary funds to support neighborhood projects.

And To meet our transportation equity goals and given the constraints of this levy, I truly believe that we have an obligation to set aside some levy dollars specifically for prioritizing a program that is intended to address past harms and to support equitable engagement and community driven decision making.

So colleagues, I am asking for your support for this amendment.

SPEAKER_37

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Are there any comments to Amendment 6?

Looks like Vice Chair Hollingsworth.

SPEAKER_17

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Chair, I really want to appreciate Council Member Morales for bringing this amendment.

I'm going to be supporting it.

I think far too often we get really hyper-focused in our policy, policy, policy, and we don't understand there's a practice, there's an implementation, and there's also the impact.

And a prime example of this, we have...

And kudos to Estat for this.

I know a lot of times you all probably don't get a lot of praise, but kudos to you all.

There's a church that is right across the street from the MLK Tennis Center, Reverend Hurd, or Pastor Hurd, excuse me.

And we have put bike lanes along MLK.

And so it's connecting Central District, South End, and through the work of the access and looking at it from an equity perspective, S.I.

understood that that church was a historically black church.

A lot of its residents do not live in the Central District anymore.

They have to drive in.

And so they reserve parking spots along MLK, and they also do an after-school program And so they integrated the bike lanes with some parking spots, loading zones for the kids to be able to offload from Leschi when they come down to the church.

And a part of that is, you know, if you were a planner, you would say, hey, this connects A to B, but a lot of times I think this work group intertwines and interconnects and also creates a way for people that don't have time to come down here and be able to test the fire, be online.

They're at work most of the time.

And so this group creates a voice for those people so that it feels like SDOT is really connected and embedded in the community and people feel heard.

And I think we've only seen the beginnings of this work.

This work is very new with the work group.

And I think we haven't seen the long lasting impacts of what it could do.

So I will be supporting this and thank you Council Member Morales for bringing this forward.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_37

Colleagues, any other final questions, comments on amendment number six?

Council Member Moore.

SPEAKER_22

Great, thank you.

I do have a question, just more information about how these are neighborhood initiated and co-created.

If I could just get a little bit more information about that.

SPEAKER_60

Council Member Rich, this might be something for the staff to speak to.

SPEAKER_37

And before they do, I'll just frame it up.

This is essentially a rebranding, renaming of The legacy program, which is retired in favor of this new program, the prior name of the program was Neighborhood Street Fund, NSF.

So rebranding, renaming, functionally equivalent.

I think there is an intended operational difference, distinction in how it will be implemented and operationalized, which I'm not particularly clear on.

But we have SDOT here.

Go ahead.

SPEAKER_32

Thank you.

I've personally been very involved in the creation of this program based on a listening tour that I did late last year and early this year.

And in meeting with representatives of underserved communities, I asked people, what do you need to work effectively with us in making the street changes that you see are needed?

And over and over again, I was told that...

We need multi-year funding, and we need a dedicated point of contact who gets to know us and gets to know our neighborhood and doesn't move on when there's a new project.

So I don't actually feel that this is a rebranding of an existing program, respectfully.

I feel this is...

a revision in how we interact with historically underserved communities to build deep and lasting relationships and be able to iterate with them over multiple years in waves of small improvements.

And it's a way to lift up voices of people who didn't know that there was opportunities like this.

Previous programs were application-based, and an application-based competitive program advantages people with more social capital.

And our idea here is really to bring the table to people who didn't know there was a table and invite collaboration among folks who have limited resources to engage with city government within the traditional means.

SPEAKER_37

How is this different than Neighborhood Street Fund?

SPEAKER_32

Well, Neighborhood Street Fund was an application-based process where communities put together a detailed application and compete for funding.

And usually you end up with applications from communities that have lawyers and urban planners and other knowledge workers in them who are able to put forth a really competitive application.

And the idea here is to bring opportunities to make change to communities whose first language isn't English, to communities who haven't previously had deep relationships in City Hall or any relationships with City Hall.

So there is an idea of really trying to uplift voices and create opportunities for people who otherwise wouldn't be engaged with us.

SPEAKER_37

So who decides under Neighborhood Initiated Street Fund?

SPEAKER_32

Ultimately, it would be the...

the department's decisions, they would ultimately roll up to me.

But the idea is really to do deep outreach and build long-term relationships with specific communities that we help uncover through our transportation equity work group, a group of volunteers who are helping us understand who and how to make these relationships that previously may not have existed in the fullest form that they could.

SPEAKER_37

In the absence of this slush fund, does SDOT not undertake any of that work now currently?

SPEAKER_32

I'm sorry, but I don't see it as a slush fund whatsoever.

I'm not comfortable with that.

SPEAKER_37

Does SDOT engage?

So characterize it however you want.

Does SDOT not engage in this underlying work that you're talking about now?

SPEAKER_32

This program is proposed by the executive to supplement previous waves of investment and make investment in a new way to bring people into the circle of power who previously have not felt included.

SPEAKER_37

So SDOT does or does not currently under or engage in similar efforts in the absence of this program?

SPEAKER_32

This program is a response to what I heard in meeting with underserved communities about how we could improve empowering them and working with them more effectively.

SPEAKER_37

Council Member Rivera.

SPEAKER_22

Sorry, Chair, I had a couple more questions, if I may.

SPEAKER_37

Okay, yeah, go ahead, finish out your line of questions, go ahead.

SPEAKER_22

Thank you.

So I noticed that actually Chair had put in here across all districts.

So District 5 has a lot of underserved communities.

And I think we're just sort of becoming aware of the fact that there is so There are so many underserved communities in District 5, quite a diversity of socioeconomic status as well as ethnicity and race, religious orientation.

So I'm just curious about, you talked about these communities being identified through the S.Equitable Development Act.

committee, how are you making sure that you're actually accessing communities in other districts that haven't traditionally necessarily been accessed?

SPEAKER_32

Well, the Lake City Collective is one of the folks who inspired this investment proposal.

And we've worked with them.

We've also funded them at times.

They've taken me on several walks.

And one of the leaders of the Lake City Collective was at the press conference when the mayor put out his revised proposal.

So that's exactly the type of community we're talking about.

SPEAKER_22

Okay, thank you.

And there are also additional communities, but they're a great gateway, I guess, to those communities.

And my last question, Chair, thank you.

So this would be pulling from the district project fund.

in my thinking about the district project fund had basically been a fund that could do everything that's already enumerated in these other buckets.

But my question is, how are we, if we take the money and we put an end to the district project fund, how do we address the emergent safety concerns and requests that we will get from constituents as things arise that we can't anticipate, like changing the streets in response to gun violence that has suddenly escalated, or drainage issues.

I mean, things that do come up that are district-specific.

SPEAKER_60

Well, I think the department would have to rely on the other funded programs.

You would look at the Vision Zero program as another programmatic source of funding for these types of improvements.

It could put more demand on services through those other programs.

But I think in large part, We are getting into some implementation issues where we don't actually have the details of how these programs would be administered.

So there is a little bit of work that will need to be decided during future budgets if this program goes through to identify exactly how that will be done.

council still has to approve funding even with if voters allow this to allow us to use these funds the council will still be involved in actually doing the appropriations for the program and identifying how those things would work I think the program that I would most directly look at if the district program is there is this vision zero program potentially safe routes to schools could also do some.

And then there is the $7 million that Chair Sacco has put into this neighborhood scale traffic safety program that could be used for these kinds of projects as well.

SPEAKER_22

And the district can come directly to, like we can take a district focus approach in addressing issues rather than it's a citywide issue in those funds.

SPEAKER_60

That would be a future decision for council, but this would ask the voters to give permission for $7 million, for instance, for this neighborhood scale project, and the decision of how that would be spent would be a future council decision.

SPEAKER_10

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

SPEAKER_37

All right, Councilmember Rivera.

SPEAKER_10

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Councilmember Moore, for those questions.

I had equal questions.

I also want to thank Councilmember Morales for bringing this important issue as part of this.

I guess one thing I want to underscore is it shouldn't be just one bucket that we identify to make sure that we are addressing the needs across underserved and communities of color across the city.

It is really something that should be department-wide.

I understand you're working with communities as part of this particular program, but I often get concerned when a particular program is highlighted for something that we should be doing every day as part of our everyday work across all departments in the city, including SDOT.

looking forward to hearing how you all plan to make sure you're incorporating community voice and the voices of BIPOC community and all the work that you do.

I just felt it was important to talk about that too.

And then particular to this fund, You know, we also have in the D4 at Magnuson Park, a community both at Mercy House and Solid Ground that I hope will be part of this conversation because they're having speeding issues, as you know, at Sandpoint.

What maybe I would have called back in the day as drag racing.

And so those are issues that need to be addressed and addressed.

and hopefully that will be part of this conversation for the families there.

And then, you know, as part of the CARES, excuse me, the CARES package, I know there is funding for this and the district-specific, and I also know that the district-specific, the old version of the neighborhood matching, or just what it was called, I'm sorry, I can't remember now, fund had, yes, I know, I was not aware that you needed to have legal assistance or anything of that nature.

I have heard folks from the district talk about identifying a street circle and being able to, yes, they had to apply, but I'm pretty sure not everyone had had a lawyer involved.

So is that part of the...

the requirements or the criteria, or are you just saying that folks just on their own accord do it?

I just wanna clarify in any way, and then I'll just finish out and let you clarify, just there is a need in my mind for district specific work as well, because we all know we have constituents that are identifying certain things that need to be of the smaller scale, which I think was the point of this, identified in the district.

And so, you know, support both.

I know they're both in the chairs package.

SPEAKER_37

Thank you.

SPEAKER_10

Oh, sorry, Chair, can we let Director Spatz address that question?

SPEAKER_32

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.

I wasn't meaning to say you needed legal or urban planning competency to make an application, but we have learned in our industry that application, competitive application-based processes tend to bias towards communities with more social capital, more knowledge workers, more skill at putting together an application and you know communities whose first language is in English for example typically aren't don't have the capabilities to put together a competitive application and that's why we're looking at different ways of engaging deeply with those communities and empowering them I appreciate you answering that and again I hope not just with this all applications that residents across the city put in I hope that you will

SPEAKER_10

offer assistance and you can look at the application and know whether someone needs assistance.

My thoughts are when someone's putting in an application, they're identifying a need for a project at a particular location.

And I would think that you all as the experts would help community figure out how to address that need versus having an application that is written out by a professional but that you would be the ones helping once they identify what the need is you can serve to help the constituents with that as part of this or any other application that that is coming through Weston Thank you councilmember kettle

SPEAKER_29

Thank you, Chair Saka.

Also, thank you, Council Member Morales, for highlighting this program, this concept in a lot of ways.

And thank you, Director Spatz, for your answers to it.

And I will say, I used to be one of those people that were, you know, coming together as a group to advocate for our neighborhood on different, you know, whatever, you know, the street fund, the small sparks fund, there's a whole There was more than that.

And a lot of those predate the development of the district system too.

And so I recognize the point.

And I do think it's important to have a neighborhood initiative safety program with that concept and that kind of underlying position.

I would say, you know, in terms of the district fund, I've already said, you know, the focus is going to be on traffic, pedestrian safety from my perspective.

And, you know, in terms of being district representatives, I do know my district very well, and, you know, so does the south, the east slope, the lower east slope of Magnolia get the attention?

A lot of times it doesn't, so it helps to have a district representative to highlight, because I know that area very well, and there's other parts of Magnolia that's, you know, it's, the stereotype is one on the top, but there's to the north and on the lower east slope, particularly by the tracks, It is a difficult area that has needs from a traffic and pedestrian safety perspective.

And that's something that I could work through in terms from a district perspective, particularly because I charge my District 7 Neighborhood Council with these kinds of things as well.

And as you know from our spreadsheet that we gave you, we are definitely working this piece.

So thank you for your answers.

Thank you for Council Member Morales.

And I'll just pledge again to basically have the District 7, my office, myself, my office, and the District 7 Neighborhood Council really operate in partnership with the Neighborhood Initiated Safety Partnership Program.

So thank you.

All right, thank you.

Council Member Moore.

SPEAKER_22

Thank you, Chair.

I guess I would ask, Chair, I'm looking at the neighborhood scale traffic safety programs, and there's $7 million in there.

And I'm just wondering, how does that, perhaps that program differ from the neighborhood initiated safety partnership program?

I'm wondering whether an amendment might be in order to put that $7 million, to transfer that $7 million into the Neighborhood Initiated Safety Partnership Program.

SPEAKER_37

Yeah, so thank you, Council Member Moore.

So what you're proposing gets to the heart of the challenge here, and that is...

you know, and this is the number one rub in terms of consolidating all and harmonizing as best as possible everyone's feedback.

This is the number one area of, you know, we had the most variance, I suppose, with respect to where the specific money, you know, is intended to be funded or be allocated in which specific program and pot.

And so how it's currently planned and proposed this generic, small, whatever it's called in that attachment, you know, that it could be for, the idea is that it could be for neighborhood initiated safety.

It could be for district project fund.

Some of you colleagues like moved a lot of that or all of it to district project fund.

Some of you really love district project fund.

And, or it could be for any number of, Investments within that category, but high level we align and agree on the need for smaller scale safety type improvements.

And so that that is the that is the the compromise position that we took in this proposed chairs package is that.

Everywhere such strong feelings and a couple other comments from my perspective as well.

First, I note that the executives own proposal.

Reduce the neighborhood initiated street fund.

from the April draft amount, what was it, 46 million, 47, I don't know, to the final proposed amount in May of 41 million.

Executive's own proposal did that.

And so what we're doing is reallocating that to some other areas that reflect this council's priorities.

And all that remains to be seen.

We're gonna vote on it in a moment.

And then, but I do think, because it is a brand new program, As Director Spatz aptly noted, it's a brand new program.

I think there are questions about how it's going to be administered exactly.

I get the concept and the idea, but there are valid questions about how it remains to be implemented.

And that's why the guidance and direction that we're providing in the companion resolution specifically requests an executive proposal on how this will be implemented amongst other things.

Same thing for District Project Fund, which itself is a net new thing.

So in order to preserve the District Project Fund and the Neighborhood Initiative Safety, This is the compromise position that we took.

And again, this $7 million, again, we all agree, you can call it whatever you want, categorize it in whatever bucket or subcategory you so choose, but broadly what it is, it's all the same thing.

It's smaller scale safety improvements in neighborhoods and communities.

And again, I get the need, for equity and making sure communities who have historically been marginalized and disenfranchised and ignored from these safety projects and road construction projects, et cetera, have their voices centered for once.

I also think that, again, there's A lot of this implementation remains to be seen.

And we can't just slap the term equity or community on something and expect it's going to yield immediately equitable or community-driven results.

So that's why I want to see a proposal.

So in any event, long way away from me saying this is the compromise approach that recognizes the competing kind of visions of where these smaller scale safety improvements should be.

SPEAKER_22

Thank you.

SPEAKER_37

All right.

Council Member Morales, as amendment sponsor, you are welcome to have the last word if you so choose.

SPEAKER_18

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate the discussion here.

Thank you, Director Spatz, as well.

I appreciate the discussion.

I think I do want to be clear that the intent for this program is not just for District 2. We have low-income communities throughout the city.

We have communities of color throughout the city.

And so this Transportation Equity Workgroup is working or attempting to work with all of them so that those communities can get access to their government and to decision-making.

And so I will just say that I think this work is important.

We have race and social justice ordinance in this city.

We have racial equity principles and goals that we are trying to reach in the city.

And this particular work, falls under that bucket.

So I do think it's important that we support the people doing this work and support them being out in community to try to make sure that our constituents get access to their local government.

And so, yeah, I will leave it at that.

And I think, ask for your support.

Thanks.

SPEAKER_37

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

All right, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 6?

SPEAKER_39

Councilmember Kittle?

SPEAKER_37

No.

SPEAKER_39

Councilmember Moore?

SPEAKER_22

Aye.

SPEAKER_39

Councilmember Morales?

Yes.

Council President Nelson?

Abstain.

Councilmember Rivera?

SPEAKER_10

Abstain.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Strauss?

No.

Council Member Wu?

SPEAKER_49

Yes.

SPEAKER_39

Vice Chair Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Chair Saka?

No.

Okay, one second.

Okay, Chair, that is four in favor, three opposed, and two abstentions.

SPEAKER_37

All right.

The motion carries and amendment six is adopted.

Are there any comments on, or excuse me, we're gonna take up amendment number seven and amendments number seven and eight in just a moment.

There's a lot of parts people and you know, so we're gonna take, we're gonna pause for 10 minutes.

We're gonna take a recess if, Let's see here.

So if there are no objections, we will be in recess until 1 0 8 PM.

Hearing no objections, we are in recess until 1 0 8 PM.

SPEAKER_99

you do

SPEAKER_27

you

SPEAKER_37

All right, this meeting will return to order.

It is 1.10 p.m.

We're picking up where we last left off.

The motion to amend the chair's amendment through amendment six that is adopted.

So at this point we will now move on to the other stuff.

So are there any comments on amendment one version two as amended?

SPEAKER_22

Yes, chair.

I moved to amend amendment one version two as presented on amendment seven on the agenda.

Second.

SPEAKER_37

All right, it has been moved and seconded to amend Amendment 1, Version 2 as presented via Amendment 7. Before the sponsor addresses it, I will ask central staff to provide an overview.

And this is an opportunity for colleagues for you all to ask policy related questions.

SPEAKER_60

Council Members, Amendment 7 offered by Council Member Moore makes changes to some language in your chair's package related to the durable infrastructure solutions.

It replaces language talking about transportation impact fees to be a little bit more stronger and requesting a transportation impact fee rate study and recommendations for a proposal by January 1st, 2027.

SPEAKER_37

All right.

Council Member Moore, as sponsor, you are recognized in order to address it.

SPEAKER_22

Great.

Thank you.

And I just want to note that this proposal is just for transportation impact fees for sidewalks as opposed to Chair's proposal, which is for bridges, sidewalks, and pavement needs.

So thank you very much.

I just...

What I want to say about this is this, I really appreciate the chair's amendment does include referencing of investigation of impact fees.

My amendment just puts a little bit more flesh on those bones and gives us a date by which I would like to see a proposal about impact fees.

And I know that Many people in the development community, some in the business community, and some in the affordable housing community are not necessarily supportive of impact fees.

And I just want it to be clear that this is a proposal to look at impact fees.

And I think that it's incredibly important that we actually...

Part of our...

Our good governance is that we look at alternative funding sources for all of the transportation needs that our city has going forward.

Because I think even the package that's before us, the 1.55 million, is a significant amount of money.

It will place a burden on our property owners and property owners who are landlords will be passing that on to tenants.

And I think we've heard my colleagues make many comments here earlier in response to the amendment for a higher level.

that this has a real pocketbook impact and it absolutely does and will.

And so I think it is incumbent upon us as stewards of our constituents pocketbooks basically, to be looking at and investigating all potential funding sources for the needs.

And so that's why I'm bringing this forth.

I would also note that the move levy oversight committee actually recommended that transportation impact fees be looked at as a potential funding source.

If I may, I'll quote from their report, which says that since most new housing and offices are currently being developed in dense neighborhoods, which have access to mass transit, sidewalks, and bike lanes, it may be advisable to consider impact fees based on the number of car parking spots in a new development.

This would not only bring in revenue for transportation projects, but help the city meet climate related goals.

Transportation impact fees should be designed with a careful equity lens, and extremely importantly, and include exemptions for affordable housing.

So that's definitely the analysis that I would like to see.

The other thing that I would note is that a recent survey has found that there's 75% support for impact fees.

which is certainly a level of support that I think we'd love to see on the levy itself.

And I would note the overwhelming majority of other cities have impact fees, including Shoreline, Kenmore, Burien, Tukwila, SeaTek, Bellevue, who's not necessarily known as being anti-developer, Kirkland, and Bothell.

Again, the purpose of this is simply to begin the process of the city looking at alternative funding sources that are not going to continue to have a disproportionate impact on property taxes, on property owners, and individuals who are in possession of property as landlords and then having to pass it on to renters.

And I think it's important that we at least engage in that conversation, that we have the issue fully vetted so we can look at the pros and the cons.

And then at that stage, make the decision that we need to make.

Thank you, Chair.

SPEAKER_37

All right.

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

Colleagues, are there any comments or questions on Amendment 7?

SPEAKER_17

What's that?

SPEAKER_11

Oh, usually our central staff analyst speaks to them.

Are you going to speak?

SPEAKER_60

At the top of the hour.

Okay.

SPEAKER_37

All right.

Hearing no other...

Go ahead, do you have a question, comment?

SPEAKER_11

Yeah.

Go ahead.

So, transportation impact fees are driven by land use changes, be that zoning changes or changes to incentive zoning regulations, and as authorized by the Growth Management Act, they require a two-step legislative process.

First, the comp plan must be amended to establish a list of eligible projects, and then second, implementing legislation must be developed to impose a fee on new development.

And different councils over time have put forward multiple statements, I think since as far back as 2015, in recitals and budget documents stating the council's intent to consider impact fees.

And last fall, council considered but did not pass Council Bill 120635. And that was last November or December.

That legislation would have amended the comprehensive plan to establish a list of impact fee eligible projects, and one reason it failed was because that list and rate structure were out of date.

And so I'm not entering into a discussion of the pros and cons of impact fees, but I believe that the discussion over how we're going to pay for our transportation changes if driven, given that the transportation fees, I see them as a land use function, and we're going to be entering into a big long discussion and legislation on the comp plan update this coming year.

I think that that's a more appropriate place for this discussion.

We've already, you know, it's not a question, we've had developers, yes, weigh in on this, but we've also had affordable housing providers weigh in in opposition to transportation impact fees.

And so it's clearly a discussion that merits a lot of sort of complex thinking.

And so I will be voting against this because I think that we'll have a great opportunity to think about how we're going to pay for transportation in the transportation element of the comp plan update coming forward.

And we already also do have within this package before us sort of the framework of a process to put forward additional funding for durable infrastructure and sidewalks.

So that is why I will be voting against this.

SPEAKER_37

Thank you.

Any final questions, comments?

If not, I'll yield the floor to Council Member Worth for the last word, if you so choose.

SPEAKER_22

Okay, yeah, thank you very much, Council President.

I appreciate that perspective.

I guess what I would point out is because this is limited to sidewalks, I don't think it necessarily is in the best place to be in the comp plan regarding sidewalks.

I think the discussion about how we should be funding sidewalks is one that is appropriately within the transit arena.

And it's also something that we need to be having a discussion about relatively soon.

And we're sort of behind the ball on the comp plan at this point.

But anyway, My main point being that this is related to sidewalks, which is a critical piece of our transit infrastructure, and so I do think it is an appropriate place.

And also, I think it's appropriate to be having SDOT and other people who are going to be on that task force, which includes business, labor, subject matter experts, who have all dealt with this issue in other jurisdictions and other contexts, to be engaged in that conversation.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_37

Thank you.

Council President, is that a stale hand that you have there?

SPEAKER_11

I put it up to say what I just did.

Okay.

So I will take it down.

SPEAKER_37

Perfect.

All right.

Well, colleagues, if there are no final comments, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 7?

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Kettle?

SPEAKER_37

No.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Moore?

Aye.

SPEAKER_22

Aye.

SPEAKER_39

Okay, Council Member Morales?

Council President Nelson?

SPEAKER_49

No.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Rivera?

SPEAKER_10

No.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Strauss?

No.

Council Member Wu?

SPEAKER_03

No.

SPEAKER_39

Vice Chair Hollingsworth?

SPEAKER_17

No.

SPEAKER_39

And Chair Saka?

No.

Okay, Chair, that is one vote in favor and seven opposed.

SPEAKER_37

All right, the motion fails and Amendment 7 is not adopted.

At this point, close colleagues, we're close.

Are there any, on this at least, are there any comments on Amendment 1, Version 2 as amended?

SPEAKER_11

Thank you very much.

I move the walk-on amendment eight that was distributed earlier this morning and council members have a hard copy next to them.

SPEAKER_37

Second.

All right.

It is moved and seconded to amend amendment one version two as presented via council president's amendment eight walk-on amendment.

Before the sponsor addresses it, I will ask central staff to provide an overview of this amendment.

And this is an opportunity for members to ask policy related questions.

SPEAKER_60

Council Members, Amendment 8 offered by Council President Nelson adds clarifying language to the description of the Office of the Waterfront Project, the Central Waterfront Project, to include Pioneer Square connections.

SPEAKER_37

All right, Council President.

Nelson, as the sponsor, you are recognized in order to address it.

SPEAKER_11

Thank you very much.

My original amendment, which I thank the chair for including in the package, would make sure that a portion of the urban forestry funding under the climate and resiliency bucket is used to support improvements that were contractually obligated to provide as part of the waterfront project.

And this makes explicit that those improvements also include improvements along Pioneer Square connections to the waterfront project as requested by the folks that requested the original amendment, which was the Central Waterfront Oversight Committee.

SPEAKER_37

Thank you, Council President.

Colleagues, are there any other questions or comments on Amendment 8?

Council Member Kittle.

SPEAKER_29

Thank you, Chair Saka.

Thank you, Council President, for the amendment.

I have been many times to the waterfront with this fantastic project that is nearing completion.

It is a marvel.

And some of those visits that I've had with the Office of the Waterfront and then also with the Friends of the Waterfront, They noted, and I believe with us too, their depictions of the project is not just the waterfront.

We have the Elliott Bay Connections piece, which is going to go further north.

But we also have, and that's a separate project, I should note, but we also have connections into the neighboring communities to include Pioneer Square.

And these are really important to...

to ensure that there are set and to make clear that these are part of the waterfront project and to really create a world-class connection.

This connects to the Soto, the stadiums as well.

And this will really set the, you know, for moving forward to ensure that we have a, you know, that beautiful waterfront project, which is gonna be key for residents and visitors alike moving forward.

So I support the amendment.

Thank you.

All right.

SPEAKER_11

And just so everybody knows what we're talking about here, the original amendment said, support maintenance and plant establishment for landscape elements of the Central Waterfront Project and Pike Pine Corridor in coordination with Seattle Center.

And this would add the words, including Pioneer Square connections after Central Waterfront Project.

SPEAKER_37

Thanks.

All right.

So colleagues, if there are no final questions, hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of amendment number eight.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Kettle.

SPEAKER_29

Aye.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Moore.

SPEAKER_22

Aye.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Morales.

SPEAKER_22

Yes.

SPEAKER_39

Council President Nelson.

SPEAKER_10

Aye.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Rivera.

SPEAKER_10

Aye.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Wu?

SPEAKER_49

Yes.

SPEAKER_39

Vice Chair Hollingsworth?

Yes.

And Chair Saka?

Aye.

Okay, Chair, that is nine votes in favor.

SPEAKER_37

All right, the motion carries and Amendment 8 is adopted.

Let's see, are there any final comments on Amendment 1, Version 2 as specifically amended just now?

That was, and I also note that that was the last amendment before taking a final vote on amendment one, version two as amended here today.

So are there any further comments on amendment one, version two as amended by two amendments?

Go ahead, council member Moore.

SPEAKER_22

Sorry, I just had a question.

Does this include attachment two to amendment one that we're voting on?

SPEAKER_60

Attachment two.

Yes, attachment two is the recitals and that would be part of this action.

So it's all part of what, okay, thank you.

SPEAKER_37

All right, Council Member Morales.

SPEAKER_18

Well, I thought Council Member Saka had, or Kettle had his hand up first.

Did you have your hand up?

Oh, no?

Okay.

SPEAKER_37

Might have been a stale hand.

SPEAKER_18

Is this our final comment?

Are we voting now?

SPEAKER_37

Yeah, final comments.

And then we're going to vote on the revised chair's package, Amendment 1, Version 2, as amended by Versions Amendment 6 and 8.

SPEAKER_18

Okay, very well.

Well, I do want to start by thanking you, Chair, again, and your team.

I also do want to thank the SDOT staff who have been briefing all of us separately.

Central staff has been briefing all of us and really appreciate the work that you have been doing.

I will say...

One of the examples, I know the amendment didn't pass, but I think it's important to just explain for the purpose of everyone.

As an example, we have a project in my district, Rose Street, where several years ago there were lots of different pieces of SDOT working at that.

There was sidewalk improvements, there were tree planting, signal timing and different people from SDOT's different departments were there, but they weren't talking to one another.

And it was leaving community in this weird place of having to figure out who the right person is and how to get this project, all these different projects done.

And so I do think it's important that the department is moving toward You know, getting out of those silos, really focusing and centering communities so that we can deliver projects more equitably and faster.

So I just want to thank the department for that.

So I do want to highlight some of the priorities that are in the chairs package that are included for District 2. We have a little over $8 million in new sidewalks, thanks to the 17% allocation in the pedestrian safety category.

Bike projects at just over $67 million.

Not all of the projects that are listed there are District 2, but many of the priorities that are in that category are for connecting fragments of the bike network in the South End.

We have $6 million for transit passenger safety.

We have included in the list of projects the station area planning for Graham Street and for the CID.

It does not include any specific funding, which I will admit is a disappointment.

We started with a $15 million request, and in my package would have had $5 million for So I still think that that is important work and I hope that the department will find the funding to make sure that the community gets access to the support that they need for that process.

And then we added Rainier Avenue to the Vision Zero estimated investments so that we can make sure that we are addressing one of the most dangerous streets in the city and ensuring that neighbors, whether they're crossing the street to get to school or going to the Lighthouse for the Blind or trying to navigate our bus system along Rainier, that they can do so safely.

So I just wanted a chance to highlight some of those things for folks in the South End and to thank everybody in the department and on the central staff and Council Member Saka's team for the work that you've done.

Thank you, Chair.

SPEAKER_37

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Can I just say, I really do appreciate you and your comments just now.

You put together a lot of thoughtful amendments throughout this process.

And you and I have had really productive, direct one-on-one conversations for months on the levy.

And it takes a leader to be willing to stand up and put yourself out there and then humble yourself if your stuff doesn't get passed and moved and supported, myself included, by the way.

I put together right before us, I just put together a, what I thought had consensus and turns out I was wrong.

And you know, that's okay.

But I am happy with the final package.

I'm delighted with the final package because it reflects a citywide view and all of us can claim credit and it does center safety investments for the whole city.

And this is something to be excited of or to be excited about and rally around and unite.

Because, you know, 30% of SDOT's budget is the levy.

And if it doesn't pass, well, like, Let's just say it would be catastrophic.

Jobs are on the line.

The city's ability to conduct basic, perform essential services on the line.

I don't want to talk about that because I think where we're landing directionally is putting together a package that we can all be excited about.

We can all rally around.

But ultimately, voters are going to decide on, right?

And so anyways.

Very thoughtful remarks.

Thank you for those.

And all right, cool.

And any final questions, comments?

Okay.

Will the clerk call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 1, Version 2 as amended?

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Kittle?

SPEAKER_37

Aye.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Moore?

SPEAKER_11

Aye.

SPEAKER_39

Council President Nelson?

SPEAKER_18

Aye.

SPEAKER_39

Sorry, I went out of order.

Council Member Morales?

SPEAKER_18

Yes.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Rivera?

SPEAKER_18

Aye.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Strauss?

Abstain.

Council Member Wu?

Yes.

Vice Chair Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Chair Saka?

SPEAKER_37

Emphatic yes.

SPEAKER_39

Okay, chair, that is eight votes in favor and one abstention.

SPEAKER_37

All right, the motion carries and amendment one, version two as amended is adopted.

Council colleagues recall, There's a pending motion before us, and that is the very first thing that we moved, and that is the originally transmitted levy legislation.

So that is the bill as amended just now.

That is before us.

We will need to vote to officially tie a bow on everything.

Are there any final comments on the bill as specifically amended just now?

All right, hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the recommendation that the bill pass as amended.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Kettle.

SPEAKER_37

Aye.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Moore.

SPEAKER_18

Aye.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Morales.

SPEAKER_18

Yes.

SPEAKER_39

Council President Nielsen.

SPEAKER_11

Aye.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Rivera.

SPEAKER_11

Aye.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Strauss.

Abstain.

Council Member Wu.

SPEAKER_37

Yes.

SPEAKER_39

Vice Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Chair Saka.

SPEAKER_37

Yes.

SPEAKER_39

Okay, Chair, that is eight votes in favor and one abstention.

SPEAKER_37

All right.

The motion carries and the committee's recommendation that the bill pass as amended will be sent to the July 9th City Council meeting for final consideration.

Moving on, we will now move on to our second item of business.

Will the clerk please read the title of item two into the record.

SPEAKER_65

Agenda item two, resolution 32137 relating to transportation accompanying ordinance requesting the 2024 transportation levy for citywide transportation maintenance and improvements and providing further direction regarding reporting and implementation of the programs to be funded by the levy for briefing discussion and possible vote.

SPEAKER_37

Thank you.

And it looks like Yolanda Ho of Council Central staff has joined us.

Welcome.

So thank you for joining us at the table.

Yolanda will provide us with a high level overview of amendments one and two.

After her presentation, I will move the resolution and then, excuse me, amendment sponsors will move their respective amendments.

And after receiving a second, Yolanda will provide a more detailed overview of the amendment before voting on each amendment.

SPEAKER_19

All right, Yolanda Ho, council central staff.

So previously we discussed a pre-introduction draft.

So I just wanted to highlight a couple of changes in the version that is before you.

It is largely the same as what we discussed a couple of weeks ago, but we did revise council member Hollingsworth item in section three, subsection E related to a post-project delivery design and impact evaluation.

We revised council member Morales's item in section four, subsection D related to leading I-5 to include a reference to the specific work items described in resolution 32100 that had been adopted by the council last year with the mayor's concurrence.

And we added a new subsection E to section four at council member Kettle's request related to supporting the ongoing collaboration between SDOT, the Seattle Fire Department, and other emergency responders to ensure access for emergency vehicles when implementing right-of-way improvements intended to increase safety for the traveling public.

And with that, we can discuss amendments.

SPEAKER_37

Yeah, first off, I guess, so thank you, Yolanda.

I first and foremost move that the committee recommends adoption of Resolution 32137. Is there a second?

SPEAKER_17

Second.

SPEAKER_37

It is moved and seconded to adopt the resolution.

And so as sponsor, I will, I will, I guess address this item.

to supplement the great comments on kind of factually what this does and accomplishes that Yolanda just mentioned.

You know, this is the result, colleagues, of a lot of hard work from you all and a lot of collaboration here at the dais and kind of in behind the scenes as well.

So thank you for the partnership and the collaboration.

I mean, it's pretty self-explanatory resolution.

And in any event, but are there any other questions or comments on the resolution?

Who's the first?

Is it Kettle?

More.

SPEAKER_22

Okay.

So, okay.

I move to amend Amendment 1, version 2, to resolution 32137. Second.

SPEAKER_37

All right.

It is moved and seconded to amend resolution 32137 as presented on Amendment 1, version 2. Before the sponsor addresses it, well, we...

Well, actually, no, we didn't quite get to the amendment portion where you comment on it.

So I will ask Yolanda to provide an overview.

And reminder, colleagues, this is an opportunity for you all to ask policy-related questions.

SPEAKER_19

All right, so Amendment 1, Version 2, sponsored by Councilmember Moore, would revise the list of sidewalk locations listed under Section 2, Subsection E to remove several locations and just make some minor clarifications.

SPEAKER_37

All right.

And Council Member Moore, as sponsor of this amendment, you are recognized in order to address it.

SPEAKER_22

Thank you very much, Chair.

This is really just a technical amendment.

The first two were included in the Chair's package, so I'm taking that out of the resolution, clarifying that the part that's in the Chair's package is to complete a section of sidewalk, and then I actually removed two additional projects to narrow the number of projects that I would be asking SDOC to take into consideration.

SPEAKER_37

All right, thank you, Council Member Moore.

Colleagues, any other comments, questions on this amendment?

All right, well, hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of Amendment 1, Version 2?

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Kettle?

SPEAKER_37

Aye.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Moore?

Aye.

Council Member Morales?

SPEAKER_18

Abstain.

SPEAKER_39

Council President Nelson?

SPEAKER_11

Aye.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Rivera?

SPEAKER_11

Aye.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Wu?

SPEAKER_42

Yes.

SPEAKER_39

Vice Chair Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Chair Isaka?

Yes.

Right, Chair, that is eight in favor and one abstention.

SPEAKER_37

All right, the motion carries and Amendment 1, Version 2 is adopted.

So are there any further comments on the resolution as amended a moment ago?

Looking at you, I'm looking in your direction, Councilmember Kettle.

SPEAKER_29

Yes.

I'd like to move Amendment 2, Version 1 to Resolution 32137, Ledge 2024, Transportation Levy Resolution, New Emergency Response Recital.

SPEAKER_17

Second.

Second.

SPEAKER_37

All right, it is moved and seconded to amend Resolution 32137 as presented on Amendment 2. Councilmember Kettle, as sponsor of the amendment, you are recognized in order to address it.

SPEAKER_29

Thank you very much, Chair Saka.

I just wanted to highlight, you know, in my conversation as chair of the Public Safety Committee, I am meeting with first responders on a regular basis across all areas with police and fire and others.

And it's come clear to me that we need to ensure that those considerations are taken into account.

And this is not just for transportation.

This is also for the comprehensive plan, too.

We need to ensure that our first responders can respond, because if they don't, then...

you know, all the improvements that we're doing on so many fronts is gonna be lost because we can't get to them or we can't get them to Harborview or to the next station, you know, they need to be taken.

And these are the things that we need to ensure that are part of the planning process.

And again, not just for transportation, this goes to the comments regarding having a public safety element within the comprehensive plan.

And I think it's straightforward, and I think all of us have been to fire stations, we've been to precinct, and we've seen this firsthand in our conversations with first responders.

So I would ask for everyone to support this resolution.

Thank you very much.

SPEAKER_37

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

As always, appreciate your leadership on these important and helping us better discern the nexus between public safety and transportation, policy planning.

And so, in any event, colleagues, are there any other comments, questions on this proposed amendment number two?

Okay, hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of amendment number two?

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Kettle?

SPEAKER_37

Aye.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Moore.

SPEAKER_29

Aye.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

Council President Nelson.

SPEAKER_10

Aye.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Rivera.

SPEAKER_10

Aye.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Council Member Wu.

Yes.

Vice Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Chair Sokka.

Aye.

Chair, that is eight votes in favor.

SPEAKER_37

All right, the motion carries and amendment two is adopted.

Are there any further comments on the resolution as specifically amended by amendments one and two?

SPEAKER_39

A correction that was nine votes in favor, sorry.

SPEAKER_37

Hearing no additional comments, will the clerk please call the roll on the recommendation that the resolution be adopted as amended.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Kittle.

SPEAKER_37

Aye.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Moore.

SPEAKER_09

Aye.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Morales.

SPEAKER_09

Yes.

SPEAKER_39

Council President Nelson.

SPEAKER_09

Aye.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Rivera.

SPEAKER_09

Aye.

SPEAKER_39

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Council Member Wu.

SPEAKER_53

Yes.

SPEAKER_39

Vice Chair Hollingsworth.

SPEAKER_53

Yes.

SPEAKER_39

Chair Saka.

Aye.

Okay, Chair, that is nine in favor.

SPEAKER_37

Great, the motion carries and the recommendation that the resolution be adopted as amended will be sent to the July 9th city council meeting for final consideration.

Woo, all right.

Great job colleagues.

Thank you members of the public for bearing with us.

Thank you central staff, my own staff.

Thank you SDOT for hanging tough with us through this marathon.

More work ahead.

One final procedural vote and hurdle, but I feel great about where we landed today.

So we have reached the end of today's meeting agenda.

Is there any further business to come before the committee before we adjourn?

There ain't no further business to come before the committee.

We are adjourned.

It is 1 46 PM.