City Council Special Meeting 11/12/2026: Audio Recording Only

Oh, good morning.

The November 12, 2026 special meeting of the Seattle City Council will come to order.

It is 9.36 a.m.

I'm Joy Hollingsworth, Council President.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Strauss?

Here.

Council Member Foster?

Here.

Council Member Juarez?

Here.

Council Member Kettle?

Here.

Council Member Lynn?

Here.

Council Member Rink?

Here.

Council Member Rivera?

Present.

Council Member Saka?

and council president Hollingsworth.

Here.

Nine present.

Awesome.

Thank you, colleagues.

We're going to jump right into the hybrid public comment period.

Public comment is limited to items on today's agenda in the council work program.

The council cannot accept comments on quasi-judicial items or on campaign-related matters.

I also want to thank our clerk who worked really hard to get this meeting that we have scheduled because we are in the middle of budget as well.

So just want to thank our clerk and our whole team for all their hard work to make sure that we had this special meeting.

Clerk, how many speakers do we have signed up today?

Currently we have 20 remote and 10 in person.

How many?

Okay, so we have 30, so we have, pardon me?

Yes, sir, so that'll be 31. So we have 31 speakers, we have more signing up, so each speaker's gonna get one minute to speak.

Will the clerk please read the instructions?

Thank you.

Public comment period will be moderated in the following manner.

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

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left of their time.

Speakers' microphones will be muted if they do not end their comments within the allotted time to allow us to call on the next speaker.

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

Awesome.

And first, before we start a public comment, my only ask today is that we establish a couple of ground rules.

First, everyone deserves the opportunity to be heard.

So we understand that there are certain issues that bring out strong emotions, different experiences, and different opinions.

Second, I'm asking everyone to respect each other.

So you might not agree with someone's opinion and just respect their right to express it.

So please refrain from name-calling or interruptions.

Try to use the jazz hands or silent gestures to show your support so we can keep the interruptions down as best as possible.

You got it, see?

Boom.

Thank you.

With that, we're gonna jump into public comment and really appreciate you all coming down here this morning.

So we have Eugene first, followed by Mike and then Ariana Riley.

Welcome, Eugene.

Eugenio Wasserman from the North Seattle Industrial Association.

We urge you to vote to override the mayor's veto of this legislation.

From our point of view, we view what Councilmember Strauss has proposed and many of you voted for is a humane way to end drug dealing in our area.

We all businesses have seen drug dealing out of these RVs.

I had a meeting not too long ago that Councilmember Strauss arranged with some of the higher-ups in the police department.

They admitted there's nothing they can do about it.

So our view is if you vote to With the mayor, you're voting for more drug dealing on our neighborhood.

I listened to her press conference.

I didn't hear her say a word about ending drug dealing or dealing with that issue.

She was dealing with nurses parking RVs.

Some staff person wrote an idiotic thing for her.

Normally we're in line with the mayor, but we're just disappointed on this one.

Thank you.

Thank you, Eugene.

Next we have Mike Stewart, followed by Ariana, and then Alice Green.

Welcome, Mike.

Thank you.

Good morning, City Councilmembers.

My name is Mike Stewart.

I'm Executive Director of the Ballard Alliance, a neighborhood improvement organization in Ballard.

I'm here to request that you restore your previous decision and reaffirm Council Bill 121283. Over the years, the Alliance has worked with Councilmember Strauss and his team to develop solutions for individuals living in vehicles.

His extensive experience has informed this legislation, which is a comprehensive solution that needs to be implemented in Seattle.

Councilmember Strauss already completed months of process with frontline service providers, city departments, and community partners to create effective legislation that requires all components to be successful, including CB 121283. In addition, the legislation provides additional time in early 2027 to make any adjustments if needed.

This council got it right on October 20th.

We can't afford additional delay.

I urge you to hold fast and adopt this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mike.

Next we have Arianna Riley followed by Alice Green and then Allison.

Welcome.

Hello, my name is Ariana Riley and I'm here from West Seattle.

I've been coming here and observing you guys long enough that I know this policy was not proposed from a lack of intelligence nor was it proposed because anybody was paid off to do so.

This is why I am just so disappointed to hear such a truly awful and disgusting policy proposed by someone who I know thinks before acting and doesn't usually propose such atrocious policies.

There are lots of reasons why someone would not want to go to a shelter, and making it easier for the city to tow people's homes away in an attempt to force them into shelter is an irresponsible use of state power.

This policy is not only disgusting and cruel, but also doesn't make fiscal sense, rational sense, or any type of sense.

Punishing poor people for being poor is never good policy.

I'm disappointed and I really do expect better.

Politics of cruelty are just not something that we should be engaging in.

It's not intelligent, it's not useful, and it's not fun.

Please vote no.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ariana.

Next we have Alice Green followed by Allison and then Lam.

Welcome, Alice.

Thanks for hearing us today, council members.

I think the basic assumption of the mayor or people at large is that because people are living a nomadic lifestyle that they are drug users and drug dealers, and that's not true.

Just like there are silent homeless people who are sleeping on couches and have not burned up all their social capital with issues, you know, personal issues.

There are people that are homeless that are choosing to live in vehicles rather than, you know, not living anywhere or they don't have that social capital going for them.

I think you need to uphold the veto of the RV ban because There's good people out there.

There's people that will weld for each other, share soup.

And also, shout out to Seattle Housing Authority.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alice.

Next, we have Allison, followed by Lam, and then Chanel, Jeff Paul, Tara Miller, and then Rachel.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Good morning, council members.

Alison Isinger with the Seattle King County Coalition on Homelessness, urging you to uphold the mayor's veto.

We sincerely thank Councilmember Strauss for bringing forward significant positive proposals to improve how our city responds to people who are living in vehicles, including RVs.

and we thank Councilmembers Rink, Foster, Lynn and Saka for stating their support for an alternative approach to chart a better plan for how we specifically respond to people who live in RVs.

Over 4,700 letters have been sent in the last few weeks urging this action.

This legislation, this specific piece of legislation of the six brought forward is a ban.

The changes to parking rules and the permit program would have created a draconian ban on hundreds of people who live in the best shelter available to them.

Voting to uphold the veto will demonstrate that together with all of us, you're committed to a Seattle where we work together to strengthen our community, resolve problems, and create a better housed future.

We don't have to accept ineffective or harmful approaches that haven't been fully thought through.

Thank you, Alison.

Next we have Lam, thanks for using the jazz hands.

Lam, good to see you.

And then Chanel, followed by Jeff, Tara, Rachel, double time.

Good morning.

My name's Lam Ho and I'm the general manager for the Transit Riders Union.

I'm also a resident of District 7. I live right by Aurora Avenue, and so I encounter neighbors who live in RVs and other vehicles.

And that's what they are.

They're my neighbors.

It's their homes.

And they don't deserve to be treated like nuisance or some sort of drug problem.

They deserve to be treated with compassion, with dignity, and resources that will get them all the way to home.

So I want to start by thanking Council Members Lynn, Brink and Foster for voting no on a poorly thought out plan and which needs a better alternative and also for the courage of Council Member Saka for joining them to sustain the mayor's veto.

And I think when you decide today about whether or not to sustain or override the veto, I ask you, is Seattle a city that believes in compassion for all of its residents Are its leaders ones who believe that people should have voices about their homes and where they live?

Or are we a city that will criminalize and regulate poverty?

Thank you, Lam.

Sorry, I don't mean to cut you off.

I do let people, if the time is up, I do let you finish your train of thought as well.

So I'm not trying to cut people off.

Next we have Chanel, followed by Jeff, Tara, and then Rachel.

Welcome.

Okay.

Good afternoon, council members.

I'm speaking today in support of sustaining Mayor Wilson's veto.

I bring direct lived experience.

My bus was towed, which led me to live in a tiny home, and I volunteer with Stop the Sweeps to help tow people out of harm's way.

I've attended KCRHA's vehicle residency meeting.

Let me be clear, I do not trust KCRHA with our money, but I keep showing up because I do the real work.

In fact, the South Park location chosen for the RV lot is my suggestion.

Rushing into this without grassroots input is a mistake.

especially when the safe lot is scheduled to open this very month.

Waiting to see how that operates first makes far more sense.

Please sustain the veto today and I invite council member Strauss and any other council member who wants to join us to attend the next vehicle residency meeting on December 8th at 3 o'clock so we can shape the policy right.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chanel.

Next we have Jeff followed by Tara and then Rachel.

Welcome.

Jeff Paul.

Good morning, Council.

My name is Jeff Paul.

I'm the Co-ED of How's Our Neighbors and a member of the Services Not Sweeps Coalition.

I'm here to appreciate all of you who are going to vote to uphold the mayor's veto on the RV ban.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Thank you, Councilmember Rink.

Thank you, Councilmember Lin.

And thank you, Councilmember Saka.

You all have heard my message at this point.

There's a world of difference between living in an RV and living in a tent.

I lived in my vehicle for a brief time when I lost my housing and it provided the stability that I needed to keep my job and exit homelessness.

I fully support the additional services provided by Strauss' legislation, but a ban that would largely prohibit RVs in the city is like super harmful and probably illegal.

So be on the right side of history on this one, work with the executive and uphold the veto.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jeff.

Next, we have Tara followed by Rachel.

Welcome, Tara.

Next up is Rachel.

And then we'll continue our in-person.

If you are online, we should be with you within two, three speakers.

Welcome.

Good morning, my name is Tara Miller.

I am the Executive Director of the Church Council of Greater Seattle, and I live in District 5. Council Member Strauss requested an Old Testament story last time we were here, so I got you.

This is from Prophet Isaiah, Chapter 58. Is this not the fast that I choose, to loose the bonds of injustice, to let the oppressed go free?

Is it not to share your bread with the hungry and bring the homeless poor into your house?

If you offer your food to the hungry and satisfy the needs of the afflicted, you shall be called the repairer of the breach, the restorer of streets to live in.

When it comes to RVs on the streets of Seattle, some of the solutions provided are you get one shot to escape the breach and let's push the breach outside of our city.

Organizations who work to loose the bonds of injustice are asking you instead to be repairs of this breach and restorers of Seattle's streets.

Thank you to the council members who support Mayor Wilson's veto.

We appreciate Council Member Saka for having the humility to change course when you saw a more effective path that would bring more people along.

Please uphold the mayor's veto and change course towards something more effective.

Thank you.

Thank you, Tara.

Next we have Rachel.

Welcome, Rachel.

Welcome.

Good morning, council members.

I'm Rachel Cotola.

I live in District 5 and I'm an organizer with the Church Council of Greater Seattle.

I'm from Seattle and I've worked in nonprofits here locally for about 10 years.

For decades, I have seen city administrations attempt to address our crisis of unaffordability in housing.

Today I'm really greatly appreciative of all of the bills that were passed to open a new safe lot for RVs and dedicate more resources to this underserved community.

I'm also very appreciative of those that voted no on the permitting bill and who have committed to uphold Mayor Wilson's veto.

I ask you all today to uphold the veto.

Now that you have more information and have heard from our community, you know that there are other pathways to create a better and safer Seattle for all of our neighbors.

Our neighbors deserve better than sweeps, punitive punishments, and bans, and it is inhumane and immoral to push RVs off our streets without a guarantee of safe and accessible housing.

I ask that you sustain the veto and do better.

Thank you.

Next, we have Todd, followed by Sept, and then Ryan.

And those are our last in-person speakers, and we'll go to online.

Welcome, Todd.

Todd Haas.

Honourable Council Members, my name is Todd Haas.

I'm with ShareWheel, Tent City, Four, and Lake City.

Share and Wheel together operate nearly 500 indoor and outdoor shelter beds all over Seattle.

We know from experience that without shelter, people die.

The RV permitting system would risk people's only home and shelter.

It's costly and inhumane.

We're grateful Mayor Wilson vetoed the RV permit bill and that Council Member Saka joined her in proposing an alternate plan.

We, the people who are homeless now, ask you to uphold the veto and use the $10 million in permitting costs instead to build more life-saving shelter camps or housing.

You should provide resources instead of punishing people of little or no means.

Thank you.

Thank you, Todd.

Next we have Sepp, followed by Ryan.

Welcome, Sepp.

Hi, thank you.

My name is Set.

I am the advocacy and program manager with the Queer Power Alliance.

And queer folks are over-represented in the unhoused population and also in the population of folks who lives in their vehicles.

we have to assume that folks are making the best decisions for themselves and oftentimes living in an RV or a vehicle is really someone's best solution to surviving.

So criminalizing them is obviously wrong.

We want to thank the council members who voted no in the first place and thank council member Saka for supporting the alternative proposed by the mayor.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sept.

Next we have Ryan.

Ryan.

Welcome, Ryan.

Good to see you.

My name is Ryan McCamey.

I understand this is the governance and utilities committee.

I'm here to bring to your attention.

So Ryan, we're going to pause your time.

We're going to do a minute.

So we're not going to let me just this isn't we're at a special meeting on city council.

So you can I believe he can talk about anything.

Yeah, you can.

All right.

I'm here to bring to the attention of Councilmember Hollingsworth and Councilmember Strauss an ongoing fraud that has been going on in the City of Seattle since 2023. This pertains to a multi-million dollar contract that was awarded to Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company.

They committed to utilize women, minority, and veteran-owned businesses.

And now four years later, those women, minority, and veteran-owned businesses have not received one dollar of utilization, while Burns & McDonnell has received millions of dollars.

The only utilization and money that they have distributed to subcontractors has been to a family member of Burns & McDonnell employees.

I ask you to urge Katie Wilson, Mayor Wilson, to debar, Burns & McDonnell.

Thank you.

Next, we're gonna transition online.

If you are online, please be present.

We have Taylor Farley, followed by Katie.

And star six, unmute yourself.

Welcome.

Hello, thank you.

My name is Taylor Farley.

I'm the executive director of Queer Power and Performance.

And I am calling on you to uphold the mayor's veto on the RV ban.

Seattle is moving in the right direction by investing in housing, shelter, and services that help people find stability.

Let's not allow that the RV ban to be a sore thumb and undermine this process.

We cannot criminalize our way out of poverty and we cannot banish our way out of homelessness.

For many people, their vehicle is the only safe place they come to call home.

Taking that away without providing real alternatives can only create more harm.

I'd like to thank Council Members Rink, Foster, Lynn, and Saka for supporting a different approach.

Let's invest in safe parking, expand shelter, and create real pathways for permanent housing.

Thank you, Taylor.

Next we have Katie Gendry followed by Paulina Lopez.

Welcome.

Star six to unmute yourself.

Hello, my name is Katie Gendry and I'm an experienced homeless outreach worker calling on you to uphold the mayor's veto on the RV ban.

We've spent years working alongside people who live outside in Seattle.

I've seen firsthand how RVs can become impromptu shelters during extreme weather and literally save lives, especially when the city fails to open expanded emergency shelters when people need them most.

Registration is a performative requirement designed around a reality that many unhoused people simply cannot meet.

Lost titles, deceased owners, decades-old informal sales, and permanently branded salvaged vehicles can make registration impossible, regardless of someone's ability or willingness to comply.

You cannot make someone's home illegal and call it a solution.

Thank you, Katie.

Next we have Paulina, followed by Elizabeth.

Welcome Paulina, star six.

So, good morning, Council Members.

Thank you so much.

My name is Paulina Lopez.

I'm the Executive Director of the Duwamish River Community Coalition.

I'm here also to uphold Mayor Wilson Ludo for RV legislation.

And thank you, Council Member Lynn, Saka, Foster, and Ring for bringing as well.

I would like to mention how hard it's being for many of our neighbors not having access to housing.

And I support the increase of the engagement, meaningful engagement to people living in RVs, opening safe parking locations that not only belong to communities that are already lacking for some infrastructure.

I believe that support of this veto on the RV permitting legislation did not adequately address environmental justice concerns also.

And so I support the mayor's veto, but don't support the inaction.

I hope that we can taking the media's responsibility for protecting their health, safety, and quality of life.

Thank you.

Thank you, Pauline.

Next we have Elizabeth.

I don't see Graham here.

Next we'll have Robin Schwartz.

Welcome, Elizabeth.

Good morning, my name is Elizabeth Arshambo and I live in the South Lake Union neighborhood.

I want to thank the council members for this opportunity to urge a no vote on RV van and uphold Mayor Wilson's veto.

Standing for a no vote and upholding the veto actually provides, excuse me, stands up for people that experience homeless where they live and is standing up for real solutions like additional shelters, paved parking, permanent housing, any central services that people need.

Please do continue to vote no on this harmful RV van and uphold the veto.

This legislation would only push people into worse conditions, into smaller vehicles and without any trouble at all.

Thank you.

Thank you, Elizabeth.

Next we have Graham is not present.

We have Robin followed by Graham.

Oh, you're a duplicate.

My apologies.

Robin, then Graham, and then Rose.

Good morning.

My name is Robin Schwartz.

I work at the Duwamish River Community Coalition and I live in the Duwamish Valley.

I am calling in support of Executive Order 2026-09, Mayor Wilson's alternative to Council's proposed RV legislation.

And I really appreciate Councilmember Saka's support as well, as this has a significant impact on D1 and especially Georgetown.

The proposed alternatives will support better outreach and a more robust approach to public safety and equitable outcomes for both housed and unhoused community members.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Graham followed by Rose, star six.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Hey, Graham.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Dr. Graham Press, the executive director of the National Vehicle Residency Coalition and a former Seattle vehicle resident outreach worker.

Thank you for all to the amazing RV residents, advocates, and experts who spoke today.

I am touched by your honesty, your truth, and your love for our community.

And thank you, council member Rob Saka, for committing to support Mayor Wilson's veto.

Please follow through today.

I urge every council member to uphold this veto.

We should not collectively punish all RV residents for the actions of any individual bad actors.

Vehicle residents are your neighbors, workers, families, and constituents.

They contribute to Seattle's communities and deserve representation, not displacement.

Whatever today's outcome, the NVRC, the National Vehicle Residency Coalition, stands ready to serve as an accountable partner in Seattle's next step.

We bring national research, experienced parking program operators and the voices of vehicle residents themselves.

We ask you to be included in advising and evaluating Seattle's RV policies.

Thank you, Graham.

Next we have Rose followed by Joe.

Welcome, Rose.

Hello, council members.

I am Rose.

I ask you all to uphold the veto today.

It is really important for a lot of individuals.

I am a DE2 resident and I see RVs on the street all the time.

But I know that those RVs are way better than the tents that they were replaced.

These people do not leave our city.

They have nowhere else to go.

I have people that sleep on pallets outside of my apartment every day.

I see what people struggle with and I know that when people don't have RVs where they have safe homes or they can have jobs and maintain themselves they break into nearby apartments to try and get warmth they stay outside in the most terrible conditions and they try to survive however they can This is not a problem that goes away just because we chase people out of where they currently are.

And it is impossible for us to get rid of the RVs and simultaneously have nobody lose their home.

This is going to be something that affects people and will make people lose what little they have.

We deserve to help them however we can.

Thank you, Rose.

Next we have Joe followed by Brandon and then Laurel.

Thank you, President Collingsworth.

Jill Kunzler here, regular caller.

It appears today that the mayor's veto over sane legislation to stop the land and water and air pollution by unregulated, unregistered RVs will likely be sustained.

I call upon the Seattle City Council to work towards alternatives to stop the air, land, and sea pollution that is caused by unregistered RVs.

That includes having safe lots.

That includes working towards getting people into permanent housing.

That includes enforcing current laws on the books against unwanted and unwelcome air, land, and sea pollution, whether it's from solid waste or from petroleum products like oil and water, as these vehicles are not kept maintained.

I wish somebody would bring this kind of issue up.

Besides me, I was out photographing for a political action committee.

Thank you, Joe.

Next we have Brandon followed by Laurel and then Audrey.

Star six unmute yourself, Brandon.

I don't see Brandon yet.

Oh, there he is.

Hi, Brandon.

Star six, you're still on mute.

We see you, but you're not off mute.

We can come back to Brandon.

We'll go to Laurel, followed by Audrey.

We'll come back to you, Brandon.

Star six, unmute yourself.

Awesome.

First of all, I'd like to direct a shout-out to a public commenter from the tent, Josh Sand, whose words could be my own.

It's not a popular opinion, but many of us in Seattle are not willing to memory-hold the anti-Jewish abuse that is flaunted without consequence and has been for over a decade.

Nor are we going to ignore why.

If it was done by right-wingers such as the Diwali incident, I'm sure it would be forcefully condemned.

But there is an unwritten rule in Seattle that any cause that is done under the guise of black or Muslim advocacy must be supported or at the very least just ignored.

The way this has been exploited both in our city and elsewhere is a subject in itself.

But it cannot be corrected when our city blacklists individuals and organizations who speak out against the human rights abuses of Muslims or people of color, including in this city.

It is not a coincidence that the funded organizations do not support Jews, but often support those who attack us.

We need to see some changes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Laurel.

Next we have Audrey followed by, is Brandon back on?

Hey Audrey, welcome.

Star six, unmute yourself.

Hello, counsel.

My name is Audrey Wong-Gosna.

I'm a resident in District 2. I have two things I want to mention today.

First is supporting the mayor's veto.

You know, I echo what most people have said here today.

And the other thing I would just mention is that the specific reason that I think that we need to reject this effective ban is because it's a one-time census.

I mean, if you've ever forgotten to send an email, forgotten to turn something in, didn't turn in your homework.

That's a ridiculous reason to lose your housing and then be on the street because you, you know, didn't meet this one deadline.

The second thing I am here to say is to support Councilmember Rink's budget provisio on the expansion of the real-time cameras for Seattle.

I am very concerned seeing mayor's communication about it, that the public does not have enough transparency as to what evidence this will actually make the city safer, and that it's actually being effective.

So do support Council Member Briggs' provision.

All right, we'll go to Brandon, and then next we have Amira.

Welcome, Brandon.

Star six, unmute yourself.

Can we see you, Brandon?

Star six.

We'll keep coming back to you, Brandon, but star six to unmute yourself, my friend.

All right, we'll go to Amira, we'll come back to Brandon.

Good morning, council members.

I'm Amira Ziada, Government Affairs Coordinator for OPEIU Local 8. Our members are the frontline workers who run Seattle Shelters and at Lehigh the city's RV safe lot.

Thank you Mayor Wilson for your leadership and thank you Council Members Rink, Foster, Lynn, and Sokka for standing with her.

I'm here to ask you to sustain the mayor's veto.

The permit program can't work because there aren't enough places for people to go.

City data shows that people live in vehicles and more often and more abundantly than our safe lots can hold and shelters are full.

So towing someone's only home with nowhere to spend them just puts them on the streets.

The mayor's plan builds the places first and it's already moving.

Outreach dollars are out, Glass Yard Commons is opening and there's a second safe lot in this budget.

Our members run these programs and they're happy to help make sure that it works.

Build the places first, pay the workers who run them fairly,

Thank you, Mira.

Next we have ACAB followed by Kate Rubin.

ACAB, welcome.

And Brandon Craig, we're going to keep you up.

If you get star six, you're good.

ACAB.

Hello.

So I am here once again to speak on the fact that we seem to be once again trying to punish poor people by driving them out of the city.

There was somebody earlier who talked about oil being drug dealers on their RVs.

And for me personally, I have a much greater concern with the amount of cops that work with ICE locally and the fact that a lot of cops are also drug dealers.

And unlike other aspects of society, they're not really held to account or held accountable for their actions.

and certain parts of my family aren't very good.

We had business things with Council Member Petal when he worked with the CAA and promoted his more unsafe reactions there.

So it's accountability for...

Thank you, ACAB.

Brandon, we still see you.

Star six, unmute yourself.

Star six.

Next we have Kate Rubin followed by David.

If there are people on the back end for Seattle's channel that have Brandon's number, maybe someone can call him to show how to do the star six.

Hi, Kate.

Hi, my name is Kate Rubin.

I live in District 2 and I'm the co-executive director of Be Seattle.

During the pandemic, we did outreach to RV residents.

Most of the people we encountered had experienced an eviction and were unable to access shelter that allowed them to stay with their partners or pets and lock up their belongings.

Evictions are at record highs and Seattle lacks adequate shelter.

This bill threatens to take away the homes of current RV residents and prevent people who lose their housing in the future from seeking shelter in an RV, even though that is sometimes the most appropriate situation.

We support Mayor Wilson's decision to veto this legislation.

The city charter establishes that our government exists to protect and enhance the health, safety, and general welfare of its people.

Spending public resources to create an extensive new permitting bureaucracy only to impound people's homes when they cannot comply is not good governance or an effective response to homelessness.

We urge you to sustain the mayor's veto and continue investing in safe lots, shelter, and services that help people stabilize and get back into housing.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kate.

Next we have David Haynes, followed by Kelly.

Hi, thank you, David Haynes.

Councilmember Rob Saka deserves real credit if he upholds this veto.

Seattle has refused to combat actual crime while allowing innocent people in poverty to suffer under legislation meant for criminals.

It makes no sense to let an addict junkie thief who commits crime get a pass on real scrutiny because they get six chances to engage with service providers.

Meanwhile, our RV policies are a knee-jerk blanket, war on the poor.

Present legislation targets impoverished residents as if they were criminals, treating poverty as a crime to be swept away and mistreated as subhuman.

Instead of stopping real offenders, we must evolve this legislation, enforce real accountability against criminals, protect peaceful vehicle residents in safe areas, and request a 30-day National Guard deployment this year to build authorized encampments for genuine first-world utilities.

Uphold the veto.

Thank you.

Thank you, David.

Next we have Kelly Buford.

Kelly and then Brandon Craig, star six.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Kelly O'Brien Burford and I'm a Nicholsville participant at Brighton Village.

I urge you to sustain Mayor Wilson's veto on the RV permitting legislation and vote no I'm an Autistic Emerging Technology patent holder, and Nicholsville gives me safety, purpose, and a supportive community.

Criminalizing our unhoused neighbors living in RVs strips away that same stability and does not create housing.

People could lose their RV if they are missed in the one-time count to obtain a permit, severely limiting where and how long they could park and risk getting tickets towed and impounded.

Please choose community-led solutions over displacement and uphold the mayor's veto.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kelly.

Brandon Craig, coming back to you.

Star six, unmute yourself.

Other people who are not present, I will say your name.

Brandon, thank you.

What's up, man?

Hi.

Am I unmuted finally?

Yes, let's go.

Okay.

So my question is, thank you, thank you.

Is the city now in the business of telling people if they can be alive or not?

My name is Brandon, I'm a Nicholsville participant, and all this van does is create red tape.

Let's go over that.

People are only able to park for two hours without a permit, and never between 12 and 6. Only 72 hours with a permit.

allows a person's RV to be impounded while they are seeking repair assistance, revokes permits based on offers of shelter that may not be appropriate or accessible to them, expands enforcement without ensuring safe lock capacity, storage, and realistic housing pathways, and all of that is dependent on a one-time census without any clear way of missed RV dwellers being included.

This is sneaky.

This is dishonest.

This is inhumane.

You did not get it right the first time.

This is an RV ban, period.

We do not have enough shelter now, yet we are forcing people into that not enough.

What are we doing?

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Brandon.

I'm so glad you got off Star Six.

that really warmed my heart.

Okay.

Next, I'm gonna say all the people who are not present.

I'll read your name once just to see if before we go back to see if anyone else signed up in person before we close public comment.

We have Graham Pruce.

We have Carl Fautcher.

We have Jeff Mass.

We have Sterling Washington.

What is that?

Reed Morgan.

Ms. Torres and then Reed, Morgan.

Oh, that was a duplicate.

Okay.

All right.

I don't see them.

We'll give them like five seconds.

Not present.

Do we have any more signed up in person?

No?

Okay.

So we've reached the end of our public comment period.

Wait, there is one more person?

Yeah.

Come on up.

Welcome.

Just go ahead and you're gonna sign up and then you're gonna say your name for the record so we have it and you can go ahead and give your public comment.

Hi, my name is Casey Ross, IE Friday.

I'm here because I have been talking with a lot of people in Cal Anderson that have been homeless.

People have been losing their phones.

People have been having their RVs, not their RVs, their vans burned down.

Their tents are being burned.

People are being assaulted because there is not enough resources for people to adequately stabilize themselves.

and in the midst of all of this, I am very confused as to why we are banning RVs.

Why are we banning people's shelter?

I know people live in apartment buildings that also commit crime.

Should we ban apartment buildings?

I know there are people in single-family housing that do drugs in their house.

Do we ban single-family housing?

This is a collective punishment for an individual crime.

We should be going after the violent actors and leaving everyone else alone.

Thank you.

Thank you, Friday.

All right, is anyone else that did not sign up would like to speak?

All right.

Awesome.

Well, thank you all.

Public comment period is now closed.

Thank you all for coming.

Thank you to the folks that waited online patiently.

I also want to say we are joined in person.

They were online at the beginning of public comment period, but we do have Councilmember Rivera here and also Councilmember Foster here.

They were online the whole time, but they are in person now as well.

So we're gonna jump right into our agenda.

There's no introduction and referral calendar for consideration today.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

So will the clerk please read item number one into the record?

Reconsideration of Council Bill vetoed by Mayor Council Bill 121283 in order relating to the traffic code creating a new permit programming for owners of motor homes and travel trailers to support a structured pathway to shelter.

So colleagues, on October 20th, 2026, the Seattle City Council passed Council Bill 121283 with six votes in favor and three opposed.

Mayor Wilson vetoed the bill on November the 2nd.

Pursuant to Seattle City Charter and the Seattle City Council will consider, reconsider, excuse me, the passage of Council Bill 121283 and it must receive at least two-thirds votes, six council members voting in the affirmation to pass not affirmation, affirmative to pass it again.

I'm calling up the reconsidering of Council Bill 121283 to consider passage of the bill, which will be determined if the mayor's veto will be overridden or sustained.

So the reconsideration of Council Bill 121283 is now pending before the council.

And Council Member Strauss, as sponsor of the bill, you are recognized first to address it before I open it up to other colleagues.

the bill before us is one of five pieces of legislation.

This bill in particular regulates RVs to be allowed on city streets for two hours at a time and provides a permit for people who live in their RVs.

Nowhere in any part of this entire package, any of this legislation, none of it makes vehicle when it comes to vehicle residency across the entire package, the only times that we touch vehicle residency is to provide support and services for folks in these vehicles.

It has been discussed that if you own an RV and you park it on your street, in a residential neighborhood, they don't want that to be legal tomorrow.

The fact of the matter is, it's already illegal today.

So if you are parking an oversized vehicle outside of the industrial area, you are already out of compliance with the law.

That doesn't change.

In fact, this legislation gives more allowances to reduce that area restriction but provide a time limit.

I've heard concerns.

We've all heard concerns today.

We've heard concerns about these bills, this bill in particular.

What strikes me is that these are the same concerns of complexity, of expense, of potential harmful impacts that I have literally heard about setting up tiny home villages, providing medically assisted treatment at shelters, focusing our shelter commitment on complex shelters.

These are, in fact, the same concerns that I heard when bringing service providers together for meetings that eventually led to the neighborhood impact framework that is currently being expanded here in our city.

And it's the right way of doing work.

And at the initial outset of the conversation, there are always concerns, and these concerns come from good places.

And they need to be addressed.

If the bill before us was a ban, there could not be a permit.

a permit is literally allowing people to stay in place because we don't want to, for the people who live on our streets today, we don't want them in a worse place off.

We need to update these regulations and care for the people caught in between.

The legislation at the core of it is not complex.

RVs can only park on the streets for two hours at a time and if you live in an RV you can get a permit.

I can understand why people are concerned for the not hypothetical families and the people who have been used as reasons not to move forward.

The people on the streets of Seattle today who live in their vehicles make up about 25% of our homeless population.

Yet when you look at our outreach contracts commensurate with street homelessness, to the city, they pale in comparison.

We don't have the outreach workers.

We don't have the resources, the services that tent homelessness has on the streets today.

We don't have a single safe lot.

We haven't had a single safe lot open in years.

Would anyone say that it would be okay with having no shelters at all open anywhere in the city for a period of a year and a half to two years?

I'm saying there is an important step that we must take to do both at the same time.

we have to change how we are investing in vehicle residents in helping people who live in their vehicles.

We have to help specifically people who live in RVs and we need to update our street regulations not because an RV can be lived in but because of the size of the vehicle.

The answer for these real families who are being used hypothetically is that we need to get them inside.

The answer is not to leave them in their current condition because we have concerns about how we might move forward.

This bill before us gives us the ability to help stabilize and support people living in their vehicles by giving them more certainty about where they can and cannot park and that they will not and be pushed around, that they have more agency, that they are connected with service providers, and that they have a pathway into shelter or housing.

And when I say that, currently, the permanent support of shelter that we build or the affordable housing that we build does not come with parking because we, council, make the decision that a unit of shelter or housing is more important than a parking spot.

And I agree.

with the new shelter storage provisions that were passed in the other parts of this package, we are now able to utilize any of the family shelter that we have online, which we don't have enough of, but that's part of the conversation that we continue to have.

We can use any of the permanent supportive housing.

We can use any of our affordable housing to be able to store somebody's vehicle while they try out going inside.

Today that's not an option for them because today with the current situation, with the current status quo, their option is that they have to give up their vehicle to try out a type of shelter or type of housing that might not work.

So doing nothing is not an option.

And the answer to these hypothetical families who are very real is we can't leave them in their current situation and that we must help them and bring them inside.

When meeting with the mayor over the past number of months and with service providers, I have heard concerns.

And what might surprise some folks in the audience is that I agree with almost all of the concerns.

And these are concerns regarding implementation.

I've heard the same concerns about the bill before us from departments as the mayor has.

And again, I agree that these concerns need to be addressed.

and my response to concerns is to address them, not stop and do nothing.

I share this because what we are experiencing right now is similar to what I've experienced when helping make our homeless, addressing homelessness more human-centered in the past.

This process, these concerns, are the same as what I heard when we changed our city's homelessness response by our work in the Ballard Commons that has now become the work that just occurred as the Pioneer Square project.

It's again when I began meetings which eventually led to the neighborhood impact framework, I heard concerns from service providers and departments and our response was that we exercised leadership to address these concerns with compassion.

This legislation is built on that model.

It's built on the model of work we have already done just this year that removes encampments without sweeps.

It's not leadership to fall over when concerns are raised.

What is leadership is to say, let's work together and make sure the harm you are scared of does not occur.

We don't want to punish people for living in their vehicle.

We don't want to take their home.

We don't want to make them worse off or involve them in the criminal legal system.

We want to make sure that they receive the supports that they need, that they are able to stabilize in place and make the transitions into shelter and housing and that we're able to provide them.

We have the ability to work together and make sure those harmful concerns don't happen.

The legislation that we've already passed also created the allowance for overnight semi-truck drivers to be able to park in the same way that if we need a place for traveling nurses to park, we've already got that in the bill.

If we have veterans sleeping in their RVs outside of the VA, we need to have a small veterans safe lot at the VA.

This isn't rocket science.

This is helping people.

And the bill that we have before us creates the space to make sure that we're able to care for all of these people.

and that's why I added the check and adjust portion of this bill.

I added that portion so that we're able to work together, not because the bill wasn't ready.

To say the bill isn't ready to vote on because of the check and adjust period after it was created as a true offering to work together is disappointing.

It's also disappointing to see the mayor fold in a moment where we need leadership.

I've spoken to the mayor about this legislation since February.

I shared legislation in July.

We introduced it in August.

We had committee work in September, a vote in October.

Then I worked with her team on the implementation budget.

Where has she been for a 60-day work group?

The reason that I bring this up before us today is because literally I worked with the mayor's team to create a budget amendment because I was working in partnership.

and that's part of the chair's package tomorrow.

So if the veto is sustained, then we have to make changes in the budget because I was literally working with her team to do the work in the right way together.

And we know that departments won't begin working without the bill being passed, which is the importance of moving forward today.

We also need the public to understand how regulations will change with enough time for them to prepare.

That is why we set the effective date in April and full implementation August 1st.

We need the time for people to understand what is changing, and that's the importance of moving forward today.

Any time in that period since February, the mayor could have stood up a 60-day workgroup.

60 days before the veto was September 2nd.

that was before we took up another two committee votes.

I'm glad that she wants to have a work group.

I think that this is good, but where has she been?

The check and adjust period that is within the bill that is before us today has a report due on March 1st, almost 120 days from now.

Her executive order of this work group is essentially a cut and paste of sections of my legislation.

and the reason I bring up the March 1st deadline for the check and adjust work group is because her plan for a work group can still share recommendations before the check and adjust period ends.

That was the intent.

That's the intent, is for everyone to be able to come up with their best ideas and put them into the ability for us to work together and move forward together.

You can override her veto and still have your work group.

Colleagues, I'll likely have a few words to share at the end, but I'll just note, usually when we take up legislation where human beings can be caught in the middle, where human beings can be negatively impacted, we have the room filled with service providers.

And these are folks who have chewed my ear off just this week, so I know they're not scared of giving me their opinion.

Yet we don't see them here in chambers today.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you Councilmember Strauss.

Colleagues, are there any other further comments regarding the bill before us?

Now is the time.

Any other comments?

Councilmember Kettle.

Thank you Council President and thank you everyone for being here.

The issue of and discussion on RVs is difficult, and like many of my colleagues, I've been working the topic of RVs, whether it's that one individual RV circumstance, documented very well by much of the public commenters today and what they've spoken to.

And yes, we should lead with compassion with these individuals.

I would say the suite of these bills that we just passed speaks to this.

And I want to thank Councilmember Strauss for his work in this area.

And then there's the issue of RVs, usually in a grouping that creates a public safety challenge.

I've seen this firsthand again and again and again.

I think of the impact on communities, neighborhoods, you know, the neighbors and the businesses that have been hurt.

It's important to think about them as well.

We must also lead with wisdom knowing that on one hand, we have neighbors in crisis, but also neighborhoods in crisis.

And separately, speaking about being on the streets and working the topic, I come back to and I think of a young woman I saw in an RV, actually in Ballard, off Leary, in one of those RVs, in that grouping.

An RV full of men, and clearly there was some drug activity going on, and I think of that young woman's, you know, and the circumstance that she was in.

You know, it's important for us as I've done so with Councilmember Wink, gender-based violence, but I can just imagine the circumstances of that young woman.

So this is more than the drug markets and the stolen good markets that come about in conjunction with drug markets.

We must also step forward.

We cannot be a city of two minds, something that I've spoken to many times in Public Safety Committee, a city that becomes paralyzed or goes sideways.

I've seen this many times because of the clear lack of sustained leadership, leadership with follow-up and follow-through.

In Little Saigon, we were told 90 days, North Aurora, 90 days, and other areas too.

But where are we today?

In the same place.

Should we assume the mayor's plan will be different this time?

we must look out for our neighbors and our neighborhoods, and we must solve both issues.

To close, I recently heard a podcast which the Olympic Hills Tiny Home Village was brought up.

This tiny home village was a result of a council budget action that I and my team did two years ago.

It was with coordinated entry.

Initially, it was the Alder Street location.

We've been working with the county on that issue.

And I'd just like, by the way, on a side note, thank executive for for unsticking the challenges that we're having with the county on that location.

But because of those issues, we switched to Lake City.

And that tiny home village, the Olympic Hills, is up because of a council bill action that my team worked two years ago.

And then there's the Salmon Bay Village, tiny home RV safe lot in inner bay that I've supported, both in community and here on council.

Not long ago, I had a shovel in hand for the Glassyard Commons ground baking ceremony, which is about to open.

And Councilmember Strauss is right.

A year and a half plus, I don't know the exact time, that we had nothing in terms of RV safe lots.

That's a failure of leadership.

that's a failure of sustained leadership with follow-up and follow-through.

But here we are, fortunately, you know, coming through with Glassyard Commons, and I supported in my discussions with my colleagues here and Councilmember Strauss, Chair Strauss from a budget perspective, opening a second RV safe lot, because it's very important to the topic and the issues that all the commenters brought up.

But at the end of the day, again, colleagues, I agree with the compassion for the individuals, the circumstances for those neighbors in crisis.

But we cannot turn our heads away from the impacts on the communities, on their neighborhoods.

We cannot look away from that.

And so thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

I see Council Member Lynn.

Thank you, Council President, colleagues.

Thank you to everyone that came and spoke today.

Thank you to the media for covering this today.

And, you know, we've had, I think, a kind of difficult discussion and debate.

And, you know, I think that that speaks to the complexity of the issue.

This speaks to the difficulty of the larger issue for us, which is housing, homelessness, other unadjusted issues in our community around substance use.

And this is not a new problem.

Obviously, it's been happening for over a decade.

And so oftentimes we focus on the differences between us.

And I just want to speak to a little bit about what I think we share.

And, you know, I think we share that we need to do a lot better for folks living in RVs, folks living in vehicles, and Councilmember Kettle to the impacted neighborhoods.

I think we share that.

I think the mayor shares that as well.

And so with that in mind, that's why I want to thank you, Councilmember Strauss, for calling attention to this issue.

And I don't think it's because any of us weren't aware of this issue or didn't care about it, but we have a lot of different things that we focus on as a city, as council members.

And I think a lot of the attention has in our homeless efforts is oftentimes focused on folks living not living in vehicles.

And I think too often the folks that are living in RVs and vehicles are sort of forgotten.

And so I just really, no matter how today's vote goes, I just applaud you for bringing attention to this.

And I think the four pieces of legislation that were not vetoed were really impactful and are gonna make a meaningful difference.

for our community.

And so I want to thank you for bringing those forward and bringing forward this discussion.

I'm sure you knew it was not going to be an easy one.

But I applaud you for bringing forward a difficult, complex discussion for all of us.

I appreciate that the legislation included the check and adjust and we work together on that and as you highlighted in many ways the mayor's work group sort of borrows from that concept and I If the veto is upheld and that workgroup is stood up, I hope that part of that workgroup, that she works with council, that she works with impacted communities, and, you know, if the veto is not upheld, then I certainly think that was a critical, you know, reason why I supported the bill and committee was the check and adjust.

And then, you know, I did change my mind later.

And I do just want to speak to I think it's okay that we change our minds from time to time.

I think, you know, I heard that the mayor, you know, maybe changed her mind about vetoing.

Councilmember Saka, I'm not sure how you're going to vote today, but you may have changed your mind as well.

And I don't think that that's a bad thing, that we change our minds from time to time.

These are complex issues, and and, you know, we get feedback in a lot of different ways.

And so I just wanted to speak to that.

Again, at the end of the day, I also just want to speak to sort of the diversity of opinions here on council.

And with the mayor's office.

We are all elected to represent.

I mean, some of us are elected in districts, but we all represent the entire city.

Some of us were elected last year, some of us a few years ago.

But at the end of the day, we all to represent District 5. And so thankful for your willingness to come back and support us.

And I say that because, you know, I think it's healthy that we have differences of opinion.

That's a good thing.

Our community has differences of opinion.

And that's okay, and that's a good thing.

And I think part of our job as electeds, and you spoke to this a little bit, Councilmember Strauss, is for us to make progress and find ways to come together.

And I'm committed to that, you know, regardless of how today's vote goes, whether it's through the mayor's work group or whether it's through future legislation or through the check and adjust period.

We have to come together.

We have to do better.

I will be voting no today, but again, I appreciate all your hard work on this issue, Councilmember Charles, and again, I think regardless of how today's vote goes, you have helped us make progress on this issue and uplift a critical thing for us to focus on, and that obviously will continue in the coming months and years.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Lynn.

I see Councilmember Juarez.

Yes, thank you.

Good morning.

Well, I want to thank you and thank you for your leadership.

I want to thank the folks that showed up.

As you know, I always kind of keep a running tally of where we're at with people who show up at public comment and who also call in.

And I want to thank those folks and a lot of the issues that were raised we've heard before and to hear again and to be re-emphasized again is important.

and Council Member Lynn, thank you so much for those kind words and I've said this many times and I'm glad to hear you say it as well, is that even if some of us are elected from districts, we represent the whole city.

Our vote weighs just as much as everybody else's vote, but we honor the needs of our district and that's why we went to a district system.

As you know, Mayor Murray in 2015 said that we were gonna end homelessness and that was 11 years ago.

and I've sat here and watched many committees, many reports, many studies, when we did the navigation center, when we did tiny houses, when we did sanctioned encampments, unsanctioned encampments, when we did primitive supportive housing.

So we sat in good neighbor agreements.

You've sat through all of those things to try to make it work with one thing in mind is to have the humanity to not let people live in a street and some of the folks, I wrote down a lot what people said during public comment and I just want to really say a few things and I want to go right to the mayor's veto.

I think that this is a comprehensive solution as some folks says.

However, I've been hearing the terms a draconian band criminalizing the homeless, people being punished.

I'm just gonna say this.

I don't think it's fair to say those things because that's not what has been in our hearts and our minds when we put together pieces of legislation like this.

And as you know, we were in committee on September 15th.

We were in committee on September 22nd with many amendments.

and I believe that's when Council Member Foster brought the one-time count issue, which I was very supportive of.

And then it went to full council and a 6-3 vote, I understand.

And then on November 2nd, there was a veto.

And so I bring up those dates and times because before the community, probably the public should probably notice this, we started these discussions in the spring and summer.

not just with stakeholders, community, those that take care of our relatives on the street, but before we put ink to paper.

So it isn't like we sat down and said, hey, let's figure out the worst way to criminalize the homeless and impose draconian bans and punish people.

No, that's not the hard work we do here.

I know that when people show up and scream at us at city council, they think that's absolutely not true.

So let me get to what I wanna talk about the meat and the substance in the context of this partial veto.

And I wanna thank the mayor for not vetoing all of it.

And I'm looking forward to seeing what the new plan will be.

And I think it's important to note what council member Strauss had shared.

that this legislation, the way I read it and looked at it, to regulate RVs, it does not make vehicle residency illegal.

It's already illegal.

So that's just not true.

I thought that this, and I believe that this legislation gave more allowances and a path to a home.

And I like that a lot of you, including my colleagues, have said online and offline that all of these concerns, Councilman Berlin was saying, come from a good place.

Nobody's pitting anyone against anyone.

Nobody's criminalizing anyone with their thoughts or their policies.

We may have disagreements, but at the end of the day, we're trying to get there in a good way.

What I believe, though, is that in just in one sentence, is a parking spot is not a home.

Parking space is not a home.

Having to move your car and your RV every 72 hours is not a home.

So it took a lot for us to get here to find some point of entry for those living in RVs to have a path to a home.

Whether it's brick and mortar, is it a tiny house?

I don't know, but I think it's inhumane to have people believe that their home is a parking spot.

I just do.

And maybe that's just a difference.

I'm not going to politicize this.

I'm going to stay with my vote.

I'm not one to—I do my homework.

I went through the mayor's veto that she sent the letter to the clerk dated November 2nd.

And she gave us six reasons why she was vetoing it.

And I want to be as respectful as possible.

Every one of these bases for the veto can be cured, remedied, or could have been addressed on September 15th, September 22nd, certainly before full council, and certainly during the spring and summer, when we had commitments from the mayor's office and the executive that we invested time and effort and spent political capital, even with people that didn't agree with us, to move this forward.

and I think Councilman Rivera brought this up as well.

It isn't just about, yes, there are families in homes, there are nurses in RVs, and there's also, and let's not shy away from it.

There's a lot of sex trafficking and criminal activity and drug activity going on in RVs.

So I'm not saying that everyone who lives in one is doing those things.

And you're right, if you're doing those things in your house, in your apartment, you don't lose your apartment.

but when you're on the public street, then it becomes a public safety issue.

And it's up to us as an elected body to address that.

Going through the six spaces, the one-time census count, again, the legal considerations of RV ownership, the cost of long-term storage, the risk that non-compliance could create more unsheltered folks, enforcement issues, administrative complexity Every one of these six bases, I have seen this city council and this city overcome every one of them.

Every one of them, when they have the drive, the policy, the belief that they're doing the right thing, even though some people may not be happy about it, because at the end of the day, the humanity is what's in here.

Let's get these people into homes, not RVs in a parking spot at the QFC parking lot or next to a park or on a residential street.

I just want to end in that two things, which is interesting for me to say, but in politics, there's never really a single point of failure or success.

there are nine council members in our legislative branch and we have one mayor.

And I believe that when you and the public sees dishonesty, inconsistency, lack of leadership, that that sows doubt.

And for those reasons, I'm going to stay with the votes that I have committed to have not changed my mind.

And I think somebody said this and we've heard it many times and I'm sure Council Member Strauss will fill in the details.

This is just the beginning of the path away from the parking spot.

A lot of this is gonna be implemented in 2027 and there's more to do.

And again, we cannot let politics get in the middle of or get in front of or be more important of than the policies that we're trying to put together to get people into homes.

I'm not worried about reelection.

I'm not worried about speaking to a base.

I'm not speaking to a person of audience of one.

I am representing the city of Seattle and honoring the needs of District 5 and understanding again, and I'm gonna say it again, a parking spot is not a home.

so for those reasons, I will not be supporting the mayor's veto and I am opposed to it and I think it's unfortunate that we've done all this work and committed ourselves on the word of the executive branch that we were going to get this done because there's still a lot more to do.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, Council Member Juarez.

I see Council Member Sacca followed by Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Madam Council President.

And as I look out at a kind of packed council chamber full of community members, advocates, media partners, five or six cameras, just a normal Thursday morning in the office, colleagues.

Just a normal Thursday morning.

Bad joke, all right.

Well, thank you again, Council President.

And I wanna start today by extending A little practice of an attitude of gratitude, which is what I try to do every single day and a really important principle of value that I have for me, myself, and my family.

Always practice an attitude of gratitude.

And that's why I want to start by specifically thanking Councilmember Strauss.

for his leadership and tireless work on this legislation.

The six piece legislative package that he worked on all year round.

For members of the public, the entire legislative branch of government has about 90 employees, 90. And our ability as council members to direct Certain personnel within them is limited to a certain subset, a fractional share of that 90. By contrast, the mayor has 14,000 city employees at her beck and disposal and can direct and marshal towards resources and get things done, proposed legislation.

What Councilmember Strauss did this year was a Herculean effort.

He saw a problem, recognized that the status quo is not good enough.

He took decisive leadership and action to address that challenge, which is why, again, I want to thank Councilmember Strauss for his hard work.

I also want to thank Mayor Wilson for her leadership in bringing forward an alternative approach that I think deserves a fair shot.

I also want to acknowledge two different votes.

What we know today is that the status quo is totally unacceptable.

That's why I voted yes on this legislation last month.

And let me be crystal clear, I stand by that vote.

That vote was about refusing to accept inaction.

Today's vote is about determining the best path forward, together.

but voting to support legislation and deciding whether to override a veto are two separate decisions.

My principles and values haven't changed.

What's changed is that we now have a new path to consider.

Through her executive order, Mayor Wilson has committed to expanding outreach, advancing RV safe lots, and developing an alternative approach.

Again, I believe that deserves a fair opportunity.

And I recognize that today's decision has real consequences.

I take that responsibility very seriously.

Whatever path we land on with the mayor's upcoming alternative should be evaluated, in my view, by three guiding principles.

First and foremost, human dignity.

People experiencing homelessness deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.

That's it.

and what's also true is so do the residents and small businesses whose neighborhoods are directly affected.

Second, we need compassion and accountability.

In other words, we need both the carrot and the stick.

Seattle deserves both.

that includes more shelter capacity, more RV safe lots and appropriate enforcement to better address unsafe and unsanitary conditions.

Third and finally, geographic equity must be a top priority.

My council district, district one, has carried a disproportionate share of this challenge for far too long.

Depending on the reporting period, District 1 has two to three times higher concentration of RV encampments than the next closest council district.

We cannot solve a citywide problem by concentrating its consequences in a handful of neighborhoods.

We can't.

I'm gonna harp on Council Member Lynn's comments a moment ago, talking about unity.

Love it.

My fellow tireless Council Member.

We have an opportunity to turn disagreement at City Hall into a shared commitment to action.

We may disagree on a path, but we should never lose sight of our shared destination.

This isn't about choosing sides.

It's about delivering results.

And those results must be measurable, including more safe parking capacity, meaningful enforcement, greater geographic equity, and safer neighborhoods, and If this new approach falls short, we have an obligation, nay, a duty, to revisit what isn't working.

Our commitment must be to the results, not any single proposal.

So today, I will be voting against the bill before us, thereby sustaining the mayor's veto potentially, but not because I've abandoned my previous position, but because I'm willing to give a potentially stronger solution a fair chance.

That said, patience must be matched by progress.

Our residents deserve nothing less.

And finally, I wanna close by mentioning, talking a little bit about leadership.

A lot of the discussion seems to be, whether it's in community, the advocacy groups, media, seems to swirl around a particular policy, a disagreement at City Hall, even a solemn exercise of the democratic checks and balances that we have enshrined in all levels of government, including right here in the city of Seattle government, embodied by the decision whether to override an executive veto or not.

Again, diving deep down the nitty-gritty policy nuances.

What I find to be the most profound and the most intriguing aspect of this entire conversation is leadership.

It's not policy, it's not democratic checks and balances, it's leadership.

I heard Councilmember Strauss a moment ago say that leadership, paraphrasing, leadership is not turning your back when the criticism ramps up.

That's absolutely true, absolutely true.

And I also heard what Councilmember Lynn said a moment ago, that leadership is being willing to change your mind and change your position, making a decision, standing firmly on the decision based off of principles and values.

and then having the humility and grace to change your mind if material new information becomes available.

That's actually what one of my political mentors told me a couple years back, someone I look up to and respect deeply.

And we all land at a different place, as relates to the nine of us on that issue.

But I think that is the most intriguing aspect of this entire conversation.

We need—we need, in my view, we need more leaders at all levels of government to humble themselves with if and when new information becomes available and do the—make the best decision do the greatest good for the greatest number.

I wanna thank Councilmember Strauss again and Mayor Wilson for their leadership and their willingness to address this challenge with a comprehensive solution.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Saka.

Next, we have Councilmember Rivera.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

Colleagues, both are true.

There are people living in RVs who need permanent homes and services, just like the individuals who are living on our streets and tents.

Neither are humane, especially our families with children living in vehicles, not RVs.

It's also true that we've seen a number of individuals using RVs for drug dealing, sex trafficking, and exploiting our vulnerable women and other vulnerable community members in our community.

And these RVs are not healthy for our neighborhoods.

we have to acknowledge that both of these things are true.

And so when we're looking for policy solutions, we're looking for solutions that need to address both.

I understand that this legislation is intended to do more outreach, a concentrated outreach to folks living in RVs.

I do want to acknowledge that the unified care team does outreach to our folks living in RVs, so I don't want to leave it unsaid that we haven't had folks doing outreach to folks who are legitimately living in RVs.

but as I said earlier, there are others who are not legitimately living in RVs and those folks are causing harms in our neighborhoods.

I can tell you that at Magnuson Park where we have permanent supportive housing individuals living and low-income individuals like moms raising teenage kids and smaller children in low-income housing at the park, have had a terrible time managing for RVs at the park.

And since I've gotten here, this is my third year on the council, I've been trying to help to ensure that those RVs selling drugs and trying to sell drugs to our vulnerable populations there is not okay.

Obviously this is not every RV, but there are a lot of RVs out there engaging in this behavior, and we need to acknowledge that as well.

Both are true.

and I want to appreciate Councilmember Juarez for laying out the facts around this legislation and also acknowledging the two points that I made today because I know that she's grappling with some of that in the D-5 who neighbors the D-4.

As I stated when we first vote, I'm concerned that this legislation will not necessarily yield what we intend.

However, this is the legislation that we have before us today.

And doing nothing is not an option.

So what I always say is we have something before us.

It intends to do outreach.

to individuals in RVs to try to provide them services and get them more permanent housing, but it also would hopefully address the RVs that are causing harm in our neighborhoods and communities.

to me, it's worth doing something and then reevaluating and assessing whether it is working or not.

And if it's not, then we shift our approach.

But right now, as I said earlier, this is what's before us on the table now.

Should this not pass today, I'm looking forward to working with the mayor on the approach that she's intending and I hope that she works with all of us not just some of us because this is an issue that is across the city concentrated in some districts more than others and I appreciate your comments, council member Saka, because we've had three years of working together and talking about this very issue.

And it is something that's happening across the city.

Every council district is touched by this.

So I look forward to working with the mayor to address these issues because they do need to be addressed.

and so I will continue.

I will vote as I voted last time.

And like I said, I hope to be able to work with the mayor on her approach to see how we can make some actual positive results with whatever it is she's intending in addressing these concerns, both of these concerns, because they're equally important.

Thank you, council president.

Thank you Councilmember Rivera.

We have Councilmember Foster followed by Councilmember Rink.

Councilmember Foster.

Thank you so much Council President and thank you colleagues.

I will be I think fairly brief with my remarks.

You know as I said when we had this before us a few weeks ago I brought an amendment when this bill was in committee that would have allowed for the census to be an ongoing census.

And for me, that has been a critical piece of this conversation.

So I just want to once again thank Councilmember Lynn and Councilmember Juarez for supporting that amendment when it was in committee.

And there's been a lot of discussion here, but I'll focus mine on where my heart and my head has been for the last several months around this, which is that we know that homelessness is not a static experience.

that people's circumstances change, people move in and out of homelessness.

That is one of our greatest challenges in the city as we continue to try to bring more shelter online, bring more housing online, is that we are still seeing people become newly homeless, even as we make progress getting folks moved off of the streets and into housing.

And from my perspective, having a one-time census and a permit that corresponds with that one-time census is not an effective way to address what is an ongoing challenge.

So I want to just be clear and focused on that from my perspective.

I think that, and what I will say is I've seen and spoken to families who are homeless and living in RVs, I had the opportunity to join them for a day and talk to folks not all around the city, we did the sort of the south district with them, but it was incredibly informative to understand the experiences that people are having because there is a lot of need and we are actually, we are under investing in what's needed for folks who are living in their vehicles, whether that is getting their tires fixed, getting gas, making sure that they are appropriately connected to case workers so that we can help support getting folks from their vehicles and into housing.

I've seen that with my very eyes and it's very clear that we have a lot more work to do there.

I'm very grateful that there is resources in this budget to support an additional RV safe lot.

I think that is something that we all agree on here on Council.

So thank you Councilmember Strauss for putting that.

I believe that was your budget amendment.

I think that's going to be really meaningful for addressing the problem that is in front of us.

So my vote remains the same.

I will be voting no today but I just wanted to restate for some of the reasons that were really specific for me deciding where I'm at here.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Councilmember Rink.

Thank you, Council President.

I want to start off by thanking everyone who has come out to make their voice heard today, in particular those who came forward to share their lived experience with homelessness.

It takes courage to share your story, and I want to thank you again for being here.

Colleagues, I will be maintaining my position and voting no on this particular piece of legislation today.

I want to thank the mayor for not just vetoing the legislation but proposing alternative action through an executive order to help move us forward.

There is no question that the status quo is not meeting need and isn't working for many, but I believe that the executive order paired with the other bills as a part of the larger legislative package proposed by Councilmember Strauss, pieces of that package that I did support, I believe that combined will put us in a better position to deliver results that I know our community members are looking forward for while also leading with dignity.

And so with that, I'll be brief and leave it there.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, Councilmember Rank.

I will say my So I first want to thank Councilmember Strauss for your hard work on this legislation, engaging in difficult conversations, what's happening around our city.

to double down on what Council Member Lynn said about always starting with what we can agree on.

And so I also want to thank the Mayor's Office and their administration for their engagement in this process as well, because I believe everyone involved wants to make things better for people.

We may have different approaches, different perspectives, and different ideas about implementation.

And before I say anything else, I also want to thank the folks that came here today to advocate for our people experiencing homelessness in the services.

Also the outreach workers who meet people where they are, social workers and service providers who help people navigate incredibly difficult circumstances.

the Seattle Public Utilities employees who pump wastewater from RVs and clean up our public spaces, the emergency responders who are called into difficult situations every day, and the neighbors that help connect people to services and show compassion even when they're frustrated with conditions around them as well.

So we see you, we appreciate you, and I know this work is not easy.

And I also know what we're doing is not working well enough.

Over the last three years, my voting record has supported and backed a lot of the response to homelessness.

regarding funding.

When Mayor Wilson brought forward legislation to expand shelter capacity, I supported it.

When the legislation needed to move quickly through council, I supported that process.

I watched how Councilmember Foster championed it and worked with her colleagues and Councilmember Strauss worked to identify funding and move the financial components through his committee.

I also supported the mayor's goal of creating 500 additional shelter units before the World Cup.

I supported the goal of reaching 1,000 shelter units by the end of 2026. I support the new goal of 1,000 shelters by the end of 2027. I supported prioritizing 500 of those units for people with high acuity needs.

That's people that are experiencing serious mental health challenges, substance use disorders, and other significant barriers to stable housing.

And when that legislation came before us, I brought forward amendments to make sure families and children were not forgotten because we cannot talk about some of our most vulnerable residents without talking about women, children, and families who are on the streets.

to make sure that we can center families in this conversation as well, because I know that has been the center around a lot of folks' mind when they're talking about this legislation and families.

So I wanted to make sure that we continue to focus on that.

because I take those very seriously.

I've also walked our neighborhoods.

I've talked to people who live in RVs.

I've talked to outreach workers who, you know, go out every day and continue to push forward, connecting people with resources.

Talk to neighbors who are frustrated, but they don't lack compassion.

I know people want to shame them in that piece.

But, you know, they see the same conditions year after year and they want it to get better.

And I see what struggle is.

Struggle for people to survive.

Struggle for our neighborhoods trying to remain accessible.

And struggle also for city employees trying to manage some of the consequences of the system that we continue to vote on that isn't producing results that we need sometimes.

and I don't believe there's anything humane about allowing someone to live in an RV without reliable sanitation, without access to treatment, without a pathway to stable housing, and without knowing when help is coming.

And watching the people deteriorate on our streets while we continue to debate which program we should administer, asking what we should call it, should we set up a task force, a focus group?

what are we talking about right now?

I think what is humane, I don't think it's humane to have the resources available, but we fail to turn those resources into meaningful outcomes.

That is the frustration that people are feeling.

And even though it's frustration for me, I know how people that are experiencing homelessness, how frustrated they are as well to be in the position that they are trying to survive while we cannot get them those funds and money and trying to figure out where does it go.

In 2026, we budgeted $228 million for homelessness response.

And approximately $126 million of that was HSD funding allocated to the King County Regional Homeless Authority.

$126 million.

The $228 million doesn't necessarily tell us the entire story what we're spending.

And I want to make sure that it doesn't matter what we're spending, I want to make sure that we have the outcomes.

If you told me, Joy, if we need to double that to make sure that people aren't experiencing homelessness, I'd say great.

show me how we're gonna get there.

And I also wanna thank our Seattle Public Utilities because they introduced a program where they provide wastewater pumping for services for people living in RVs because without those services, sewage can spill onto the streets, drainage and systems.

And when they did that program, it went down 72% after the wastewater pumping program began.

RVs, the spillage associated with RVs declined 72% after wastewater pumping program began, which I think is phenomenal.

In 2024, Seattle Fire recorded over 19,000 homelessness-related emergency incidents.

That's 52 incidents every single day.

Over 8,000 were medical, 3,000 were fire, and 5,000 were people with good intent calls just checking on their neighbors.

That's why I'm I'm incredibly grateful that we are refunding the fire department.

Thank you, Councilmember Rivera for sponsoring that and the chair for putting it in.

Because over time, even though it's labeled as overtime, it's not overtime, it's crucial time.

Because if we didn't have it, if we did not have that funding, you know who's not getting responded to?

The people that are experiencing homelessness right now.

They will suffer the most.

That brings me to the King County Regional Homeless Authority because all of this matters.

I know we're talking about this legislation, but it's a bigger piece here.

And I want to be respectful, but I also want to be clear that the execution of our Regional Homeless Authority has been deeply disappointing.

And we created a regional system because we believe that working together would help us coordinate resources, improve outcomes, and respond more effectively to homelessness.

and what we've seen has been a complete disaster.

We've seen money wasted, we've seen staff time go down the drain, we've seen community partnerships disappear, we've seen people spend years of political capital, and that's very disappointing.

and we still have people living in RVs without stable sanitation and pathways to housing.

We also still have people experiencing incredible mental health and substance use challenges without consistent access to services they need.

Do we call it substance use disorder?

Do you call it addiction?

I see people arguing at the table about these things instead of the outcomes.

It might make us feel good about allocating millions of dollars, but without outcomes, now that is cruel and inhumane.

without outcomes, that to me is cruel and inhumane.

Because I think about another person who could have received shelter, another family that could have received support, another person who could have received treatment, another opportunity to move someone into stable housing.

And honestly, no matter how this vote turns out, personally, I just want outcomes.

I just want to see people, us moving in the right direction as a council and the mayor's office, because right now we are not.

And let's be real, you guys, we cannot place all the challenges on Mayor Wilson and this administration.

This has been going on for years, for years, okay?

and we've been watching it and then people are frustrated and we've reached a breaking point.

And this has been going on through multiple generations, multiple generations, administrations, multiple budgets and multiple approaches.

But I do believe that we have to move beyond intentions and focus on executions.

So I do respect I do respect that my colleagues have different perspective on this legislation, but I also believe that when we raise concerns about potential harms of a policy, we must equally be willing to confront the harm that is happening under the status quo.

That is what's important.

We can't be selective recognizing suffering.

We can't be selective on that.

You have to be able to hold up a mirror to the current situation that's what's happening in Seattle.

And you can't let accountability be oppression.

That's not what it is.

But you got to talk about the status quo.

And let me close with this.

I was at the grocery store the other day, and there was a woman with a baby standing outside.

with her children, asking for a couple dollars, asking to be seen, asking to be helped.

And I think about the hundreds of millions of dollars that we invest in this city, and I ask myself, why isn't that investment reaching her?

And why is it when I raise that a question, why am I then targeted as bad?

Why is it, why are you asking that?

Why are, oh, you're anti this?

No, I want to know why she is still in that position, why we cannot help.

Why are we still seeing so many people struggle in a city where resources and capacity that Seattle has?

Those are questions that should keep us all focused.

because at the end of the day, like they say in Love & Hip Hop, at the end of the day, the people experiencing homelessness are the ones paying the price when we, the government, do not deliver.

So we will continue to build shelter.

I'll continue to support my colleagues in that effort.

I'll continue to support the mayor in that effort.

I voted yes.

to support the bill.

I'm still going to support that yesterday because I want a solution no matter what we call it.

I don't care if we call it VRAP.

I don't care if it's called getting people straight into RV to homes.

I don't care what we call it, Councilmember Strauss.

I just want to see people be able to get help that they need so we can solve these problems rather than us have these political discussions.

Because the reality is, is that those people on the street that are suffering today, they deserve better.

Seattle deserves better.

We can do so much better.

And as the council that has the power of the purse, you know, we can continue to put our money where our mouth is, but we also need execution.

And on that is going to take all of us and our mayor's office as well.

I appreciate the time, colleagues.

Those are my comments.

And I will turn this over to Councilmember Strauss for your closing remarks before we take a vote.

Councilmember Strauss.

Thank you, Council President.

I agree.

It doesn't matter what we call it or who takes credit for what.

It's about getting outcomes for the people of Seattle, whether you live in your vehicle, whether you live in an RV, whether you live in a home, whether you rent or own.

It is our duty to get outcomes delivered to Seattleites.

The legislation before us centers humans.

It's based on proven models that I've worked on before.

And something that we have to be really real is that the real families being used hypothetically aren't being served because our outreach, our resources, and our shelter that is designed for people who live in their vehicles is inadequately funded or staffed I've heard advocates in these last few weeks say that we shouldn't be spending this money on vehicle residents because other parts of our homeless response system needs help.

This is so inappropriate, I don't even know where to begin.

This is, we have to be properly funding and supporting addressing homelessness for people who live in their vehicles.

Our current system is failing, and doing nothing is not an option.

The mayor's task force can even occur with a veto override.

60 days from her veto and executive order is January 3rd.

I expect to receive that report by January 15th, and yes, I'm given a couple days for editing if they'd like.

I state this because to say that a vote today to sustain the veto is a vote for a new path is duplicitous in my opinion because that report can be provided even before the check and adjust period is halfway over.

The concerns that I've heard from advocates that this is too expensive, it's complex, it's cruel, it's punitive, are the same things that I've heard from Republicans when they were talking about tiny home villages, medically assisted treatment at shelters, focusing shelters on complex homelessness, and the same concerns that I heard when we were having those original meetings that led to the neighborhood impact framework.

Seattle needs leadership to both address outstanding concerns and to move forward together today, not tomorrow, not 60 days from now.

We need to do better for the people living in our vehicles and for our entire community.

I'm glad that my 11 months, more than 11 months of work, has resulted in our city centering humans and people who live in their vehicles in a way that has not been done before.

I'm glad that these 11 months of work has finally made this mayor pay attention to what so many Seattleites know is an issue that cannot wait to be addressed.

Voting to sustain the veto is not a vote for a potential new path because the new path can be taken while we override this veto.

Voting to sustain the veto is voting for the status quo.

It's voting to plan for a plan.

And a vote to delay taking action, helping people who have been overlooked, under-resourced, and left in the cold with the city turning their back on them.

And voting to sustain the veto today is a vote to stand in the middle of the street on a day when we need to be taking action.

We can't just stand, we must act.

Colleagues, I request you to take a third thought about it.

I request you to vote to override the mayor's unnecessary veto and vote to work together.

Vote to address concerns that we've hurt.

Vote to update regulations and care for the people who live in their RVs in our city today.

Vote to move forward together and not standing still in the middle of the road.

Thank you, colleagues.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

If there's no further comments, the council will now reconsider passage at Council Bell 121283.

Point of information, can you clearly articulate how we shall be voting?

I believe that this is a...

Tell us everything, please.

That was the next bullet point, Councilmember Strauss.

You jumped ahead of me.

No worries.

I got y'all.

So during roll call, council members will...

This is literally the next bullet point.

During the roll call, council members will either vote aye to pass the bill again and override the mayor's veto.

or no to not pass the bill and sustain the mayor's veto.

A yes is to override the mayor's veto and vote yes on the bill.

A no is to not pass the bill and that will sustain the mayor's veto.

Does everyone understand?

We have a question.

Oh, Council Member Lynn.

I just want to raise a point of our order.

I do believe we have a rule about not impugning motives of each other, and I just heard something about intent being duplicitous, and I just want to address that because I do think that it is impugning the motive of one of my colleagues, and I just want to call that out.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, Council Member Lynn.

Okay, so during During the roll call, it's I to pass the bill and override the mayor's veto, no not to pass the bill, and sustain the mayor's veto.

If the reconsideration vote has more than six I's votes to pass the bill, then the bill passes.

If it doesn't, the mayor's, excuse me, let me read this again.

If the reconsideration vote has six or more eyes to votes to pass the bill, then the bill passes, the mayor's veto will be overwritten and the provisions within the bill will go into effect.

If it, who wrote this script?

okay thank you the reconsider if the reconsideration vote is tied or has less than six eyes the bill will fail and the mayor's veto will be sustained so look it needs six or more votes okay to to override the mayor's veto anything less than six uh the mayor's veto is sustained okay Does everyone understand that?

Did I make it clear?

Okay.

Sorry.

This script.

Oh, you wrote this, Amelia.

I'm sorry.

but you're very technical because it's a tongue twister.

All right, hearing note, are there any other further comments?

Madam Council President, point of order.

Yeah, Council Member Sokka.

First off, just want to acknowledge what Council Member Lynn said a moment ago.

You know, I too took some issue with some comments made towards the very end of this conversation.

And, you know, the Seattle passive-aggressive, subtle slights, let's disagree on the merits.

But Council Member Shrouse, if you have a problem with me, I promise you, I'm not the one.

You can take it up with me directly.

Our offices are right next to each other.

I'm open for a conversation anytime.

Let's avoid, let's focus on the issues and the merits of the issues.

Have vigorous disagreements.

I understand and respect that.

But do not under any circumstance impugn my motives, my character, or my integrity.

I don't do that to anyone else.

Do not do it to me.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Sacca.

Councilmember Strauss.

Thank you, and thank you, colleagues, for bringing this up.

I will just state that this is, in my opinion, that two things can't be true at the same time, and this is really centered in regarding the mayor's task force.

that is stated to occur within 60 days that is within the same period of the check and adjust work group.

And that's why it is not intending to impugn motives.

It is intended to speak to fact that the period of time that we have to make adjustments to this legislation is longer than 60 days, and both can be accomplished.

That is why I'm speaking to fact and not to motives.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

All right.

We couldn't get through the meeting without a clip on the internet, y'all.

So, all right.

I appreciate everyone's remarks, okay?

Everybody's cool.

And I also, before we take this vote, I just wanna say I enjoy working with everyone here.

So thank you all.

And let's go ahead and take the vote on Council Bill 121283.

The bill fails and the mayor's veto is sustained.

If we could just hold our claps.

I know there's a couple people.

Thank you.

All right.

So now we've reached the end of our today's agenda.

Is there any further business to come before the council?

So the next city council meeting is scheduled for tentatively November 17th.

The city council will hold a special meeting on November 20th at 1 p.m.

to consider final votes on proposed budget.

Hearing no further business, we are adjourned.

Thank you all.

Thank you.