Seattle City Council 7/22/19

Good afternoon, everybody.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Thank you for being here in City Hall.

I'm going to ask that we're pretty much at capacity.

Is there a way either security or FAS may open up the back doors, get a little ventilation going in here?

Nothing personal, anybody, but it gets a little warm here on occasion.

Get a little cross breeze, I think we'll all be happier.

The July 22nd, 2019 City Council meeting of the full Seattle City Council will come to order.

It's 2 o'clock p.m.

I'm Bruce Harrell, President of the Council.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Mosqueda?

Here.

O'Brien?

Here.

Pacheco?

Here.

Sawant?

Here.

Bangshaw?

Here.

Gonzales?

Here.

Herbold?

Here.

Juarez?

Here.

President Harrell?

Here.

Ape present.

Hearing no objection, Council Member Warris will be excused from today's meeting and we wish her a speedy recovery.

Is there any objection to that?

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

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

Hearing no objection, today's introduction and referral calendar is adopted.

And similarly, hearing no objection, today's agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, today's agenda is adopted.

The minutes of the July 15, 2019 City Council meeting have been reviewed and if there's no objection, the minutes will be signed.

Hearing no objection, the minutes are being signed.

Presentations, I'm not aware of any presentations we have this afternoon.

Again, thank you all for being here.

We will now take public comment on items that appear on today's agenda, the introduction referral calendar, or our work program for this year.

Our rules allow for public comment to be accepted for 20 minutes.

We'll see how that goes, but we do have many people that have signed up, so in order to hear from as many people as possible, Unless there's an objection, I'm going to ask that we limit the speakers to one minute, and we'll get twice as many, hopefully, in a good amount of time and go forward.

So I want to give people a little warning to get your comments down to one minute.

And I'll call you out in the order with which you've signed up.

And we're going to try to get both microphones in place.

So I'm going to call several names, go middle mic, mic this, middle mics, and back and forth.

You guys, many of you have done this before.

So, okay.

Worsami, is it Ayan Worsami?

And then Colleen Lang will follow.

So Colleen, can you come over here?

And then following with the middle mic will be Denise Perez.

Is it?

What?

Lally.

Thank you very much.

Denise Perez Lally will be third.

So Ayan, Colleen, and Denise.

And good afternoon.

You may begin.

Good afternoon.

My name is Ayaan Warsami, and I'm the program coordinator with the YWCA of Seattle King, the Snohomish Parent Child Plus Program.

I would like to thank the councilman for your time and attention.

On behalf of myself and the YWCA of Seattle King, Snohomish, we urge you to continue allocating the sweetened beverage tax revenue to support education and child-based programs so that our young children of color who intersect with poverty are given high accessible, high quality, and equitable early childhood education services.

We are asking council to continue funding Parent Child Plus for the ongoing agreement between United Way and the city council.

According to a United Way of King County study, children of color experience poverty at a disproportionately higher rate, access early intervention services at lower rates, and the county average and eligible children are less likely to enroll in preschool.

The implications of limited or no access to quality early learning is reflected in children of color demonstrating lower levels of kindergarten readiness.

Our current services at the YWCA are extremely effective in working to eliminate this disparity through the provision of in-home culturally specific services.

Can you wrap up, ma'am?

Time's out.

You do it and wrap up.

Our services match hours that homeless families are available for support.

This includes evening and weekends, hours that parents or children are free due to their daytime DSHS program-based requirements.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you for your testimony.

So, let's do a reset here, because we have a lot of people to sign up.

So, I really am not trying to be rude to anybody, but we have a lot of people who would like to sign up.

So, if you could just sort of look, be mindful of the clock, and I don't want to, but, one minute, okay?

We'll try to do that.

Thank you very much.

So, we have Colleen, Denise, and then Joe Carolins, Carolins Olso.

Okay.

Okay.

I'm trying here.

Please proceed.

Thank you, Mr. President, Councilmembers.

I'm Colleen Lang with United Way of King County.

And while United Way supports using sweetened beverage tax revenues to expand services, we're concerned that the effect of this motion could be to undo funding commitments to the Parent Child Plus, formerly the Parent Child Home Program, that were made for the 19-20 budget.

The city council and the mayor's office jointly agreed to move the Parent Child Plus program out of the Families and Ed Levy and into the Sweetened Beverage Tax Revenues in order that it would have a stable and ongoing source of funding and we want to ensure that that continues.

The city has prioritized this evidence-based program for over 10 years and we're very grateful for that support and that support leverages millions in private donor dollars and additional millions from the county.

This program has exceptional efficacy, as I think most of you know.

And we're asking that you please do not leave families and agencies in the lurch for 2020, where we've already contracted for services and home visitors have been hired.

And please continue funding Parent Child Plus through the Sweetened Beverage Tax.

Thank you, Council President and Council Members.

Good afternoon.

My name is Denise Perez-Lawley, and I have the honor of standing here with co-workers, peers, and community members.

El Centro de la Raza serves about 15,000 individuals each year.

Our food bank receives over 20,000 visits annually, four times a week, and we have over 150 seniors participating in our senior services offered four times a week.

Our early learning program has expanded five-fold.

To end funding for basic needs services is the unthinkable and simply cruel.

We stand in solidarity with those in this room and with the City Council as Council has championed the sweetened beverage tax as a vehicle to expand critical programs that serve our community.

and has fought to ensure that SBT revenue is used solely for this purpose.

We support the passage of CB119551 and ask City Council to ensure that our funding is not jeopardized.

Si se puede.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm Joe Corollas.

I represent OSL, formerly known as Operation Sack Lunch.

OSL is a 30-year meal program in Seattle.

In 2018, we served 1,027,648 no-cost, nutritionally dense meals to those struggling with hunger.

The majority of these meals were created from the more than 1.5 million pounds of quality food we rescued.

This food is valued conservatively at $5.8 million.

We contributed what we did not use to meal programs throughout the city and the Seattle area.

We are only one program of the many needed to serve and support the nutritional needs of our most compromised citizens.

OSL funding has changed from general funds to SBT funds.

We are a nonpolitical organization with our pedal to the metal every single day.

We trust those who are more experienced than us to operate in the best interest of our programs, the best interest of the people and organizations that we all serve.

Often meal programs and food banks are the only nutritional support for those in need.

So thank you very much for your service, you guys.

We want that support on CB119551.

Thank you.

Our next three speakers.

Tammy Morales, Xochitl Makovich, and Hilda.

Tammy, if you take the middle mic.

Xochitl, Hilda, and then Violet Lovatay.

Thank you for the correction.

Hello, my name is Tammy Morales.

I'm a community organizer with Rainier Beach Action Coalition.

I'm here to speak about a couple things.

The first is to support the notice of intent to sell.

We think this is a really important first step for giving renters the opportunity to form co-ops and to really start to build community ownership of assets.

So we want to support that.

But we also are here because we have been active participants in the community advisory board related to the sweetened beverage tax.

and we've been offering our guidance on how to use those funds in an effective way to support community and really start to close the food security gap.

We reject the notion that our communities have to make a choice between feeding their families and other critical services in our community and we're here to ask and support you in your effort to pass this legislation.

We support it and we think that it honors the community's process for how we are addressing the issues in our community and we ask that you urge you to reject what I believe is a really cynical effort to divide communities of color.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Xochitl Bakovich, and I'm here with Washington Community Action Network.

We're here to support the Notice of Intent to Sell legislation.

It's pretty common sense.

It's just giving people a notice about property that's going to be sold.

A lot of property in Seattle is getting sold within a day or two.

It's getting sold without being advertised.

And that dynamic prevents both renters and nonprofits from being able to get that property.

It's really important to make sure that there's an even playing field so that we can explore things like limited equity cooperatives and other resident controlled housing models that will help a lot of people who have difficulty accessing housing, as well as ensuring nonprofits can get property that they need.

I can't really see the downside to a landlord because there is no right to buy.

No one has a right to buy, so they can still sell to whoever they want.

So this is pretty common sense, and please pass it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hilda Violet and Tanika Thompson.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Child care, the danger of not knowing how child care is going to be funded for 2020 is very disappointing.

Child care and assistance program is a vital subsidized program to help individual parents with child care assistance.

Families are able to go to work and they have their child care high quality programs and to be ready for kindergarten.

This program supports children from infant to under 13 years of age.

When we knew about the sugary beverage tax and the promise that all programs would be maintained and expanded, we all worked very hard and volunteered time to make this a reality.

We demand to maintain the original intent of the prioritized children, youth, and families first, familias primero.

We urge you to stand with the local community, call on mayor to honor the original intent of the sugary beverage tax.

Muchas gracias.

Good afternoon council members.

I'm here to speak on the support of SBT and I'm urging you to vote yes to protect these funds that were allocated to the SBT.

You're going to hear community members speak against it and we don't want this where the community is divided by the mayor.

That's what I'm up here to say.

I think one of the things that we're supposed to be in this all together, and so today you're going to hear a lot of advocates speak on the SBT.

My goodness, I even wrote a song about fresh bucks.

Yeah.

And so what we want to do is be protective of these funds.

If the funds are allocated to the community in these new programs, It should go there.

And I don't think the mayor knows that dividing the community, that's bad.

That's bad.

We've discussed this in the community a lot about people dividing the community.

So we're asking that you stand with us, stand with Michael Bryan, stand with Sally Backshaw, because I know you're gonna vote yes, Sally.

And we all, yes, give it up for Sally.

That we all stand in this together.

My time's up.

Thank you.

After Tanika, we have Jim Krieger and then Victor Coleman.

And then Susan, is it Young or Y-U-Y, I believe?

So Tanika, Jim, Victor, and Susan.

Violet's a hard act to follow.

Hello, my name is Tanika.

You guys all know I'm a food access organizer.

I got green.

I'm here in support of the legislation for a separate fund for the sugar beverage tax.

As you all know, the mayor took $6.3 million from revenue generated by the SVD and placed it in general fund where it's unable to be tracked.

so that she gives it for programs that she prioritized.

The most important component of the SBT is the fact that it is reinvested into the communities which it most impacts, low-income, people of color, and working family communities.

To the organizations that are here today out of concern for their funding being cut, if this legislation passes, I want you to know that the mayor has the power to fund your programs and is working on her budget right now.

This is a scare tactic to pit our united organizations against each other.

The decision to threaten those who serve the most vulnerable residents in Seattle is a poor decision.

God Green, like your organizations, care about our community and all the work that is being done to serve their need.

Thank you, Tanika.

Jim.

Hi, I'm Jim Krieger, co-chair of the Community Advisory Board for the Sweetened Beverage Tax.

Today, again and again, the CAB reaffirms its support for the establishment of a separate SBT fund and urges the Council to prohibit any supplantation of existing general fund by SBT revenues.

We ask you to act now and not delay so these policies can take effect in the 2020 budget year.

During the past year, the CAB has repeatedly called for establishing this fund and preventing supplantation.

We sent a memo to the mayor in April of last year, urged the council to take action in October, sent another letter to the city budget office in April again of this year.

So it's not new.

The city's had ample time to develop remedies to restore the supplanted funds and honor the commitments made to community.

Ample time to honor the legislative intent.

A promise unkept and delayed is a promise unkept.

So there's no reason to further delay and we urge the city to set up a separate fund and end supplantation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council members, my name is Victor Coleman.

I'm director of the Statewide Childhood Obesity Prevention Coalition and member of the Seattle Healthy Kids Coalition.

I'm here to testify in support of the ordinance regarding protecting all of the new revenue from the sugary beverage tax.

This ordinance is needed to reinforce the legislative intent and purpose of the original SBT ordinance.

Trust in government is such a critical part of a vibrant collective society, and the harm done when trust in government is broken or severed hurts both citizens and the government institution.

This ordinance is needed to rebuild that trust.

Also, let's ensure that those important food access programs that were supported with SBT funds this budget year are made whole in the upcoming 2020 budget.

Thank you.

Marjorie Schneider will be at this mic, and then following Susan at the middle mic will be Lindsay Hovind.

Please proceed.

Hi, my name is Susan Yang.

I'm the Executive Director at Denise Louis Education Center.

We serve over 500 children and families in the Seattle community.

About 80% are immigrant and refugee families.

And these cuts that are proposed, or this sort of rearrangement of the way the funding is, is going to very significantly impact our children and families, specifically in the Parent Child Plus program.

but we are also the recipients of Child Care Comprehensive Fund programs that are also scheduled to be potentially rearranged, as well as food access programs like the Good Food Bags from Seattle Tilth.

So we are very worried about the way this happens.

All I can say really is we don't want to be part of your fight.

All we want to do is ensure that our funding is restored.

We don't care if it's the mayor, we don't care if it's the council, but we do appreciate the funding that has been leveraged through the city, the county, and also the mayor's office and the sweetened beverage tax.

So we are here to support your efforts one way or the other, but please make sure that our families and our staff and our children and families aren't hurt.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, and thank you for your time today.

I'm Marjorie Schneider, Parent Child Plus coordinator at Kindering.

Kindering is a neurodevelopmental center which has been providing services to children and families since 1962 and since 2011. Because of the generous support from United Way of King County, we've been able to provide Parent Child Plus funding.

The efficacy of Parent Child Plus is exceptional, and United Way's partnership with the city of Seattle for Parent Child Plus has been longstanding.

Parent Child Plus is a highly successful program that the city has prioritized funding for more than 10 years.

It has served thousands of children and families who are low-income, primarily children of color, and immigrants and refugees.

The council made a conscious decision to move Parent Child Plus from the Families Education Preschool and Promise Levy to Sweetened Beverage Tax as a source of ongoing funding, and Kindering would like to ask you to maintain this commitment.

Kindering simply would not be able to provide this service without your funding.

As a Seattle resident and a Parent Child Plus coordinator, thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

You're Marjorie, correct?

I'm Lindsay.

You're Lindsay, sorry.

Following Lindsay is Heather Pierce and Simone Adler.

Sorry, Lindsay.

Good afternoon.

I'm Lindsay Hoven with the American Heart Association.

I'm proud to be here today and stand with the other community-based organizations here in support of Councilmember O'Brien's proposed ordinance.

Those of you on the Finance Committee have heard repeatedly from me that the American Heart Association has been solidly in support of the sweetened beverage tax since its inception.

The American Heart Association doesn't accept city funds.

We are here because we believe in the science behind this policy to improve the health of our community and we believe in the potential of the SBT funds to expand critical healthy food access and early learning programs to serve more of our friends and neighbors.

The proposed ordinance isn't coming as a surprise.

It's not late in the budget game.

It's right on time.

The mayor and council have ample time to assess their priorities for our city and make good on a commitment to community.

Please restore the general fund dollars to fund these food access and early learning programs and pass this ordinance to ensure SBT funds are used as intended to grow and expand these programs.

Thank you.

Heather Pierce, followed by Simone Adler, then Jennifer Antos.

Good afternoon, Council.

My name is Heather Pierce.

I'm with the Rental Housing Association of Washington.

We represent over 5,000 small landlords.

We have been in contact with Councilmember Mosqueda's office since early March and have always pushed for a framework that supports the preservation of affordable housing without driving more landlords to sell.

We have offered a more viable market-based financial pathway to affordable entry-level homeownership.

CB 119537 amends the Notice of Intent to Sell Ordinance to add increased delays and regulation for sellers to jump through without a viable public benefit.

There is no evidence presented in conjunction with the law to support the need to lower the unit threshold increase, the notice requirements, and increase fines and penalties to maintain low-income housing in the City of Seattle.

While the intent of the law appears at face value to be aimed at delaying property transfers and providing the city and tenants advanced opportunity to purchase a building, it actually hurts individual owners, especially those who need to quickly liquidate for medical reasons or to simply retire.

The argument that owners of small unit count properties only have to wait 15 days is disingenuous as the process could take far longer.

It is in the public interest and in the city's interest to preserve existing affordable housing stock for lower income renters in Seattle.

Just don't read that whole backside, just wrap it up.

We hope the City Council reconsider the opportunity to work on public-private partnership.

If you do that, I'm going to have to call you disruptive, and I don't want to do it.

Just wrap it up.

Just give me your call.

That can preserve affordable housing and convene a group of real estate experts and devise a financial mechanism.

Have you noticed one time you're being disruptive, and I'm going to have you removed if you continue.

I just have to do that.

Just wrap it up, please.

We hope that you work on a pathway to homeownership.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Got it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Simone will be followed by Jennifer.

I'm Simone.

I'm the organizing director of Community Alliance for Global Justice, and we are a member of the coalition to close the food security gap led by Got Green.

And I'm here because I want to see our city council and our mayor demonstrate accountability, equity, and commitment to community.

And there's the opportunity to do this through this ordinance that would secure the funds from the sugary beverage tax revenue.

be held to its intent, which you all know and have been hearing about, which is for that money to be reinvested to communities that are most directly impacted by attacks on sugary beverages.

And I also wanted to add that the soda industry is known for targeting communities of color and low income through advertisements and through influencing policies and decisions about how our food system functions.

So taxing the very people who are disproportionately targeted by purchasing sugary beverages but then not investing that money back into those communities demonstrates that there is not a commitment to undoing these systemic injustices and instead perpetuating it.

And so we need to make sure that this general fund is secured or that the sugary beverage tax revenue is secured in its own fund.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jennifer Antos, and I'm with the Neighborhood Farmers Markets.

In 2012, market organizations partnered with the Office of Sustainability and the Environment to pilot and implement the FreshBucks program.

This program provides fruit and vegetable incentives in farmers markets, an unlimited match, dollar for dollar, available to shoppers using SNAP benefits.

To be clear, this facet of the FreshBucks program is mostly funded by federal grants and other revenue sources, which we are hopeful will renew in the fall.

This year, under the initiative of OSC, who partnered with community organizations, they expanded further to serve people in the food security gap.

This is the voucher program that now has over 3,500 families on the waiting list.

In order for programs like Fresh Bucks to establish themselves, show impact, and grow to meet the rising need for food security in the city, reliable and consistent sources of funding are needed.

I ask the Council to prioritize funding for the agency and community-based providers currently funded through the Sweetened Beverage Tax.

Thank you for your ongoing support and commitment to our city.

Thank you.

Our next three speakers are Gillian Pasciuto, David Savion.

I'm sorry, Janica Lockhart is before that.

So Janica, you're next.

Janica Lockhart, Gillian Pasciuto, and David Savion.

Julia.

Good afternoon, Council.

My name is Janica Lockhart.

I'm with the President's Office at Children's Home Society of Washington.

In support of all Parent Child Plus providers through United Way of King County, I'm here to comment on the sweetened beverage tax.

We're deeply concerned about the proposed action that could impact future funding for Parent Child Plus home visiting programs in the City of Seattle by $1 million.

This nationally recognized program improves children's literacy skills and supports school readiness.

If funding cuts occur, we will face a $108,000 reduction directly impacting 34 of our families.

These families are primarily people of color from immigrant refugee communities and are low income.

We ask that you amend the bill to clarify that services currently funded by the sweetened beverage tax continue to 2020 with the mayor identifying and proposing funding from another source.

in 2020. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Please.

You'll state your name.

Good afternoon.

My name is Julia Pachuto and I'm a policy analyst with Puget Sound SAGE.

Over the last few years, we've seen displacement pressures grow in our city.

The Equitable Development Initiative is the only fund that addresses a comprehensive anti-displacement strategy and we need to grow and protect it.

To give you an example, over the last two years, the city has funded projects like the Immigrant and Refugee Family Center to secure site control and prevent displacement of a childcare center, the Food Innovation Center at Rainier Beach, and Africatown Plaza at Midtown Center.

In the last two years, we've received over $30 million of eligible applications, but based on the mayor's budget, both this year and next year, we will have 20% less money than was allocated in the short-term rental legislation.

We need to preserve the first $5 million from the short-term rental tax for EDI grants for 2020 and beyond, which is why we support Councilmember O'Brien's policy and oppose any amendments before Council today.

We're also here in support of creating a dedicated fund for the sweetened beverage tax and support the Notice of Intent to Sell legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

David, and then, David, before you get going, Kelly Brown, and then Scott Bertani, and then I think it's Chun-Li.

Please, go ahead.

Good afternoon, Council Members.

My name is David Sauvignon.

I'm with the Rainier Beach Action Coalition.

RBAC works with a lot of young people aged between 15 and 24, but it's really pointless for us as an organization to try to train the new leaders of color in our neighborhood if they come to us hungry, tired, and stressed.

That's why we host weekly dinners that are nutritious and healthy.

That's why we also started a farm stand.

where they work and we support farmers of color and we also have access to fresh bugs for people in our community.

This is also the reason why we're pursuing an acquisition to develop a Food Innovation Center.

For this reason, I urge you to make sure that both EDI and SBT funding go to their anticipated purpose.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Kelly.

Hello, Council.

My name is Kelly Brown.

I'm the Executive Director of North Helpline.

We're a food bank in Lake City and Bitter Lake, as long with other service provide or have other service that we provide.

And we're here to speak today about SBT.

As a member of the Seattle Human Services Coalition and the Seattle Food Committee, I just want to highlight the letters that were sent from both these coalitions of over 27 different food banks, 15 of which that are city funded, asking that the intent of SBT be upheld and supporting the ordinance and also making sure that funding continues as I have every confidence that the city council identifying food banks and other food programs as well as early childhood intends to make sure that we are made whole and fix the supplanted funds if the mayor does not take that action.

So I thank you today for your efforts and please support the SBT ordinance.

Thank you.

We have gone beyond our 20-minute allotment by a few minutes, but I'll extend public comment unless I hear objection.

We do just have a handful of folks that have still signed up.

So unless there's objection, I'm going to continue with public comment for another session.

So we'll start off with Scott Bertani.

Chan Lee, and Maria Miranda.

Scott, Chan, and Maria.

Yeah, hi.

I am Scott Bertani, and I represent Lifelong AIDS Alliance, which does business as Chicken Soup Brigade, which is a community-based organization that does provide food bank services, medical nutrition therapy, community outreach, and whatnot.

And we are here in support of your proposed ordinance, CB119551, and I just wanted to say, we are the epitome of evidence-based therapy in practice and we follow the legislative intent of what that ordinance initially had been.

So we were a bit of concerned that in the interest of transparency and effectiveness that the mayor had sent out a letter that suggested otherwise and the concern that we have is that in 2020 if budgets are not necessarily going to happen the way she had suggested, we want to make sure that our clients that we serve are made whole So we definitely support this, and we would definitely have, you know, ongoing communications to make sure that some of this inside baseball on how the funds are actually accrued happen.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Chun Lee.

I'm from the Senior Inaction Foundation, and I'm here for petition for the continued food bank.

We had 800 people to get the food from the food bank.

And every time when they get the food and show me, show their happy face, and they always show me the food, say that what they got.

And that face, I never, never see that face.

It's that happy.

So I want to let you guys know that can you guys continue to for the food bank, continue for the food bank.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So, Maria, one sec here.

Following you will be, is it Raylee or Kaylee, and then Keith Tucker.

Please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Maria Miranda and I am the Early Learning Home Visiting Director at El Centro de la Raza.

I am here to speak in support of continuing home visiting services.

Home visiting services eliminate the barriers created by institutional racism and political turmoil so that the low income and underserved populations can have access to basic needs such as direct emergency services support services, educational coaching, and resource connections for their future self-sufficiency?

What would it be like if you did not have food on your table, a roof over your heads, accessible resources for education for your children?

And you had to live in the shadows of society, fearing political threats of deportation to separate your family.

El Centro de la Raza's late founder once said, it is for the children that we work, for they are the ones who know how to love, for they are the hope of the world, and they are our future.

amend CB119551 to state that the services currently funded by SBT revenue 2019 will continue in 2020. Please, no cuts to services.

Is it Raylee or Kaylee followed by Keith Tucker?

Kaylee.

Kaylee, you got it Kaylee.

Hello, my name is Kaylee, and I'm here on behalf of Unified Seattle as somebody who cares deeply about those affected by homelessness and believe everybody should live with a basic human dignity.

I am abhorred by the low barrier shack encampments near South Lake Union.

Living in the area, I've learned that the homeless are in desperate need of real assistance, especially since drug addiction renders many of them extremely ill.

Their drug leaves them unmotivated and lost as to how to step away from addiction, needing somebody to provide resources and a helping hand.

Instead, the city builds small and rigged shacks where drugs run rampant and crime quickly follows.

There is no guidance or leadership within these camps, which leaves individuals to do as they please, living enslaved to their drug.

Sleeping in filthy shacks surrounded by needles and trash is not human decency, and we cannot continue to pretend that it is.

Unified Seattle, on the other hand, wants to provide solutions to this problem instead of doing the bare minimum.

The homeless problem will take years of work, but these low barrier shack encampments are not the answer.

The city needs to go back to the drawing board and try a better approach because this is a poor excuse for care.

Thank you.

Kayla, can you start wrapping up?

You wrapped up?

We need solutions, not shacks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Keith, just one moment, sir.

Following Keith will be Randy Banneker and then Michael and Margarita Chan.

Michael, I can't make that one out, Michael, but you slashed it with Margarita Chan.

So Keith, Randy, and Michael, and Margarita.

Thank you, City Council, for having us here today.

I'm Keith Tucker.

I'm with the organization called Hip Hop is Green.

We're the first plant-based hip hop organization in history.

We received money from the Sweetened Beverage Tax and we appreciate the money that we received.

We got contracts.

These are some of our interns here that are working on our farm right in the Central District, Shamasawat, right in your district, we have a farm that we're teaching kids how to grow the food.

And then we have a chef that's teaching the kids how to cook the food as well.

We are directly affecting health and wellness in urban communities, and we've been doing it for 10 years all around the United States.

7,000 meals served around the United States, and we appreciate the council's support on this bill to make sure that that funding directly affects kids that have to deal with cancer, diabetes, heart attack, and stroke.

We are on the front lines of making sure that these kids are healthy.

So come down and check out our farm on 19th and Cherry.

Thank you, Keith.

Good afternoon, I'm Michael Iti, Executive Director of Chinese Information and Service Center.

CISC serves immigrants who speak Chinese, Russian, Spanish, and Vietnamese in Seattle and King County.

We'd like to echo the positions earlier of United Way and Denise Louis Education Center.

The program we provide to the community, to dozens of families and children, is Parent-Child Plus.

We urge the city council to ensure the ongoing agreement between the United Way and the city is honored.

This program is vital to ensure that young children receive school readiness and also strategies to help close the opportunity gaps in Seattle.

Thank you.

Thank you.

One sec, Randy.

Following Randy will be Anna, Han, and then, oh my goodness.

Number 30, about the food bank.

It's like only Lou, only Lou, I'll give that shot.

Randy, Anna, and only Lou.

I don't think I'm pronouncing it right.

Hey, Randy.

Council President, Council Members, Randy Banneker.

I'm here on behalf of the Seattle-King County Realtors with regards to the Notice of Intent to Sell legislation.

I want to say that we appreciated the discussion.

Further, we appreciated efforts to reduce impacts on sellers.

We support market solutions to increasing homeownership and transitioning tenants into homeowners.

Unfortunately, we're concerned this legislation will restrict the purchase and sale of multifamily properties by slowing the process.

And that added time, we worry, will not adequately enable renters to transition into homeowners.

That, what's needed is a wraparound process.

and set of resources to be in place.

Many of these resources are already available through a range of first-time buyer programs.

We strongly urge the development of a framework that prepares tenants and not-for-profits to purchase housing in the open marketplace and in a timeframe aligned with all other parties.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Anna?

Hi, my name's Anna Hao, and I'm from Chinatown, and I know all the people, and every one day, and have a week schedule for the food ban, but I also cannot cut the food ban, you know?

And all the people, they like the food ban for the whole life.

And right now, all the people sign the signature right here.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Well, wouldn't the clerks get this?

Is she trying to hand us a document?

Okay, we'll have someone come up.

I'm sorry.

Sure.

Thank you.

So, the next speaker is number 30. It's around the food bank.

I could shut you, well, you put it on the document.

The phone number is 206-960-5706.

If you recognize that number, I'm trying to pronounce your name, Lou.

And then following that phone number, go ahead.

Only Lou and then Paula Reese, Alicia Agard after that.

Hi, my name is May Liu and I come from Chinatown and I say, can you help an old lady, the low income, the food bank, and the child, the mail, and driver, something like that, I also can tell you.

That's it.

Thank you.

And sorry I gave the whole city your phone number there, but this one, we'll back it up.

So, thank you, Ms. Liu.

So, Paula Rees and Alicia Agard.

Hello, I'm Paula Reese, business owner.

I've been in Seattle for 40 years.

I specialize in how cities communicate.

I was here last week because there's only a handful of people that understand what this sign district overlay is going to mean.

Our sign code hasn't been comprehensively redone since 1974. So when you talk about 500 nits being in the code, that's super embarrassing.

because the new standards since 1994 on technology would suggest 100 nits.

I've got the US Council Foundation, the International Dark Skies, The International Sign Association, they're at 350. They're the worst because they sell these things.

A report for the city of Reno at 100 to 150. Why would we have technology define our city that is in 1990 standards?

So please look at that.

And also no data mining with these sign units.

That's the newest things taking the public.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is Alicia here?

So, Alicia, before you begin, I'm going to give the following speakers.

We have, we're on our fourth sign-up sheet, and so we have to get on with our agenda.

So, we're going to give the last eight speakers or nine speakers 30 seconds.

So, I want you to get your notes ready for 30 seconds after Ms. Agard, who gets a minute, and the sheets just keep coming here.

So, we're going to hear from everyone, but we're going to knock it down to 30 minutes, 30 seconds after Alicia, and those speakers will be Christina Sowiski, Aaron Chazeski, and Fran Yates.

Christina, Aaron, and Fran, after Ms. Agard.

Please proceed.

Thank you and good afternoon to the council.

My name is Alicia Agard and I'm a youth organizer for FEAST, F-E-E-S-T, a food justice nonprofit that works to center youth in South Seattle around food justice and increasing food access.

Right now, we were told that under this funding, we were able to allocate this to increase funding in the schools.

Both of our areas are in places that are experiencing great lack of access.

And so this funding would be meant for our youth to talk with their peers, to build structures and solutions that will be helpful to alleviate those instances at school.

Right now, there are going to schools in these areas that are also not supporting their nutrition health, nutritious health in these areas.

And so with this funding, it will allow us to do more intentional work in these areas and within these schools to make sure that the food access doesn't just stop outside of school, but it's also incorporated throughout their daily life from the minute that they wake up to the time that they go to bed.

It is my urge that you all continue to protect the funding that has been promised to these nonprofits and communities that are aiming to, like you say, center those who are most impacted by the issues at hand.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alicia.

Christina here?

Christina, so whiskey or something?

Okay, so that's, we're going to move on.

Is Aaron Chazeski here?

Are you Aaron?

Okay, you have 30 seconds, sir, and then following you will be Fran Yates.

Please proceed.

Thank you, Councilmember and Councilmembers.

Good afternoon.

I'm Aaron Chizewski with Food Lifeline.

We're a hunger relief organization leading the charitable response to hunger by partnering with over 300 meal programs, shelters, and food pantries throughout Western Washington, 88 within the Seattle city limits.

So I'm here to confirm our support for Councilmember O'Brien's proposal.

We like the original intent of the SBT ordinance and know that stable, predictable funding is essential to fulfilling its ambitions.

So we encourage your support for this proposal.

Thank you, Aaron.

Fran will be followed by Mira Munoz.

Hello, I'm Fran Yates.

I'm the Executive Director at the West Seattle Food Bank and one of the co-chairs of the Seattle Food Committee.

I'm here in support of the ordinance to have the Sweetened Beverage Tax Funds used as they were originally intended.

Obviously very important to the integrity of how these funds were used and I can tell you from the food bank world, These funds have been used to purchase food directly for the communities that are impacted by this tax.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Mira Munoz, and you will be followed by Gloria Hatcher-Mace.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Miriam Munoz.

I'm the Associate Director of St. Vincent de Paul.

We run the third largest food bank in the city of Seattle.

We serve close to 50,000 individuals and families, many who are experiencing homelessness in the city.

Programs out of our food bank would be affected if SBTs cut.

Those we serve affected, and all of us here impacted.

So thank you for listening today, and we stand with those who are keeping the SBT as planned.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Following Gloria, just one sec, Gloria, please.

Sai Simanreni and Elton Mason.

And we cleared the room.

Did I say one of my bad jokes or something again here?

Okay, please proceed, Gloria.

Hello Council and thank you for the work that you do in support of those most vulnerable in our community.

I'm here today to ask that you continue to support the funding as intended for the SBT.

I also would challenge you to look at a more strategic pathway to downsizing the use of an SBT tax by incentivizing a reduction in consumption.

And what I mean by that is the food banks that I represent, especially in South Seattle, the Rainier Valley Food Bank, could be instrumental in working with the community on education to see a reduction in consumption.

If the tax is reduced, then we offset by funding from general fund until finally that tax is depleted.

I urge you to think more strategically about your approach to this tax.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sy followed by Elton Mason.

My name is Sai Samaneni, and I do zero youth detention work, and I'm a member of Budget for Justice.

I'm here to support our partner, Operation Sack Lunch.

We're requesting that you maintain Councilmember O'Brien's bill, because based on the promise of that, We included Operation Sack Lunch to enhance services to criminal legal impacted families and do food education with them.

And very rarely do you get to make decisions not surrounded by angry judges, probation officers, or labor unions.

So this is actually something that's under your control.

Thank you.

Maren Kashun will follow Mr. Mason.

Hello, my name is Elton Mason, owner of Washington State Trucking.

Unfortunately, I've been forced to file a lawsuit against a multimillion dollar lawsuit against the city of Seattle.

And this is because the city has people that are employed that are abusing their positions.

I'm not going to go into it, but you have my information on the sign up sheet.

So I'll be more than happy to meet with any of you about any of these issues that I have about the waste, fraud and abuse with the city of Seattle.

with their contracting program, with the WMB firms, which is the women and minority-owned business, the inclusion of these businesses, especially micro-businesses, on these multimillion-dollar contracts.

SPU just bidded.

Thank you, Mr. Mason.

Go ahead and just wrap up.

Bottom line is...

Sorry?

I just said just please wrap up, sir.

Oh, just...

I just need a couple of things from you.

Just please, I need some from you just to wrap up.

We need the data on these contracts, who these contracts are going to, and we need to see who's losing them and who's winning them.

Thank you.

Following Mehran will be, am I saying it right?

Mehran.

Mehran to, it will be Dila Pereira.

Good afternoon.

Othello Square, a project developed by Homesite in collaboration with several nonprofit partners in South Seattle, is one of many projects funded by the EDI.

Through EDI support, the 3.2-acre lot in the heart of the Othello neighborhood, which would have inevitably landed in the hands of for-profit developers, has now been taken off the market and will instead be used to provide homes, educational, and business development opportunities, preserve the multicultural identity of the South Seattle, as well as prevent displacement of historic businesses, residents, and cultural anchors.

I'm here once again to urge your support of the dedicated fund for both the EDI and the SBT.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The last three speakers, Dilla.

Is Dilla here?

Dilla.

And then Matthew Richardson and Carrie Moon.

Those are our last three.

Hello, everyone.

My name is Deela Pereira.

I'm the Executive Director of Open Arms Perinatal Services.

We provide support during pregnancy, birth, and early parenting.

We are one of the early learning programs that's funded by the city, the county, and the state here in Washington.

I'm also the early learning seat on the Sweetened Beverage Tax Advisory Board.

So I'm here to testify in favor of Councilman O'Brien's effort to make sure that the tax is used in the way that it was intended.

I know there are many early learning programs that are feeling threatened by this shift in supplanting in funds.

And as someone who is a colleague and a fellow with them, there is no reason for them to be threatened.

Because the primary reason that this tax was implemented and one of the key objectives was to expand early learning programs.

Thank you very much.

So the suggestion that they would lose funds is not something that is a problem that was created.

So thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your testimony.

Hello, my name is Matthew Richardson.

Thank you for your time.

I'm with Nurse Family Partnership.

Like my predecessor here, we do home visiting for low-income, first-time families here in Seattle, King County area.

I'm here to speak on the Sweetened Beverage Tax Ordinance.

I understand the good governance intentions behind this bill.

I ask that as we move into the budget cycle that you remember our programs who are put into limbo in this process.

I also want to encourage that as we look at birth to three language in the ordinance that we remember also prenatal programs as well and not limit it only at those programs to begin at birth, but also capture the good that can be done through prenatal work.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hi, City Council, Carrie Moon here, and I was activated by Got Green and lots of the community organizations that pulled people here today to support keeping the sweetened beverage tax proceeds for their intended purpose.

I know the mayor is interested in solving lots of other problems, but we have 14 billionaires in this county.

We have some of the largest corporations in the world cutting tax breaks for themselves at the state level.

If we need more revenue, let's go to those sources, not take it from community-based organizations that need every penny they get.

Thanks.

Thank you, Carol.

Okay, I want to thank all of you for your public comment.

We appreciate your participation.

Please move to the next section, will be payment of the bills.

Please read the title.

Council Bill 119580, appropriating money to pay certain claims for the week of July 7th, 2019 through July 12th, 2019 and ordering payment thereof.

I'll move to pass Council Bill 119580. It's been moved and seconded.

The bill passed.

Are there any comments?

If not, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

O'Brien.

Aye.

Pacheco.

Aye.

Sawant.

Aye.

Begshaw.

Aye.

Gonzalez.

Aye.

Herpel.

Aye.

President Harrell.

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The bill passed and the chair will sign it.

Please read the report of the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee.

The report of the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee, agenda item one, Council Bill 119402, relating to funding for the Equitable Development Initiative and Affordable Housing, creating a fund for short-term rental tax revenue.

The committee recommends the bill pass as amended.

Council Member Bekshaw.

I'm going to pass this quickly over to Council Member O'Brien, but just to let all know that this passed out of our committee unanimously last week, actually 10 days ago.

We had many meetings to discuss this opportunities for public comment.

I want to say thank you to all of you who've been so steadfast and working with us and letting us know what your priorities are.

Councilmember O'Brien has led this charge and I would like to pass this over to you if you would like to speak to it.

Just know that I appreciate so much the work that you're doing.

It's incredibly critical to our community that we are funding all of these things, both the ones that the sweetened beverage tax is funding now and what we intended to fund and what we will fund going forward.

So, Councilmember O'Brien.

Councilmember O'Brien.

Thank you.

And Council Member Bakeshot, thanks for working with me on this.

Colleagues, we've talked about this a lot, so I'll try to be brief.

The short-term rental tax, as originally intended, was dedicated to support at least the first $5 million a year equitable development initiative.

During last year's budget cycle, about a million of that was in the proposed budget by the mayor, was diverted to fund staff resources for the EDI as opposed to grants, reducing the grant amount to four million.

We found a way to increase that to five million in the budget by using CDBG money, but I understand that that money is really challenging for these organizations to actually use.

It was a noble effort in fairly tight circumstances last year, but it's not something that can be repeated and it's not clear that that money will be able to be used as intended.

What this legislation would do, would dedicate in this order the revenues of the short-term rental taxes.

The first $5 million would go to grants for EDI projects.

We know that there are dozens of applicants, qualified applicants each year for these programs, and only a small handful get funded.

There is no shortage of really good programs that could be funded if there were money available.

The second tier would be 2,200 of the proceeds, sorry, 2.2 million of the proceeds would be directed to pay off debt for affordable housing projects, bonds that were issued a few years ago.

The next $3.3 million would be directed to support permanent supportive housing.

The next $1,069,000 would be directed to support staffing and consultants for EDI program.

And then any money on top of that cumulative amount, which is about $11 million, a little over that, would go back to additional grant funds for EDI.

Thank you, Council Member Bryan.

Any other comments or questions?

Council Member Eckshaw?

Just one comment.

I want to appreciate the fact that you were willing to amend the document as you went forward.

Council Member O'Brien, I think we've reached a good compromise and I'm certainly going to continue to support this.

Any other comments before we take the roll?

Council Member Pacheco?

I have an amendment.

I didn't realize that.

I do apologize for that.

I think that's for the sweetened beverage tax amendment.

Do we have both of them?

Okay.

Council Member Pacheco, you have an amendment, and I have a hard copy of it, and I believe it was timely.

Do I have to suspend any rules?

It was timely.

Council Member Pacheco, you have the floor, sir.

So I move to amend Council Bill 119402 as presented in Amendment 1. I'll second it.

Okay, Council Member Pacheco, it's been moved and seconded.

Can you explain what we have here?

Sure.

The amendment establishes that the surplus funds in 2020 would be directed towards EDI grants, and in 2021 and beyond, the financial policies would prioritize paying the debt service on bonds issued for affordable housing projects by directing the first $2.2 million for this purpose, the next $6 million in revenues to the EDI would go to EDI, including $5 million for EDI grants and $1 million for staffing and consultant services, and then direct the next $3.3 million to permanent supportive housing and direct any excess short-term revenue taxes revenues to EDI grants.

The proposal is consistent with the 2020 endorsed budget and would not result in any budget shortfalls unless revenues come in below what is predicted for 2020. Just to provide additional thoughts, First, I'm supportive of the programs that this grant funds and the mission of this underlying legislation.

This amendment just clearly states that any surplus funds in 2020 would be directed to support EDI grants.

In 2021, the full 5 million would go to the grants, which is what the desire of the community, the community desire, and any surplus funds would also increase that dollar amount.

My intent on introducing this amendment is to follow through with the plans made last year to fund the support required to carry out these grants Given that this is my first budget session and my approach to the budget is to give us the flexibility we need to the important services we all care about and know that our community needs.

I have inherited an endorsed budget and a series of decisions that have resulted in the complicated situation we're in.

This amendment is about making communities whole in a manner that balances our fiduciary responsibility, our endorsed budget, and puts us on a path that Council Member O'Brien intends in the underlying legislation.

This amendment is about giving us a time to make sure that the program is whole for 2020 while still supporting the underlying financial policies beginning in 2021.

Thank you, Council Member Pacheco.

I'm going to ask the speaker of the base legislation to speak on it, Council Member O'Brien.

Thank you Councilmember Pacheco and Council President Harrell.

I oppose this amendment.

What this would do would be to defer the restoration of the full $5 million for an additional year and I don't think that's acceptable.

The demand for actual development investments right now is significant and will almost certainly continue to grow.

Again, as I mentioned earlier, we found what we hoped would be a workaround in last year's budget, but I know that the community organizations have struggled to take advantage of that, and I think the most appropriate thing to do is to be responsive to the EDI grant applicants who have been here today and in past meetings who want to see us stand up to the original commitment of $5 million a year granted, so I'll be opposing this amendment.

Okay, so we have Council Member Baxhaw.

I want to say thank you, Council Member Pacheco.

As your budget chair, I am delighted to have the support of keeping things going in the direction that we endorsed last year.

That said, I'm not going to be supporting this amendment in large part because of what we talked about at my committee 10 days ago.

Council Member O'Brien, I really respect the fact that you were willing to work with me on a compromise, and I'm going to follow through with that agreement.

Very good.

This is just for the amendment.

Any other discussion on the amendment?

And I'll just share in closing that I'm not supporting the amendment.

Thank you for bringing it and having a transparent conversation.

In my mind, this equitable development initiative and the investments we're making are absolutely critical for preserving cultures and communities that are vital to our city, many of whom are priced out through historical practices of racism and discrimination are finding challenges even more increasing with a president we have in this country.

And these investments are urgent and we should treat them as such.

And so I'm ready to support both this and that sweetened beverage tax as we move forward in simple terms.

So I won't be supporting the amendment.

So we're just gonna vote on the amendment.

So having said that, all those in favor of the amendment, please say aye and raise your hand.

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

That was one and a half, no.

I do love you.

Okay, I believe that's one vote.

All those opposed say no and raise your hand.

No.

Okay, so the amendment fails.

So now we have the base legislation with the EDI in place.

Council Member O'Brien, did you need to say any more words or are you ready for a vote?

I'm ready.

Did anyone else need to close on this or I'm gonna call for a vote?

Seeing no hands, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Mosqueda.

Now I'll say aye.

O'Brien.

Aye.

Pacheco.

No.

Sawant.

Aye.

Bagshaw.

Aye.

Gonzales.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

President Harrell.

Aye.

Seven in favor, one opposed.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Please read the next agenda item into the record.

Agenda item two, Council Bill 119551 relating to creating a fund for sweetened beverage tax revenues, adding a new section 5.53.055 to the Seattle Municipal Code, and providing additional guidelines for expanding proceedings, proceeds, excuse me.

The committee recommends the bill pass as amended.

Councilman Baxter, I'll turn it over to you first.

Okay, well, I believe that we have been speaking about this for the better part of an hour, and again, this was the item that Council Member O'Brien allowed me to share in my committee about the sweetened beverage tax and how we are going to be spending that money.

I just want to articulate from the get-go, there isn't a single thing that either the sweetened beverage tax as intended would fund, or as we had funded through the general fund, we're going to have to find a way to support all of these investments.

But in the immediate time, Council Member O'Brien, would you like to speak to it?

I would, if that's okay, Council President.

Council Member O'Brien, please.

Thank you.

Council Member Bageshot, thank you again on this one, too, for finding the time in your committee and to work with me through this.

Colleagues in public, we've talked about this at quite some length.

My goal here is to commit to the original intent of the Sweetened Beverage Tax.

Community members we know are low-income community members and communities of color are disproportionately affected by this tax and they are also disproportionately affected by the negative health outcomes of consuming sweetened beverage.

That's because of specific marketing efforts by soda companies and also because of ability to live in communities the reality that many low-income people live in communities that don't have access to healthy food, whether it's not affordable or simply not even available in their community.

And so the original policy intent of this was not to raise revenue, but rather to address the public health concerns.

and thus there's a tax component of that that will raise some revenue, but it was critically important and has been and continues to be that those investments continue to go back to support access to healthy food and other investments like early education for folks in those communities.

This will create a dedicated fund so that all revenues from this will go into that fund, that'll make it easier for us all to track exactly how much revenue is raised and where it goes, and it gives very explicit guidelines that this money is to be spent on certain priorities and not to displace other funds, but to be additive to existing general fund programs that underlie that.

I want to also thank all the people who came out and testified, many who are still here, some who left.

Last week, there was a lot of conversation about what this means if we were to pass this.

It certainly would mean that we would rededicate these fundings, or that's the intent, to the programs provided.

That includes a variety of food programs.

We heard from the mayor's office, or at least department heads, that other certain programs would be cut, and I want to be clear that When the budget comes to us, we'll see what the mayor proposes But the City Council will have its process almost two months long in figuring out what to prioritize And I will tell you that my commitment begin this year for the 10th year in a row Will be that we're not cutting other human service programs because those are a top priority for me We should dedicate this money as intended to sweeten beverage tax And we should also continue to fund fully fund human services and if the mayor sends a budget that does Purdue I provide cuts to that, I will work as hard as I can with my colleagues to restore and potentially increase funding for human services.

Council President, there are a series of amendments.

I am sponsoring the first one and I'm supportive of the next two, and so if it's okay to move forward to amendments, I'd like to propose my first amendment.

Yeah, let's just walk through the amendments.

Take the first one, please.

So I move to amend Council Bill 119551 as presented in Amendment 1.

They're moved and seconded.

This is simply a clarifying amendment.

Council Central staff looked at some of the language.

It would add language that says revenues may be used to maintain program expansions and new programs in accordance with subsection 5.53.055.B.

The specificity is around Central staff recognizing that it may not have been clear in the original legislation that it would allow that to happen.

This doesn't change any of the intent that we've discussed.

It just clarifies what we had provided.

Very good.

This is the amendment only.

Any other discussions on the amendment?

All those in favor of amendment number one, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The first amendment passes.

I believe Council Member Herbold has amendment number two.

Thank you.

I move to amend Council Bill 119551 as presented in amendment two.

Second.

Please proceed.

Thank you.

So this amendment is intended to provide some reassurance to community members, service providers, and also to express our hope for the budget that the mayor proposes to us in September and our commitment to address issues of concern related to other funding for other programs if that budget does not come to us as we expect it.

So the amendment itself states that the legislation is not intended to reduce funding for any impacted programs and the executive and council are expected to identify other funding sources to maintain full funding for these programs.

Thank you.

The amendment only.

Any other questions or comments on Councilmember Herbold's amendment?

Councilmember Bakeshaw.

Councilmember Herbold, thank you for bringing this and also thank you for adding the and council there.

I felt it was really important to demonstrate both to the community and to the executive that we're in this soup together.

So I'm certainly going to be supporting it.

My pleasure, thank you.

Okay, this is the amendment only.

All those in favor of amendment number two, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it, the amendment two passes.

I believe Council Member Gonzalez has a third amendment.

I do, thank you Council President Harrell.

I move to amend Council Bill 119551 as reflected in amendment three.

Second.

elaborate.

Thank you so much.

So this is an amendment that would once again further clarify and address some of the concerns we heard from some of our service providers who work in the prenatal space and provide prenatal services.

We heard from a few of those individuals today during public testimony, but we also had an opportunity, my office had an opportunity to have direct conversations.

with some of those service providers who pointed out that some of the amenitory language that we included in our first amendment related to expansion of services in the space of zero to three may or could be read to exclude funding that we currently provide for prenatal services that would primarily be around our nurse to home program for example.

So I have clarified the language by striking the word birth and including prenatal to ensure that we're covering the full spectrum of existing and intended services to be funded in the future.

And that would include those home visiting programs that I just mentioned in addition to child care assistance programs and parent child plus programs as well.

Thank you for doing that.

Thank you for doing that for including the prenatal.

It's very important, as you well know.

And I share those things.

Thank you, Councilman Gonzalez.

Any other comments?

You should have some comments here, but you don't.

We are all united in the desire for prenatal care.

Okay, all those in favor of amendment number three, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

And we have a fourth amendment I think will be advanced by Council Member Pacheco.

I move to amend Council Bill 119551 as presented in Amendment 4.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Please elaborate.

This amendment would change the proposed financial policies in Council Bill 119551 prohibiting the use of the sweetened beverage tax revenues to supplement other funding sources.

Beginning on the effective date of the ordinance, this amendment would require that any unallocated surplus SBT revenues be used for expanding existing or creating new programs, including program cost increases in accordance with the statute.

This would accept the use of SBT proceeds to supplement general fund monies in the adopted 2019 and endorsed 2020 budgets.

but ensure that unallocated surplus revenue in these years is used to expand existing or create new programs in accordance with the statute.

Beginning in 2021, the amendment would require that all SBT revenues be used only for expanding or creating new revenues, new programs, including program cost increases in accordance with the statute, allowing the council and the mayor more time to either create additional revenue sources and or reprioritize appropriations to undo the fund swaps.

I also want to thank the community members that are here for taking the time to engage on this issue.

Having personally benefited from many of the early learning services and food banks, these programs are very much personal to me and I want you all to know how much I am with you.

Second, I am saddened that this conversation has shifted to pitting programs against each other when in reality this is a conversation how we fund these crucial community programs, not if we fund them.

Tensions are particularly high around this legislation and the issue are revenue sources generally.

I want us all to take a step back from the finger pointing and acknowledge that we all support the broader community need for these programs and these critical programs.

They should not fall in the middle of internal city disagreements.

Where we currently differ is in the approach we think is the most responsible way to budget for these programs.

Personally, the path to restore and make the communities most impacted The goal is to have these financial policies take effect in the 2021 budget.

It simply gives us more time to identify where the money will come from to fund the programs currently receiving SBT dollars.

I want to thank my colleague, Councilmember Bagshaw, for originally introducing the amendment that added this kind of flexibility, which I supported in committee.

Unfortunately, we didn't arrive at this decision point overnight.

It is for this reason that I am seeking an amendment that provides a path for us to fulfill the intent of Councilmember O'Brien.

I don't want to tie our hands before a budget season that I know will be a difficult one.

This amendment reflects my desire to have some flexibility going into that process, to not make commitments before we identify solid revenue streams to back up our legislative goals.

So again, I strongly support this legislation and intent.

I just want to see us carry it without preemptively tying our hands about funding for other programs we all care about.

The city and how we got to this point owes the community organizations that have been impacted by the decisions we've made an apology.

And I want to express my deepest sincerity and apologizing for the decisions that have led to this point and the conversations that have escalated in the last few days.

You all deserve an apology.

And so for that, I want to say sorry.

I am asking, I am pleading my colleagues to support my amendment so that we can move forward in the most responsible manner.

Please.

So we have a motion that's been seconded and he even said please.

So, Council Member Baxter, would you like to speak to the motion?

I would.

Thank you, Council Member Pacheco.

It's not too difficult to know which way the wind is blowing on this amendment, but nonetheless, I would like to speak to it.

And I'm speaking as your budget chair here.

I'm concerned about a couple of things.

Violet, by the way, you're right in your conclusion.

But in the meantime, I have concerns about binding future councils by tightening down how we spend the money.

I also want to acknowledge that, like Councilmember Pacheco, I have been deeply concerned over the last couple of weeks at what I consider to be a really vituperative dialogue and a misunderstanding between people that service, people that are providers, the executive in this council.

But first and foremost, I want to acknowledge Councilmember O'Brien and all of us who have been at this table.

I believe the intentions are good.

What I see as a conflict is that last year during our budget, we made some agreements about how we were going to spend the money, both in 2019 and in 2020. And that endorsed budget, I think, is really important.

But it now brings us here.

And I want us to stop this fighting, acknowledge what the good intentions were when the sweetened beverage tax was first passed.

And I also want to acknowledge Kirsten Ehrenstadt standing back there against the wall that you and I are going to have to start off and my colleagues are going to have to figure out where we're going to find six million dollars worth of cuts in order to continue the programs going forward for 2020. But we will do that.

And I believe that our good efforts now, we will figure out a way to invest in the programs that are now being paid for in human services department deal and OSE by the sweetened beverage tax that now was supplanted and we will have to find other general funds money.

But to make it clear, as budget chair, even though I believe it's the wisest thing to stay the course, I am going to support Councilmember Pacheco's amendment here.

I have a pretty good sense of when this is going to come out, and when it comes time to vote, I will be voting yes for the underlying bill.

Thank you very much.

We are voting just on the amendment yet.

We have a few more speakers.

I saw Councilmember Herbold's hand go up first.

Well, I just wanted to clarify that the need for the council to find cuts during the budget process will only be if the mayor proposes a budget without funding for these programs as we all voted for in Amendment 2 as far as our intention as a council and our hopes for the executive's intention.

I'm hoping that we do not have to find funds for cuts to repair the mayor's budget.

And I just see this again, I see this as much like the action we took last week on the cost of living legislation.

It's pre-budget work and it's us choosing to tie our hands on some decisions that we intend to make during the budget process and to allow supplanting of general funds in the 2020 budget would go against our prior statements for what we intended to do and that we voted on several times now.

So, I think this is really consistent with prior budget actions that we've taken.

And it is not irresponsible.

It is actually fiscally responsible for us to be making this commitment to the public for how we are intending to make our future budget decisions in just a couple months.

Thank you, Councilmember Herbold.

I'll let you have the final word since it's your motion.

I'll ask Councilmember O'Brien to speak now.

Thank you.

I will be opposing this amendment as it would serve to potentially delay the standing up to the true original intent of the Sweetened Beverage Tax and potentially allow for up to $6 million next year's budget to once again be diverted to other programs outside the intent of this.

I think it's critical that we honor that intent.

This is not the last time that we will have a tax that we work with community on and their expectations of what we do with that tax is critically important that we stand with what we tell them we're going to do so that we can continue to make good sound policy going forward.

I also want to speak to, I think Council Member Herbold put it very well, we are intentionally tying our hands.

This is making a clear policy statement that this money should be off limits except for the stated purposes.

I was disappointed to see attempts to divide the community and I was really grateful it's so many community members coming out today on relatively short notice.

to speak whether they are recipients of this or would not be recipients or perhaps their funding might be threatened because of some of the claims to say that we're not going to divide low-income communities and communities of color and turn against each other but we're going to stand in solidarity.

What happens next if this passes well if this amendment fails and the underlying legislation passes we will see a budget from the mayor in about two months and I want to be clear that that budget will be the statement of the mayor's priorities It'll be over a billion dollars in general fund money that she can allocate how she chooses in the proposed budget.

We're saying this $6 million that we're discussing, which is less than a fraction of 1% of the general fund budget, is off limits for other needs, but that leaves over 99% of the other general fund budget to list your priorities.

If at the end of the day the mayor says that the lowest priority that she needs to cut is some of the human service projects that she talked about last week, I can tell you that I am committed to not do that and to continue to restore those funds.

So colleagues, I will be opposing this amendment and I hope you will join me in opposition to it.

I will be opposing this amendment also and I just wanted to say very clearly first of all the six million dollars that we're talking about yes it's a very small fraction of the total city's total budget but also it It's something that we didn't expect we would have because the Sweden beverage tax has raised more revenue than we had projected for.

But let's go back to the original intent of the tax.

It was not meant as a revenue generator.

It was meant as a mechanism to eventually have the funds be flowing back to the communities that are unfortunately, because of their economic and marginalized circumstances, are having to make you know, having to consume foods and beverages that are not good for their health.

But the intent of this tax was never to penalize the communities that are facing these unfortunate choices.

The intent of the tax was to make their lives better.

And so when you have, when the city has six million extra dollars, then those dollars should go back to making their lives better as per the original intent.

And I have to say, I've heard Council Member Baxhaw use her position as the current budget chair, you know, the budget chairship rotates, but the budget chair is one of the council members who, as a council, we have to make a collective decision on the budget, and I don't accept that, as a budget chair, this false idea of fiscal responsibility.

We all have a responsibility to make sure that the budget passes by charter.

The budget has to be balanced.

But that does not absolve us as the highest elected body of the city to find progressive revenues.

And if Council Member Baxhaw is so concerned about revenues, then she should not have voted against the Amazon tax and for the repeal.

And I would urge all Council Members who feel that we don't have enough revenues, well, let's make sure that this year the budget has more progressive revenues not fewer.

Council Member Sawant, you bring this up all the time and I would like to point out that on May 31st 2017 you voted against this and I voted for it.

So it seems a little hypocritical.

No it is not hypocritical at all.

I did vote against it and the community knows why I voted against it and I'm going to bring those points up when we talk about the legislation itself.

I think it is hypocritical of council members to vote for the Amazon tax repeal, vote against every progressive revenue measure that we have brought to the city council in the last couple of years through the People's Budget Movement, and then say that while we don't have enough money, we're going to pit programs against programs and all our good programs.

I'll come back to this exchange in my closing remarks during the base legislation, as much fun as we're having here.

Councilmember Pacheco, can you close this out on the amendment only, sir?

Sure.

This conversation started long before I joined the council with the passage of the sweetened beverage tax in 2017 and the budget actions taken last year.

It would also inevitably continue well beyond my time on the council.

I support the goal of this legislation to establish a separate fund for the sweetened beverage tax so that we keep the promises we made as a city when we pass this tax.

I think that the conflict we find ourselves in today is the result of several unfortunate actions taken in the past.

We all share some blame and I don't think people in Seattle want us to point fingers and play a blame game.

They want us to get good things done.

While I support the goal of this legislation, I think we must get there responsibly.

This council voted to approve the 2020 endorsed budget and I do not think we should throw a wrench into that budget at the last minute.

Community organizations that rely on SPT funding budgeted with the 2020 endorsed budget in mind.

While we intend to backfill their funding if this legislation passes, the uncertainty introduced by this process is regrettable.

I am asking that we get there and do so in a responsible manner that I think would most benefit the people of Seattle, the community organizations here today, as well as lead us in a path that is the most responsible way.

Okay, so there's the amendment.

It's been moved and seconded.

I'm going to call for the vote.

This is just for the amendment.

All those in favor of amendment number four as advanced by Councilmember Chico, please say aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

All those opposed say no and raise your hand.

No.

So that motion fails.

And so now we have a Base legislation that has been amended with three successful amendments and council member o'brien.

Did you want to say a few more words about it?

I emphasize the word few but uh, this is important legislation.

So Go at it

I just want to thank community members who've been so active in this.

This was not an easy policy in the first place a couple years ago.

You had to do a lot of work to help us get the policy right in working with community members.

And I apologize that you have continued to have to come back and work with us on this.

You spent a lot of time, especially in the last couple months, and likely you'll probably have to spend some time during the budget making sure we still get it right.

And that's all time that we're taking away from conversation with community members to have healthy access to food.

I apologize that I'm grateful for your advocacy.

I hope through this effort, the solidarity we've seen in community today will help strengthen the organizations and we'll come out of this stronger than we were before.

Thank you, Council Member O'Brien.

Council Member Sawant.

Thank you, President Harreld.

As Council Member Baxhaw accurately pointed out, I did vote against the Sweetened Beverage Tax, and I made it clear at that time to all community members that I voted no because it is a regressive tax that falls disproportionately on the shoulders of poor and working class people, especially low-income people of color.

But as community members have mentioned repeatedly, the regressive nature of the tax can be mitigated if the revenues collected by the tax find their way back to the lives of the people who are having to pay the tax in the first place.

So, in other words, that's the intent of the legislation today, to make sure that whatever revenues are raised through the tax go back to the communities that are impacted.

To be clear, today's legislation is about how those revenues are used and not whether the tax should be in place.

The tax is already in place.

We're not relitigating that matter here.

So I will be voting yes on this council bill because it will help ensure that the funds from this tax are used to support the communities who are overwhelmingly paying for the tax.

However, I think we have to have a caution in our understanding.

A legislation like this one by itself cannot necessarily succeed in mandating that the mayor's office do the right thing when it comes to the budget.

The mayor can always reduce the funding from the general fund going into programs that are funded with a Sweden beverage tax like she did last year.

The only way to really prevent that from happening is for community members to stay engaged and build a movement during the budget season, which comes in the autumn.

So our work will not be done.

I hope everybody understands that we will need to mobilize and get organized for the budget, and I invite everybody to be part of the People's Budget Movement that has had a tremendous record of successes in holding the budget process accountable.

It is totally unacceptable the way that Mayor Durkan has implied to social service organizations that their funding would be cut if they did not oppose or speak in opposition to today's legislation and I congratulate all the community members and organizations for your courage in standing up to that pressure and also importantly rejecting, as Violet and others have said, that rejecting a cynical attempt to divide marginalized communities.

We should always reject this kind of divide and rule and this is classic divide and rule.

The reality is that these questions are being posed because, you know, like the question about what happens with this small amount of revenue generated by the Sweden beverage tax, what it demonstrates is the fundamental problem that social services are chronically, grossly underfunded.

across the board because the city has not made sure that big business and the super wealthy pay their fair share of taxes.

That has not happened.

That is why we keep revisiting this question and always the question is posed as which programs to fund as opposed to other programs that are equally good rather than making sure that all the needs of society in the city are funded because these are people's lives we are talking about.

If Mayor Durkan was truly concerned about the funding that might not be available without the $6 million that she wants to go after, then she should not have repealed the Amazon tax, in fact go to war against the city in order to repeal it, because it was a one concrete legal measure through which big business could have been taxed.

And as Carrie Moon pointed out, King County has 14 billionaires.

From 2007 statistics, there are 68,000 millionaires.

I'm sure the number of millionaires has grown just as the number of people who are facing problems has also grown.

So, you know, there are many ways that the mayor could actually design the budget in such a way that all programs are fully funded.

She could, you know, promote progressive revenue, new progressive revenues.

She could stop the sweeps and use of homeless people and use the 10 million dollars that are spent on the sweeps every year and fund 10 million is greater than 6 million.

Why go after the Sweden beverage tax revenues in order to, supposedly in order to fund some programs?

End the sweeps, stop the sweeps and make sure those $10 million are used for programs that we know work.

In fact, just earlier today, we heard from the Human Services Department yet again, that they do not have one iota of data to show that the sweeps of homeless people are doing any good, but we have ample evidence of the harm they create.

And in the People's Budget Movement last year, my office proposed using that funding for housing instead.

That did not pass, but again, the question is posed.

Mayor Durkan threatens to cut funding for food and education programs, as she has promised to do so.

Then we will need to build the People's Budget Movement to stop the sweeps to restore that funding.

I will be voting yes on this bill to spend, to use or invest the SBD revenues on food access and education programs.

And my office will continue fighting to make sure that progressive revenues are expanded so that all the necessary needs, you know, of society are funded.

And I really reject the efforts of the mayor to pit one program against the other.

Thank you, Council Member Schwan.

Any other comments or questions?

Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

I want to again thank the prime sponsor of this legislation for moving forward on the commitment we made in the budget last year to make sure that we did wall off this specific funding for the specific intent as we committed to the voters last year.

I too am disappointed.

Disappointed by the language that's been used to create unnecessary and manufactured crises among some of our most vulnerable sorry, our organizations who serve the most vulnerable.

I think that the information that has been put out there has caused concern and deep anxiety among folks.

And I hope what you heard today was clarification.

Clarification that we can do both and.

We can both create a walled off set of funds that come in from the sugary sweetened beverage tax and continue to maintain our commitments to these very organizations that are providing early learning and food access programs.

I know that we have expressed multiple times today, but I want to underscore.

The intent of the ordinance, as outlined, was meant to be used to fund the expansion of existing programs and the creation of additional programs for outreach and education, for nutrition and early learning programs, not to replace the general fund that provided the baseline funding for these very critical programs.

And so we know we can do both and, expand the critical services and protect the funding that was always provided through the general fund.

The city does face tremendous needs.

We talk about it every day from housing affordability and homeless issues, from the crisis of equity in terms of access to economic stability and early learning needs.

We need to be intentional about how we invest our public dollars.

We need to make sure that we're not in a situation where we're robbing Peter to pay Paul.

And especially in one of the most prosperous cities in the country, we need to not engage in an austerity budget.

Not an austerity budget when we have robust opportunities to identify funding to go into early learning and food access programs.

I want to thank some of the incredible speakers who've come forward today and the multiple emails we've received, and to also underscore what my council colleagues have said and what the budget chair has said.

We can both invest in early learning and food access programs and maintain the integrity of the sugary sweetened beverage tax.

And I think it's been said already up here on the dais, but it bears repeating.

That the reason that I think that it is important for us to maintain funding to go into especially prevention and education programs, as was promised in the sugary sweetened beverage, is to reduce consumption of soda.

To reduce the consumption of this toxic product that is intentionally being marketed, especially to our black and brown communities.

intentionally being targeted to our lowest wage workers.

We want consumption of soda and sugary sweetened beverages to go down.

And in order to do so, we need those funds to go into education and prevention programs in nutrition, to promote healthy eating, to ensure that our local convenience stores have access to fruits and vegetables and not just unhealthy food, and to make sure that our earliest learners and their families have the support they need.

That was the intent of the Sugary Sweetened Beverage Tax.

And today, we're reaffirming that commitment that you all wanted in the initial language that was passed by voters, by the council, that was supported overwhelmingly.

We want to make sure that this is a true commitment that we're keeping to the voters.

I'm really excited that we have the language that was included, proud to be a co-sponsor with Councilmember Herbold, O'Brien, and Gonzales, to make it crystal clear that the legislation is not intended to reduce any programs currently funded with the sugary sweetened beverage tax and that we will redouble our effort.

Councilmember Sumwalt mentioned It is every one of our responsibility when it comes to budget to make sure that these programs are kept whole in the budget.

I reaffirm that commitment for myself to you.

I hope that the full council supports this underlying bill so that we can continue to work towards creating the both and approach.

And it's so early.

It's mid-July.

We have plenty of time to continue to work on that.

I appreciate all of the work that you all have put forward today in the effort to support the Sugary Sweetened Beverage Tax initial intent and to make sure that we keep these other programs whole so that we don't unnecessarily create additional angst and confusion in the community.

We stand with you in the desire to make sure all of these programs are served.

Thank you again for moving forward this legislation so we can fulfill our commitment to you all.

Thank you, Councilmember Esqueda.

Any other questions or comments?

We're good?

Council Member Gutzalez?

Okay, Council Member Gutzalez.

I'll keep it brief because I know we're on agenda item two.

I too want to thank many of the community organizations who've been working on this particular bill, but more importantly who've been working on the greater effort around getting the sweetened beverage tax passed in the first place.

And I feel it's really important for us to anchor this conversation in the commitments that we had originally made way back when, in 2017, when we first considered this legislation to enable this tax to be levied against the people who consume sweet beverages in our city.

And back then, one of the things that we debated ad nauseum was whether or not we were passing a piece of legislation that created a new revenue stream for the sake of producing a new revenue stream, meaning that we could use the money for whatever purpose we wanted to, or if we were really committed to investing these dollars back into communities who were being disproportionately and negatively impacted by the soda industry in a manner that was so detrimental to our community's health and safety.

And really, you know, I just want to go back to that period of time and remind folks that we had that debate.

And in the course of that debate, we concluded that it was important for us not to create a revenue stream for the sake of revenue.

That really what we wanted to do is have a mechanism to collect additional revenue that we could directly reinvest back into low-income communities and communities of color that would eventually interrupt the cycle of soda companies taking extreme advantage of our communities by targeting us for sugary beverage consumption and that it was important for us to make sure that we tied the investments back to that purpose.

So today for me is a follow through on that commitment.

And the only apology I'm going to give to the community is that we didn't catch this when we first passed it in 2017. Because it's always been our intent to have this type of dedicated revenue stream for these communities in particular.

And so to those of you who had that expectation, it was an appropriate expectation.

And we should have included this language in 2017 as part of the original legislation.

But I don't think that those of us who are sitting up here now, who were there in 2017, imagined a world in which we would be put in this unfortunate situation of manufactured division amongst communities of color and low-income communities.

And frankly, the pumping out of terribly inaccurate information that has really resulted in creating a tremendous amount of fear amongst community-based organizations who have very limited resources to begin with.

And all the minutes that you have spent in these chambers to advocate for us to do the thing we should have done in 2017 could actually have been spent right now serving vulnerable communities in the city of Seattle.

That is a massive regret that we have to do this, but I feel very strongly that we need to continue to support This this bill that has been introduced by councilmember O'Brien.

I think the intent is a follow-through of the original intent and I really want to appreciate councilmember O'Brien's leadership in this space and do see it as an opportunity for the City Council to be a transparent and to follow through on commitments that we made to the public about what we were going to use these dollars for and why we were passing this revenue in the first place.

I also just wanted to take a moment to, my office compiled a list of all of the organizations and coalitions that have written in in support of Council Bill 119551. And I think it's important for us to acknowledge that not everybody got a chance to perhaps speak and for the full amount allotted, but the list is very large of the organizations who wrote to us rejecting the mayor's narrative around what was happening here and doubling down on their support of creating this dedicated revenue fund.

Those organizations include the Seattle Healthy Kids Coalition, which is made up of the Seattle Neighborhood Farmers Market, Childhood Obesity Prevention Coalition, Our Cora Foundation, American Heart Association, Shape Washington, El Centro de la Raza, Washington Bus, Paul Sherman, who is with the Community Health Plan of Washington, also a member of the Community Advisory Board, Got Green, Rainier Beer Action Coalition, Roots of All Roads, Mobile Farm Stands, Faith Action Network, Seattle Human Services Coalition, including the Southwest Youth and Family Services, YWCA, SHSC, Seattle Farmers Markets, as a coalition, Pike Place Market Foundation, Queen Anne Farmers Market, Neighborhood Farmers Market, Solid Ground, Seattle Food Committee, Lake City Neighborhood Alliance, Central Area Collaborative, Kids Company, and the Community Advisory Board, both as a board and And individuals from that organization have also stepped up in support of this bill.

And so I'm really appreciative of all these organizations really being able to come together and seeing through this strategy and helping us stay true to what the real intent is.

So with that, I am excited to support the bill.

Thank you, Council Member Gonzalez.

Any more?

Brief comments?

I'll say a brief comment too.

I'll just say this.

Look at my daughters over here saying, no, I haven't said anything.

Okay, I'm not going to say, I'm going to say this.

I was one of those kids that were, I had never met a twink in a seven up.

I didn't like growing up.

I was not a big fan of this tax to begin with because I saw it, how it went to poor people and people that just were marketed to like our colleagues said.

But that was our commitment to community, and that's why I got behind it.

And it's as simple as that.

And this legislation was called irresponsible.

I think it's very irresponsible, and we're not cutting anything, so it's very responsible.

Those are my comments.

You say I am brief.

When I say I'm brief, I'm brief.

Okay.

Now, we ready?

I don't want to deny anyone an opportunity, though.

Okay.

Please call the roll on the passage of the amended bill.

Mosqueda, aye.

O'Brien, aye.

Pacheco, Pacheco, no.

Sawant, aye.

Bagshaw, aye.

Gonzalez, aye.

Herbold, aye.

President Harrell, aye.

Seven in favor, one opposed.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Please read the report of the Housing, Health, Energy, and Workers' Rights Committee.

The report of the Housing, Health, Energy, and Workers' Rights Committee, agenda item three, Council Bill 119537, relating to the sale of low-income housing requiring owners of certain multifamily rental housing to notify the Seattle Office of Housing, the Seattle Housing Authority, and the tenants of the owner's proposed sale of that housing, and amending sections 22.907.030 and .100 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

The committee recommends the bill pass as amended.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you so much.

And as people leave, I want to say thank you for both also commenting on the notice of intent to sell legislation, as you also talked about the need for a sugary sweetened beverage isolated fund.

So thank you for that.

I won't take their exit, Mr. President, as an indication that they don't like it because folks have weighed in.

So I appreciate that.

Today I'm really excited to bring forward this legislation that creates the Notice of Intent to Sell Ordinance.

I should say that it updates the existing ordinance that's already on the book.

We already know that Seattle's current real estate market, the tenants, affordable housing providers often struggle to compete.

Many buyers come with cash in hand and snap up properties within days of being listed, and sometimes buildings are also sold without ever being listed on the market at all, leaving few opportunities for low-income buyers to get a foot in the door, including tenants and nonprofit organizations, community organizations that are interested in preventing displacement and helping to make sure that people have an affordable place to live.

So I believe, as this council has talked about multiple times, we need every tool in the toolkit to help make sure that we are creating new first-time homebuyer options, that we are preserving affordability where we can, that we're creating and building more affordable housing units, both for renters and for first-time homebuyers, and that as we do all of this, we create additional options to exercise greater self-determination in terms of how we access affordable housing.

The existing Notice of Intent to Sell Ordinance, which many of you passed years ago with Councilmember Burgess and Clark, I think who led the effort, had identified that multifamily properties of five units or more with at least one rental unit at 80% AMI or below should notify the Office of Housing of their intent to sell any property and provide a 60-day window before any transaction to allow an opportunity for affordable housing developers to submit an offer should they be interested in acquiring the building.

However, as we've heard over the last year and a half, there's additional tools that we need in that toolkit.

One is for those smaller buildings.

those with two to four units and to create more opportunities for those non-profit developers and organizations to have more of an opportunity to potentially make an offer on some of those larger buildings with five units or more.

So we've engaged with community members and affordable housing providers, some of the industry folks who you heard from today to try to get some feedback on the ordinance in front of you and ultimately have landed on this legislation with the amendments that Council Member Herbold and Council Member Baggio have worked with us to include.

And I believe that it really strengthens the opportunities for tenants, strengthens the opportunity for community organizations, and strengthens the opportunity for nonprofit affordable housing developers to purchase multifamily residential buildings when they come up for sale.

Be this either for individuals as tenants of the building who will now finally get notification before their building goes up for sale, or non-profit developers who we want to facilitate the ability for them to either preserve the building or create more affordable units, and also for our community partners who have said they would like to get more into this arena and to help preserve buildings or build more units so that there can be more affordable housing on the market as a whole.

And with this legislation, we will be able to provide notice to those entities so that they have more time to make an offer.

The proposed updates are not only intended to expand opportunities for tenants and non-profits interested in purchasing properties come up for sale, but also to create a potential pool of new purchasers when we incorporate some of the language that Councilmember Herbold has been instrumental in.

including by making sure that the Office of Housing is, let's say, hosting educational programs so that people understand where potential resources can come from.

As we pull in existing funding that has come from the Office of Housing and other community development entities that have funding available for this type of purchase, we're going to build out our knowledge in the community about how to access these funds and potentially create more self-determination, homeownership, and affordable rental units on the horizon.

And we're also looking back, as Councilmember Bagshaw has spearheaded the effort in the legislation, we're also going to be making sure that we'll hold ourselves accountable, that this tool is working in the future, and that we respond to the data that we get.

We want this to be a benefit to tenants, to nonprofit organizations, to community organizations that are interested in this.

And I believe that as we do so, we will potentially see more opportunities for those who've been historically not able to engage in this type of purchase, engaging in preserving affordable housing and hopefully building out more affordable housing in the future.

So creating a new pool of potential purchasers.

Obviously, this is not going to be the one policy that solves any of our affordable housing crisis.

This is, again, one additional element to a much larger toolkit that we all need in order to create affordable housing across the income spectrum, but specifically for our lowest-wage workers.

And I really appreciate folks engaging on this legislation.

We know we have other cities to pull from, and the National League of Cities, again, in their report that they just released a few weeks ago, highlighted this policy strategy as one important tool to make sure that cities are offering more opportunities for people to purchase these types of buildings and importantly the nonprofit developers and community organizations along with tenants.

So that is my comprehensive summary of the legislation and my huge thanks to all of the council that has engaged on this legislation and I'm looking forward to hearing any concerns but looking forward to really the implementation side of things.

Okay, any questions or comments councilmember backshaw.

Great.

Thank you.

Um all I think we still have council central staff here for all of your good work Um, thank you for our leadership on this council member miss gate.

I want to underscore a couple of things one This does not impact single families Single family homes with people that want to sell it also does not impact the large commercial buildings that people are worried about And I do want to acknowledge that Councilmember Muscata and I both reached out to representatives that work for landlords.

The reason we added the tiers and the various gates for the 15 days was to make it clear that we're giving opportunities to people that might not have the information that they can get together and if they've got the financial wherewithal to put an offer forward.

But I also, without blowing any attorney-client privilege, want to recognize and acknowledge that we did work with the law department on this.

So some of the issues that were raised in the last week, I believe, have been addressed.

So many thanks.

I'm certainly voting for this.

We'll see how it goes.

We also have tied in an evaluation by the city auditor.

If we find it's not working, it can be undone.

So I think it's a worthy effort.

Let's strive.

Thank you, Council Member Bakeshaw.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

I want to thank the Chair Mosqueda for moving forward some language in a shared amendment that was important to tenant advocates and organizations working to promote community land trust and low income home ownership.

Specifically, the need to do more to strengthen monitoring and enforcement efforts to improve compliance.

and help realize greater retention of affordability and promote tenant ownership.

In alignment with that, as it relates specifically to strengthening monitoring, making sure that properties that are required to comply with this law or likely to be required to comply with this law are put on watch lists that tenant groups and the city can work together in making early assessments of whether or not those are properties should they go up for sale, that the city should work together with community groups on identifying funding and opportunities to support the purchase of those buildings.

And I think it also dovetails into some criticism that we've received from the Rental Housing Association, which I actually don't see as a criticism whatsoever.

They refer to similar legislation in Washington, D.C.

called the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act.

And they show that over a six-year period, 5% of buildings subject to the requirement were purchased by tenants.

And I think that's, given the fact that we don't have endless public dollars to purchase properties, I think 5% of eligible properties being purchased would be fantastic.

And I think what we really need to do not only is to support this ordinance and support tenants who are looking to purchase properties in collaboration with the city, but we also need to work on the funding piece as well, which I think is something that there's broad agreement on.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

Okay, I think we'll be ready to vote.

Council Member Scata, you wanted to reach?

Please, just to close it out, Mr. President.

I thought it was closed out, but go ahead and close this out again.

Okay.

So, I want to thank the Council again and also underscore what Councilmember Herbold just ended with.

We have so much more work to do to make sure that there is the funding necessary so our community organizations, non-profit developers, and low-income tenants do have funding that they can pull from.

when a potential purchase comes up in the future.

I want to underscore my commitment to that as well as we move forward.

My hope is that this type of legislation in combination with robust funding and other public policies that we've passed will lead to more co-op models, more co-housing models, more public housing models as we're also making sure that this list of notification goes to the Office of Housing as well as Seattle Housing Authority.

This is one critical element as we're looking forward to creating more affordable housing, both for first-time home ownership options and for affordable rental units.

So, very excited about the prospect of this and we'll be looking forward to working with all of you as we do the evaluation.

Just a quick thank you, Mr. President, to wrap it up to the Community Housing Roundtable who's been engaging with us.

I want to thank Puget Sound SAGE and Washington Community Action Network who testified today in support, and on our team, Erin House, who's done a lot of research on this, and if Tracy is listening, Tracy Ratzcliffe from central staff for her intense research and drafting of this legislation, in addition to the law department, who Councilmember Baxter has mentioned, has been working with us very closely on this legislation.

Very excited to bring it forward to you, and with that, I will stop, Mr. President, so we can vote.

Thank you, Councilmember Scato.

Okay, if there's no other comments, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Mosqueda?

Aye.

O'Brien?

Aye.

Pacheco?

Aye.

Sawant?

Aye.

Begshaw?

Aye.

Gonzales?

Aye.

Herbold?

Aye.

President Harrell?

Aye.

Ayton?

Favor, none opposed.

Bill passed and the Chair was silent.

Please read the report of the Select Committee on Civic Arenas.

The report of the Select Committee on Civic Arenas, Agenda Item 4, Council Bill 119566 relating to Broad Street transfer jurisdiction over the portion of Broad Street between Thomas Street and Taylor Avenue North from the Seattle Department of Transportation to the Seattle Center Department for purposes of constructing, operating, and maintaining a public skate plaza.

The committee recommends the bill pass.

Thank you very much.

So I'm going to channel in co-chair of the Select Committee on Civic Arenas, Deborah Juarez, with me as I present this.

Because it was a select committee, I think all of you are familiar with what we're trying to do on these three pieces of legislation.

The first one is fairly straightforward.

We're just transferring the jurisdiction for a portion of the Broad Street a portion of Broad Street between Taylor Avenue North and Thomas Street without charge from S-DOT to the Seattle Center.

And that's simply for the constructing and operating and maintaining a public skate plaza.

And of course, this was caused by the work we're doing over at Key Arena on the Seattle Center campus.

And so that's basically what this does and look forward to your support.

Any questions or comments?

Now, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

O'Brien.

Aye.

Pacheco.

Aye.

Zawant.

Aye.

Bagshaw.

Aye.

Gonzalez.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

President Harrell.

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Bill passed and the chair will sign it.

Please read the next agenda item.

The short title please.

Agenda item five, Council Bill 119549 relating to the Seattle Center Department authorizing Seattle Center Director to execute an amendment to the facility use agreement with Force 10 Hoops LLC.

The committee recommends the bill pass.

Go again.

So this council bill is relative to our beloved champions, the saddle storm.

And this basically modifies the facility use agreement amendment.

It allows the, basically it, it doesn't increase our potential liability to the city, which continues to remain capped at 2.6 million.

But what it does is it modifies the formula used to calculate relocation payments.

It no longer makes a differentiation between additional costs and lost revenue.

And by doing that change, it certainly encourages and incentivizes the storm to play their home games here in Seattle rather than a location like Everett.

And I think many of you know that they're now playing it the pavilion at the University of Washington, and we want to keep our champions local.

So that's what this does, and it was an agreed-upon negotiation.

Any other questions on this?

Great.

Nat, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

O'Brien.

Aye.

Pacheco.

Aye.

Zawad.

Aye.

Bankshaw.

Aye.

Gonzales.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

President Harrell.

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The bill passes in the Chair of Senate.

Please read the next agenda item.

Agenda item six, Council Bill 119543, relating to land use and zoning amending settings because sections 23.55.002.003.005 and 23.84A.036 to add new SMC sections 23.55.052 .054, .056, .057, .058, and .060 to establish a signed overlay district and sign regulations for the Seattle Center, including regulations for sub areas containing the Seattle Center area, excuse me, arena and the Bressie garage block.

The committee recommends it will pass as amended.

Thank you very much.

So this last piece of legislation is basically creating what we call the sign overlay district.

And by that it amends the land use code to define a sign overlay district.

that basically provides the tailoring of the sign code provisions at the Seattle Center.

Both the developers and city leaders and those sort of vested in the project believe this is absolutely necessary and sort of a catalyst for wayfinding and for the creation of vibrancy in the Seattle Center.

And so the signage which do illuminate but they're not like, Las Vegas type signs that are necessary for wayfinding, again, creating the vibrancy we want to see at Seattle Center Arena.

We had a robust conversation, I thought, at the committee table, and there was some concern by both the design commission and some folks testified about sort of a be careful approach or whether this is the best approach, but we heard I thought from the Executive and the department some fairly compelling testimony in terms of how they limit the use of signs there's actually a total reduction of the amount of signage by 2,000 square feet that was allowed in the original lease and the hours that science could be illuminated, et cetera, all seem to be reasonable and as determined by the committee.

And so this legislation was overwhelmingly passed out of committee, and we think it's the wise way to go.

Any questions or comments?

With that, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

O'Brien.

Aye.

Pacheco.

Aye.

Sawant.

Aye.

Bigshaw.

Aye.

Gonzalez.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

President Harrell.

Aye.

Ayton.

Favor.

None opposed.

Please call the roll.

The bill passed and the Chair will sign it.

Please read the report of the Civic Development, Public Assets, and Native Communities Committee.

The report of the Civic Development, Public Assets, and Native Communities Committee Agenda 7, Council Bill 119569, granting a utility easement of surface and subsurface rights to King County.

The committee recommends the bill pass as amended.

Council Member Bekshaw.

Great, thank you.

And on behalf of Council Member Juarez, we've got the last three items.

So we are going to go quickly on this.

This is a Discovery Park Ordinance that grants a utility easement of surface and subsurface rights to King County.

They will maintain the overflow pipeline and channel in Discovery Park.

We amended the ordinance in committee to adopt attachment one version two, which stipulates that the city will be responsible for maintaining any natural causing disturbance to the easement.

So if there is an earthquake, it's ours.

This amendment was agreed upon both by the city and the county and the committee recommends a do pass recommendation on this.

Very good.

Any questions or comments?

Now please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

O'Brien.

Aye.

Pacheco.

Aye.

Zawad.

Aye.

Baigshaw.

Aye.

Gonzalez.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

President Harrell.

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The bill passed and shared with Senate.

Please call the next agenda item into the record.

Agenda item 8, Council Bill 119570, relating to Seattle Parks and Recreation, authorizing acquisition of real property, commonly known as 2318 Northeast 125th Street, authorizing acceptance and recording of the deed for open space park and recreation purposes and ratifying confirming certain prior acts.

The committee recommends the bill pass.

Thank you so much.

This is an exciting piece of legislation for councilmember Juarez and d5 and in particular It will allow parks to acquire a piece of land that's located on 125th Street used for open space parks and recreation purposes.

It's on the north fork of Thornton Creek and Council Member Juarez sent in a statement that says, in protecting a pristine acre of salmon bearing stream, we will also boost the flood retention ability of D5's main watershed.

And Council Member Juarez wants to thank Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle Parks and Recreation, Thornton Creek Alliance, King County Council Member Rod Dembowski, and the 46th District Legislative Delegation for coming together to get this done.

So we recommend a unanimous approval that this piece of property be purchased.

Thank you, Council Member Baxter.

Any other questions or comments?

If not, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

O'Brien.

Aye.

Pacheco.

Aye.

Sawant.

Aye.

Begshaw.

Aye.

Gonzalez.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

President Harrell.

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The bill passed in share of Senate.

Please read the last agenda item.

Agenda item 9, appointment 1377, reappointment of J.A.

Rich as member of Seattle Public Library Board of Trustees for term to April 1st, 2024. The committee recommends the appointment be confirmed.

Absolutely.

I'm just going to recommend that we confirm Jay Rich.

Most of us know him.

He's worked with the Board of Trustees for the last, I believe, eight years.

All of us know that he's exceptionally well qualified.

Without further ado, let us move forward with this phenomenal candidate's appointment.

Any other questions or comments?

No, I'd just like to point out that this is the way to get it done, three items in three minutes.

We I I want to debate the disappointment.

No, I'm just kidding All those in favor of the appointment, please vote.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed vote.

No The motion carries an appointment is confirmed.

Is there any further business coming for the council?

Everybody good.

Okay with that we stand adjourned and everyone have a great rest of the day.

Thank you you