Good morning.
Thank you for being here for our regularly scheduled council briefing on January 28th.
This month has really sort of shot by here.
So we're going to have a state legislative sessions update from our state OIR team.
And then we're going to go around the table and do our preview of actions for today.
And then we have an executive session scheduled after those two items.
And so why don't we just dive right into the state legislative session update and have the team come forward.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Good morning.
We have reference.
This will be our last 10 o'clock.
Oh, thank you.
We've worked very hard through the weekend on it.
I love this format.
Just so you all know, because you would do multiple presentations, this will be our last time, at least this point, starting at 10 o'clock.
We'll go back to our 930 meeting after today.
So just to remind you.
Maybe I'll send you out.
Yeah, a few folks have said that, by the way.
So why don't we do introductions?
Just dive in, Lily.
Lily Wilson-Kodega, Office of Intergovernmental Relations.
Thank you for the squeeze briefing flexibility.
Christina Postlewaite, State Lobbyist.
Cheryl Swab, Deputy Director, OIR.
And we are currently heading into the third week of a long 105-day legislative session where legislators will develop their operating capital and transportation budgets.
Things are moving at an incredibly fast pace.
We have significant Democratic majorities in both chambers.
Things are moving very quickly right now.
And I believe, and Christina can correct me if I'm wrong, I believe they've introduced over 1,500 bills at this point.
So we have done, we have put together a review of priorities that the council has articulated to us in the areas of education, environment, general government, healthcare, housing, public safety, safety net, and civil rights, and are hoping to have enough time to cover all of those areas today.
And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Christina for a brief overview.
As Lily said, we've had over 1,500 bills introduced this session at this point.
We're just starting week three today.
Despite this large number of bills having been introduced, we're seeing an interesting trend this session of some bills being slower to actually go through that process.
It's not really abnormal for bills to take a while to get drafted, secure sponsors.
and they get introduced, but for some reason, but being through the second week of session, we're still hearing that a lot of bills are not at that point yet.
Some bills have even had hearings on the draft version without a bill being introduced, which is very uncommon.
Bills might get scheduled before they're introduced, but usually a bill ends up being officially introduced in time for a hearing.
The first cutoff is approaching at the end of February.
That's the policy committee deadline.
This is the date by which a bill must be passed out of its House of Origin committee in order to stay alive and move forward.
There are exceptions, of course, to this cutoff for fiscal committees and bills necessary to implement the budget and TIB.
But this rule definitely cut back on the, at that point, I have to imagine, close to 2,000 bills we're considering.
Our priority is to work with our, to ensure critical legislation is introduced and begins to move through the legislative process and makes it well out of the policy committee cutoff.
I'm going to go ahead and start with the education section this morning.
We anticipate focus on addressing some of the issues with the McCleary fix that we're hearing a lot about from our local school districts and legislators including Lisa Wellman are advocating for fully funding special education, transportation, and health care costs.
addressing the regionalization of teacher pay.
There have been issues with that being tied to home values in specific school districts.
So they're looking at different formulas to address some of the equity problems that have resulted from that.
as well as addressing issues with the local enrichment levies from the current lid that is set at a lesser of $2,500 per pupil or $150 per 1,000 of assessed home value to something closer to a rate equal to 28% of the state and federal revenues received by the district the prior year.
And that is Senator Wellman's proposal, Senate Bill 5313. I'm sorry, and education is pages one and two.
In the higher education area, there's a lot of momentum right now around several different Washington promise programs.
And as Christina mentioned, at this point during session, legislators are, a lot of their ideas align and are introduced in different proposals.
So they reconcile those as we move through the committee process.
Right now, House Bill 1123, sponsored by Representative Paulette, and House Bill 1340, sponsored by Representative Hanson, cover things like fees, materials, tuition, and address child care needs for low-income students by eliminating, or excuse me, that's a different proposal.
These proposals are focused on fully funding state need.
There is a gap of about 20,000 students who would be eligible but who have not received that critical funding in terms of higher education access.
So a real push this year to make sure that all students have access to higher education.
And there are also other barriers as we know for students accessing higher education including child care costs.
There is a proposal currently sponsored by Senator Randall, Senate Bill 5341, that would make the Working Connections child care program available to folks who are not employed, so who are students.
I have a question.
Thank you.
So back to your Senate Bill 5313, Senator Wellman's bill on the school levies, there's been a lot of interest and I think just this morning there was another article written about special needs funding and the impact that has both on the students, the families, and the teachers that are having to juggle the needs of special needs children and the fact that McCleary didn't touch that.
So I'm wondering if you could Help me just dive in a little bit more, find out what Senator Wellman's.
Bill may say about that and what we need to push on.
Absolutely.
I think they would like that to become part of the definition of basic education and be fully funded by the legislature.
Those are, I think she's gone through a series of work sessions and hearings and that focus will continue both on special education, but I think also addressing the healthcare needs of teachers and also transportation costs.
And then I think in terms of the teacher pay that's been addressed through McCleary and the changes in the property tax system, they are going to really look at a different process for how teacher pay is tied to home values, just because of some of the problems that we've seen in different districts.
And happy to keep you updated on those developments.
I'll just ask a follow-up, Council President.
Please, Councilman Johnson.
So, Director Wilson-Koediga, is that the intent then to have this bill, SB 5313, be kind of an omnibus catch-all bill for all of those issues that you outlined related to both the levy lift as well as the direct funding of basic needs?
I know those are all priorities of Senator Wellman and those were all issues that they addressed in the recent, they did a hearing combined with the work session.
It is unclear at this point if that will be like an omnibus package of proposals or those will be standalone proposals that she'll work with other legislators who will take a lead on, but we're happy to keep you updated as those develop.
Great, thanks.
So, Council Member Skidler, let me make one comment and then you're in queue, please.
So this, it's just a process question.
So as we go on this session, we'll use this document and start populating with more information.
I assume this is going to be our working document.
And what might be a little helpful, a lot of the descriptions of these bills, and we understand this is very early in the process.
They all sound good, and I can't see what the downside are.
And so I'm sure there's some downside just looking at some of the sponsors.
And so, well, I shouldn't say that, but that's sort of my assumption sometimes.
And so some analysis might be helpful as it starts to evolve and you start to better understand.
An example would be on Senate Bill 5313, just as modifies the formula for the determination of the allocation of state matching funds to eligible school districts for local effort assistance.
sounds innocuous to me, but what does that do to Seattle Public Schools?
So just some pro-con might be helpful as we elaborate.
Council Member, that would help me at least.
And Council Member Juarez, too, right?
It'd help you, too, right?
You looked at me like, right on, Bruce.
Good question.
Okay.
Council Member Mosqueda.
That's what that law school looked like.
Thanks for asking that stupid question there, Bruce.
Council Member Mosqueda.
Thank you very much.
I just want to say I had a comment on the format as well I love that you've included the headers and the bill numbers I think having this format is a lot easier to read so thank you for your work on that.
I also know how time-intensive it is to provide additional detail that you can't just hit the button and push off of ledge.wa so I love the idea of having pro con or some indication of impact on Seattle but I also recognize that some of this is automatically generated and some you have to go back in and add to so love the idea and want to make sure that it's workable for you all too so that we can quickly grab how it will impact Seattle.
Question on the education section.
I believe that there was an intent to have I'm wondering if there's any legislation around reconsidering the physical requirements for child care centers.
Is there anything currently working its way through that would be more flexible for creating child care facilities in urban hubs like Seattle so that we don't have the square footage proximity to a playground if there's a park across the street perhaps that that works as a supplement.
Anything related to the physical location and requirements for child care facilities?
We actually just met with some of the department staff about some of the current requirements and just we relayed some of the concerns we've heard from you all around understanding it's important that children have access to you know time to play and I think they're balancing right now the research around how important it is for early education and childhood development to have that outdoor time, but of looking at options in urban areas like if there's access to a local park that children can safely access, finding a way to balance the needs that are important to the department in terms of some of the research that they really want to make sure they are the best practices that they are concerned about, but also finding flexibility for urban areas that really struggle to site facilities where there's not a lot of outdoor play space.
So we are in conversations with them currently.
So this would be an administrative change, not legislative that we're talking about?
I don't believe we need an actual legislative change.
And they seem to receptive to that too.
So as we dig into that, we'll definitely keep you updated.
Great.
And I'll just note that I'm interested in that type of administrative change, both for center-based child care and for home-based child care.
The reality that somebody is going to be able to have a white picket fence with 75 square foot per child outside in their home is just out of reach for so many Seattle families.
So thank you for pushing that administratively.
And if it looks like we're not able to get anywhere, I think that there's interest in legislation.
Great.
Thank you.
Absolutely.
And then I think we covered some of the efforts around access to higher education.
I'll just highlight given.
I know there's a lot of interest in supporting students around other needs that could be potential barriers to higher education.
Senator Randall's proposal 5341 that would eliminate the employment requirements for working connections child care.
And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Christina to cover some of the issues in the environmental section.
Major pieces of climate-related legislation, which is a priority for the governor and many Democrats, continue to see movement this week.
In the House Environment and Energy Committee, the governor's request bills, which are part of his clean energy package, include House Bill 1110, which is a low-carbon fuel standard bill.
House Bill 1112, which is a hydrofluorocarbon ban, and Senate Bill 5116 and House Bill 1211, which is 100% clean energy proposal.
Senator Carlisle has taken a lead role on this package in the Senate and has also announced plans to drop that cap-and-trade bill.
And then as I relayed earlier, some of the bills, including House Bill 1011, which is a low carbon fuel standard, and 1112, which is 100% clean energy, were passed out of committee on January 4th.
These have been getting a lot of attention.
We assume that there's going to be a lot of emphasis in making sure these go forward.
We've also, let me do a couple other highlights.
Seattle City Light and Office of Sustainability and Environment have been key partners in advancing our goals in these.
We've had one of Seattle City Light's top transportation priorities, the Electrification of Transportation Authority, which we've been seeking for a bit, was introduced this week, and we're excited to have four Republicans co-sponsor that legislation.
This bill is similar to our past efforts with some additional language that the investor-owned utilities like Puget Sound Energy and Avista requested.
Our authority language will also be part of a transportation package bill, but we prefer a piece of standalone legislation that will get less derailed, and I hate to use transportation terms, but we like to use two vehicles to get to our goals on that one.
That's Senate Bill 5336 on page 14 of the document, correct?
Yeah, it's it's that they'll help us you guys sorry quickly.
We're trying to So again just a process if you can make references to the page of the document You've given us when you're going through this it would help us get to that page a little quicker great.
That was on page 14 Thank you.
That's interesting Okay, sorry to mess your rhythm up there.
No, no, I apologize.
Fast rhythm too.
We're trying to get, let you guys get to your rest of your business too.
Let's see, so the clean energy bill which is on, I'm sorry I don't have page numbers online.
Page three, thank you so much Councilor Herbold.
That is being sponsored by, in the House, Representative Tarleton.
We have a big public hearing coming up in energy and environment, and this would support Washington's clean energy economy and transitioning to a clean, affordable, and reliable energy future.
So this was introduced by the governor, and it would require all electric utilities to eliminate from electric rates all costs associated with delivering electricity-generated from electric rates at all costs associated with delivering electricity generated from coal-fired power plants by December 31st, 2025. So we testified in support of the bill, but we have been working with the governor's office and other utilities to ensure that reliability is protected.
We want to look out for our rate payers.
Statewide greenhouse gas reduction goals should be mutually consistent and that hydro is considered renewable.
especially for us at Seattle City Light, and that improvements for facilities eligible for tax credits that are available from other renewables sources.
There's quite a few bills in here.
I don't know if you want me to go through all of them.
Okay.
Okay.
Let's see.
Yeah, I think I'm probably good.
I'm happy to answer questions.
Go for it.
Thank you.
Not so much a question, just a reminder that may not be necessary as it relates specifically to the single-use plastic straws legislation.
When Seattle put into place the enactment of legislation that had been passed, I think, way back in 2010, we've been phasing in.
different elements of that legislation.
Early on the plastic bags and then phased in to just recently plastic straws.
We heard a lot of concerns from folks in our disabled community about the fact that not everybody can use the alternatives and that there are some needs for flexible straws for folks in that community.
So I just want to really urge you to make sure that they, as a stakeholder, could be connected with the sponsors of that bill if they're not already having those conversations.
And Christina has been working very closely with Senator Cooter and in her comments in support of the bill, she talked about how she is also working very closely with the disability community.
She's heard those concerns and they're committed to addressing that.
I don't know that they've figured out the language yet, but it might be good to connect you.
Thank you.
Let me see the next page here, so general government?
Yeah.
I'm sorry?
I don't have page numbers on my notes, I apologize.
Page number four.
I know, so a capital gains tax and property tax has been proposed by Representative Santos, and this would assist Washington families by improving the fairness of the tax system by enacting a capital gains tax.
It would impose a tax beginning January 1st, 2020 on all individuals for the privilege of selling or exchanging long-term capital assets or receiving Washington capital gains.
I know while these, some of the new members and some of the existing members who returned while they were on the campaign trail, there was quite a lot of conversation about capital gains, more than I've heard recently.
Also in the press, it's been there as well too.
So it's gaining traction down there.
And also in general government, DIGLA, which has been one of the things we've been working on quite a bit over the past couple years, it would be kind of rewriting and streamlining the process that excavators would have to go to in partnership with the local jurisdiction to locate underground facilities before they can dig.
This was proposed by the excavator community a couple years ago.
The bill failed to advance last year.
We had quite a few issues with it.
This year we've spent almost all of the interim and a large chunk of session already working with the excavator community to see if we can come to an agreement there's some provisions in there that we're concerned about, like if there's going to be a project done in downtown, the bill the excavators are pushing would mandate that city inspectors would have to go to the home office of the excavator, so that could send our teams over to Renton or Everett or Tacoma, and that's just a big use of our resources as a city, so we're working on that.
We've worked on some updated language, and it'll be heard in Representative Paulette's committee, the substitute version of the bill, our bill.
So he's been primed and understands what our concerns are, and we're looking forward to having that first hearing.
I know we did something similar a few years ago, which would allow if a private developer or somebody who is responsible for the project could actually pay the city for special folks that would be just dedicated to their project.
And I know that the example that we used came out of San Jose, California, with the idea that the developer would pay But they would bring people together from the various departments all at once, and they would essentially take them in a room and throw in a pizza for the afternoon, but require that there be a much shortened timeline on these.
But again, it wasn't on the city's shoulders, it was on the project, whoever the private project owner is, to pay for that.
But they were actually able to hire some additional people to do it.
That's interesting.
I'll raise that one.
San Jose was the city?
San Jose, California.
Yeah.
Before you leave, General Government, I've got one more I'd like to raise.
Please.
This is on the city retirement state investment.
It's Senate Bill 5240. And I have spoken with Senator Carlisle, I've spoken with Glenn Lee, and Jeff Davis, who is the head of our retirement program.
I'm very interested in looking into these options.
I haven't made a conclusion yet, but the cost and benefit both to the retirees and to the city itself via our general fund I think is really important.
The city's budget for our retirement system is roughly $20 million a year.
And these are round numbers, but roughly $20 million inside, internally $20 million externally for investment advice and consultation and legal fees and so on.
Over the years, the city's retirement program has significantly improved in the nine years that I've been on council.
That said, if you look at the 10-year average that the city retirees and program pay more than the state does for the services and the rate of return for the city, and again, this is a 10-year average, has been lower than the state's.
And again, I want to say thanks to Jeff Davis and to Jason Malinowski and others in the retirement system.
It has improved.
That said, I'm still concerned about the ebbs and flows.
We have a much smaller pool and what Ruben Carlisle is talking about is to allow Spokane, Tacoma, and Seattle to join the state's retirement program.
And again, I want to say, this is not a conclusion.
It's just I'm very interested in the costs and benefits.
And I've already asked both the finance department, auditor, and the retirement folks to be prepared to talk to us about this.
But you may hear that Jeff sent out a letter to Reuven.
I asked whether that had been vetted by the mayor's office.
It had not.
So just so you are on alert that there's more to come.
We're following it closely as well.
Thank you.
So this Senate bill would just allow us to participate, not mandate, so we have that option.
And we also know that it would take years to make that conversion because we may not be able to invest like the stock market funds that could be easily transferred, but not the deeper private investments.
We just don't know yet, but I just I don't want to shut the door until we do know.
Can you talk a little bit about the Following matter to under general governments, the driver's license suspensions.
I'm not familiar with what's being proposed here.
It just says concerning driver's license.
Just page five on SB 5328. It says driver's license suspensions.
It just says concerning driver's license suspensions and revocations.
I believe this is a proposal.
So we had supported in the past and representative Reeves also has a proposal So I think this is one of those where we'll probably reconcile a few different bills where decoupling the inability to pay traffic related fines as a reason for a driver driver's license suspension given some of the obstacles that that puts in the way of some of the lowest income in our community just decriminalizing that I think the advocates call it a I believe Jesse Solomon's proposal is the same, but we can reconcile that language with Representative Reeves' proposal and make sure that that's the one.
We have health care next.
So it has been a big week in health care down in Olympia.
The governor requested public option bills, which are 1523 and 5526 were introduced this week.
The House version is scheduled for a hearing next week, so now, in House Healthcare and Wellness at 1.30 p.m.
on the 30th.
The bill establishes a path to having a standard plan design for health insurance plans.
solely on the exchange, directs the health care authority to contract with one or more health carriers to offer silver and gold rates, or silver and gold qualified health plans on the exchange, and seeks to lower the costs by capping reimbursement rates, Medicare rates, and includes a state-initiated cost-saving tools mechanism as well.
So this bill also directs the exchange and healthcare authority to develop a plan to implement and fund premium subsidies for individuals between 250% and 500% of the federal poverty line.
It also looks at cost-sharing reductions.
We had quite a few movement on opioid bills, too.
This was a big week for that.
Of course, it's a big, hot topic.
We, with the opioid bills, Representative Paulette has prime sponsored a bill that would allow for opioid overdose reversal medication to be provided to schools from the range of kindergarten through 12th grade.
Has anybody added some revenues for this?
I just want to be on record, we totally support this treatment on demand, but we need a lot more revenue in order to make it happen.
Yes, that's always very much the topic of the conversation.
That's one of the two pillars, I think, also between making sure that we're not preempted on something that we do as a city and we prioritize as a city.
Let's see, the tobacco and vapor products T21 age restriction has come on.
It's coming up on the, it's coming up.
on the Healthcare and Wellness Executive Session.
It'll be protecting youth from tobacco products and vapor products by increasing the minimum age of tobacco and vapor products.
And thank you all for your leadership on this issue.
I know it's been a couple years, but we're seeing some movement this year as well.
I also wanted to, sorry, go back to the opioid use disorder.
So the anticipated governor requested opioid bills, which are HB 1331 and Senate Bill 5380 were introduced last week.
The bills have many of the components of last year's governor request legislation that made it very far through the process, but ultimately did not pass.
The bill focuses on four primary areas.
So treatment and recovery, which is policies that reflect the current evidence-based practices for the treatment of opioid use disorder.
Pregnant and parenting women, efforts to keep children with their parents through treatment and recovery as appropriate.
Professional practice, which is improving patient options and expanding provider use of the prescription monitoring program.
And criminal justice, promoting successful efforts related to criminal justice involvement with people who are dealing with opioid use disorder.
And Representative Cody is the prime sponsor in the House on that.
I thought you had a question.
Let's see.
Okay, sounds good.
Thank you so much.
I do love housing and health equally, but I can't move off of health care yet.
So I would love to see on our list strong support for Representative Reeves' bill 1518. This is the bill that we worked on probably four or five years ago that requires those largest companies who have workers and dependents on Medicaid to pay their fair share of the state's cost.
You might remember me bringing this up, colleagues, last spring.
But since 2007, this report is generated to look at the largest companies who have workers and their dependents on Medicaid.
Every year at the top of that list, we see Walmart, McDonald's, et cetera.
And apropos of the conversation we had last spring, 10 years ago, Amazon was ranked number 382nd in the state in terms of workers and dependents on Medicaid.
The report that came out last month has them ranked as number six.
So if we look at the total cost of how much the state is paying in supplementing the cost of health care for workers and their dependence on Medicaid, the total is about $2.5 billion that the state could recoup.
That is a total.
If you looked at just the top 10, for example, that would bring in millions of dollars.
Amazon alone, if you average it out, is just about below 9.5 million dollars a year.
So that's just one example.
I didn't even calculate Walmart, but that's an example of where we could potentially have good quality access to Medicaid and also create greater revenue stability for the state.
And we want to make sure people continue to have access to that care.
So when I worked on that bill previously and Representative Reeves now, I know that there's been an intentional approach to make sure that people still have access to Medicaid and that no one is discriminated from accessing it as a deterrent to not have to pay in.
The second bill that I'd love to see added to our list is Representative Nicole Macri's bill 1697 which extends the coverage for Apple Health for kids up to age 26. You know at the national level we say that a kiddo, a young adult, is anyone up to age 26 can remain on their parents health care under the Affordable Care Act.
And here we cut kiddos off at age 19 from Medicaid.
So let's keep those age levels the same and apply age 26 as the cutoff period for Apple Health for kids.
That's a really good piece of legislation.
That's $16.94 for Representative Nicole Macri's bill.
And $15.18 for the Reeves proposal.
Thank you.
I also want to just add as it relates to the tax relief to exemption of feminine hygiene products.
I believe there's also a bill in the state legislature as it relates to diapers.
I'd like to also have us tracking that bill and I would also be interested to know whether or not it would be useful to both efforts to combine them or that might actually be not helpful depending on of One has more legs than the other, but I think that would be a good thing to ask the bill sponsors to explore.
We can look into that and happy to follow up with you offline.
And 5147, that bill that you referenced, is currently in ways and means.
So it's moved a bit through the process too, but that's a great example of things we could reinsert in the conversation.
On to housing and home, oh, go ahead.
We should just add when you look at feminine hygiene tax, I know we talked about the diaper exemption, Senate Bill 5147, and then there's also Senate Bill 5206, which says the same thing, correct?
I find it funny, but I think that should be gender neutral.
Providing tax relief to females.
I think you're providing tax relief to whoever is purchasing the item.
Great point.
We need to make that gender neutral, not just females.
Thank you for pointing that out.
So moving on to housing and homelessness, the bill that we've long talked about, which was previously known as 2437, the Local Option Bond Bill, is back.
In the Senate, it's 5646, and Senator Cooter is working on that for us.
And in the House, again, Representative Robinson is working on Bill 1406. Public hearings are in both chambers this week.
We're very excited to see the language that we worked hard over the summer to have included in the bill was included, and that does allow cities and counties to have simultaneous access to those funds.
Previously, in last year's legislation, it went just to counties, and we're excited to be able to utilize those funds as well for the uses we need.
There are many, many bills that are out there around property tax relief for senior citizens.
Some are advancing, some are not.
We feel this is a very important thing to work on.
We want to make sure that we're supporting the one that's taking us in the right direction for our community.
Can you talk a little bit about that, about the difference between the bills and whether or not they're simply changing the income qualification, or if there's more complexity to this?
So there's actually, there's a few of them.
So 1105, this is around, oh sorry, 1090, the property tax relief.
This would give a decreased rate for property taxes to senior citizens, whereas 1181, it would, the bill would lower the income threshold for the senior city property taxes.
It would also extend to veterans as well, and qualifying veterans.
And I didn't quite understand your description of 1090. Did I hear you say just a flat exemption for seniors, no income qualification required?
It provides a decreased rate for property taxes to certain senior citizens and a differentiation also is between that and 1181 veterans are included in that as well.
Along the real estate excise tax movement that is gaining steam, those funds have been spent 10 times over in Olympia this session already.
We continue to work really hard to make sure that we get those funds into affordable housing.
That is a top priority for us.
We had heard that there was a proposal to advance a REIT to backfill some of the housing trust fund dollars.
We had a few concerns about that because as King County and Seattle would be providing a disproportionately large amount of money through this, we wanted to make sure that there would be a set aside for projects within our own community.
that would be awarded through a competitive process, and that those funds would not disqualify us from receiving other funds from the state to work on affordable housing.
I know that the one that I've mostly been following, and I just found out about this on Friday, is Senator Saldana is going to run on that.
I talked with her about our concerns, and she seemed to understand those.
I'm meeting with Representative Frame, who had been initially the one who had proposed this, this afternoon.
So hopefully we'll get some clarity on the Senate vehicle and the House vehicle and see if there's a way to make sure that it just does go through.
It goes through in a way that benefits our community as well.
I've also been hearing increasingly that the Senate budget writers are looking for those funds to possibly be fed into the operating budget.
versus the capital budget.
So we are going to be working on this.
I think having the local option bond bill be introduced will be a really good jumping point for us to get together in a room like we've been doing all summer and say, how do we make this happen in a way that's beneficial to everyone?
So any questions about, any more questions about housing?
If not, I will move on to public safety.
House Bill 1016, sorry, this is on page 9, 10, and 11. House Bill 1016 would put requirements in place for hospitals to have trained staff testing and resources for sexual assault survivors.
Also, Representative Griffey's proposal, House Bill 1231, would eliminate the statute of limitations for rape and sexual abuse of children.
Those are things that the council has highlighted as priorities to us in the past, so we'll be tracking those closely.
Substitute House Bill 1064 and Senate Bill 5029, which is the historic I-940 compromise bill between community groups and law enforcement stakeholders.
that changes the deadly use of force statute and also puts in de-escalation requirements, requires first aid, and provides resources for training for police officers.
Passed the House in a historic vote 98 to 0. So congratulations to everyone who worked hard and was engaged in that effort.
That is House Bill 1064 and Senate Bill 5029. And legislators are also moving, as Christina referenced earlier, a huge package of firearm responsibility measures.
I'll cover those quickly, but happy to answer any specific questions that you have.
This includes prohibition on ammunition feeding devices with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
That's House Bill 1068. undetectable 3D printed guns.
I think a lot of you have been watching that issue, which is quite terrifying.
And our own representative Valdez has a proposal, House Bill 1073, as well as putting reporting requirements in place for lost or stolen firearms.
House Bill 1203, which is sponsored by Representative Dolio.
There's also legislation we will be watching closely that would enable law enforcement officers to secure firearms in the event of a domestic violence incident.
We know that the involvement of firearms in domestic violence cases increases the likelihood of homicide significantly.
So we know that's a, and we are very grateful for Chief Best and Chief Diaz have been very actively engaged in Olympia supporting these priorities and speaking in support.
We also have a bill by Representative Lovick to increase training requirements for concealed pistol licenses.
When I first read this bill, I wondered what we were doing to increase those training requirements given there must be something in place and there is not currently.
very important that folks have appropriate training before accessing a concealed pistol license.
And then we also have, as Council President Harrell has referenced, as a priority, a proposal, two different bills currently, one by Representative Macri and one by Representative Wiley, listed here as House Bill 1319, that would restore local authority to regulate firearms.
And then Senator Peterson has a proposal to outright ban assault weapons, that is Senate Bill 5174. Under safety net and civil rights on page 12, Senator Saldana has introduced a proposal to extend state benefits to victims of human trafficking who may not have access to federal benefits like SNAP and TANF, that's Senate Bill 5164. Senator Carlisle has introduced a bill, I know this will make Council Member Bagshaw very happy, even though we had a recent court decision ruling the death penalty unconstitutional, there are also efforts to eliminate that in statute.
So that is Senate Bill 5339. Hopefully you can come for the bill signing.
Representative Hanson's New Hope Act, House Bill 1041, and sorry if I didn't mention this is page 12. would vacate criminal records for some nonviolent crimes that present obstacles for successful reentry and access to employment and housing.
Representative Reeves has introduced a bill to eliminate the failure to pay traffic infractions as a cause to suspend someone's license.
This is the companion driving while poor, and this is actually, I looked up, this is the companion to Senator Solomon's proposal, Senate Bill 5328. Lastly, Senator Kaiser has an isolated worker protections bill that is modeled after the Unite Here initiative that would provide panic buttons and required safety training for folks working alongside two or fewer co-workers that isn't their home.
Senator Wilson is supporting a bill to establish the Washington State LGBTQ Commission, modeled after the Women's Commission, so they would advise and monitor legislative efforts in Olympia and bring that perspective to the legislative process.
And also declare June Pride Month, issues that we know are important to many of you.
And I think we are finished.
If there are any questions.
Oh, transportation.
We just have one item for transportation.
Absolutely.
Just to wrap up on the LGBT commission, first of all, thank you so much for doing this, because we've been doing this piecemeal approach on the medical side with hospitals and doctors who we now know in some states and a couple cities have refused medical services to the LGBTQ community based on their First Amendment religious principles.
And so it's been difficult as a city for us to try to tee up some legislation where at least the health care providers within the city of Seattle prove to us and work with us in an ordinance that they cannot discriminate on that basis, though many courts, particularly federal courts, have held that people can.
It's kind of like that baking the cake person, you know, didn't want to bake a cake.
So this isn't about paying for transition surgery or anything of the kind.
What this is about anyone who's LGBTQ who could come to any particular provider or a hospital with any kind of emergency or anything else Even if it violates their oath to protect human life, I don't think it would ever come to that.
That'd be a huge lawsuit.
But there are other issues where we've seen that and I can't, I don't want to call out what cities have refused to provide healthcare to this particular community.
So it's been difficult for us to work with the state because all we have is the one letter that, who's our healthcare person in Olympia?
Who's the head of?
The head of health care?
You know.
What's his name?
Ross Hunter.
The head of the health care committee?
Representative Cody?
No, it's the person who's head of the insurance commission.
All we have is the Cridler letter saying be good don't be bad and that's not good enough quite frankly.
So I would love to be involved on this on the state side so that can complement us on what we're trying to tee up on the city side.
So thank you very much.
Absolutely.
And if I can just pile on a little bit with all of these opportunities to really curtail things like high-capacity magazines.
I mean, we look at all of these, and these have been coming up year after year for the last decade, but I think this year we've got a real opportunity to move.
It's been clear statewide that people are saying yes to better protections, particularly the firearms surrender.
I think that's House Bill 1225. And I want to acknowledge our own city attorney's office.
They did a super job, Christopher Anderson working with the prosecuting attorney to really have a coordinated approach on this.
So anytime if you need a letter or you need a body down there to say anything and you think it would be useful to have someone from Seattle, I'd be really happy to participate.
I believe you will be coming down for AWC action days.
We will be very happy to set up appointments around those issues.
I'd love to do that and to really say thank you to all of you.
I know, Lily, you know how much this death penalty elimination has meant to me.
Senator Carlisle for bringing it back up again.
And you know, I know that the Supreme Court put the stake in the heart, but it would just be great to get it off the books.
Absolutely.
Thank you.
We are going to have Rebecca Johnson, our lobbyist who works specifically on public safety, we're going to have her come up in a couple weeks.
And just there's so much that she'll be able to give you a really good comprehensive overview, and plus she knows all the details as well.
Super.
Yeah, and I'll look forward to it on AWC days.
We do too.
Thank you for coming one final issue before we let you go we wanted to talk briefly under transportation the Block the box automated enforcement piece that we're working on.
Thank you to all of you who participated in media availability on that and We really appreciate it.
And this is a big issue.
We have been working for months with King County and King County SDOT and our office to create some good language around how to enact this.
I've heard from many other cities that they're interested in having this as well.
You said that you have not?
I have.
Oh, good.
Anything that you need from AWC, as an example?
I've been in active conversations with them at AWC, but I might call on you a little bit if you don't mind.
Absolutely.
No, this is really important.
It is, yeah.
And so we have our House sponsor is Representative Fitzgibbon, and our Senate sponsor is Senator Elias.
We hope to have this introduced this week.
We've been just working on some statutory language issues in there with the Office of, with OPR, with the nonpartisan staff in Olympia.
But we're very enthusiastic about this.
Thanks, Mike.
OK.
Thanks for this firehose approach to all these bills going on here.
So we appreciate working with you during the session.
Feels just like Olympia.
Yeah.
Okay, we do have an executive session after this briefing.
So let's just go around the table and Talk about a preview of today's City Council actions nothing up for the governor's equity and technology committee We have our regular scheduled a meeting next week.
We're developing the agenda.
We're going to do some work on the surveillance working group Some of the nominees and we have an appointment I believe to the Ethics and Elections Commission coming up as well So I'll talk a little more more about that next week.
So with that I'll go around the room and Councilmember Sawant.
Thank you, President Howell.
Good morning, everyone There are no items today From the Human Services Equitable Development and Renters Rights Committee.
We have our next scheduled meeting on February 12th and as you know, we had one meeting on Friday the 18th and which was about the question of maintaining the affordable housing for the seniors living at the Halcyon mobile home community in North Seattle.
And today at city council agenda, we have an item on that question.
We have the moratorium on any redevelopment at mobile home parks.
And I won't go into the details because we've already talked about it, but I will point out that the Seattle Times has a big front page article on this issue, which really covers the details of the issue in a very, you know, in a very clear way, the kinds of I want to thank Dan Beekman of the Seattle times for the excellent coverage.
There is an amendment from council members As you all know, we have received many concerns from HSD, Human Service Department employees, and from community members, and from human services providers, urging that the mayor's office and the city council use a really transparent and accountable process for appointing the director of the Human Services Department.
And in response to the concerns that we heard, My committee had a meeting at the Miller Community Center on the evening of Thursday, the 24th.
I really urge all council members, if you haven't already, please watch the committee meeting.
It would be really informative for you all as to where the community and HSD employees stand.
There were over 100 people who attended the meeting.
I believe 35 people spoke.
The meeting was just basically public testimony to hear from the community and from employees.
I believe 35 people spoke, out of which only one person was okay with what the mayor's decision has been so far, but every other person, I think, without exception, I mean, that's what my recollection is, but every other person, without exception, did not accept the process so far.
In fact, they were saying that there was no process.
And just to sort of summarize the concerns that were reflected, I wanted to read just one extract from a letter that you all got.
This was sent to all council members, I believe, but if not, I can forward it.
It says, the Human Services Department change team and caucuses believe it is imperative that an inclusive and transparent process be used in the determination of our next permanent department director.
An inclusive and transparent process essential to upholding racial and social justice principles we have committed ourselves to and provides the opportunity for accountable and respectful partnership with the community we serve.
So I had stated at the start of the committee, and you'll see this if you watch Seattle Channel for the committee, that what process the committee would adopt would depend on what we heard from the community.
And what I heard, as you will if you watch the committee, was very decisively in favor of actually having a process.
So I'm just sending around copies of our draft resolution my office with the help of Jeff Sims in central staff.
Thanks to him.
We have drafted based on the feedback we heard from the community.
I'm intending to put this on the introduction and referral calendar for next week.
So it won't, I won't be walking it on today, but I wanted council members to look at it.
And if you have any input, please let me or Jonathan Rosenblum and my staff know about that.
And then we will go from there.
I'll stop there.
Are you not walking it on today?
I'm not.
No, just opening it for discussion.
Thanks for providing such an early draft on what we're trying to do with the confirmation process.
Appreciate that.
Why don't we dive into the amendments?
It sounds like it's with Council Member Swann, if I'm not misspeaking, but you want to just tell us what the amendment's about?
You're referring to what we agreed upon regarding Halcyon?
Yeah.
Yes, I'm sorry.
I'm jumping So I'm gonna say some of this and I'm gonna let councilmember Johnson step in but I want to thank council members who want for her organization and bringing this and working with her and all the people that came and As you know, 28 people in residence showed up last week and we had been out there and had talking to the folks.
What we have for us and you all have in front of you now is two changes to Section 5, basically what we had discussed at the table and in council chambers.
is that we refer this matter to the Planning Use Zoning Committee by September 30th, and also that there'd be another report to the PLEZ Committee on preliminary options for consideration.
I can speak a little bit more to it when it's my turn, but I just want to state that I want to thank Councilmember Johnson and Councilmember Sawant, but what we really wanted to do is to make sure that we had this in the right committee that we acted immediately and that we let people know that we heard what they said and we wanted to address that.
And I can, I'll hand it over to Council Member Johnson to add.
I have nothing to add.
Okay, well, there we go.
But I do want to say thanks to all of you.
I went out and saw Halcyon and the adjoining facility over the weekend and clearly they have a community there and I want to look to see what we can do to protect them to preserve it as long as possible or at a minimum to figure out going forward and I'm talking you know not just years but maybe decades of making sure that there is some affordable low-income housing on site but in the meantime preserving that is a very righteous thing to do so thanks to all three of you for your work on it.
Thanks for that.
So Council Member Herbold.
Actually, I wanted to get a little bit more clarity about the nomination process resolution.
I thought I heard you say that you're not walking it on.
So is this on the introduction and referral calendar?
No, it's likely perhaps in a week or so, depending on the chairs, when the chair would like it to go.
I mean, the resolution was ready, but not in time for this one.
So I would have either walk it on or wait for next week.
I talk to community members, they prefer to wait a week, so.
Sounds great, thank you.
So there is no meeting of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee this week.
The eviction prevention resolution that was adopted by the committee on Friday will be at next Monday's full council meeting and happy to talk with folks about that.
Again, as I've mentioned before, cues up the problems identified in the Seattle Women's Commission report, does not necessarily identify the particular solutions.
I see that as the next step, but my objective was to get agreement from this council on what some of the problems are that we should work together in the following months to address legislatively.
We have a Sound Transit Elected Leadership Group meeting on Friday, where we will receive a briefing on Sound Transit's Level 3 analysis.
And, let's see here, I think that's pretty much all I have.
I had office hours last Friday at the Senior Center, and that's it for me today.
Thank you, Council Member Arbold.
Council Member Mosqueda.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
There are two items on today's full council agenda from the Housing, Health, Energy, and Workers' Rights Committee.
The first is Council Bill 119353, which relates to selling an easement to Snohomish County for a sidewalk and accepting fair market payment.
This ordinance declares a certain piece of property no longer necessary for transmission line purposes and authorizes an easement to Snohomish County to build a sidewalk.
Over City Light owned property in exchange for payment of fair market value.
This parcel is not large enough to build housing purposes and thus we are moving forward with selling it.
Council Bill 119354 relates to Seattle City Lights Endangered Species Act land deed acceptance.
This legislation authorizes Seattle City Light to accept a series of deeds in exchange for previously appropriated funds for environmental conservation and salmon habitat protection.
We like salmon too, right?
Yes, we do.
This continues City Light's ongoing effort to procure and preserve environmental critical land across Washington for permanent preservation.
The next Housing, Health, Energy, and Workers' Rights Committee will be on Thursday, February 7th at 9.30 a.m.
We are going to have a presentation, a robust presentation, on the history of labor in our region, specifically celebrating the 100-year anniversary of the Seattle general strike.
We did pass a proclamation last time we met in full council chambers to recognize 2019 as the year in which we will be celebrating labor history and labor's contribution to Seattle.
Our labor history presentation will come from the University of Washington Labor Archives folks, from the Martin Luther King County Central Labor Council, and the Washington State Labor Council leadership to give us an update on the status of labor.
This is something we did last year as well, and we'll be having it every year in the beginning part of the year to introduce issues that are coming up for labor in our region.
We'll also have the Domestic Workers Board appointments, the first of several that will be coming forward to establish that board that we created last year.
And we'll also have appointments to the Housing Levy Oversight Committee.
And we look forward to hearing as well from the University of Washington, UAW's workers on their ongoing training program to protect workers from sexual harassment.
Let's see, later this week I will be attending the Muslim Housing Services Live in D5 Rainier Beach Action Coalition to talk about neighborhood planning and also Seattle Greenways event as well.
Good.
Thank you, Council Member Esqueda.
Council Member Juarez.
Thank you.
I'm going to briefly speak a little bit more in detail but not spend a whole lot of time on the moratorium, which is Council Bill 119451. I'm pleased to co-sponsor a proposed amendment to the moratorium coming to full Council this afternoon with Council Member Johnson to ensure a timely response by the departments.
This amendment would direct the Planning, Land Use, and Zoning Committee to review the department's proposal for work plan options.
It's vital that the city respond to the development pressure in our remaining mobile home parks, and this amendment provides just that.
I want to add that our goal, which I've talked to, and we've certainly talked to legal about it, is to really focus on protecting the stock of manufactured homes and protecting the use of that particular property to ensure that these manufactured homes actually stay where they're at and that they're protected by the use and certainly the zoning codes.
This afternoon, there are six items for us to review from the Civic Development, Public Asset, and Native Communities.
And I will start with number one.
We have three appointments to the Seattle Park District Community Oversight Committee.
We have Sean Watts from District 5, Matthew McBride from District 1, and Dewey Potter from District 4. With Dewey, Ms. Potter, it's actually a reappointment.
The committee is supportive of each candidate, and I'll speak more to their bios this afternoon.
Second, Council Bill 119446, that's an ordinance relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation and Seattle Public Utilities transferring partial jurisdiction of portions of the parkland and park boulevards within Discovery Park.
The committee is supportive of this legislation.
Third, and I know we've been through this, at least Council Member Vagshaw has been dealing with this for 15 years.
We have three pieces of central waterfront legislation.
They were voted out of committee last week and it is up for full council vote this afternoon.
There are three separate ordinances that all work together.
A lid formation ordinance titled number 6751 that is creating the local improvement district.
Second ordinance is a funding operation and maintenance agreement that is very detailed with I believe seven amendments and the operation and maintenance agreement and the term sheet with Friends of the Waterfront.
And third we have the protest waiver agreement ordinance which we've been briefed on three times which shares with us what the people that the condominium owners and the business owners agree not to challenge the lid formation if indeed the other two items fall into place.
That would be the lid formation and the operation and maintenance agreement.
Second, thank you Council Member Mosqueda for mentioning Dive in D5.
It is the fourth annual this Friday, my favorite holiday, Groundhog's Day, at the Shanty Tavern.
This is our fourth year in a row.
I invite my colleagues to join.
Again, District 5 neighbors in our annual celebration, live music, food, and we always hand out our community awards.
Our community awards basically go to honor and recognize community members that truly work hard to make their community and neighborhoods in this city better.
They actually are volunteers.
They roll up their sleeves, and they are very determined to be part of the solution to make this city safe, to make it welcoming, vibrant, and, of course, address the needs of growth, transportation, housing, social services.
I'm really lucky that I live in a district where we have so many people that have been working hard in our district on all these issues well before we became District 5 in 2014. Finally, again, I'm happy to say that we're going to have another one of our meet and greet annual D5 business coalition on Thursday evening.
This is a group of small and large businesses, owners in my district I've been working with since the day I was elected.
We're working with the police department, the office of labor standards, and the office of economic development to put on a program that shares resources and empowers our small and minority owned businesses.
I should state that we created the DeFi Business Coalition a few years ago, and it's really nice to be in a room not only with the bakery owner on Lake City Way, but the owners of Northgate Mall, North Seattle College, Northwest Hospital, Thornton Place owners, developers, many, many bar owners, and our marijuana shop owners.
So it's a great mix of people and it's really what I'm really most proud of, that we have the D5 Business Coalition and we also have the D5 Community Group that we created two years ago.
And having these two kind of kitchen cabinets for the district has been really instrumental for us, particularly with our district director, formerly Sabrina and now Shana, that actually tells us what's going on and what their needs are.
And they do watch Channel 21 and they do show up for public comment.
and we try to meet those needs.
So I'm hoping I will see you Friday at Dive in D5.
And as I said before, the guy that wrote the book, Lake City Way, will be there.
And I know that Councilor Muscat is coming.
Councilor Bagshaw is a regular because she's a beer drinker.
So we hope to see you all there.
Thank you, Councilor Juarez.
Councilor Bagshaw.
Thank you.
No, I actually don't, but I do drink other libations.
I want to, this afternoon, Finance and Neighborhood Committee is bringing forward one reappointment of Angelique Davis.
And I also have a proclamation for the American Heart Association, which is circulating, recognizing all kinds of good things that the American Heart Association is doing.
And just so all of you can be prepared.
You have to wear your red jacket again on Friday.
Friday is wear red day.
So we'll see how we do on that.
You get your best red tie out and come.
I also just want to acknowledge, and I'm very glad this resolution is not coming forward today.
I know there were some things that were said last week about Jason Johnson, but I also want to acknowledge I've worked with him for years.
And as when I was chairing our human services department, I was very respectful of the work he was doing around race and social justice and the age-friendly work in particular that he helped me get started and all the support around youth.
really in opposition to what Councilmember Sawant just said, I have heard from dozens of people, dozens of our advocates, service providers that are supporting him.
So I just didn't want it left unsaid that there was any feeling that we were, at least every one of us on the council, were lining up against him.
So thank you for that.
Okay.
Councilmember Johnson.
Thanks, there's one item on introduction or referral today.
Can I just quickly say just in order to be accurate and reflect the positions that were described at the public testimony on Thursday at the committee, I would urge you, Councilmember Brakshaw, to watch the committee and listen to the many employees of the Human Services Department and community members who spoke.
I mean, these are our constituents.
These are employees of the City of Seattle, and we are the City Council.
I don't think it's appropriate for you to make this about one Councilmember versus another.
I think this is about listening to both employees and our constituents in the community in terms of why they feel that not having a transparent and accountable process is not a good situation.
And all they are urging, most of the comment was not about any individual, but about having a process that is true to the race and social justice principles that the city of Seattle has agreed to.
Very good.
Uh, Councilor Johnson, good try.
You were almost there, but you're there now.
Are we sure?
Oh, we are.
Okay.
I can dive in, but I won't.
I'm waiting.
We're good.
Okay.
Well, let me say something as chair of this meeting.
I'll simply say that we are in the process now.
And so the process or lack of a process prior to getting the appointment, the confirmation packet, we can talk about that.
What I am concerned is now that we have it, whether a process of confirmation will or will not disclose things, not necessarily about Mr. Johnson.
It could be about Mr. Johnson since we're confirming him, but the department as a whole and what is done or what's not done.
So I actually look forward to the process.
I want to daylight it and see where we come out.
So we now, as part of the charter, we have a process in front of us that's sanctioned by the charter.
So let's use that and see where we come out on it.
So I think it is We can go back and forth on this, but we don't have the information right now.
We have basically people testifying.
That's information.
But there could be other means by which we could look at exactly what criteria are we to measure a person against.
And this would not be the first person to either be confirmed or not be confirmed.
So we've been here before when we had some contentiousness around a confirmation process.
I actually look forward to whatever process unfolds.
And I just want to say the resolution is not, again, it's not about any, individuals appointment or not appointment.
It's about actually having a search process for a candidate that allows employees and community members who are impacted by HSD to be able to give an opinion and be part of the search process.
That is the main, that is the emphasis of the resolution.
And I also appreciate Council President Harrell for you to remind us that It's not the first time that a nomination is not just rubber stamped.
It's absolutely, I think it's the correct thing for the council to listen to community members, and most of all, I think, the employees.
I would just highlight, it is not easy for City of Seattle employees to speak up like this, and I can tell you that every person who has spoken in public testimony came up to me privately and said, I'm really afraid for, you know, about, you know, any potential retaliation or anything like that.
So I think it would be with a sense of responsibility that we would be listening to them.
And actually the best way to honor their courage is to do what they're asking, which is not castigation or blaming of any individual, but actually having a search process in place that is inclusive.
I was going to hold my comment since we weren't going to be discussing this it for council, but I do want to Make a point that it is my opinion that the council's expectations for a process should come at the beginning of that process.
If we have expectations for the mayor to do a particular approach, as the committee chair, there are things that we can do to work with the mayor to make sure those things are integrated.
For instance, this council passed legislation last year as it relates to the Office of Civil Rights.
Director as it relates specifically to our expectations for the appointment process As it relates to the chief of police.
There's actually language in the city charter That talks about what the expectation is of the city for the process used for the Seattle Police Department, I would certainly be very supportive of an ordinance that identified our expectations in the future for for either the Human Services Department director or other city department directors, but you know, I just I think I don't think it's fair to anybody to be Raising, I mean, of course it's fair, it's our obligation to review the nomination that has been brought forward to us under the process that the mayor used.
And it's completely within our responsibility to weigh the qualifications of that nominee and hear from members of the public what they think about that nominee.
But if we haven't expressed our expectations about the process at the beginning of the process to the mayor, I feel really uncomfortable raising those issues now.
But again, I would be very interested in legislating those expectations in the future.
Well, just in response to that, Council Member Horbo, let me also clarify that my office has been asking the mayor's office for several weeks, you know, adding up to more than a couple of months, asking them, are they, what is their process to nominate an HST director?
And quite frankly, I don't think it's an unusual, I don't think we have to in advance legislate that the mayor should actually carry out a search process.
As the Human Services Coalition has said, this is a high impact department.
When you have used, the mayor's office has used an actual search process for many other director appointments.
Why is it that in this department, you would just say this is the nomination without actually having conducted a search?
It's like a lowest common denominator requirement that the service providers and others are pointing out, and this is exactly what my office has been asking the mayor for, and there was no response.
Week after week after week, there was no response, and then they just sent the nomination.
So there are two aspects.
One is that the mayor did not even conduct a a nominal process that they would have conducted for other appointments.
And furthermore, now we are at a point where this is not something that I am saying personally as a council member, I want this inclusive process.
What I am doing is being responsible to my constituents and to the employees who have spoken up after they heard about the nomination and said, hey, we have concerns about this.
So I'm not sure exactly what this council would, you know, or what Council Member Herbold would have me do, and what would you do if your constituents said, and employees spoke up with a lot of courage and said, hey, we have problems with this.
I think it's only responsible for this council to pay heed to those concerns and then act on them.
It's not something that, it's not concerns that I activated on my own.
Then you can fairly say, oh, you should have brought them earlier.
But these are concerns that we are hearing from the community.
chronologically speaking, they brought their concerns after they heard their appointment.
So I really think we should stop nitpicking about any chronology of action, but rather do what's right at this moment and what's right at this moment, in my view, especially after the committee hearing, I'm quite convinced, is to actually urge the mayor in this resolution form.
But I also, I invite her to say she will do an inclusive process.
in accordance with what the resolution outlines, and then we won't need to do the resolution.
I mean, we are bringing the resolution forward because we haven't heard anything otherwise from the mayor's office.
But, you know, at any time this week, they could inform us of an alternative, and then we could go from there.
Okay, so I'm awake now, so this is good.
So we have the resolution.
It's gotten to us nice early.
The mayor, I'm sure, is monitoring, and their team are monitoring this conversation.
So we are daylighting this process, which I think is a good thing.
So let's move forward.
Councilor Johnson, you got it again here.
You're on.
Yes.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
There's one item on today's introduction and referral calendar.
That relates to the University of Washington master plan process.
We had a small clerical error that we need to fix.
It's going to come straight to full council.
It's still quasi-judicial, so please don't talk to people about it.
All right.
Got it.
Council Member O'Brien, best for last.
Thank you.
There is nothing on this afternoon's, well, I appreciate that comment, Council President Howell, too.
Just want to acknowledge that.
The Sustainability and Transportation Committee doesn't have anything on this afternoon's agenda.
We do have a committee meeting tomorrow afternoon.
We have a few items on that.
The one I'll flag for everyone is the first conversation with the department director.
So we'll have Sam Zimbabwe here, and we'll go over some of the questions in the questionnaire.
He'll be back in committee, I believe it's on February 15th, for the second conversation with that.
for SDOT, yes, thank you.
And so the plan will be to, assuming everything goes well, to consider his appointment on the 15th, but we should have a good discussion tomorrow.
If folks aren't able to make tomorrows and have any questions or things they want me to bring up, please let me know.
A couple other things, a couple ordinance, one about Amtrak utility lines, one about Borealis Avenue.
Others have already mentioned the elected leadership group on Friday, so I'm looking forward to that for Sound Transit 3. The other thing I'll just mention again, we are now at the beginning of week three of the Seattle Squeeze.
And while we've seen spot areas where we've seen significant traffic increases overall, we're still well below, I think, some of the expectations of the catastrophic changes.
And so really, thank everyone out there who's doing their work.
Colleagues, I really want to thank you on the flexibility.
these past couple weeks and this week on starting times and for committees to allow some flexibility and really thank all the people out there.
They were doing some great work.
I want to highlight the Cascade Bicycle Club on Friday did a kind of pop-up bike everywhere day.
With a couple stations, one coming across the West Seattle Bridge, one the Fremont Bridge, just to hand out some snacks.
And SDOT participated with some bike lights to hand out.
And I know a few of my colleagues were going to those stations too.
It was really great to be thanking the folks that were choosing to bike.
But we know there's a lot of folks making a lot of different decisions these last couple weeks, and it's really made what could have been a really terrible situation traffic-wise pretty bearable.
So thanks for everyone doing that.
Thank you, Council Member Bryan.
Okay, we're going to go into executive session.
So as presiding officer, I'm announcing that Seattle Council will now convene an executive session.
The purpose of the executive session is to discuss pending, potential, or actual litigation.
And this gives the council an opportunity for the council to discuss confidential legal matters with city attorneys as authorized by law.
However, a legal monitor is always present from the city attorney's office to make sure we ensure and reserve questions of policy for our public open session.
So I expect this session to end by 30 minutes, so that will be 11.50 this morning.
And if it's going to go beyond that period, I will announce that extension in public session, and then we will extend it.
So with that, let's go into executive session.