Seattle City Council 5/24/2022

Thank you, son.

And good afternoon, everybody.

Today is May 24th meeting of the Seattle City Council.

Will it please come to order?

It is two oh two.

And I'm Deborah Juarez.

If there's no objection, council members to want is excused from last week's meeting, May 17th.

So we're excusing you now after the fact.

But I want to get that done.

And let's see, hearing no objection, Council Member Sawant is indeed excused from the May 17th City Council meeting.

Okay, sorry about that.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Council Member Strauss.

Present.

Council Member Herbold.

Here.

Council Member Lewis.

Present.

Council Member Morales.

Here.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Present.

Council Member Nelson.

Present.

Council Member Peterson.

Present.

Council Member Sawant.

Present.

Council President Juarez.

Here.

Nine present.

Thank you.

Moving along on our agenda to presentations.

Today we have two presentations being presented by Council Member Herbold and Council Member Morales.

So we will start with Council Member Herbold.

Council Member Herbold has a proclamation proclaiming May 2022 to be Mental Health Awareness Month.

Council Member Herbold will first present her proclamation, then I will open the floor for comments.

After Council Member's comments, we will suspend the rules to allow our guests to accept the proclamation and provide comments.

Council Member Herbold, you are recognized.

Thank you so much, Council President, and thank you to my council colleagues for your ongoing support of this proclamation declaring May to be Mental Health Awareness Month.

You know about my passion for addressing the shadow pandemic, the crisis in mental health that is impacting us all, brought about by the past two years of grief, fear, and isolation.

Last year you may recall governor Inslee declared a state of emergency, due to the mental and behavioral health of Washington's kids.

And then last December, the nation's surgeon general followed suit, warning of an urgent need to address the youth mental health crisis.

While behavioral health services are fundamentally a responsibility of the county and state, I know that we've all seen that our residents are suffering, and in response, council has stepped up to provide additional city resources to meet this growing need.

That includes providing $1 million to expand mental health support for Seattle students and residents, and increasing services for people in behavioral health crisis with a down payment on a new behavioral crisis facility and continued expansion of the mobile crisis team.

I'm really pleased to be able today to present this proclamation to leaders who are on the front line of addressing this crisis.

We'll have Lauren Simmons, who's the executive director and CEO of the Washington chapter of the National Alliance on Mental Illness.

We'll have Anne Nichols, who is the president of the board at NAMI Washington.

And then we'll have Erin Romanek, Student Support Services Supervisor at Seattle Public Schools.

Appreciate you all being with us.

And as Madam President mentioned, we'll have an opportunity to hear from you after she

Suspends the rules.

Yes, it gets us through this.

Thank you.

So before I do that, can we are there any do any of my colleagues want to share anything before I move to suspend the rules to go forward?

OK, not seeing that if there's no objection, the council rules will be suspended to allow our guests and I was going to read them all out, but Councilmember Herbert already did that.

Lauren, Alice and Aaron.

Is it Alice?

Did I get that wrong or is it Anne?

It's Alice.

Good, Alice.

Um, so we can, um, allow our guests to have an opportunity to accept the proclamation and to speak.

And so.

Not hearing or seeing an objection.

The council rules are indeed suspended and, um, Alice and Lauren and looking for the other person.

Well, uh, Aaron, you are recognized however you guys want to do it.

Oh, thank you so much.

Um, Chair Juarez, it's such an honor to be here on behalf of NAMI Washington.

I'm Lauren Simons, the executive director and the CEO of the National Alliance on Mental Illness of Washington State.

And on behalf of our 1,500 members throughout the state and the over 30,000 Washingtonians who receive NAMI's free classes, support groups, and presentation programs each year, I want to thank the council for taking the time to make this very important proclamation.

For those of you who don't know what NAMI is, we're a three-tiered organization.

We're the country's largest grassroots mental health advocacy organization.

In Washington State, we have 20 local affiliates across the state that offer free classes, support groups, and community presentation educational programs, all at no cost.

You don't have to be a member.

to take a class or attend a support group or request a presentation program.

And coming off of, and I wouldn't even say off, continuing along in our new pandemic affected world has certainly shown us that everybody right now is dealing with a behavioral health issue.

You'd be hard pressed to meet somebody who's doesn't have some anxiety or depression related to the state of our country and our world right now.

So I know that this is something that the council has done almost every May, which is Mental Health Awareness Month.

And it's so important to keep doing it and raising the issue of behavioral health, which includes substance use disorder, to ensure that we are talking about mental health.

It is part of our whole person health.

Thank you again.

With that, I'd like to introduce Alice Nichols, the NAMI Washington board president.

And thank you again so much.

I have no comments except to thank Lauren for her incredible leadership across the state of Washington.

Many wonderful things have happened in Lauren's tenure as executive director at NAMI Washington.

and we so appreciate the City of Seattle and the support for mental health causes.

Thank you, Erin.

Hi, thank you.

My name is Erin Romanek.

I'm a student support services supervisor with Seattle Public Schools.

I am proud to be able to be here today on behalf of Seattle Public Schools as the City of Seattle formally presents the proclamation recognizing May as Mental Health Awareness Month.

On behalf of Seattle Public Schools, I would like to thank you for your recognition in supporting the mental health and wellness of the children, adolescents, and adults in the city of Seattle.

I would also like to thank you for securing much needed additional mental health resources and services for the young people enrolled in Seattle Public Schools.

We all have mental health and wellness that needs to be fostered and cared for just like our physical health.

The past two years have had significant impact on the mental health and wellness of all of the members of the Seattle Public Schools community.

Our students, families, and staff have experienced unprecedented levels of grief, anxiety, fear, trauma, and stress that for most cannot be compared to anything they've ever experienced before.

Believing that all behavior is a form of communication and being able to recognize mental health and wellness so publicly allows us to support the entire child, the entire family, and the entire adult.

It is critical that students have access to safe and supportive environments and trusted adults who see them for their brilliance and also recognize when they may be struggling and in need of help.

Being able to name and normalize mental health and wellness is something that we are doing on an ongoing basis.

And we believe this is the first step towards healing and getting the much needed help that we all deserve.

As a community, we are stronger together, and we appreciate you inviting us here today to be part of this remarkable event.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member Herbold, do you want to close this out?

But I do want to thank Lauren, Alice, and Erin for being here.

And Council Member Herbold, I don't know how you, how did you phrase that?

The shadow, what did you call it?

The shadow pandemic.

Yeah.

Thank you for putting a name to that.

I know that you said that yesterday morning.

But now I understand.

So anyway, do you want to close us out on this and thank our guests?

Thank you.

And I just really am so grateful to practitioners who are working in this area to address these mental health impacts.

And I know it's happening in every walk of life, but just thinking about the impacts of COVID on our young ones and the work that you're doing in the schools is so incredibly important and I know it must be so stressful and difficult for your faculty as well.

Dami just put some information in the chat I want to lift up to.

They offer Ending the Silence for middle school and high school students as an in-service training for school staff and a separate workshop for parents and caregivers of youth, adolescent, and young adults serving Seattle and King County as well as an Eastside and South King County branch, and just putting a plug out for NAMI Walks Your Way on June 4th.

Feel free to get in contact for more information about that.

And again, thank you for giving me some time to present this proclamation.

It recognizes that with early and effective treatment, people with lived experience of mental illness do get better, live in recovery, and lead fulfilling and empowered lives and bring invaluable knowledge on how to improve and transform systems of care.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold, and thank you all for being here today.

So with that, we are going to move on to our second presentation.

Council Member Morales will now present a proclamation proclaiming Sunday, May 29th to be Pride Asia Day.

Council Member Morales, where are you?

There you are.

Here I am.

Good afternoon, colleagues.

Thank you, everyone.

I am here to announce the proclamation for Pride Asia.

As I said yesterday, Pride Asia really embraces the American Pacific Islander lens to celebrate, empower, and nurture LGBTQ communities.

They have an annual event that is really meant to create a safe space for LGBTQ and Asian Pacific Islanders to celebrate their identities.

I'm very honored to be able to present this proclamation to Alaska Manila, who I've had the pleasure of watching perform on many occasions.

As the founder of Pride Asia, Alaska has really elevated the importance of LGBTQ equity, of harm reduction to this community and to public health, as well as the importance of serving our immigrant and refugee neighbors.

I'm very excited to be able to join the mayor and the council in proclaiming Sunday, May 29, to be Pride Asia Day.

And when you're ready, Council President, I'm happy to make the presentation to Alaska.

Great.

Alexa, sorry.

Oh.

So are there any comments for Council Member Morales before I move to suspend the rules?

Okay, not seeing any.

There's no objection.

The council rules are indeed suspended to allow Council Member Morales to introduce our guests, which she's done, and allow our guests to speak and accept the proclamation as provided.

Hearing no objection, the council rules are indeed suspended, and we welcome, I'm just gonna say your names, your first names.

Is it Aleska?

Matthew and Andrew, you are recognized to speak.

And I don't know how you want to do it.

If you already have it set up, how you want to do it, we're here.

However you want to do it.

Thank you so much.

Salamat poin, my native tongue of the Philippines.

I'm Alexa Manila.

She, her pronouns.

Thank you so much, Council Member Tammy Morales, President Juarez.

On behalf of Bright Asia as its founder, we have a couple of members here, Matthew Spahn and Andrew Niles.

as our ambassadors.

We really just would like to thank Seattle City Government, our mayor and our city council for recognizing Pride Asia Day.

I'm going to put a little plug in there in the chat box.

Founded in 2012, our mission is to celebrate, empower and nurture the multicultural diversity of the LGBTQ communities through the Asian Pacific Islander lens.

It's our opportunity to recognize our intersectionalities, all of our identities, so that we can be our true authentic selves and recognize that we are citizens of this magnificent city.

Since 2012, if you're doing the math, we're celebrating 10 years.

and the city council and our city mayors over time have been recognizing us and it really means a lot to us to represent our diverse communities and it really means a lot to us for city government to recognize our existence as we continue to celebrate each other.

We want to take this opportunity to thank you again and invite you this Sunday for Pride Asia Fest.

It's free, it's all ages.

If you're hungry for some dim sum in our Chinatown International District, please come by, grab some bubble tea and join us at Hing Pei Park.

It's from noon to 4 p.m.

We're going to do, we're going to keep celebrating at one of the local locally owned family owned businesses hood famous cafe and bar for the after party again all ages, and it's free.

And I just wanted to do a side note as a social worker, I really am so appreciative of our city government to recognize mental health awareness month.

Thank you so very much for for recognizing that.

And also want to take this opportunity to thank co-chair Victor Liu of the LGBTQ Commission for coordinating this with Janet Stafford at the Seattle Office for Civil Rights.

As a former LGBTQ Commissioner, I know so much the hard work that gets into this.

I really appreciate everyone's perseverance and time.

We're just so excited to celebrate with all of you post, using air quotes, post pandemic.

Thank you so very much for everyone's time.

and really just love the support from all of you.

Thank you.

Salamat po.

So are we going to hear from Matthew and Andrew as well?

Oh, Matthew's going like this.

He's a bit of a shy person.

Yeah, I don't want to make you talk, Matthew, but you are on the screen, so you don't have to.

I can definitely say something.

I definitely want to express my gratitude to the council as well as to Alexa for founding As a newer ambassador to Pride Asia, I definitely found community within Seattle as part of this amazing group.

As a child of immigrants of the Vietnam War, as a gay man myself, being able to find something that helps to provide the intersectionality of the very diverse backgrounds that we all walk has been very important to me finding my identity and also for me being able to as we said before, work on my mental health as well.

So thank you.

I just want to say thank you again for being here.

I think it's really important that we acknowledge the incredible diversity in our community and that we honor and demonstrate our commitment to protecting our different identities and protecting our community members.

So thank you for being here.

Thank you.

And I just want Alaska, Alaska, am I saying your name correctly?

Alexa.

It's like Alex.

I just want Alexa's hat.

So when we see each other's safely out in public, you may have it.

Oh my gosh, I almost forgot.

I do want to acknowledge Deputy Mayor Monisha Harrell, who will be reading the proclamation with the LGBTQ Commission this coming Sunday.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, Kessler-Morales.

My pleasure.

Okay, we'll move on.

So moving on into our agenda, we are going to the approval of the IRC, the Introduction Referral Calendar.

I move to adopt the Introduction Referral Calendar.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to adopt the Introduction Referral Calendar.

So what I understand here is I'm going to amend the introduction referral calendar to correct the referral of council bill 120332. If there's no objection, item number two, council bill 120332 on the introductory referral calendar will be amended by changing the committee referral from the council president's office to the city council.

Hearing no objection, the introduction and referral calendar is amended to reflect that item two, Council Bill 120332 is referred to the City Council.

Are there any comments?

Not seeing any.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the amended introduction and referral calendar?

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Aye.

Council Member Sawant.

Yes.

Council President Juarez.

Yes.

Nine in favor.

Thank you.

The motion carries and the introduction and referral calendar is hereby adopted as amended.

Going along the agenda, we are on approval of the consent calendar.

We will now consider the proposed consent calendar.

Are there any items council members would like to remove from today's consent calendar?

Okay.

Hearing none, I move to adopt the consent calendar.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

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

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

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Council Member Herbold.

Yes.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Council Member Sawant.

Yes.

Council President Juarez.

Yes.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The consent calendar is adopted and will the clerk please affix my signature to the minutes and legislation of the consent calendar on my behalf.

We'll be down the agenda.

I always want to say calendar.

We'll be down the agenda.

So we have a little change up here, approval of the agenda, a little FYI in the future.

I need a little bit more notice than 40 minutes.

So just leave it at that.

If there's no objection, agenda item nine, Agenda item number nine, resolution 32050, which I understand is Council Member Nelson's resolution, will be considered before agenda item eight.

So we're just switching them around.

So the resolution, Council Member Nelson's resolution will be, which is agenda item nine, will come first and then we will do Council Member Herbold's legislation eight afterwards.

Objection.

Okay.

So we have an objection.

And can you comment why you don't want the resolution to go before the ordinance?

I think we should stick with the agenda as is.

It was presented and I'm only learning about this change now, Madam President.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, so there is an objection, but we're gonna go forward.

Council Member Mosqueda objects, but that's fine.

So we'll just move on.

If there is an objection, we should call a roll on the amendment of the agenda.

Yeah.

I was just going to do that.

Okay.

Thank you.

I didn't know.

I didn't give you the script.

I apologize.

That's okay.

I got it.

I just hand wrote it.

So, so since we have an objection, what we'll do is we will take a vote on the amended approval of the agenda.

Madam clerk, will you please call the role on the amended information?

Yes.

Why are we changing the agenda?

Okay, hold up, I'm gonna let, I probably should have done this, but it just, we had a little wrinkle here.

Council Member Nelson, this is your amendment to the agenda.

Would you like to speak to it?

Yes, so I was in, I didn't catch this because I was in a four hour public safety meeting just before this.

So I apologize for not giving more advanced notice, but these two bills are related.

My resolution, resolution 32050, is a resolution that states a policy intent that basically, if it passes, Council Bill 120320 would then basically enact.

So this is how we have been considering these two pieces of legislation.

in the Public Safety Committee, and I just ask that we do so again.

I have no idea why it was switched or what the rationale was for changing, you know, for putting the council bill beforehand, but it just makes the flow of the policy direction and implementation more, well, more logical.

Okay, let me just add this though.

What we learned from the clerks, and Madam Clerk, please correct me if I'm wrong, it was just a matter of how procedurally they do ordinances first and then resolutions.

It's just a template.

There's no ill will or intent or anything.

Oh, no.

Yeah.

Yeah, I know you know.

It's usually like that, but when two items are on the agenda, On the same agenda, I was told that it's normal for having a policy intent before the policy.

But I understand.

Yeah.

Okay, good.

Council Member Herbold, and then we'll go ahead and vote on the amended agenda.

I was just wanting to comment to say I have no objections to this requested change in the agenda.

And I'm just confirming that the order that Council Member Nelson proposes we take these two items is consistent with the committee discussion order.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I'm sorry, I apologize, Council Member Herbold.

I had forgot that you were okay with this.

I apologize for that.

Council Member Strauss, is that a new hand or old hand?

Yes, thank you, Council President.

Just confirming that no matter the order, there's no change in substantive anything, so it doesn't really matter which one we do first, correct?

Correct.

Great, thank you.

Okay, one's a resolution, one's an ordinance.

Okay, let's go forward.

Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll on the amended agenda in which we will be voting on voting and discussing item nine and then item eight?

Council Member Strauss?

No.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda?

No.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Sawant?

Yes.

Council President Mores?

Aye.

Seven in favor, two opposed.

Thank you.

So the amended agenda is adopted.

Is that correct, Madam Clerk?

That is correct.

Okay, good.

Okay, we got through that big thing.

Okay, let's move on to public comment.

Again, I'm gonna read from my script here, because we wanna make sure we get the record straight here.

Madam Clerk, how many people are signed up for public comment?

We have 23 individuals signed up for public comment.

Okay, so with 23 individuals, we will limit it to one minute each.

Okay, so one minute, and I'm going to go ahead with my script and I've been handed over to our city clerk.

Colleagues at this time, we will open the remote public comment period for items on the city council agenda, the agenda introduction referral calendar and the council's work program.

Again, it remains the strong intent of city council to have remote public comment regularly included on meeting agendas.

However, as a reminder, the city council reserves the right to end or eliminate these public comment periods at any point, if we deem that the system is being abused or is no longer suitable, excuse me, for allowing our meeting to be conducted efficiently and effectively.

And so I understand we have 23 speakers.

You will have one minute.

And Madam, our clerk today is Jody.

Jody's our clerk today.

Thank you, Jody.

Jody will moderate the general public comment, and I will now hand it off to her to read the instructions.

Madam Clerk.

Yes, the public comment period for this meeting is up to 20 minutes and each speaker will be given one minute to speak.

Speakers are called upon in the order in which they are registered to provide public comment.

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

Please note that this is different from the general meeting listen line ID listed on the agenda.

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

Once the speaker's name is called, staff will unmute the appropriate microphone and you will hear an automated prompt of you have been unmuted.

This is your cue then to press star six to begin speaking.

Please begin speaking by stating your name and the item that you are addressing.

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

Once you hear the chime, we ask that you begin to wrap up your public comment.

If speakers do not end their public comment at the end of the allotted time provided, the speaker's microphone will be muted to allow us to call on the next speaker.

Once you've completed your public comment, we ask that you please disconnect from the line, and if you plan to continue following this meeting, please do so via Seattle Channel or the listening options listed on the agenda.

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

As a reminder, press star six after you hear the prompt that you've been unmuted.

So our first speaker is Howard Gale and he will be followed by Peter Condit.

Howard.

Good afternoon, Howard Gale with jailstop.org commenting on our failed police accountability system.

Tomorrow marks the second anniversary of the police murder of George Floyd.

Yet today, the council is spending its time figuring out how to incentivize hiring more police without having done anything in the last two years to hold police more accountable, despite dozens of U.S. cities having done so since the murder of George Floyd.

Accountable for the fact that the SPD has killed more people in the decade after the consent decree than during the decade prior.

Accountable for allowing every SPD killing to be determined as, quote, lawful and proper, unquote, including the 17 people experiencing a severe behavioral crisis.

Accountable for the continuing racial disparity in the SPD use of force and in SBD stops and detentions.

Accountable for the 2020 unconstitutional and egregiously violent SBD actions against demonstrators with virtually all officers exonerated and unpunished, save for a few cases resulting in reprimands or a few days off.

Accountability needs to come before incentives, else we are going to repeat the violence of 2020.

Our next speaker is Peter Condit, followed by Kaz Khan.

Peter?

Thank you.

Uh, this is Peter Condit in district six.

I'm calling on the council to reject hiring incentives for SPD resolution three 2050 and council bill one 2320 would not improve public safety.

So far this year, SPD has killed three people.

The King County jail has killed five people and there have been 17 homicides.

This means that the cops in the carceral system are responsible for one out of every three killings in Seattle.

Not only that, but last month, the Seattle times article concluded that SPD is still disproportionately targeting black native American and Asian people with their violence.

It's pretty bad for you to, for you to proclaim may to be mental health awareness month in the same meeting that some council members are trying to give the SPD more money.

SPD killed Derek Hayden on the waterfront in February, 2021, when he was having a mental health crisis.

I myself have depression and anxiety, both of which have gotten worse because of the police violence I've experienced in the past two years.

There's no excuse for why you're not spending this time setting up a community-led response that would ameliorate instead of exacerbate mental health struggles.

Thank you for listening.

Our next speaker is Kaz Han, who will be followed by Julia Buck.

Kaz?

Hi, this is Kaz Han in District 1. I'm calling on the council to reject hiring incentives for SPD and instead transfer all of SPD salary savings out of the department and into community driven solutions.

The national Institute for criminal justice reforms, 2021 study of SPD found that 49% of 911 call types, which actually constitute 80% of call volume could be responded to by community and not SPD.

And this is backed up by the Center for American Progress and Law Enforcement Action Partnerships 2020 study, which found that only 29% of calls should be handled by SPD.

SPD has said themselves that 12% of calls they currently handle could be immediately transferred out of the department, but they're simultaneously fighting to prevent that from happening.

Police officer bonuses would consume resources that should be spent developing the community-based responses to harm, which we so desperately need.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Julia Buck, who will be followed by BJ Last.

Julia?

Hello, Council.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment today.

I am also calling and urging Council to reject hiring bonuses for SPD.

The Preliminary data that we've gotten from hiring bonuses in 2019 was that they did nothing to increase officer recruitment and retention.

What this is, is just throwing additional money to SPD that already has $4.1 million for discretionary spending and a budget to hire 125 additional officers on top of the roster that they already have.

about an officer shortage, and yet they had the officers to send a SWAT team for a reproductive rights rally in Westlake Center.

They have 60 officers who can come to, you know, a march.

I don't understand where the staffing problem is except in their prioritization of issues.

Thank you.

Our next speaker will be BJ Last, followed by Brittany Boulay.

BJ?

Hello, my name is BJ.

I'm a Ballard resident and a small business owner.

I'm calling on council to reject hiring incentives for SPB.

The city is holding back spending on hygiene centers, domestic workers bill, worker bill of rights enforcement, and other vital city services due to a looming budget shortfall.

Giving SPB access to funds that no one can currently use while cutting spending on social services is how we continue to criminalize poverty and mental health.

This is funding cops to arrest someone sleeping in a doorway instead of funding shelter.

It is funding to arrest someone having to shop with food instead of making sure their employer is paying them minimum wage.

Increasing police contact like this will destroy lives.

The SPD and King County Jail kill people.

They've killed eight people combined so far this year, at least one person in a mental health crisis.

Additionally, people lose access to services, their families, and their jobs as they cycle through the carceral system with some attorneys high utilizer list because there aren't supports to meet their needs.

So reject SBD hiring bonuses and actually pay attention to the data showing that we do not.

Our next speaker is Brittany Bollet, who will be followed by Coco Weber.

Brittany.

Good afternoon, Council.

My name is Brittany Bush Bollet.

I'm calling as a resident of District 7 to express my opposition to the proposed SBD hiring incentives.

Both fiscal responsibility and the voices of the community at large demand that public money should be spent on evidence-based and community-centered public safety solutions, rather than repeating the ineffective spending decisions that we've made in the past.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Coco Weber, who will be followed by Penny O'Grady.

Coco?

Thank you.

I would like to reflect to Council Member Lewis in August 10th, 2021, at the public safety meeting, you said, quote, what I think is connected to officer wellness, which is also, which is the ongoing project to make sure we continue to develop and stand up a right sizing of first response so that patrolling officers do not have to respond to the same volume of calls that they're currently expected to respond to.

I would like to, as we go forward, And I know SPD is doing this.

And as we have more hearings on the topics of transitioning things to triage and health one or some kind of Kahoot style community-based platform, that those also be seen in the context of what our SPD staffing strategy is.

And I did just want to make that note because I think it's become evident and there's an agreement between us and the department that there's a very significant portion of calls that can go to different services.

And that has implications here for this discussion.

And I think has implications too for officer wellness in terms of the volume that we expect officers to do in giving more clarity to their mission and just making sure that in the staffing discussions that there's a lot more first responder services that are.

Our next speaker is Penny O'Grady, who will be followed by Leah Radecki.

Penny.

Hi, I'm Penny in District 6. A recent crosscut LA poll revealed that with stunning agreement, 92% of Seattle voters chose addiction and mental health services as the number one solution to address crime.

This is where voters want our tax dollars directed.

Hiring more police wasn't even ranked in the top eight categories of solutions.

Today, you are deciding about the future of our city.

Andrew Lewis, you know how important it is that we have an adequate civilian non-police emergency response like the stellar Denver STAR program.

You know that successful cities of the future need to build the capacity to respond to mental health crises and other human needs.

We all know tax dollars are limited.

I'm asking every city council member to tap into your common sense and reject hiring incentives for SBD, which kills people in crisis such as Derek Hayden.

transfer that salary savings to mental health services and other community-driven solutions.

It makes sense.

It's what Seattle voters overwhelmed.

The next speaker is Leah Radecki, who will be followed by Annette Klapstein.

Leah.

My name is Leah Radecki, and I also spoke to you in 2020 when you, the Seattle City Council, promised to divest from policing.

The disturbing trends of racism and policing and police violence targeted towards people of color has increased, but your resolve to address this violence and racism has ended.

I want to tell the council that I reject any and all hiring incentives for SPD and demand you instead transfer all of SPD salary savings out of the department to community driven solutions.

Do not reward violence in our community with monetary incentives.

Everyone is aware of the impact of the pandemic on our mental health.

We need free and accessible mental health services for all.

Invest in mental health and community services, not policing.

Do not reward an organization that has such a toxic structure that it cannot retain employees with hiring incentives.

Divest from policing, invest in community.

The next speaker is Annette Clapstein, who will be followed by Jodi Nathan.

Annette.

It may be that Annette is no longer online.

Annette, are you online?

I'm here.

I'm here.

Yeah, we can hear you.

Okay.

You can hear me?

Okay.

This is Annette Klapstein in district four.

I am a cranky 70 year old white woman, the very demographic, which is expected to believe that the police protect us and keep us safe.

But guess what?

I am not a fool and I know that isn't true.

I am cranky today because I am appalled that hiring incentives for SPD are even being considered.

You want to give more money to SPD for what?

So they can spend even more millions violently sweeping homeless people from one place to another so they can kill and brutalize more of our black and brown neighbors and people in mental health crisis?

We don't need hiring bonuses for cops because the absolute last thing the city needs is more cops.

A 2021 study by the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform found that 80% of 911 calls could be handled by community-based alternatives instead of SPD.

Rather than hiring more cops, the Seattle Police Department should be drastically cut and the savings should go to funding a community-based emergency response network and all the things that actually protect us and keep.

The next speaker is Jodi Nathan, who will be followed by Dana Barnett.

Jodi?

Hi, I'm Jody Nathan, a resident in District 2, and I'm calling to ask the council to reject the hiring incentives for SPD and to instead transfer all of their salary savings out of the department and into community-driven solutions.

This resolution and council bill would further entrench SPD's racist violence and threaten public safety.

First, we do not need more punting for cops.

We know that in 2021, both homicides in the city and 911 call volume were down.

SPD is literally being asked to do less than they were in prior years, so it only makes sense that they should have less staff and funding.

SPD is deadly and racist, and councils should not further ramp up policing when these issues remain unaddressed.

A recent Seattle Times article uses data from 2019 and 2020-21 to conclude that SPD is still disproportionately targeting Black, Native American, and Asian people.

They're able to draw this conclusion despite the fact that race data was missing almost a third of the police reports, further elevating costs for concern.

Thank you for listening.

The next speaker is Dana Barnett, who will be followed by Matthew Offenbacher.

Dana.

Hi, this is Dana Barnett.

I'm in district three.

I'm also calling to oppose the increased funding for SPD.

There's so many things that we could invest in to make our communities healthy and safe.

And one of those things that I've been most intimately involved with in the past three years is funding for domestic workers.

We recently, the standards board, which I was a part of for several years, recently proposed some very essential and needed recommendations and got $500,000 a much smaller amount than the SPD budget to work on some of these in practice.

We were then told we had to take 100,000 out of that money.

We know that there are so many people like domestic workers who are essential workers who are struggling right now, who can't be home with their children when their children are sick.

We need to invest in these communities, not in police, especially during mental health month.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Matthew Offenbacher, who will be followed by Katie Dichter.

Matthew?

Oh, hello council members.

My name is Matthew Offenbacher.

I'm a district three resident and a small business owner in district two.

I'm calling to strongly urge you today to vote against funding SPD hiring incentives and recruitment.

These measures will not improve public safety.

I feel most safe when I know that the most vulnerable among my neighbors are being taken care of.

Not when there are more police on the streets or more officers menacing peaceful protests or showing up in large numbers to escalate the already tense and inhumane sweeps of people experiencing homelessness.

I know several of you think that this is a chicken and egg situation, but claiming that we need to continue funding FPD until there's some future horizon when community response systems are in place is a harmful policy.

There are many community-based groups who are doing this work already in our city that only lack sufficient funds to increase the scale of their efforts.

please do not give more funds to a city department that is known for its racist, toxic.

Council President Katie Dichter has dropped off.

So our next speaker will be Anna Williams and Anna will be followed by David Haynes.

Anna.

Hello, this is Anna and I'm a homeowner.

a business owner and a mother in District 4, I'm calling on the council to also reject hiring incentives for SPD and instead transfer that money to community-driven solutions.

True public safety comes from resourcing community and not cops.

And I really do believe that it is the intent of council to increase public safety.

I believe that that is y'all's intent.

But if we look to history, police reform hasn't worked.

We've been trying to reform police since its inception.

We've spent about 200 years trying to reform police.

I think it's time to try something else, and that is resourcing community.

To truly confront problems of racist violence in our society, let's not once again begin with the question of how to reform police.

Let's instead start with the question of how to build healthy and safe communities of mutual respect, and see which institutions we need to reach that goal.

If anything that is to be called policing emerges from that inquiry, it should be at its end rather than it's assumed at the outset.

Our next speaker is David Haynes, who will be followed by Tran Larson.

David, go ahead.

Thank you.

Renter's right.

I recently reached out to the Northwest Housing Justice Project about getting my lease getting out of my lease and getting my money back because of unsafe unhealthy oppressive living conditions and that are denying the pursuits of happiness destroying mental health and endangering physical well-being and the lawyer informs me there's no codified law to protect renters from abusive intimidating threats by landlord about eviction for complaining about horrible living conditions financial decisions refusing to hire qualified security and stopping the criminals conducting war on the property, refusing to trespass or call the cops while they sit inside their office, and no protections from flawed obsolete designs that ruin, isolate, and walls that shake like a bomb went off.

and heating units that are forced into the hallway like the owner creates a wind tunnel draining our heat so he can heat his building saving money.

Now separately and a different concern council looks like they're setting aside 35 million dollars in finance committee to give raises to government union employees except for the cops while same council refused money to restaff cops and voted to defund 50% while continuing to run interference for evil crack meth and heroin pushers and customs violating illegal aliens.

Our next speaker is Tram Larson, who will be followed by Karen Carpenter.

Tram?

Tram, are you there?

Good afternoon.

My name is Tram Larson, and I'm the Community Engagement Manager at the Housing Justice Project.

We provide free eviction defense for low-income renters in King County.

And on behalf of SJP, we support council members to launch proposed ordinance that amends the language in the COVID-related defense to eviction that addresses the issue that was raised by the Court of Appeals.

As this council recognizes May as Mental Health Awareness Month, keeping someone housed is critical to their mental well-being.

If we acknowledge that the past two plus years is still impacting us, we cannot exclude tenants that are still struggling to pay from this narrative.

It is disingenuous of landlords, both big and small, to claim that they have been left out of the conversations around renter protection.

when in fact they have been prioritized and brought to the table.

Mayor Harrell hosted a round table with various stakeholders before deciding to end the moratorium.

This bill speaks directly to the concerns for landlords.

So I urge this council to pass the ordinance to match their support for their constituents' mental health.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Karen Carpenter, who will be followed by Adam Kennedy.

Karen?

My name is Karen.

I'm a resident of District 1. I'm calling to urge the council to reject SPD hiring incentives.

SPD does not keep us safe.

SPD does serve and uphold white supremacist interests.

They terrorize poor, mentally ill, black and brown members of our community.

I urge the council to transfer salary savings to fund community solutions for housing accessibility, mental health resources, and hygiene services to actually achieve public safety.

During the time of upcoming citywide budget cuts that jeopardize delivering critical social services, Council Member Nelson and Council Member Herbold's proposed legislation would fund a department that has repeatedly lied to the public and is one of the many perpetrators of violence in the city, disproportionately towards black members of our community.

SPD already received the funding for their claim staffing needs.

They have chosen to slow their response times to low priority calls and prioritize endlessly sweeping homeless people from one place to another.

showing up en masse for shoplifting at Target and standing on street corners, not to mention fatally shooting people.

Independent research has shown that a large number of in woman calls should be handled by community, not cop.

The last three speakers are Adam Kennedy, Valerie Shred and Michael Mulaney.

Adam.

Hello, my name is Adam Kennedy.

I'm a resident of District three.

And I would like to encourage the council to reject hiring bonuses for police officers.

And as so many speakers before me have said to move the salary surplus into community funded or community programs.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Valerie Schloret.

Hi, this is Valerie Schloret from District Two.

I'm calling about the draft ordinance for investigating complaints about the chief of police that was introduced at the public safety meeting this morning.

The impetus for the ordinance was the chief actions during the protests of 2020, for example, spreading inflammatory misinformation and actually lying.

Ironically, the ordinance itself starts with the misrepresentation that the city of Seattle's accountability system has quote, strength not found in other models of oversight and addresses systemic weaknesses with which other systems have struggled.

When we look at investigation findings, especially about injuries to protesters and shootings of people in behavioral health crisis, outcomes show we have a long way to go before we can congratulate ourselves.

Please delete the claim that our system is the best from the first paragraph of the ordinance.

And our last speaker today is Michael Malini.

Michael?

Michael, are you there?

Madam Clerk, do you wanna?

Are you there?

Yeah, can you hear me?

Oh, good, yeah, go ahead.

My name is Michael Mullaney, I'm a resident in District 3 calling for the council to reject hiring bonuses for SPD and instead reinvest those funds in community-driven solutions.

Thank you.

And that concludes our speakers for today, Council President.

How are we doing?

That concludes our list.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, my speaker cut out for a minute.

Okay, so we're good.

We got through our speakers, correct?

We did.

Okay, folks, we've reached the end of the list of the folks that have signed up for public comment.

So now public comment is now closed.

Moving along the agenda, we got a pretty full agenda today, folks.

14 committee reports.

Item number one is mine.

Madam Clerk, can you please read it to the record?

The report of the city council agenda item one council bill 1-2-0-3-2-4 and ordinance amending ordinance 1-2-6-4-9-0, which adopted the 2022 budget changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels and from various funds in the 2022 budget.

Thank you.

I move to pass council bill 1-2-0-3-2-4.

Is there a second?

and second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill.

As a sponsor, I will address the bill first and then open it up to comments.

I shared some of this information with you all yesterday during our briefing, so let me share it again for the record.

In late 2021 and early 2022, the Seattle City Council adopted six separate ordinances relating to the compensation of city personnel, including cost of living adjustments and adding paid holidays for Juneteenth and Indigenous Peoples Day.

Funds to cover those costs associated with these bills were being held in reserves in the general fund and in some department funds until the exact appropriation amounts to each department had been determined.

The legislation appropriates those funds to city departments to fulfill these commitments.

It did not go to committee, but was rather sent straight to us, full city council.

Queen Abul has served as our staff analysis on this bill and sent a memo to each council member last week.

Are there any comments before we go to a vote?

I'm not seeing any.

Madam.

Oh, go ahead.

I'm sorry.

I did not see you.

Go ahead, Council Member Raulston.

That's okay.

All right, I've got some allergies still.

I want to thank you for this, first of all, for bringing all of these different pieces together.

I'm really honored to have sponsored Council Bill 126505, which created the citywide holiday that commemorates Juneteenth, which we're including here.

As we all know, that's an opportunity holiday is an opportunity not just to celebrate but also to speak out about the work that society still has to do.

So I'm just really excited that our city workers will now have this day to mark this important commemoration and all that it stands for and I'm looking forward to sharing that day with them.

Thank you, and also free parking on those two days.

And also free parking.

And I really want to thank my chief of staff, Brindell, and Karina Bull, and the executive, because they're the ones that pull all this stuff together for us.

And I do the easy part, so thank you.

Thank you for that.

So it's been moved and seconded, and we've had comments.

So Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll?

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Aye.

Council Member Sawant.

Yes.

Council President Ores.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The bill passes.

The chair will sign it.

Madam Clerk, please affix my signature to the legislation.

Moving on to item number two.

This is Council Member Nelson's issue.

So will the clerk please read item number two to the record?

Item two, Council Bill 120327, an ordinance relating to the City Light and Seattle Public Utilities Departments temporarily removing the charge of interest on delinquent utility consumption and utilization accounts.

Thank you.

I move to pass Council Bill 120327. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded.

Council Member Nelson, floor is yours.

Thank you.

Passage of this bill would continue the suspension of interest charges on delinquent utility bill balances through June 20th, 2023 for residential customers, nonprofit customers, and commercial customers with annual receipts of less than $5 million.

The initial legislation to suspend interest charges, which was ordinance 126058, expired in August, 2020. And since then the council has passed three extensions of the policy and the most, with the most recent expiring on January 1st, 2022. So this would essentially extend this support through June 20th, 2023.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for council member Nelson before we move to the vote.

Not seeing any, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Aye.

Council Member Sawant?

Yes.

Council President Morales.

Aye.

None in favor, none opposed.

So the bill passes and the chair will sign it.

And Madam Clerk, please affix my signature to the legislation.

Let's go to item number three, and that is Council Member Nelson again.

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

Agenda item three, Council Bill 120328, an ordinance relating to the City Light Department amending terms and conditions pertaining to the Emergency Bill Assistance Program and temporarily expanding access to assistance to certain eligible households for a limited time in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 COVID emergency.

Thank you.

I move to pass Council Bill 120328. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded.

Council Member Nelson, it's yours.

Floor is yours.

All right.

Passage of this bill would extend the availability of expanded emergency assistance to low-income, to income and qualifying households without minor children until December 31st, 2023. And prior to the passage of the originating legislation for this assistance, which was Ordinance 126317, qualifying households with minor children were eligible for two emergency credits to their utility counts per calendar year, while qualifying households without minor children were eligible for one credit per calendar year.

The policy that would be extended in this bill allows two credits to totaling $1,000 to households without minor children as well.

The council has extended this policy once previously, making the expanded assistance available until December 31st, 2022. And this would extend that for one more year.

Thank you, Council Member Nelson.

Are there any comments or questions for Council Member Nelson?

All right, seeing none.

Will the clerk please call the roll on passage of the bill?

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Herbold.

Yes.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Aye.

Council Member Sawant.

Yes.

Council President Juarez.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, the bill passes, the chair will sign it, and Madam Clerk, please affix my signature to the legislation.

Moving on to item number four, I see it's Council Member Peterson.

Will the clerk please read the title of item number four to the record?

Agenda item for Council Bill 120329, an ordinance relating to Seattle Public Utilities Emergency Assistance Program, temporarily extending increased assistance related to COVID-induced customer delinquencies, and amending section 21.76.065 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

Thank you.

I move to pass Council Bill 120329. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

And this is your bill.

The floor is yours.

Thank you, Council President, colleagues, all three utility bills utility relief bills here, co sponsoring Councilmember Nelson this one happens to deal with Seattle Public Utilities, specifically, it does the same thing for emergency assistance program as the city light bill we just adopted a moment ago.

As with its companion bill this council bill 120329 simply extends an existing utility relief policy.

Extending this relief through 2023 will become even more important for customers of Seattle Public Utilities because the King County Executive and King County Council members are currently considering a substantial increase in wastewater treatment fees.

King County passes their wastewater treatment fees, which comprise nearly 50% of households SPU bill directly to our Seattle customers.

So the more relief we can provide to lower income SPU customers, the better.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Peterson.

And I should have noted that I actually had it noted here in the margins that these are the items two, three, and four are Council Member Peterson and Council Member Nelson.

So thank you.

Are there any comments for Council Member Peterson?

Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you so much.

I just want to take this opportunity to thank Council Member Peterson for the joint work that we are looking into with the public utilities folks about how to make sure that more of the people who are qualifying for the utility discount program get automatically enrolled in that.

That's something that I've looked into in 2018 and 2019. And I think with the continued efforts to extend additional support, but also the concern on the horizon that many of these supportive programs are going to sunset, having automatic enrollment and things like utility discount program and other strategies to support working families is gonna be really critical.

So I really appreciate you taking the reins on that Council Member Peterson and your quick action to respond to some of those ideas and look forward to continuing to engage with you on some longer-term policy solutions.

Thank you, Council Member Esqueda.

Hey, are we all done?

Thank you, Council President Ortt.

Okay.

Thank you, Councilman Peterson.

No, thank you.

So thank you, everybody.

So let's move on.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Aye.

Council Member Sawant?

Yes.

Council President Juarez?

None in favor, none opposed.

The chair will sign it, and Madam Clerk, please affix my signature to this legislation.

So going to finance and housing, Council Member Esqueda has items five, six, and seven for us, and I understand that you're going to read five and six into the record, and Council Member Esqueda will address five and six together, but we'll vote on them separately.

So Madam Clerk, please read five and six and to the record.

The report of the Finance and Housing Committee agenda items five and six Council Bill 120316 and ordinance amending ordinance 126490, which adopted the 2022 budget, including the 2022 through 2027 Capital Improvement Program and of Council Bill 120317 and Ordinance Amending Ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 budget, including the 2121 through 2126 Capital Improvement Program.

The committee recommends both these bills pass.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Councillor Mosqueda, these are both yours and you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Clerk.

Thank you, colleagues, for your support in the Finance and Housing Committee meeting for these two items.

They both passed out of the Finance and Housing Committee unanimously.

These two sets of bills complement our annual efforts to try to ensure that we have transparency and accountability for our 12 month calendar year budget.

Every year we have been considering a carry forward ordinance which brings forward funding from the previous year to the current fiscal year calendar year.

to make sure that any authorized spending that has not yet been spended is allowed to be spent on those authorized uses.

It also has funding included in an exceptions ordinance, which we have been considering on an annual basis.

If you have had the chance to read the excellent memo from central staff, thanks again to Tom Meisel and Ali Panucci from central staff who presented in our May 4th meeting and again in mid-month in May, you would have had a chance to see how the exceptions ordinance should be that.

It should be exceptional.

We should not be in a regular and routine practice of regularly approving spending that was not authorized in the previous year that then was spent and we are making an exception for that spending.

That said, this has been a regular practice in the past, we have made some corrections for it specifically in the areas of Seattle Police Department over the last two years, and we are undertaking a robust effort within the Finance and Housing Committee meeting to move away from exceptions ordinances moving forward and in large part I want to thank central staff for their intense conversations and really collaborative discussions with our new city budget office director, Julie Dingley, and her team jointly between the legislative branch, the executive branch, and working really closely with central staff.

I think we're on a good path forward to finding some solutions so that we're not routinely considering exceptions ordinances.

That said, this year is no exception to the rule.

So we do have in front of us the carry forward ordinance and the exception ordinance items number five and six, again, passed unanimously out of committee and lots of good discussion and analysis from central staff, which helped us break down what those expenses were.

And the dollars, again, from the carry forward ordinance are being used for items that have already been authorized by this council.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Madam President.

And I'll conclude with that.

Hope to have your support today.

Absolutely.

Council members, are there any questions for Council Member Mosqueda for items five and six?

I've seen any, and thank you, Council Member Mosqueda, for giving us the update on items five and six.

If there are seeing none, let's go to the first vote on item number five.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the agenda item five, Council Bill 120316. Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Aye.

Council Member Sawant.

Yes.

Council President Orosz.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The bill passes.

The chair will sign it and Madam Clerk, please affix my signature.

to the legislation, and let's move to item number six.

Will the clerk please call the roll on item number six?

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Aye.

Council Member Sawant.

Yes.

Council President Juarez.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it and please affix my signature, Madam Clerk, to the legislation.

Therefore, moving to item seven, Council Member Esqueda, this is you as well, and will the clerk please read item seven into the record?

agenda item seven, Council Bill 120318 an ordinance relating to appropriations for the executive department amending ordinance 126490, which adopted the 2022 budget, the committee recommends the bill pass.

Thank you.

I gotta find the number here.

I move for Council Bill 120318. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

There's been It's been moved and seconded and Councilor Mosqueda, this is yours and so you are recognized.

Thank you very much, Madam President and thanks again to the members of the Finance and Housing Committee.

Again, this is a piece of legislation in front of us that unanimously passed out of the Finance and Housing Committee meeting.

Just very briefly, as folks may remember our codified spend plan for jumpstart progressive revenue.

authorized up to 5% of the fees that are being recouped to be used for administration to make sure that the intended use is well staffed and that the dollars, resources, and programs are getting out the door.

Within this piece of legislation in front of us, this is the authorizing legislation for the Office of Housing to use a portion of that administrative amount to create the staffing needed for what is the largest portion of jumpstart spending, and that is making sure that we're building affordable housing, both rental units and new home owner for some homeowner options.

So in this piece of legislation, we are proposing to draw 2.3% of the administrative funds, not the full 5%.

The remaining amount would go to the rental and home ownership programs within the Office of Housing.

And I'm really excited about this piece of legislation because it does create a needed staff capacity to help deploy the affordable housing dollars as we continue to work to scale up our investments in creating affordable housing, supporting existing homeowners and creating new first time homeowners.

Thanks very much to the folks at the Office of Housing, the new interim director Michael Winkler-Chin and her incredible staff.

for the work that they've been able to do thus far and the work that they are committed to doing with this funding.

They will be adding staff to perform a range of services and activities that go into investing and promoting the development and acquisition of affordable housing.

This is all specified in the detailed spend plan that again, we codified into statute, but this makes sure that we're building affordable housing and acquiring multifamily structures that may be on this market to pull those off of the private market and quickly turn those into affordable housing options that will benefit the health of our community population and the health of our local economy.

Just by way of reminder, the Jumpstart payroll tax added $97 million for affordable housing in 2022. This doubled the amount of housing, the amount of funding that was going into housing in last year's budget compared to previous budgets.

And as a reminder, 62% of all of the funding that comes in from Jumpstart does go to affordable housing.

Within that 62%, the vast majority, 82% of it, goes to rental housing services for making sure that we're housing folks below 30% of the area median income and permanent supportive housing and affordable housing.

13% goes to community-focused acquisition, development, and capacity building.

And 5% is being prioritized for increase investment into home ownership.

This legislation authorizes new position authority at the Office of Housing and to make sure that the codified spend plan is neutralized.

Do everything we can to bring the Seattle Police Council member.

Okay, thank you so much.

And let's see.

That said, I think that summarizes what we talked about in committee and the good work that's gone into stewarding these dollars towards more investments in affordable housing.

Again, more than half of what was actually authorized for staffing and administration, more than half of that amount is going right back into building affordable housing units.

So really thanks to the Office of Housing for their great stewardship of these funds.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, Council Member Mosqueda.

Are there any comments for Councilmember or questions for Councilmember Mosqueda.

I would be remiss, Madam President, if I didn't thank Erin House for her work with Tracy Ratzliff on central staff as well to go over the initial proposal and work with Office of Housing to really fine tune it.

So thanks so much to Erin and to Tracy.

Yeah, Erin and Tracy work really hard, so thank you for recognizing them.

I don't think the public realizes how hard central staff works to get all this stuff done and get it done right.

So thank you for recognizing them.

Okay.

So not seeing any more comments or questions.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Mosquera?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Aye.

Council members want.

Yes.

Council President or is I nine in favor none opposed.

Thank you, the bill passes, and the chair will sign it, and Madam Clerk, we please affix my signature to the legislation.

Moving on on the agenda to public safety and human services.

There are two items on there and it's Councilmember Herbert's legislation or a resolution.

I'm sorry, didn't mean to get that confused.

Madam Clerk, will you please read?

I forgot, we're doing nine first.

Okay, let me back up here.

Item number nine, we are doing first and Madam Clerk, will you please read item number nine into the record?

The report of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee, Agenda Item 9, Resolution 32050, a resolution relating to the Seattle Police Department stating the council's intent to lift a proviso on anticipated 2022 salary and benefit savings to fund staffing incentives for uniformed police officers.

The committee recommends the council adopt the resolution as amended.

Thank you.

Councilmember Herbold, chair of the committee, you are recognized.

Thank you so much.

Really appreciate it.

And given that this is legislation that is sponsored by Councilmember Nelson, I'm happy to turn the floor over to Councilmember Nelson to address the resolution.

resolution is complementary to the bill that's next on the agenda and the work that the executive is proceeding with.

We know that Mayor Harrell has indicated that his administration is continuing to develop a comprehensive plan to restore staffing.

Before turning it over to Council Member Nelson, I just want to emphasize that although I did not have any objections to hearing her resolution first, and I do acknowledge the complimentary pieces of legislation.

I did not want to give the impression that my council bill was in response to her development of this resolution.

Sort of the framework for the bill that we have before us was begun during the council's budget deliberations last fall.

And with that, happy to turn it over to Council Member Nelson.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member Nelson.

Thank you very much.

So it is our duty to do everything we can to bring the Seattle Police Department back up to adequate staffing levels, or at least slow the net losses in order to keep our communities in our neighborhoods safe.

Every other city in our region has some sort of staffing incentives program, which gives them an advantage over us.

Now we know from the hiring bonus that was implemented between June 2019 and May 2020, we know that they work because that program resulted in a level of hires that was, quoting central staff, disproportionately high when compared to historical averages.

And in fact, hires during that period were 75% higher than the previous year.

Plus, we have the money.

All we have to do is allow the executive to use projected unspent salary savings and benefits dollars that are already in SPD's 2022 budget for this use.

And we have to do that by separate ordinance, which I hope we'll do today.

It starts the ball rolling.

So finally, the last section of this resolution states council's intent to consider approval by separate ordinance of said hiring incentives program.

And I want to underscore this point because there's been some confusion about how this resolution relates to Council Member Herbold's council bill.

So let me just say that My resolution is silent on how much money is in SPV's budget for incentives because that number started out in February at 1.4 million and has grown now to at least 4.5 million.

And it's also silent on how much we would modify the existing proviso to allow for money to be spent for incentives.

and even for what kind of incentives we're talking about.

It could be used for hiring bonuses, retention bonuses, educational stipends, childcare.

Frankly, whatever, I don't really care what it's used for.

What I want is for a staffing incentive program to be developed, ideally with collaboration with the executive and council, that ends up being the most competitive we can get to attract recruits and really good recruits, recruits that reflect the diversity of our community and our values, because that's what I believe will go a long way to increasing trust between the department and our community and as well, accountability.

So, You know, we don't have to choose between supporting community driven solutions for safety and equitable development and ensuring adequate staffing of our police department.

We can do both.

And so this is simply focusing on SPD's severe staffing shortage by calling for a staffing incentive program to jumpstart or to accelerate the hiring of new officers.

And I do have to thank, taking aside to thank the members of our BIPOC communities for speaking out strongly in support of this resolution.

So just in closing, my goal for this resolution was just to begin a policy conversation on what we should do about SPD staffing shortage And what this resolution does is set the stage for future council actions to implement this particular solution.

It's not a magic bullet, but we have to do something.

And this is the necessary first step.

So I will look forward to your questions and comments.

Madam Clerk, can you please do a point of order for me?

Do we need to have Council Member Nelson move her proposed amendment right now or how?

Yeah, can you do that?

And then we can open up the floor to the amendment.

OK.

I move resolution 32050. Is there a second?

Second.

I'm sorry.

Should we say, just for the record, should we say as amended?

Yes.

Thank you.

I will second.

the proposed Amendment A by Council Member Nelson.

Now we have in front of us the amended resolution.

I think that's a vote on the amendment.

Okay, right.

I'm going to do that right now.

Are there any comments regarding the amendment?

I second.

Yes, I second.

Any comments regarding the amendment before we go to a vote?

on the base legislation or the base resolution.

Okay, Madam Clerk, do we go to a vote on the amendment and then we will go to another vote on the base resolution?

Yes.

Yes, Council President, we should take a vote on the amendment.

And then following that, then we'll take a vote on the resolution as amended or as not amended, depending on what happens with the vote on the amendment.

Okay.

So with that, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the proposed amendment?

Council President, point of order.

Yes.

Just clarifying that this is amendment as shown on attachment item three on Legistar.

Is that correct?

Yeah, it's Amendment A Version 1 to Resolution 32050 SPD Staffing Incentives.

And once we move that, and then Council Member Nelson can speak to that, correct?

So I'm seeing Amendment 1 Version 1 to D2, is that correct?

I think you may be looking at the committee amendments, not the circulated amendment from earlier today.

Yeah.

Excuse me, point of order.

I believe Amendment A was distributed via email prior to noon today, and that is what I understand we're voting on.

I want to make sure I'm following the right amendment.

That's correct.

It came from Craig Goss.

Today, Amendment A, Version 1, SPD staffing incentives, and Council Member Nelson is amending a recital, which are statistics.

Do you want me to explain it?

Yes.

So, Madam Clerk, do we let Council Member Nelson explain it and then we go to a vote?

If there are no further comments, a vote would be taken.

Thank you.

Okay.

I know, but I need to have Council Member Nelson explain the amendment before the vote, correct?

Yes, I thought she had.

So, excuse me.

She kind of spoke to the resolution, but not the amendment.

So, go ahead, Council Member Nelson.

Speak to your amendment.

Yeah, thank you very much.

I'm sorry I did that backwards.

Basically, I wrote this a long time ago in late February, early March.

And so the amendments are simply updating one recital, the fifth recital, to reflect the numbers in the May 12th shots fired report, which shows that gun fatalities increased 100% compared year to date to 2021. And the second amendment is to the eighth recital, which changes the response times.

The current median response time to priority 911 calls is 7.3 minutes.

And the current median response time to priority two 911 calls is 22.9 minutes.

So those are the two amendments I made with new information from the department.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for Council Member Nelson regarding her proposed amendment?

Okay, not seeing any.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the amendment, the proposed amendment A.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

No.

Council Member Mosqueda?

No.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Aye.

Council Member Sawant.

Yes.

Council President Juarez.

Yes.

Seven in favor, two opposed.

Thank you.

So the motion carries, the amended is adopted, and the amended resolution is now before the council.

So if there's anyone that wants to speak to the amended resolution, this is your opportunity to speak to Council Member Nelson's amended resolution.

Council Member Sawant.

Thank you.

I will be voting no on this resolution related to reestablishing hiring bonuses for the Seattle Police Department.

I will also be voting no on the next item, which is a related ordinance.

And I just wanted to clarify for the members of the public who are watching, I voted yes on the amendment to the resolution because it was just related to a factual correction to the text of the resolution.

There is a shocking double standard when the political establishment advocates for hiring bonuses in the Seattle Police Department.

The police have been some of the highest paid people among city of Seattle employees, making more than double what is paid to social workers like homeless service workers.

Corporate politicians and indeed, most of the city council members have claimed And in the past and continue claiming that they cannot open homeless shelters and tiny house villages because there are not enough homeless service workers to staff new spaces.

And when there are hiring bonuses, or just a decent wage, where are the hiring bonuses or just a decent wage increase.

for the impoverished homeless service workers who actually help people turn their lives around.

There isn't any, I mean, I don't remember when we had a vote on hiring bonuses for social service workers.

For years, the city's Democratic Party establishment has used the police contract as an excuse for failing to hold officers accountable.

Yet here we are after months of contract negotiations with the Seattle Police Officers Guild and council members are offering the police extra money without an agreement on accountability in a new contract.

What other contract negotiations are treated like this, where we're essentially saying, we'll give you the money first and ask for an agreement on accountability next, or not at all?

It is completely ridiculous.

These are not the actions of elected officials who want to increase police accountability, regardless of the words they might use.

These are the actions of a political establishment that desperately wants an excuse to say that police brutality is beyond their control.

There's not much they can do about it.

They can, you know, hold forth on it and make speeches, but in reality, they're They're admitting that they have no way forward to address the serious lapses in accountability and the serious problems, ongoing problems in the police department.

These are the actions of the democratic establishment that wants to distract from their abject refusal to address the housing and homelessness crisis.

The amount of police funding does not have any statistical impact on the degree of public safety in a community.

Public safety is a real issue in Seattle.

I absolutely share the concerns that ordinary people have about the rise in gun violence.

There is no doubt that this needs to be addressed.

However, Data systematically show that it is reducing inequality and providing affordable housing and living wage jobs, affordable services, including childcare that has the greatest statistical impact.

Also what has an impact is well-funded public schools with well-funded afterschool programs and avenues for young people and community members to engage in.

And if you look at data, you would see that this is happening even though the increase in crime and the concerns with public safety, all of this is happening even though the police budget has been bloated for many years, while the social services and affordable housing that working people, oppressed communities, and the poor need continue to be gravely underfunded.

And at the same time, we know that rents are skyrocketing.

Studies show overwhelmingly that the best and really only solution to public safety issues is to fund the needs of our society.

To address crime, and particularly to stop crime before they even happen, we need to fund housing, We need to increase wages and end worker exploitation, not increase repression.

And as far as the police are concerned, what we urgently need is an elected community oversight committee with full powers over the police, including hiring and firing and subpoena powers.

For all those reasons, I will be voting no on this resolution and the ordinance, which is the next agenda item.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Are there any other comments?

Okay, Council Member Herbold.

I just want to make a comment that some of the amendments in committee clarified that a incentive or bonus program would have to come back to council for our adoption and I think The sponsor of the resolution might have one idea of what an incentive program looks like, but that hasn't been settled, and I would not assume that the mayor's office is going to be bringing us a package that necessarily includes traditional hiring bonuses where we write a check to somebody to thank them for agreeing to come and work in the city of Seattle.

My understanding of what the mayor's office is looking at is a different approach for addressing our recruitment issues and our retention issues.

And funding retention programs very likely will have to be bargained.

So just because we talk about an intent to consider a recommendation that is going to come to us later doesn't mean that we're giving a blank check for it.

And so I think it's just really important to be clear on what this particular resolution does and doesn't do and where it allows for continued dialogue and debate.

And I would really urge us not to harden our positions around this issue.

We did vote for a hiring plan that we're not going to meet.

And if you support that hiring plan in November, I would hope that you would support addressing the reasons why we're not going to meet it.

Again, I'm hoping that people, as we continue these discussions, keep an open mind.

Thank you.

Before we move on, Council Member Herbold, thank you for, as usual, very straightforward and candid comments about how this came out of committee and what the timeline here has been.

We've been discussing this for a while, and you're right, we did vote back in November and December.

But anyway, are there any other questions before we move to a vote?

Okay.

Councilor Mosqueda.

Thank you very much, Madam President.

And I think, unfortunately, what we're saying with this resolution in front of us is that we are going to be okay with less funding being available at the end of the year for 2023 and 2024 priorities, priorities like investments in mental health, something that we spent a good portion of the beginning of this meeting, speaking about in terms of the importance of this investment, especially in the wake of so much trauma, hardship, and and injury over the last two years.

We know that there's increased needs across our community and responding to public safety crises requires a multifaceted approach.

We have, again, fully funded the hiring plan as requested by the Seattle Police Department.

The question is not whether or not these funds are available and if we should use them for this purpose.

It is if these funds are going to be available in the midst of this crisis that we're having on a budget crisis.

How are we planning to prioritize investments for our city?

I think that it's important to look holistically at the budget dollars available at the end of this year to invest those into strategies that we know upstream work to help reduce harm and trauma, to invest in mental health priorities, to make sure that there's alternative systems so that officers who are armed with a gun and a badge are not always the first responders who have to show up.

So much work has been done.

And I wanna thank Council Member Herbold for her leadership on that.

both in budget conversations and in her policy conversations and committee.

I think the important opportunity in front of us is to look at the amount of funding at the end of this year and truly make investments in upstream priorities for 2023-2024.

Right now, we have a budget proviso that is in place.

And if we go the route of exploring this resolution and the upcoming piece of legislation, then we are making early decisions about what is a bigger priority.

And we're making those decisions, according to this resolution, for investments in broad swath investments in hiring strategies.

While the original intent was clearly focused on hiring bonuses, and the sponsor has made it clear she doesn't care what policies this funds.

I do care, and I do care that what's been recommended by our city family from the recruitment and retention work group, their final report, which included members of the Human Resources Department and the Seattle Police Department, they did not identify hiring incentives as a recommended strategy to addressing recruitment or retention.

Again, I think it's important to look at how we can utilize every dollar available at the end of this year and invest those in strategies in 2023 and 2024 to create a whole host of public safety investments that will create healthier communities.

And if we're interested in what it might look like to improve retention and recruitment strategies, including at Seattle Police Department, then we would be talking about investments in the budget coming up that look at what the Human Resources Department actually prioritized.

And they made four recommendations, none of which were related to hiring incentives.

They focused on number one, a focus on leveraging technological solutions.

Number two, revise business practices and engaging candidates during the hiring process.

Number three, advance top talent quickly through the process.

And four, extend offers more quickly in a more competitive timeframe.

These are the strategies that come from within our own city department.

And so in the midst of this crisis where we are telling every single department in 2022 to hold on critical investments, things like public restrooms and outreach and education for domestic workers, we're asking folks to hold on investments that this council has prioritized along with priorities from the executive team.

And we're asking the departments, as you heard from Julie Dingley, our City Budgets Director, in our May 4th meeting in the Finance Committee, to be prepared for up to a 6% reduction across the board.

I am very concerned about a resolution that authorizes us to go down a path of asking for us to invest in something that's either A, not recommended, and B, not proven.

Now, again, there was some data suggested earlier that this is a proven strategy to invest in incentive programs generally.

But let me quote, Madam President, from the Statement of Legislative Intent, CBO 013A002, which is from last year's budget process that asked the departments to look at a citywide hiring incentive impact analysis to look at exactly the SPD incentives that were offered in the fall of last year and the report from the statement of legislative intent says hiring incentives are a short-term strategy to attract more applicants.

The city began offering incentives in October 2021 for certain public safety positions.

Again, not authorized by the City Council.

That's a different topic.

It says the Seattle Police Department did not experience an increase in hiring since implementing a hiring incentive into their process in October 2021. Well, it goes on to talk about how the hiring pool for the Community Safety and Communication Center did increase.

It could not say that hiring incentives were a strategy for increasing retention.

So we don't have recent data saying that this is a good practice.

We don't have specifics in this resolution on what it would go towards, and nor has there been any legislative intent since the beginning of this discussion about actually investing in what the Coalition for City Unions, our existing city workers, want.

And what they want is to make sure that they're feeling respected and cared for in this time.

The Coalition for City Unions, our city frontline workers, have expressed exactly what the Human Resources Department said.

that there would be serious unrest, distrust, feelings of resentment if those who are being hired new to come into our city are given incentives or bonuses or some sort of encouragement to come when we're not looking at better pay within our own city when we're not looking at strategies for recruitment and retention among diverse workforce when we're not investing more in apprenticeship and internship opportunities that already exist in our city.

Those are the strategies that our own city workers want.

So I'll be voting no on this resolution.

I will be voting no on it for a myriad of reasons.

As you've heard me talk about before, because of the city shortfall in the budget that we're experiencing and the need to use these dollars at the end of this year.

Number two, because this was not part of the list of recommendations that came from the human resources department and the work group that included the Seattle Police Department.

And number three, because I think that there's investments that we could be using with these precious dollars if they are available at the end of the year.

for upstream investments, and I know we'll talk a little bit more about that in the legislation coming, but do again want to underscore my concern about us moving in a direction that is not proven, recommended, or frankly requested from our own frontline workers and city staff.

Thank you, Madam President.

Is there any other comments or concerns?

Okay, Council Member Nelson and then Council Member Peterson, and then we're going to move on to the next agenda item.

Go ahead.

So I think that it really comes down to do we prioritize public safety or not?

Pure and simple.

And I have already touched on all the other things that we can do to support city community development.

Ways of addressing safety in communities, for example, in I believe that in 2021 Council spent $29 million or so on the implementation of the Equitable Community Investment Task Force's recommendations for investments.

So what we're talking about really is using the money that is already in the police budget and they can't hire, they won't meet their hiring plan because they're having a hard time because they aren't able to recruit.

So let me just read something from the central staff memo from May 10th.

Since 2020, SPD incurred a net loss of 255 police officers.

Actually, it was 400 total and then there were some hires.

During that time, SPD transferred more than 100 officers from specialty investigative and other units to 911 response to address SPD's goals for response times and patrol coverage.

The transfers required that they, one, disband problem-solving community police teams and precinct-based anti-crime teams, two, reduce the number of officers on bike and foot beats from 55 to four, and reduce investigation in specialty units below prior staffing levels.

So if we want to get guns off the street and the drugs that are causing the overdoses we see everywhere, we actually do have to make sure that there are enough officers.

Like I said, this is not either or, and this is not taking money away from your other priorities, I would say that making that point is another version of defunding SPD for other priorities in other departments.

So this is what we hear the public saying, that they want to feel safer in their communities.

And this is one way to go about that.

And you're right.

I do, I am ambivalent about the whatever staffing incentive programs.

And as you'll hear in discussion about council member Herbold's council bill, there was collaboration between me and council member Herbold and the mayor about what could be spent most effectively to just sort of begin a more robust recruitment process.

So, like I said, I leave it to the pros to figure out that.

I think I just simply say that we have got to do something about the emergency that we're facing.

Okay, thank you.

Council Member Nelson, we're done.

And Councilor Peterson, and then we will go to a vote.

Councilor Peterson.

Thank you, Council President Juarez.

I just wanted to note that Mayor Harrell helped to broker this compromise and this collaboration.

And so these two things go together, the resolution and the council bill.

I wanna thank council member.

Councilmember Nielsen for this resolution and Councilmember Herbold for her ordinance.

Because what I hear from my constituents is a concern about the loss of the hundreds of officers.

And we're all trying to take a holistic approach to community safety.

And to do that, we have to also recognize that piece of it, which is trying to restore and bring in some new officers, train them.

and we want to reform the police contract.

We're going to do more upstream programs.

We're gonna try to do in a comprehensive manner.

And Mayor Harrell's leadership is gonna be key to this as we're seeing today.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Council Member Lewis, and then we're gonna move on.

Thank you, Council President.

So I just wanna put into context a little bit, given our discussion today, Right, like we're not this resolution is not the be all end all the only public safety plan that is before the city of Seattle to completely restore community safety.

It's not a significant or at least the ordinance that's attached to it is not in the scheme of all of our public safety spending.

a significant overwhelming investment in terms of what we're unlocking today for the executive or the deal.

And the reason I just want to highlight that is there is a lot more that we need to do in collaboration with Mayor Harrell to focus holistically on the public safety situation that the city is facing.

You know, that we've been citing at various stages in this discussion today, 92% of our neighbors indicated mental health services to be the biggest thing that they thought would be outcome determinative for public safety.

I completely agree with that finding from the poll.

If I was polled, I would have said the same thing.

It's critical that as we work with the executive to get more promulgated initiatives that we really make sure we're focusing on those lower acuity responses and also places, as we discussed in the public safety committee this morning, for people to go and have some version of inpatient assistance or easy access transitional housing, like what Just Care does with their hotel shelters.

And I mean, I'd be remiss just to very quickly not highlight, right?

Like Denver and Eugene have very mature programs that have been doing this for years, cities from St. Louis to Fort Worth to Portland, Oregon are experimenting with these kinds of programs.

And as we are looking toward how we can continue to invest, underspend, salary savings, whatever else, I would just encourage the Herald Administration to work in collaboration with the Council on initiatives like that to also try to meet the crisis of the safety situation in the city.

I would also just add, Mayor Harrell and his administration has emphasized many times to this council and on the campaign trail that he is interested in developing responses like that that will be part of the comprehensive public safety plan.

So in voting for this today, we're not rejecting other things.

We're just highlighting that police recruitment and retention has to be part of a comprehensive public safety strategy.

But I just wanted to emphasize that I fully expect the Herald administration to promulgate additional proposals to us in line with low acuity first response and public health interventions like behavioral mental health services.

Thanks.

Thank you.

And since this is I apologize, Council Member Nelson, I will let you have the last word and then we will move to a vote.

Can't hear you.

Yep, I'm coming.

There you are.

I know.

So another way of putting it is simply that resolutions are policy statements of intent.

They don't carry the force of law, but they do communicate our priorities.

And this resolution signals to the vast pool of potential recruits out there that Seattle is just simply upping its game and ready to compete with our neighboring jurisdictions.

It demonstrates to our own officers that we value the work that they do, and we're trying to get them some support so it's not so hard to do their job because they're stretched really thin.

And most importantly, I think it tells our constituents that we're listening, that we hear their concerns, and we're just committed to putting their safety first.

That's it.

Thank you.

So with that, council members, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the resolution as amended?

Council Member Strauss?

Council Member Strauss?

Council Member Strauss, are you there?

Yes.

Sorry, audio problems.

Yes.

Thank you.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

No.

Council Member Mosqueda?

No.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Sawant?

No.

Council President Juarez?

Aye.

Five in favor, three opposed.

The resolution is adopted as amended and the chair will sign it.

And Madam Clerk, please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

Council President, the count was wrong.

It was six in favor, three opposed.

Oh, I'm sorry, six to three, but it's still, it does pass, is adopted as amended.

Okay.

Thank you.

So with that, folks, we will go back to item number eight, and that is Council Member Herbold.

And Madam Clerk, will you please read item eight into the record?

Agenda Item 8, Council Bill 120320, an ordinance relating to appropriations for the Seattle Police Department amending a proviso imposed by ordinance 126490, which adopted the 2022 budget and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

The committee recommends the bill pass as amended.

Thank you.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you so much.

During the work on the 2022 budget, the council requested a report from the executive on a citywide hiring incentive program, analyzing the vacancy issues across frontline workers, vacancy issues that are creating a service issue with the public or inhibiting the department from fulfilling a core function.

report we received indicated that there are a number of positions that departments struggle to fill, positions that are important to city business, not just including police officers, but also carpenters, truck drivers, civil engineers, and 9-1-1 dispatchers.

Consequently, this bill requests the Department of Human Resources amend its personnel rules so that we can give appointing authorities of multiple departments greater flexibility to pay for the moving expenses for people who are coming to work in these hard to fill and important positions.

It does include police hires, but it also is intended to address the limitations in our existing rules across several departments.

current personnel rules limit this flexibility.

Only higher pay bands, such as department directors.

So if we're doing national recruiting to fill positions in departments all over the city, I think it's important that we look at paying the costs associated with folks moving here to do public service on behalf of the City of Seattle.

The second to the bill is also to release the proviso on spending for the Seattle Police Department.

Freeing public comment, some people were testifying to not supporting hiring incentives for officers.

But I just wanna clarify, again, this proposal allows for offering payment of moving costs for new hires, again, to fill hard to hire positions in several departments, not only the Seattle Police Department.

The release of the funding is not needed for the other departments.

because unlike the Seattle Police Department, they can use funds from position vacancies once the Human Resources Department changes the rules allowing hiring authorities to pay the relocation expenses of recruits.

This is not the case for the Seattle Police Department, and it's not the case only because of the existing proviso.

That's why the legislation releases $650,000 of existing city funds for SPD for this use.

It is not new funding for SPD, and it is only to allow SPD to do what we are trying to allow other departments to do as well.

are already funds in the budget to support salaries associated with the SPD hiring plan to hire 125 officers that the council funded in the 2022 budget, modified to 98 new hires.

Releasing this funding would work to assist with that.

Now, reduce hiring plan, which I think, again, makes sense given the earlier action, support hiring plan.

The goal was amended in committee to add funding for a campaign to help track candidates to fill vacant police officer positions, and to pay for a national search committee to permanently fill the chief of police position.

And lastly, because I've heard a lot of folks talk about our efforts to develop alternatives to police response to 911 calls, I want to also lift up the fact that in our May 10th committee meeting, the Public Safety and Human Services Committee, we heard an update from the executive on the continuation of the 911 call analysis, and with the National Institute for Criminal Justice, with analyzed call types.

We had analysis, what we call the junior analysis last year.

Now the executive is pulling together a interdepartmental team that includes the council, to make sure that the analysis on the Nick report, which only looked at how calls were initially classified, to examine how calls are resolved as well.

And that will allow us to classify calls by risk level in order to assist with determining which 911 call types can respond to by others, not police officers, and which will still require a sworn officer.

So it's not just about the Nick Senior Report, it's about this next level of analysis that we're doing, and I'm really convinced that the executive is committed to doing this work, and that this work is going to continue throughout the year.

The next step, because 911 dispatchers, to be trained on new steps for sending 9-1-1 calls to others besides police and fire.

Seattle Communications Center has completed its request for proposals, and they're working on identifying vendors for this new dispatch protocol that is necessary as we develop a continuum of 9-1-1 response.

So we're looking to have the next on the development of the 901 alternatives at the June 28th committee meeting.

That work is continuing.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Herbold, and thank you for explaining the work that you've been doing for a long time.

So is there any more comments or concerns that we want to address to Councilmember Herbold before we move to a vote?

Okay, I am going to be supporting this, and I'll just be very brief.

I know that Councilmember Herboldt is the chair of the Public Safety Commission and Councilmember Nelson.

I know the media has been portrayed this way, which isn't always accurate.

I don't think that Councilmember Nelson and Herboldt had to be encouraged or there was some kind of brokering.

I think Councilmember Herboldt and Councilmember Nelson were incredibly stayed in their comments and their positions, but also committed to working collaboratively, building consensus, working with the executive.

And I think that gets overlooked sometimes.

And so and I want to give a particular thank you to Councilmember Herbold because she's been on council as long as me and she's been on the public safety issue and she serves on the LRPC as I do.

And so kind of going back to what Councilmember Peterson was saying, this really is a more holistic approach.

And I appreciate all of your comments and all of your concerns.

But I think at the end of the day, what we saw come out with the resolution and then this this legislation is I think what people want government to do.

I think that's what we're elected to do.

And that is to to move forward.

to work together, agree where we disagree, and find consensus, and what is the best for our great city.

So I'll get off my soapbox.

And with that, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Madam President.

I'm sorry, Councilor Mosqueda?

Thank you.

Madam President, I also realize that I spoke quite a bit on that last bill.

I'm happy to wait on my turn if Council Member Morales would like to go before me.

No, why don't you just go ahead, and then I apologize customer Morales and then I forgot customer herbal if you want, since this is yours I'll let you have the last word I apologize for that keep forgetting that go ahead customer mosquito.

I'm going to turn it over to Councilmember Herbold.

Thank you so much and let me preface this by saying you how much I appreciate again Councilmember Herbold and her leadership on public safety.

I consider her a thought partner not only in how we address public safety, but how we continue to invest in alternative responses.

And I know.

I know she cares very much And again, I'll just underscore where I'm coming from on this piece of legislation.

This comes down to, for me, a question of whether or not these funds could be available at the end of the year if a provisor were kept into place.

Many, many folks in our community, and again, thanks in large part to Councilmember Herbold, who has championed these budget additions in the last year related to food security, services, the shadow pandemic, mental health services.

We have a known need in our community for continual investments and we have an evolving budget situation and until we have greater certainty on the number of dollars available at the end of the year, I just cannot support releasing a proviso that is currently in place for the Seattle Police Department.

I do appreciate that this is broader than SPD in terms of the and I don't support the effort to either use it for a moving fees.

But in terms of the provides of this being lifted that specific to Seattle Police Department dollars where it is a known quantity and I and I don't support the effort to either use it for a moving fee or for a recruitment effort to get more folks to apply for the chief in the face of the crisis that we're facing in the budget, and I know many of us are committed to continuing to look at additional progressive revenue, but until we have those questions answered, I want to make sure that we are looking at the recommendations from the recruitment and retention work group and more holistically looking at the end of this year about where we can make investments next year and in the following years to what we know frontline workers want.

And that includes making sure that we're looking at existing strategies to promote from within, especially a diverse workforce to make sure that we have a better pipeline for internships and for apprenticeship opportunities that we're looking at underpay for many positions.

And we have in the past partnered on HSD and human service wages.

And we know that there's to be an increased need for making sure that we're recruiting folks across our department for multiple positions.

And I think that it's not just recruitment, right?

It's retention strategies as well.

So I would much more prefer to be looking at retention strategies, recruitment strategies, end of the year holistically when we know either what the budget gap is or what available dollars we may have, and those available dollars do shrink if we lift this proviso today.

I'm actually not opposed to hiring incentives, excuse me, I'm not opposed to moving fees being paid for in general.

And I think that it could be part of the overall approach that we are looking at supporting and in doing so in partnership with the Coalition for City Unions, who have been a long calling for investments like that through the labor standards.

I'm forgetting the actual name of it, but the body that was created to bring together management and labor to talk about strategies to do just that, invest in retention and recruitment.

I also want to lift up some of the things that we talked about in committee that is underscoring the need, I believe, for a pause for us to look more generally at retention and recruitment strategies.

Nationally, we are seeing a downward trend in police department staffing levels.

Cities like Atlanta, Phoenix, Philly have all seen hundreds of officers leave the force.

Philadelphia is down 440 officers.

Atlanta down 400 to 500 officers in the last three years.

New York saw 5,300 officers leave since 2020. Louisville lost 233 officers.

Portland, their police force is now under 1,100 officers from where they started.

Thank you very much to Aretha Basu on my staff who has done incredible research and has pulled this information from Forbes article in late April.

This is the trend across our country.

I think that more broadly instead of investing in just hiring bonus strategy or a PR firm to do outreach for a police chief or for a recruiter to try to get more people to apply to a position where we are seeing national trends in downward staffing.

I would much more prefer to be having a conversation at the end of the year about where precious and limited resources can go and to not lift a proviso now so that we have more resources, especially resources available for upstream investments that don't require an officer and a badge to show up.

And lastly, Madam President, in our many meetings that we've had, we've talked about how some of the strategies, almost all of the strategies that we have invested in and community resources are retention strategy for officers.

We just need to continue to get those dollars out the door that are currently sitting there.

and work in partnership with those community partners so that there's more mental health service providers and community responders available that can help with retention strategies.

And I think we need to see that as one way that we're investing in retention and hope to do more to support retention strategies by making sure that there are we're going to be able to do that.

We're going to be able to do that.

We're going to be able to do that.

We're going to be able to do that.

We're going to be able to do that.

We're going to be able to do that.

We're going to be able to do that.

We're going to be able to do that.

We're going to be able to do that.

We're going to be able to do that.

We're going to be able to do that.

We're going to be able to do that.

We're going to be able to do that.

We're going to be able to do that.

We're going to be able to do that.

We're going to be able to do that.

We're going to be able to do that.

We're going to be able to do that.

We're going to be able to do that.

We're going to be able to do that.

We're going to be able to do that.

We're going to be able to do that.

We're there is not a known answer to whether or not there's going to be the same hiring bonus, excuse me, the same moving fee offered to individuals across departments, and they raise concerns about equity and parity across departments.

I raised that question during committee.

I have not seen a response yet.

So to date, I'm still concerned about that.

I'll be voting no on this piece of legislation in front of us, though I appreciate the sponsor's hard work to try to broaden out more holistically how we are looking at retention to our city family generally, and look forward to continuing those discussions with the Coalition for City Unions and Community as we think about the 2023-2024 budget.

Vice Mayor Morales.

Thank you, Council President.

I will also be voting no on this.

I do appreciate the hard work of the Chair of Public Safety and Human Services, Council Member Herbold, and Council Member Nelson, but I will be voting no.

I feel like this bill tries to solve an issue without basis in the kind of well-founded information that was commissioned by the Council.

issue is that we can't seem to retain officers.

And as Council Member Mosqueda just said, this isn't a problem that's unique to Seattle, an experience that's happening across the country.

And in fact, the department's own response to the Statement of Legislative Intent or Council Budget Action was inconclusive.

on whether a hiring bonus had any impact on hiring numbers.

And further, the impact of the hiring bonus, as has already been said, could cause deeper cultural problems in a department that is struggling with culture change.

We know that employees are internally, either those who have been promoted internally or already in the job can also feel undervalued and underappreciated when their financial package doesn't match what new police hires are receiving.

We have to continue to make fiscal and policy choices.

We are still grappling with the impacts of COVID and to offer this kind of bonus to one department really sends the wrong message to the rest of our city staff and doesn't really address the community's long-term desire for accountability and culture change in the police department.

There is need for culture change within the department.

Lack of officers is a retention and management issue.

The Recruitment and Retention Workshop found that sergeants are promoted based on test results with no real consideration given to whether they can actually manage people.

OPA found a culture of insubordination when the State Department of Labor and Industries was unable to complete investigations around the masking issue.

They were literally turned away at the door.

And the Seattle Times reported on May 5 that officers routinely disobeyed direct orders from Chief Diaz to wear masks and to observe social distancing protocols.

So there is definitely a culture problem and hiring bonuses is not going to solve that.

It's not going to solve the management issue either.

Then there are the fiscal constraints that we're under and the fact that we hear regularly that we need data and evidence to support our funding decisions.

I've seen no evidence that hiring bonuses will do anything to address our retention issues or to actually increase our hiring ability.

And finally, there's the issue of public safety.

If we really want, sorry, that's my husband's phone.

If we really want to increase public safety, there are better ways that we could spend $4.5 million.

We could create at least one safe consumption site, which not only provides someone a place to dispose of needles that isn't on the streets, something that we hear about often, but also pairs that with medical services that help people address addiction.

We could build two tiny house villages.

We could fund 14 permanent supportive housing units.

We could cover the cost of groceries for 116 families of four living at 30% AMI for a whole year.

We could cover $30,000 in startup costs for 150 low-income residents looking to start a small business.

We could cover a year's worth of back rent for about 170 struggling renters.

The point is that there are any number of ways to increase long-term community safety for our neighbors.

one-time hiring bonuses, isn't it?

So we've got every other department being asked to make 6% cuts.

We're not sure why one department would have different expectations of what is expected from their department.

And so again, while I appreciate the hard work of the sponsors and the executive, I'll be voting no on this bill.

Thank you.

So Council Member Herbold, you want to close this out before we go to a vote?

I wasn't going to say anything further.

Oh, I saw your hand up.

Sorry.

No, I've changed my mind.

I apologize.

I appreciate the underlying budget concerns as expressed by both Council Members Muscata and Morales, but I feel like I really have to correct the record by some of the last comments I heard.

This is not an ordinance that funds hiring bonuses for SPD.

This is an ordinance that directs the Human Services Department to adjust its rules in a way that will allow multiple departments to offer to compensate New employees for the relocation costs associated with their move to our city to work to serve the public.

It was designed this way specifically in recognition of what we heard from the Human Resources Department as it relates specifically to the issues of morale, created for morale issues that are created when you offer a traditional hiring bonus for one kind of employee but not another.

This is intended to recognize that anybody who comes to work in our city to fill a position where we're having a difficult time hiring for that position, and that position is a highly needed position, that we should compensate them for their relocation costs.

This is not a traditional hiring bonus.

Thank you.

Okay, with that, we are gonna go to a vote.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

No.

Council Member Mosqueda?

No.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Aye.

Council Member Swatt?

No.

Council President Orres?

Yes.

Six in favor, three opposed.

Thank you.

The bill passes.

The chair will sign it.

Madam Clerk, please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

Thank you.

So we've done items eight and nine in reverse, and so now we're gonna go to our favorite committee, Transportation and Seattle Public Utilities.

I understand Council Member Peterson has items 10, 11, 12, and 13. So Madam Clerk, will you please read item 10, short title, and to the record.

Report of the Transportation and Seattle Public Utilities Committee.

Agenda item 10, Council Bill 120300, an ordinance granting permission to 2001-6 LLC to continue operating and maintaining a utility tunnel under the alley between 5th Avenue and 6th Avenue, north of Virginia Street.

The committee recommends the bill pass.

Councilor Peterson.

Thank you, Council President.

Colleagues, Council Bill 120300 renews a permit for a utility tunnel downtown.

This bill was passed unanimously by our committee.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any comments for Councilmember Peterson?

Not seeing any.

Oh, Councilor Mosqueda wants to thank you, so I'll just do it for her.

Will the clerk please call, wait, is there anything else you want to say, Councilmember Peterson, before we go to the roll?

Okay, great.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Councilmember Strauss?

Yes.

Councilmember Herbold?

Yes.

Councilmember Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Council Member Sawant.

Yes.

Council President Ores.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The bill passes.

The chair will sign it.

Madam Clerk, please affix my signature to the legislation.

Moving on to item 11. Will you please read item 11 into the record?

agenda item 11 Council Bill 120301 an ordinance granting King County permission to continue maintaining and operating two pedestrian tunnels under and across 9th Avenue between Alder Street and Jefferson Street.

The committee recommends the bill pass.

Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Council President.

Colleagues, Council Bill 120301 renews a permit for two pedestrian tunnels for Harborview Hospital.

This bill was recommended unanimously by our committee.

Thank you.

Are there any comments to oppose this tunnel?

Not seeing any.

All right.

You want to add anything, Councilmember Peterson?

Nope.

Okay.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Councilmember Strauss?

Yes.

Councilmember Herbold?

Yes.

Councilmember Lewis?

Yes.

Councilmember Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Yes.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Aye.

Council Member Sawant?

Yes.

Council President Ores?

Aye.

None in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

And will you please affix my signature to the legislation?

Let's go to item number 12, which is also Council Member Peterson.

Will the clerk please read item number 12 into the record?

Agenda Item 12 Council Bill 120302 an ordinance granting Swedish Health Services permission to continue maintaining and operating an existing pedestrian skybridge over and under, over and across Cherry Street, west of Broadway and east of Minor Avenue.

The committee recommends the bill pass.

Thank you, Council President.

Council Bill 120302 renews a permit for an existing sky bridge at Swedish Hospital.

The bill was recommended unanimously by our committee.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So we went from a tunnel to a sky bridge.

Is there any comments or questions for Kessler-Peterson?

Councilor Peterson, do you want to say anything else?

I have this speech prepared, but I think I'll forgo it.

Thank you.

Not seeing any other comments, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Aye.

Council Member Sawant?

Yes.

Council President Juarez?

Aye.

Nine in favor, nine opposed.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it, and Madam Clerk, please affix my signature to the legislation.

So moving on to item number 13, Council Member Peterson, before you, I'm sorry, Madam Clerk, you want to read that into the record and then we'll hand it over to Council Member Peterson.

Agenda item 13, resolution 32053, a resolution granting conceptual approval to construct, maintain, and operate private communication conduit under and across Latona Avenue Northeast, north of Northeast North Lake Way.

The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.

Councilor Peterson.

Thank you, Council President.

Colleagues, Resolution 32053 grants conceptual approval to allow Dunn Lumber to install a communication pipe under Latona Avenue Northeast to connect its existing building in Wallingford to the new building it's constructing across the street.

This resolution was recommended unanimously by our committee.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for Council Member Peterson?

Not seeing any.

Council Member Peterson, are there any closing comments before we go to a vote?

Okay, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the resolution?

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Aye.

Council Member Swatt?

Yes.

Council President Juarez.

Aye.

Nine in favor, nine opposed.

Thank you.

The resolution passes and the chair will sign it.

And Madam Clerk, will you please affix my signature to the resolution?

So now we're going to go to the sustainability and renters' rights.

That's item number 14. I see it's Council Member Sawant.

Madam Clerk, will you please read Council Bill 120330 into the record?

Report of the Sustainability and Renters' Rights Committee, agenda item 14, council bill 120330, an ordinance relating to just cause eviction, changing the terms of certain eviction defenses and amending sections 22.205.090 and 22.205.100 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

The committee recommends the bill pass as amended.

Thank you.

Council Member Sawant.

Thank you, President Warris.

This is a bill from my office in response to a Court of Appeals decision that objected to one small part of Seattle's six-month eviction defense.

That original ordinance requires renters to attest that they have suffered financial hardship in order to be eligible to use that defense against eviction.

The Court of Appeals objected to the mechanics of that attestation, specifically that there is not language giving landlords the ability to rebut the claim that renters face financial hardship.

I wanted to be clear that the six-month eviction defense is still in effect, as I mentioned in the council briefing yesterday as well, because the city has requested reconsideration of the Court of Appeals decision.

However, out of an abundance of caution and particularly to avoid confusion, my office has sponsored this bill to respond to the Court of Appeals concerns.

The initial version of the bill introduced by my office addressed the Court of Appeals concern by simply removing the requirement of financial hardship.

Therefore, there would be no claim to rebut.

As I have argued in the past, it should be a given that if a renter is in eviction court, it's because they have suffered financial hardship, because why else would they be in eviction court?

Requiring people to declare financial hardship, particularly if their landlord starts challenging those claims, is likely to drag renters to a humiliating process.

We see that happening all the time.

And this, in fact, has a chilling effect, preventing the very people, the low-income and marginalized communities that this eviction defense was intended to help from using it.

The bill was discussed in the Sustainability and Renters' Rights Committee last Friday and was amended to address the Court of Appeals concern in an entirely different way.

Instead of removing the requirement for financial hardship, the bill now keeps that requirement and adds language explaining how a landlord can rebut those claims of financial hardship.

I did not support that amendment for the reasons I just explained.

However, as I said in committee and yesterday, I still support the legislation because it will allow the eviction defense attorneys from the Housing Justice Project to use this eviction defense without fear of confusion.

While the six-month eviction defense is technically still in effect, there is a danger that eviction court judges will choose to evict renters who attempt to use the defense because of that confusion.

If that happens, renters will be out on the street without the opportunity to appeal with all the human suffering that that entails.

So I urge council members to vote yes on this legal fix to the Seattle six-month eviction defense in accordance with the committee's recommendation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Are there any questions or comments from, okay, Council Member Morales.

And I'm sorry, I should have mentioned Council Member Morales today also agreed to co-sponsor and I thank you for it.

It was in my notes too.

Thank you, I should have caught that.

I apologize.

Council Member Morales.

Yes, I would like to first request to be added as a co-sponsor.

And I do want to thank Council Member Sawant for allowing me to co-sponsor this.

And I want to share why this bill is important to me.

In 2020, when I voted yes on the legislation that would come, SMC 22.205.090, I did so knowing that this pandemic would leave an unimaginable toll on low-income tenants.

I heard from countless people about their lost jobs, about janitors, baristas, restaurant workers, and lots of others losing their jobs.

And I heard their fear of reprisal from their landlord.

So that's why I voted for that legislation, to protect them.

In 2021, when my office worked with the stay healthy coalition to craft and pass the bill that would eventually become SMC 22.05.100, it was because low income tenants and working families were still accruing debt, still worried about putting food on the table and paying for medical expenses, and still worried that the city was not offering enough protection.

The countless tenants that we worked with were also afraid that the six months would not be enough time for them to catch up, avoid eviction.

Our eviction defense, tied to the civil emergency, was pursued because we knew that tenants needed another layer of defense.

As recently as this morning, I heard the need from a tenant attorney for this defense will be necessary when rent relief runs out later this spring.

So across the straight across the state we've, you know, started to open back up and to try to live as we did in pre coven times, but here at the city.

You know, we're also talking about bringing folks back into city hall, starting in just a couple weeks, we might feel like this pandemic is over.

And those of us who have been privileged enough to continue working through this crisis without financial stress may feel like this pandemic is behind us.

The truth is it's still going on.

It's still taking a toll on neighbors and amending these two eviction defenses will allow tenants who are still struggling to still have at least one last line of defense.

So I'll just close by saying that we still need to keep fighting and doing more for low and middle income people here in Seattle.

We need to provide more support to tenants so that a family emergency doesn't lead to eviction and homelessness.

We need to build more affordable housing and we need to invest in social housing in every part of our city so that renters aren't at the whim of a private market.

We need to invest in our youth so that they're job ready out of high school or college and don't even have to worry about eviction.

And we need to invest in protecting workers so they have the security that so many of us have had during this pandemic.

So I just want to thank the co-sponsor, Council Member Solvant, for allowing me to co-sponsor.

I intend to vote in favor of this bill, and I encourage Mayor Harrell to sign it as soon as possible to ensure that tenants have this one hope to build a better support for them in the future.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Is there any other comments before I hand it off to Council Member Sawant to close us out?

Not seeing any, Council Member Sawant?

I have nothing else to add, thank you.

Okay, thank you, and thank you, Council Member Morales, for being the co-sponsor.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Aye.

Council Member Sawant.

Yes.

Council President Morris.

Aye.

Nine in favor, nine opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The bill passes.

The chair will sign it.

And Madam Clerk, please affix my signature to the legislation.

So moving on in our agenda to the adoption of other resolutions, I don't see any other resolutions happening today.

Other business, is there any other business to come before council before I move to adjourn?

Oh, Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you for running such a well-run meeting today.

I will be attending the Association of Washington City's annual forum.

And so I am requesting to be excused from full Council on from Council briefing on June 20 and full Council on June 21.

Okay, well, I'm glad you got that in early.

Julie noted, does anyone have a problem with Councilmember Strauss being gone June 20 of the June 21?

I don't accept the fact he gets to go not be here.

But other than that, um, okay.

So we are now done with our calendar, and let me see what my last party was on.

Oh, I'm sorry, Councilor Mosqueda.

I'm sorry, Councilor Strauss reminded me, I too will be at the board meeting, but I'll just ask for excuse, that's a word, I'll just ask to be excused on June 21st, please, for the board meeting.

You know, I was gonna say something, but I didn't wanna put you on blast, like, isn't Councilor Mosqueda on that thing too?

Okay, so we'll note that Councilor- That would be the only time you didn't put me on blast, just for record, but.

Oh, that's the privilege of being an auntie.

Yes, we will note.

Does anyone have a problem with Councilor Mosqueda being gone on Tuesday, June 21st?

Not seeing any, both Councilor Mosqueda and Councilor Strauss are indeed excused on those days.

Okay, let me, nothing else.

Okay, colleagues, this concludes our items of business for today's agenda.

Our regularly scheduled next council meeting is Tuesday, I can't read, May 31st.

Oh yeah, we have a three-day holiday.

folks.

So enjoy.

We will not be here on Monday, but we will be here on Tuesday at two.

And with that, have a good afternoon and we stand adjourned.

Thank you.