Seattle City Council 8/16/22

Okay, one second.

All right.

Recording in progress.

You can begin now, thank you.

Thank you, IT.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Today is Tuesday, August 16th.

The meeting of the Seattle City Council will come to order.

It is 2.01, and I am Deborah Juarez.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Sawant?

Present.

Council Member Strauss?

Present.

Council Member Herbold.

Here.

Member Lewis.

Present.

Council Member Morales.

Here.

Council Member Musqueda.

Present.

Council Member Peterson.

Present.

Council Member Nelson.

Present.

And Council President Juarez.

Here.

Nine present.

Thank you.

Before we begin, we have a couple internal matters to manage.

So at this time, Council Member Strauss.

Yes, I'd like to rescind my request to be excused for today's meeting.

Thank you.

If there's no objection, Council Members, excused absence for today will be rescinded.

I do not hear or see any objections.

So Council Member Strauss, your excused absence for today is rescinded.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, so moving on into our agenda, onto presentations.

Council Member Morales has a proclamation proclaiming August 21st, Pacific Northwest Black Pride Day.

And Council Member Morales will first present the proclamation, and then I will open up the floor for comments from our other council members.

After other council members' comments, we will suspend the rules to allow our guests, my understanding it's David Corrado from Pocan, to accept the proclamation and provide some comments.

So with that, Council Member Morales, you are recognized.

Thank you, Council President.

David, if you have comments that you would like to make, Stephen Sawyer, you can please come up to the table here.

Okay, so yes, thank you.

Colleagues, we have a proclamation proclaiming August 21st, 2022 as Pacific Black Pride Month, Pacific Northwest Black Pride day, excuse me, I'm going to read just a little bit of the proclamation and then invite Mr. Sawyer to come.

So, whereas Autry Bell, Olivette Foster, Bishop Stephen Sawyer, along with a team of community leaders at People of Color Against AIDS Network, an organization that was founded over 35 years ago to build powerful and uplifting relationships with all ethnic organizations and allies.

Also founded Pacific Northwest Black Pride in 2018. And whereas Pacific Northwest Black Pride applied for and was approved as a 501c3 community organization in 2022 and seeks to deepen its work in and for a growing LGBTQIA African American community in Washington State.

We are honored to have Mr. Sawyer here and to acknowledge the important work of the organization and the community members who have been leading the charge here.

So thank you so much.

We will be presenting this as well on Sunday at the event at Jimi Hendrix Park.

But if you would like to make some comments, please do so.

Thank you.

And we want to thank the council for their continued support as we do this great work.

Like you said, this foundation, this organization was really founded through Pokan who has a long rich history and community really serving communities of color.

We know that particularly around African American men, are most affected by HIV, but also our LGBT African American youth are most affected by homelessness and housing issues.

And so really Pacific Northwest Black Pride is seeking to continue its partnership with the city to address these issues.

Yes, we do it in a fun way where our community can come out and have fun about it, but it really is about addressing issues in our community.

And so we are here to serve.

I have with me today a host of our committee, our planning committee and so I want to thank them for all of the work that they do in community around this and we just want to continue our partnership.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

Welcome everyone.

Council Member Morales, so I'm going to open the floor and then I was going to suspend the rules and then if you have any other future guests is that can we do it that way?

Yes, my apologies Council President.

Okay, it's all right.

No, I didn't want to interrupt him I, you know, I'm trying to be show some kindness and humility and dignity and just, I think when people come to public comment that we should give people space.

and just allow them to feel safe here to say what they need to say.

And so I'm going to go ahead and go with the procedural piece.

Then I'm going to hand it off to you to introduce if you have any more guests.

First, are there any comments from our colleagues regarding the proclamation that council member Morales is putting forward to us today?

OK, I do not see any any hands raised.

So with that, if there's no objection, the council rules will be suspended.

for any more guests to accept the proclamation and provide any additional remarks.

Hearing and seeing no objections, the council rules are indeed suspended.

With that, Councilor Morales, did you have any other guests that you would like to introduce for your proclamation before we move on to our agenda?

Anybody else want to chime in?

Well, we can do it afterward, yeah.

Thank you.

If they want a photo, Council President, my apologies.

I'm actually in chamber, and so do I take a moment to do that now or do I?

Yes, actually, Council Member Ross, I'm so glad you brought that up.

I had it written in the margins, absolutely.

And I just want to say one thing about Pocan and the group.

When you said 35 years, I feel old, because I remember I helped put that together, and they asked me to sit on their first board, and I couldn't.

So yes, I feel very old.

Thank you.

If you want to move over to your photo op period right now, I think it'd be great for all of us to see it.

So go ahead.

Okay.

Yeah, I'll come down off the dais.

That is a good looking group.

Wow.

Wonderful.

Congratulations.

Okay.

Thank you for indulging us, everyone.

Absolutely.

Thank you for bringing this forward, Council Member Morales.

And thank you everybody that came, particularly all the representatives.

It means a lot to us as elected officials and certainly for the viewing public to see all the good work that you do.

So thank you again, Council Member Morales.

Okay, so moving on on our agenda to public comment.

As you know, we have a hybrid system where we have people in chambers and people who call in.

And so today we have, and Madam Clerk, please correct me if I'm wrong, We have 27 remote people that have called in, and my understanding is that we have seven people, seven folks that have signed up in person, correct?

Actually, remote is now 28, and we still have seven signed up for in-person.

Okay, so we will take the in-person speakers first, and they will have one minute, and then we will move to the 28 people that have called in, and they will each have one minute as well.

And with that, Madam Clerk, I'm going to hand it over to you for the recording and the instructions for public comment.

Hello, Seattle.

We are the Emerald City, the city of flowers and the city of goodwill, built on indigenous land, the traditional territory of the Coast Salish peoples.

The Seattle City Council welcomes remote public comment and is eager to hear from residents of our city.

If you would like to be a speaker and provide a verbal public comment, you may register two hours prior to the meeting via the Seattle City Council website.

Here's some information about the public comment proceedings.

Speakers are called upon in the order in which they registered on the Council's website.

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

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

A reminder, the speaker meeting ID is different from the general listen line meeting ID provided on the agenda.

Once a speaker's name is called, the speaker's microphone will be unmuted and an automatic prompt will say, the host would like you to unmute your microphone.

That is your cue that it's your turn to speak.

At that time, you must press star six.

You will then hear a prompt of, you are unmuted.

Be sure your phone is unmuted on your end so that you will be heard.

As a speaker, you should begin by stating your name and the item that you are addressing.

A chime will sound when 10 seconds are left in your allotted time as a gentle reminder to wrap up your public comments.

At the end of the allotted time, your microphone will be muted and the next speaker registered will be called.

Once speakers have completed providing public comment, Please disconnect from the public comment line and join us by following the meeting via Seattle Channel Broadcast or through the listening line option listed on the agenda.

The Council reserves the right to eliminate public comment if the system is being abused, or if the process impedes the Council's ability to conduct its business on behalf of residents of the City.

Any offensive language that is disruptive to these proceedings or that is not focused on an appropriate topic as specified in Council rules may lead to the speaker being muted by the presiding officer.

Our hope is to provide an opportunity for productive discussions that will assist our orderly consideration of issues before the Council.

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

Please remember to press star six after you hear the prompt of, you have been unmuted.

Thank you, Seattle.

We will now move to the in-person public commenters.

Once your name is called, please approach either microphone and state your name and the item to which you are addressing.

The first public commenter for in-person public comment is Eileen Fortgang.

So am I allowed one minute or two minutes?

Yes.

I'd like to do two.

You're not allowed to do two right now.

One minute.

Hi, I'm Elaine Fortgang with Humane Voters of Washington.

I have in writing that the aquarium can't, if the aquarium can't find sharks and stingrays from a facility that breeds them, then they will take them from the South Pacific.

The proposed shark tank and tiny fish, can you get closer to the mic please?

Okay, well, can I start over then?

Hi, my name's Aline Fortgang, and I'm with Humane Voters of Washington.

I have in writing that if the aquarium can't find the sharks and stingrays from a facility that breeds them, then they will take them from the waters of the South Pacific.

The proposed shark tank and tiny fake ocean will cause immeasurable suffering.

These intelligent beings struggle to survive in tanks, because whether captured or bred, they retain all their wild instincts.

We have the technology to provide non live experiences without the suffering and premature death.

The Aquarium of Hawaii uses technology to give the visitor an inside look at the complex lives of Maui's humpback whales.

This is impossible with our outmoded aquarium.

We are asking you to withhold $20 million from the aquarium until the ill-conceived shark tank is replaced with a non-live experience.

Anything less diminishes our humanity.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Peter Manning.

Hi, my name is Peter Manning with Black Excellence in Cannabis.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, I want you to get that title on, please.

Okay.

Hi, my name is Peter Manning.

I'm with Black Excellence in Canada.

I am speaking today because of the rhetoric that was displayed in the media lately pertaining to Black-owned stores as being somehow drug trafficking.

and or child abuse or selling drugs to children.

It's funny that when we talk about inclusion of black or brown people, that this element of cannabis becomes highly illegal.

However, the white people have been doing it for the last eight years, moving tons.

They've made more money than the cartel in Mexico have here.

It's $3.7 billion the state of Washington has raked in.

That's serious drug trafficking.

Just because black people are at the door currently now asking for inclusion in the all white cannabis industry, we're being labeled as drug traffickers or potential drug traffickers or potential people harming children.

We expected something from our city government and our state government, some pushback.

Something needs to be said to these racist statements made to us pertaining to us in equity.

That needs to be addressed by this council.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Mike Assah.

Good afternoon, council members.

Allow me to introduce myself.

My name is Mike Asai with Emerald City Collective, second black owned medical dispensary in 2010 and first downtown Seattle medical cannabis dispensary.

We are the cannabis pioneers.

We still are here.

We were protected under City Ordinance 123661 in 2011. July 2016, we and many other Black-owned medical dispensaries were unjustly closed down by the City of Seattle.

We stand together with Black Excellence in Cannabis, who were very instrumental in the creation of passing of House Bill 2870, Social Equity and Cannabis.

There should be no question of Emerald City Collective and Black Excellence in Cannabis are in full support of Social Equity and Cannabis.

Of course we are.

We appreciate the support for the mayor and city council regarding cannabis social equity.

We are in full support of cannabis employees rights protections.

We are not in support of amendment one to cannabis equity ordinance 0391. We are simply requesting amendment section 10 not be taken to consideration.

I find the racist comments from local and national media regarding social equity applicants being drug traffickers and selling the kids as racist.

This is an example of white supremacy causing more trauma to black and brown community.

Emerald city collective never sold to kids.

We never had any city

Thank you, sir.

Your time's up.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Alex Zimmerman.

The next speaker is Alex Zimmerman.

Sieg Heil, my dirty Nazi Gestapo Fuhrer.

My name is Alex Zimmerman, and I want to speak about the new agenda that has come today, 32065, condemn everything for an elected official.

I remember a few years ago, Consul Mosquito bring a new rules, what is everybody in city call this Alex Zimmerman rules.

It's me, rules.

With this rule, you give me 12 trespasses for 1,200 day.

And I go for election for last 10 year, every year.

So who are you?

New rules?

For who?

For Mosquito?

Another nine Nazi whose hair?

So right now you can doing everything what is Hitler did in 1934. bring everybody to concentration camp.

And this is exactly what you did.

A new rule, a new Nazi rule, what is totally cut us right, freedom of speech in us, opinion.

Stand up, America.

Clean this dirty chamber from this Nazi.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Dionne Calbary and Brianne Cobrey.

Our next speaker is Dionne Cobrey and Brianne Cobrey.

Good afternoon.

My name is Brion Corbray, I was the first African American man to have a medical marijuana collective here in the state of Washington and in Seattle.

And what happened to us as African Americans in this industry was atrocious.

And the thing about it was, you know, being from Seattle and at that time the mayor of Seattle.

Mike Jen, McGinn, whatever his name was, he was, you know, promoting it and things like that.

And then for us to take our own blood and sweat and establish these businesses to have them taken away from us, just was just, it's unimaginable.

You don't even think that stuff exists in America today, but it does.

And as progressive as this state wants to be or acts like it is, we got a lot of work that we must do.

Black Excellence in Cannabis and everybody for giving me the opportunity to come up here and speak with you guys.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Robert Radford.

Robert Radford.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

My name is Robert Radford.

I'm here on behalf of one of the seven commissioners to extend a presence.

The commission on neighborhoods is the specific commission that I'm referring to.

This is my first council meeting.

I just wanted to say greetings.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Marguerite Richard.

Yes, my name is Marguerite Richard.

I'm from Seattle.

And right now, I want to say that I'm very sorry to hear of the passing of Charlize Montgomery, the tax lady from the Central District.

She would come down here.

I think Eddie Rye, they were connected some kind of way.

But yeah, here we are again.

But I'm here because of my total freedom and my rights being violated repeatedly from people that basically they don't know me, but they have every right to do something to disrupt my life.

All I want is my total freedom.

All that other stuff is irrelevant unless we can walk and go and sit down on the first floor without being persecuted.

I didn't hear nobody up in here.

Back in the 60s, they would have been rattling everything up in this camp, huh?

About you discriminating against indigenous black people, huh?

When you gonna quit that?

Okay, that's what I'm talking, time expired.

Next time, give me my two minutes, Ms. Warren.

Yeah, I'll meet you.

Our next speaker.

is Aiden Carroll.

Aiden Carroll.

No new cops.

Good afternoon.

SPD has been on a slowdown strike for a long time to make you look bad.

They say they believe you have taken away their ability to fulfill their responsibilities.

Not a conspiracy theory.

This is what they tell voters all the time who ask them for help.

Frank Blevin, and Mike Salon, and Bruce Harrell, thanks to your vote for these hiring bonuses, they can make you lose next year's elections.

Let's call their bluff.

The voters don't want more cops.

They want certain visible problems addressed, and they want to be able to see that you're doing it.

But there's better ways to deal with bike theft and break-ins, for example.

We know this.

You don't need a badge and a gun to investigate the scene of a crime.

You don't need a badge and a gun to supervise a protest, or to be a supervisor in camera removal or armed remediation, although those shouldn't exist.

I would really like to know where the...

Resolution.

What?

Sorry.

What happened with with Catherine Belus is billed for sanctioned encampments.

But the same reason you wouldn't demolish an apartment building because couple of us committed a crime.

We need an accountability process for if there's warrant to imprisonment in an encampment or an RV that are causing a problem.

We need creative solutions that don't involve caving to the law and order Trump-Nixon lobby.

Thank you.

We will now move to the remote speakers.

Madam Clerk, can we hold up a minute?

First, I want to apologize.

I did not realize I was off mute when I was looking for a document, but I am going to, at this time, take a point of Council President privilege as officer of this public hearing because we have some unusual circumstances.

I am going to allow Rep Pastor Carrie Anderson, and I understand he's ready to speak.

He was over at King County in regards to a resolution that Councilor Mosqueda is going to be offering us today, which is agenda item number one.

Normally we don't take these matters out of order, but I am going to allow him the opportunity and the privilege, because this speaks to what Pastor Kerry Anderson endured, and I wanted to honor and respect that.

So that's what I would like to do.

So I would like to take Pastor Kerry Anderson first, I understand, as he's standing by.

Reverend?

I am.

I am right here, and let me thank the Madam Chair, and let me commend Councilwoman Teresa Mosqueda for taking a brave step and a brave move, valiant move in presenting a resolution against hate crimes against elected officials and candidates running for office.

I know I only have a minute, just 60 seconds in it, but let me say when I was shot by a drive-by BB gun shooter, BB guns kill four people a year.

I'm thankful that I'm not one of the four.

But even through the experience, I'm not, uh, deterred and I'm not undaunted.

And so I'm so thankful for the, uh, city council to embrace and engage this resolution to stand behind candidates of color candidates that are putting themselves out there.

And, uh, I appreciate this opportunity as the pastor of first AME church for the past 18 plus years and in ministry for over 38 years as a senior pastor, I never thought that I would be shot by doing public service and trying to make a difference.

I've been involved and engaged in de-escalating crime and trying to dismantle racism, will continue to do so as a public servant, but I want to encourage those that have a desire to run for public office don't be afraid to put yourself out there.

I found out that even though people are experiencing and expressing hate, we can't fight hate with hate.

We've got to fight hate with love.

And so as we move forward through this electoral process, through the mid-year and midterm elections, I'm encouraging people of color, young people of color, women, To go out there, put yourself out there, let your voice be known, let your position be heard and stand with a fearless disposition, knowing that right is right and right will always guide you into truth.

And so again, thank you council for allowing me this opportunity.

I'm just getting off the King County council.

who presented a similar resolution.

And so these are brave steps and I appreciate this opportunity in this time to address the city council.

Thank you.

Thank you, pastor Anderson.

And with that, madam clerk, can we go ahead and start our public comment for those that have called in?

And again, it is one minute.

Thank you.

Speakers will now be called in the order registered.

If you have not registered to speak, you can still sign up before the public comment period has concluded.

By registering for public comment online, for remote public comment, or for in-person public comment, please sign up on the signup sheet located near the podium and council chambers.

Our first remote public speaker is Howard Gale.

Good afternoon.

Howard Gale, seattlestop.org.

Today, you will be voting on spending $1.8 million in an attempt to improve police recruitment.

You're choosing to put more money into harming our community by recruiting folks with money instead of any actual change that would signal to potential police recruits that this is a city that wants to move away from traditional police culture.

Money alone may well attract the cops.

We do not want, for example, King County Sheriff's department has for years offered preference points, not just for military experience and second language, which Seattle does.

but it also offers preference points for community service work.

Despite a similar plan stipulated in the 2017 police accountability legislation, Seattle has failed to implement this.

Or how about us signaling to potential recruits that there actually exists an accountability system in Seattle that will reward them for calling out bad behavior instead of abandoning them to the blue wall of silence, which still dominates the SPD.

Money will only make a bad situation worse and papers over your failure to demand change.

Thank you, our next remote speaker is Matt Offenbacher.

Hi, council members.

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

I'm calling to urge you to vote no on the police recruitment and retention bill.

There's zero evidence that reducing the number of SPD officer increases crime rates.

On the other hand, there's abundant evidence that increasing the size and reach of SPD increases the harm done to communities of color, to poor people, people without homes, and those with mental illnesses.

So don't throw good money after bad to prop up a police organization that has shown time and again that it's unable to keep us safe.

It's long past time to put some urgency and some serious funding behind alternative crisis responses.

We're entering into a hard budget season, and you'll have to make some hard decisions.

Please lead us in the right direction by rejecting this poorly conceived bill.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is BJ Last.

Hello, my name is BJ Last.

I'm a Ballard resident and small business owner.

I'm calling on the council to reject CD 120389 and instead invest SPD salary savings in the community.

Council members are serious about being fiscally responsible and passing data-driven legislation.

They'll reject this bill.

This bill is deeply fiscally irresponsible.

It takes SPD from an $8 million budget surplus, which could be used to reduce the massive budget gap the city is facing next year, to protect the budget deficit for SPD, meaning council will have to give SPD more money at the end of the year, increasing the budget gap, and the bill increases expenses in future years by adding headcount and increasing SPD personnel costs.

The bill ignores decades of data showing the size of the police force has no impact on crime, and what reduces crime is investing in community to decrease inequality and meet people's basic needs.

This isn't surprising when you acknowledge that SPD's own data shows that 80% of the calls they respond to are non-criminal.

If multiple actually wants to improve public safety, they should invest SPD's salary savings in the community instead of throwing the money away on bonuses, which are guaranteed to have no impact on public safety because there's no

Our next speaker is Brian Clark.

Council, I'm a homeowner.

Council, I'm a homeowner in Ballard calling today to ask you to vote no on increasing funding for cops.

Our police department is internationally infamous.

They spent a whole summer tear gassing Capitol Hill.

They are failing to hold themselves accountable and the city has failed to force them to account despite many years of brutal police violence.

In summer 2020, many of you committed to shifting funds away from the police to other city services that could serve as alternate to policing.

And yet that shift hasn't really happened at scale.

Cops have quit, calls to them are down, and yet somehow you're offering something like $30,000 as a signup bonus for more cops here.

What can the SPD done to earn your trust?

Why should a cop be offered what for many other roles in the city would be a third or half a year's wages just for signing up?

Take this funding and send it to social services and police alternatives.

SPD doesn't have a recruiting problem.

They have a corruption problem.

Stop lavishing so much praise on them.

Stop patting yourself on your back for declaring August Black Pride Month if you're then just gonna go turn and dump a bunch of funding into SPD.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Julia Buck.

Good afternoon, Council.

My name is Julia Buck, and I'm a resident of District 6 in Seattle.

I am also calling on Council to reject Council Bill 120389. Council Member Herbold, the sponsor of this bill, has lamented that Seattle is lagging behind creating community-based policing alternatives that have proved successful in cities like Denver and Albuquerque, and yet is sponsoring a bill to make sure that this $1.6 million bonus stays with SPD in order to do hiring bonuses.

Hiring bonuses have not been found to be a inhibiting factor to SPD recruitment.

That's from the executive's analysis of the 2021 hiring bonus program.

And they have a limited impact on retention.

In addition, there was a hiring bonus program in 2019 that has never been analyzed by anyone.

Please don't know.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Drew Batchelor.

Hello, I'm Drew Batchelor asking you to vote no on 1-2-0-3-8-9.

In November of 2021, the City Council approved a statement of legislative intent requesting that the SPD address the list of call types the SPD-commissioned Nick Jr. report recommended could be handled by alternative non-police responses.

Diverting these non-violent, non-criminal calls would have resulted in an immediate 12% reduction in the calls SPD is responsible for, a percentage comparable to the SPD's claimed staffing shortage.

Diverting these calls would also allow us to begin investing in alternative response programs which have been proven successful in other cities.

The SLI deadline came in April and then again in June, and the SPD refuses to deliver this information.

This is the most basic application of police accountability.

Do the job the people of Seattle elected you to do.

Hold the SPD accountable.

No more money for SPD.

Demand they comply with the SLI and let us start investing in new, effective approaches to public safety that don't harm the most marginalized members of our community.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Sandy Labowitz.

Hi, concerning Seattle Aquarium's last minute request for a $20 million loan, I do not want our tax dollars being loaned to the Seattle Aquarium.

This giant tank that they are asking for the money for is not the way to educate those people in time of better technology.

We should not be containing beautiful inhabitants of our seas in tanks where they cannot live as nature intended, enjoying life instead of merely existing in a tank, which is nothing more than a tiny prison sail to the shark stingray and other sea life.

So much more could be learned from the use of state-of-the-art technology, 3D theater, holograms, computer-generated imaging, et cetera, instead of this tank.

Given the Seattle Aquarium, a last minute $20 million loan with our tax dollars will just reinforce their old outdated ways of thinking that entertaining with captive animals is the way to teach.

At this time, $20 million should be used in a way that will hurt, that will benefit our hurting people and businesses of Seattle.

Our next speaker is Danny Hoffman.

Hello Council, my name is Dani Hoffman and I live in District 5 in the Greenwood neighborhood.

I'm here today to provide comment regarding the SPD hiring incentives.

On more occasions than I can count, in just the past year, I've personally witnessed SPD behaving recklessly in my neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods, putting our community members in serious danger.

Specifically, this has looked like SPD cars cutting people off in traffic without the use of lights or sirens, speeding on side streets, many of which do not have sidewalks, not allowing buses to merge onto roadways, not yielding for pedestrians, speeding in general, driving and blocking safe streets and bike lanes.

They not only create unsafe situations for the community, but this behavior exemplifies the clear attitude that they are not here to serve or protect, but rather to harass or bully.

On several occasions, I have seen three to six squad cars with multiple officers respond to a singular person loitering or shouting in a parking lot.

We don't need more officers or for them to make even more money.

And we certainly don't need even more people who clearly care more about power-shipping and control than they do serving and protecting to be attracted to these positions of power.

SPD is already using their power means and positionality in ways that misuse funding and put the community at risk.

Our next speaker is Marla Katz.

Hello.

Can I speak now?

Yes, you can.

Hi, council members, I'm Marla Katz.

Please vote no to Seattle Aquarium's request for $20 million for a shark tank.

Council member Peterson voted no, asking how can we afford to give 20 million from the real estate excise tax fund when we have serious infrastructure needs?

The tank's budget began at 113 million, and the cost is now 160. In a global climate and water crisis, there's no justification for a tank that requires so much energy and water.

This conflicts with the city's policy to use energy, water, and material resources efficiently.

Sharks and stingrays are complex, intelligent beings and die young in tiny tanks.

Breeding them is cruel, taking them from the wild is cruel.

deprives them of natural life, migration, and reproduction.

Why not create a non-life high tech menu with holograms, animatronics, CGI, live cams, and more?

Vote no, and please rethink this outdated project.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Gail Jansen.

Gail.

We can move on to the next speaker and then come back if she becomes available.

The next speaker is Irene Wall.

Irene.

Hello, council members.

This is Irene Wall.

I'm opposed to the additional investment of city funds or bonding capacity for the ocean pavilion.

on several grounds.

This is not a sustainable project.

It is also not a logical project for Puget Sound in terms of education or conservation.

A giant shark tank will be a novelty for a few months and then will become a money loser and an energy hog.

The website lists an impressive 51 member board of directors and 25 auxiliary board members.

This is the body with the fiscal responsibility for the Ocean Pavilion per the 2019 funding agreement.

Perhaps this is the time to set the aquarium free.

It is largely an entertainment business and the city already has plenty of cost overruns and financial commitments for all of the other public aspects of the waterfront project.

In prior plans and in the 2018 MOU, the overlook walk was distinguished from the pavilion, which can be built without the pavilion roof.

Please stop the bleeding

Our next speaker is Tiffany McCoy.

Hi, this is Tiffany McCoy.

I am the advocacy director for Real Change and calling in against the bonuses for SPD.

Folks on this Council say they wanna follow the data, but it would be irresponsible for you all to grant these bonuses when pay has never been flagged as a barrier to SPD hiring or retention.

You all commissioned an SPD recruitment and retention work group in 2019 to explore hiring and retention for SPD.

The work group did not identify pay as a barrier to either hiring or retention.

So you are commissioning these work groups, they're telling you that this isn't an issue, and yet we're still gonna throw money at one department when we have teacher shortages, childcare worker shortages, and shortages of folks in library systems.

The list goes on and on.

Stop prioritizing one department over the rest of the department and put this money to better use.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Camille Gix.

Hi, my name is Camille Gix.

I am with Real Change and a resident of District 3. I am calling today to oppose the legislation proposing hiring bonuses for COPS.

Beyond the fact that more COPS don't actually make us safer, the shortage of COPS is also a narrative being perpetuated by local media that is simply not true.

Both data and personal experiences of many can show that SPD is in fact overstaffed with the decreases in staffing following the decrease in calls for service.

Yesterday, outside our building, There were five cops, each with their own car, walking up the street and causing traffic to arrest an individual for a non-violent situation.

It is deeply irresponsible to invest precious $30 on more cops that aren't needed when we have individuals living on the street and massive portions of our city rent burden.

The only way to truly invest in public safety is to use those funds to invest in community resources and housing.

Vote no on the police recruitment and retention bill.

Our next speaker is Alex Spivey.

Hi, I'm Alex Spivey.

I'm calling in from Capitol Hill, and I'd like to echo the comments of every other caller who has mentioned Resolution 120389 and echo them saying, please vote no.

There is no data-backed reason to believe that hiring bonuses will increase attention to police officers, and more importantly, no data-backed reason to believe that there is any correlation to size of police department and reduction in crime.

This is the equivalent of throwing our money down into wishing well and cross our fingers and hoping for the best.

There's certainly better uses for this money.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is TKT.

Whoa, everybody here.

Can everybody hear me?

Everybody hear me?

I want to make sure everybody can hear this.

We can hear you.

Okay.

My name is TK.

I don't know if you guys know me.

I'm just a regular smegular person from Seattle and about seven out the eight, nine of you guys sitting up there looked me dead in my face two years ago and promised everything that these people was talking about.

No more police, better options, public safety, and all of that.

And you straight up lied.

Remember that?

Oh, y'all don't remember that, huh?

2020 wasn't a fluke.

I want you guys to understand that.

Don't worry.

Council Member Nelson, I'll see you soon.

Soon enough, at least.

2020 wasn't a fluke.

And then they give you that, Seattle can turn back up and get in the streets.

Now, I don't advocate for tearing the city up or none of that.

I don't want none of that.

But we can't get back in these streets and make some noise and make y'all stand up to what y'all promised.

You got guys there talking about, they still asking for cannabis equity.

Are you guys serious?

After decades they've been imprisoning us for it?

We still got to ask y'all for it?

Why these white guys can make billions of dollars, huh?

It's cool, right?

We're not commodities.

This ain't a transaction.

These are human beings.

We'll add more cops because more cops don't solve the problem clearly.

Yeah, those gun violence is at an all time high.

15 years, it ain't been this high, but now it is.

It's like the 90s again around here.

Our next speaker is Hannah Thompson Gardner.

Yes, thank you.

And I would like to start with saying, please listen to the black community leaders that have spoken before me.

They have some very good things to say.

I will not be speaking on those issues today, however.

Hello, and thank you for providing us an opportunity to speak today.

My name is Hannah Thompson-Garner, and I am the Director of Advocacy and Mission Advancement at the Northwest Animal Rights Network.

I would like to speak on giving $20 million to the Seattle Aquarium.

In 2019, NARN and others concerned over marine animal welfare vehemently protested and opposed the use of public funds for this project, and we will continue to do so in 2022 and beyond.

To date, NARN supporters have written a total of 450 letters to you.

urging you to change course and to reject this funding proposal.

This figure does not count letters sent when promoted by other organizations.

This figure is very high considering we were given only 72 hours notice of this vote.

Can this council truly justify to its voters that giving 20 million to an aquarium is the right choice?

Please reject this funding proposal.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Amy Webster.

Hi.

Hello.

Good afternoon, council members.

I'm calling in today to implore the city council members to vote no on the funding proposal for the shark tank at the aquarium.

As a longtime Seattle resident, a homeowner, taxpayer, and advocate for our oceans and the creatures that live within, I firmly stand against the city giving more money to fund these captive animals that will live in their lives in captivity in smaller tanks, Even if this is a loan, I feel that this is a waste of the money that we could be funding a lot more important programs in the city.

In addition to the ethical concerns, there are huge red flags around this project regarding its effect on climate and the water crisis.

This project is not consistent with the city of Seattle's own stated policy of efficient use of limited energy, water, and material resources.

We use copious amounts of water, energy and water pumping in water from the Puget Sound, heating and filtering the water and then cooling it and filtering the water and returning it back to the Puget.

The next speaker is Jeanne Barrett.

Jeanne?

Yes, Jeanne.

Thank you.

Hello.

Hello.

Hello, city council members, and good afternoon.

My name is Jean Barrett.

I am joining others in urging you to vote against giving any more money to Seattle Aquarium, loaning any more money to Seattle Aquarium for a shark or stingray tank.

In addition to the inherent cruelty of such a proposal, this tank would require energy and water that Seattle can ill afford during times of accelerated climate change.

as well as contradicting stated city policy for efficient use of energy and water.

The aquarium's budget management comes under serious question as well.

During a time when our city needs funding in so many areas, perhaps the aquarium can live within its means and scale back on wild animal confinement.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Chris Rogers,

Good afternoon, this is Chris Rogers.

Please vote no on Council Bill 120396. The O&M agreement between Parks and the Aquarium Society obligates particular attention to exhibits and conservation education, focusing on Puget Sound.

Instead, we get a fake ocean to house sharks and rays from the South Pacific.

No matter how hard you try to green up this project, the environmental cost of construction and the day-to-day energy and water demands necessary to keep captive animals alive are significant.

If this project had followed guidelines established by the Design Commission and the Parks Department with respect to community input, it would have been harder to ignore what we all know.

Climate change is real, our oceans are suffering, and there is growing public dismay over keeping animals in captivity for entertainment.

It would have been harder to hide the fact that this is a project geared to tourists spearheaded by the business community, not by educators or conservationists.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Peter Condit.

Hello, this is Peter Condit in district six.

I'm calling in support of voting no on council bill 1, 2, 0, 3, 8, 9, which would let SPD pay out hiring bonuses of $30,000 per officer and would add four additional cop recruiters.

City council and the mayor's office have said that they want to improve public safety through unarmed response options.

However, we have yet to see any movement from the executive to transfer any calls out of SPD.

Even the previous administration was willing to move person down and wellness checks.

which constitute about 8,000 calls annually out of SPD through its proposed triage one program.

This administration, however, canceled triage one.

Refusing to reduce SPD's scope of work while simultaneously asking for bonuses is acting in bad faith and council should not allow it.

Vote no on council bill 120389 and invest instead in meeting people's basic needs and dispatching non-police personnel.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Selene Russo.

Is it Selene?

Hello.

Hello, I'm Selene Russo.

I'm a district one resident.

I'm calling also to please reject hiring bonuses for SPD.

Yes, it's true we have fewer officers, but SPD's own data shows an equal decrease in 911 calls.

So we have the same ratio of police to calls we have always had in Seattle.

If SPD says they don't have enough officers, it's because they are purposely misusing their funds.

While we have a backlog of rape cases, we are also sending 10 to 12 officers to each suite where they literally stand around chatting, drinking coffee, and watching while the city violently pushes houseless people around the city.

I have seen this.

As other people have said, public safety is not increased, sorry, the number of police officers increasing does not have an effect on public safety.

Please reject bonuses for SPD and stop giving them more money.

Thanks.

And our last speaker, Gail Jansen.

And, Gail, you want to do star six to unmute.

There you go.

Oh, hi.

Thanks for getting back to me.

I'm also calling to urge you to vote no on giving the Seattle Aquarium more money for their shark tank.

This will be housing topical fish, sharks, coral, and rays.

Hello?

Hello?

Hello?

Go ahead.

Can you hear me?

We can hear you, Council President.

You might want to put yourself on mute.

Can you hear me?

Council President, your mic's on.

Go ahead, Gail.

It looks like you're back on mute, Gail.

You want to do star six?

All right, should I start again?

Go ahead.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Go ahead.

OK, I'm voting.

I'm urging your vote no on the Seattle Quorum for giving them more money.

This will be a tank for warm water animals, and it will require huge amounts of energy to filter warm Puget Sound water.

This exhibit will do nothing to keep these animals from being exploited and killed in the wild.

Sharks are being decimated for the shark in soup industry, along with millions being killed in nets as bycatch.

It's time to start thinking outside the tank.

The aquarium could be set up a 21st century non-live attraction.

And this kind of thing is gaining traction around the world.

An immersive theater that would let you be surrounded by these fish would be so cool.

More and more taxpayers are getting tired of being forced to subsidize the animal incarceration industry.

We're gawking at in-prison animals, it's only for profits, and there's nothing to keep them from going extinct in the wild.

Thank you.

Thank you, and that's the end of the speaker list, Council President.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

We've reached the end.

First of all, thank you, all of you who called in.

And all the speakers have spoken from the remote and those that are in chambers.

And with that, public comment is now closed.

So let's move on in our agenda to adoption of the introduction and referral calendar.

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

Not hearing or seeing an objection, it is indeed adopted.

Moving on to adoption of the agenda.

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

Not seeing or hearing any objection, the agenda is adopted.

Okay, so moving on to G of our agenda, adoption of the consent calendar.

We will now consider the proposed consent calendar, which I read into the record yesterday.

Are there any items that any council member would like to have removed that we can address at the end of the agenda?

Okay, not seeing anyone, not hearing or seeing anyone moving to remove an agenda item.

I move to adopt the consent calendar.

Is there a second?

Thank you Councilmember Herbold.

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.

Councilmember Sawant?

Yes.

Councilmember Strauss?

Yes.

Councilmember Herbold?

Yes.

Councilmember Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

And Council President Juarez.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The consent calendar is adopted.

Madam Clerk, will you please affix my signature to the minutes and the legislation in the consent calendar?

Moving on to committee reports.

We have six items on today's agenda.

And our first item will be Council Member Mosqueda with a resolution.

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

Agenda item one, resolution 32065, condemning harassment, threats, and political violence against elected officials and those seeking elected office.

Thank you.

I move to adopt resolution number 32065. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Council Member Mosqueda, as sponsor, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, in order to put the most revised version in front of us, I'd like to move to amend Resolution 32065 by substituting Version 3 for Version 2. Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the resolution by substituting Version 3 for Version 2. And Council Member Mosqueda, you are recognized to address the substitute.

Thank you very much, Madam President.

Colleagues, I wanna thank you for your participation in reviewing the resolution in front of us and your engagement in this conversation.

I wanna thank, especially thank Pastor Carey for calling in this morning or this afternoon and offering us a glimpse in terms of the type of violence and threats that he received as well.

This resolution in front of us today condemns harassment, threats, and political violence against elected officials, election workers, and those seeking elected office, along with public servants.

It's no secret that across this nation we have seen increase in hate crimes, the rise of significant hate crimes specifically against the black community and Asian American communities, the majority of these crimes being motivated by anti black sentiment.

and increased over 150 percent in anti-Asian American hate crimes.

Some of the headlines from CNN read, hate crime reports in U.S. surged to the highest level in 12 years, according to the FBI.

The NPR headline says, the rise in anti-Asian attacks during the COVID-19 pandemic has skyrocketed.

Without a diverse array of individuals who both feel safe in their community but also feel safe in running for office and serving in elected office and also serving in our government, we really have a sham of a democracy.

According to the National League of Cities report in 2021, 81% of local elected officials of all races and all genders surveyed reporting having experienced harassment, threats, and violence themselves.

Simultaneously, there's been a record number of American women who are filing to be candidates in spite of this violence and threats, they're signing up to run for office.

And as they sign up to run for elected office to seek growth and political power, they're being met with death threats, rape threats, sexist and racist abuse online and in person.

Threats to life and sexual violent language discourage people, especially women, from running an office and, for our colleagues, staying in office.

Violent threats are escalating in community with hate crimes on the rise nationally since 2014, particularly against women of color, non-binary, and non-gender conforming persons of color and communities of color.

So the resolution in front of us includes language to condemn threats to our local elected officials, those seeking elected office, and importantly to our families, to the children of our colleagues and elected officials across the country who have also been on the receiving end of these threats.

We have individuals in our community here in Seattle who have experienced this type of threats, and across the nation, we are sending a message in solidarity as well.

No matter who is attacked, no matter their political leaning, no matter who it is who's sending the message, we send a message today with this resolution that racist, sexist attacks or threatening one's family and children is unacceptable.

I know that we've heard from Pastor Kerry, and again, I wanna thank him for calling out his experience on July 14th, and the fear that he experienced that day, and the words that he left us with, I'll conclude when we vote.

We also heard from Congresswoman Jayapal, who was threatened at her own house by a man with a deadly weapon, and he has now been charged with a felony, felony for stalking and directly attacking her.

elected office position on July 9th.

These attacks are specifically designed as a threat against those who are seeking to participate in representative democracy, and I want to thank you all for your consideration of this resolution in front of us in partnership with King County.

Council Member Garamay Zahalai introduced a similar resolution today that I believe the council is voting on as we speak.

I want to thank his office and his legislative aide, Rosa Mai, from their staff for working with us and members of Local Progress as well.

I'd like to conclude my opening comments by thanking Councilmembers Peterson and Councilmember Terrell for their great input and additions to the resolutions in front of us, in addition to the Council President in your office for working with us to advance this today.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you.

Are there any other comments on the substitute version three?

before we get to the actual text itself.

Are there any other comments on substitute version three?

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

Council Member Sawant?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

And Council President Juarez.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

The substitute is adopted and the amended resolution is before the council now.

Are there any further comments on the amended resolution?

Council Member Scahill.

I was gonna let you do closing, but I just wanted to see if your colleagues had anything to say before.

I have it in here, I was gonna get right back to you.

Is there any other comments from our colleagues?

Okay, we're good.

Council Member Vizqueda, take us home.

Thank you so much, Madam President.

Thanks again to your office, Brindell, also Central Creek Chief of Staff in my office, and Amelia Sanchez from the clerk's office for helping to shepherd this through.

And I do have a closing comment here from Congresswoman Jayapal.

I would like to echo comments in support of this resolution.

Thank you to the council for bringing this important resolution forward.

And all of that support has meant so much to her.

She says this resolution condemning harassment threats and political violence against elected officials and those taking office is critical at this moment.

It was no accident that she as an American progressive woman of color has been on the front lines of fighting for justice and equity against white supremacy was the target of this kind of racist xenophobic threat.

She's also where she's not the only elected official or candidate who has faced these kind of threats in Seattle or across the country.

And unfortunately, there's a prominent public.

There are prominent public figures who condone and even encourage extreme violence, whether through rhetoric or rallies, legislation like the Muslim Muslim ban, or even an attempting to incite a coup on our nation's capital.

This is bound to happen.

Hate crimes have been on the rise and the new era of political violence threatens millions of Americans, not just members of Congress or elected officials.

Violence often depends on first dehumanizing those being targeted, spreading fear and hate, and undermining institutions to a point where there is a false sense that the social order is collapsing.

This kind of hate and extreme violence is difficult to roll back once unleashed.

Truly beating back this hate and violence will require all of us coming together, to condemn this behavior towards everyone, reset our norms and standards for what is acceptable behavior or speech, and take away the tools that people use to conduct violent behavior.

In conclusion, she notes, as Dr. Martin Luther King once said, morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated.

Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless.

I am so proud that King County and the City of Seattle are denouncing these actions of political violence, she notes.

Thank you again for your leadership.

Thank you, Madam President.

All right.

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

Excuse me, Madam President, I forgot to note, Council Member Herbold had asked to be a sponsor of this resolution, so I just want that noted before the final vote, if I may.

Duly noted.

Council Member Herbold, is there anything you want to add?

No, I just, I guess yes, I just want to highlight that I initially saw this really focused on.

people who are running for office.

When we were at Local Progress, we heard stories of people who were actually campaigning for office and experiencing threats.

And of course, the threats and retaliation and intimidation that election workers have faced.

And so I propose adding language sort of aligned with the narrative that this is about about people who are running for office.

And I say that because I want to recognize that members of this council have also experienced threats and intimidation.

And I just wanna apologize if we haven't done enough to speak out against that in the past.

Thank you.

Okay.

I think we're ready to move forward.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the resolution as amended?

Council Member Sawant?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

And Council President Juarez.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

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

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

Moving on to item number two, this is coming out of Council Member Morales' committee on behalf, oh, Council Member Strauss is here.

So Madam Clerk, will you read item two on the record and then Council Member Strauss or Council Member Morales, you can let us know who's gonna tee this up.

Agenda item two, council bill 123.56, relating to floodplains, third extension of interim regulations established by ordinance 126.113 and amended by ordinance 126.536 for an additional six months to allow individuals to rely on an updated national flood insurance rate maps to obtain flood insurance through the federal emergency management agency's flood insurance program.

Thank you.

I moved to pass Council Bill 120356. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

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

I will hand it over to either Council Member Morales or Council Member Strauss.

Council Member Morales, I'm happy to speak to it, but if you're ready and able, please take it away.

Sure, that's fine.

Colleagues, we discussed this briefly in briefing earlier, but in July 2020, the council passed and the mayor signed an ordinance that would establish interim floodplain development regulations, including updated floodplain maps.

The regulations have been extended twice and are due to expire in just a couple days.

FEMA produced the updated maps and established minimum required standards for the regulations, and mapped areas include properties along Puget Sound, the Duwamish River, and areas adjacent to creeks.

The floodplain regulations contain building codes and other standards that make homes and businesses and people Safer from flooding and apply to permit applications for construction on property within the mapped floodplain areas.

And so, if we don't extend these property owners in these areas may not be able to purchase flood insurance or even renew their existing policies.

The SIPA decision was appealed by the port in July 2021 and so in the interim staff have been working on resolving issues with the port and so the plan now is to complete the SIPA analysis and move forward with proposed permanent regulations within the Land Use Committee sometime next year.

But for now, the request is to extend again the interim regulations, and this did pass out of committee unanimously.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Are there any comments?

Okay, Council Member Morales, you can do closing remarks, or Council Member Strauss, you may add on to that as well.

Are there any closing remarks?

Council Member Morales said it all.

OK, thank you.

That's what I call leadership and efficiency.

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

I'm sorry, Council President, if I missed this, but has it been moved at this point?

I moved it.

Yes.

OK, thank you.

I apologize.

Council Member Sawant?

Yes.

Councilmember Strauss?

Yes.

Councilmember Herbold?

Yes.

Councilmember Lewis?

Yes.

Councilmember Morales?

Yes.

Councilmember Mosqueda?

Aye.

Councilmember Peterson?

Aye.

Councilmember Nelson?

Aye.

And Council President Juarez?

Aye.

Nine in favor, nine opposed.

Thank you.

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

OK, let's move on to item number three from the Economic Development Technology and City Light Committee, which is Council Member Nelson.

Madam Clerk, please read item number three into the record.

the Economic Development Technology and City Light Committee, Agenda Item 3, Resolution 32061, relating to City Light Department, acknowledging and approving the 2022 Integrated Resource Plan as conforming with the public policy objectives of the City of Seattle and the requirements of the State of Washington and approving the Integrated Resource Plan for the biennium September 2022 through August 2024. The committee recommends that council adopt the resolution.

Council Member Nelson.

All right.

Well, Seattle City Lights 2022 Integrated Resource Plan, IRP, is a long-term strategy to meet anticipated customer energy needs over the next 20 years.

And state law requires that Washington utilities develop an IRP showing how the utility plans to meet customers' future electricity needs.

And so this year's IRP is similar to past IRPs, but with the important new additions of increased attention to electrification and addressing climate change.

It outlines steps City Light will take to maintain greenhouse gas neutrality, maintain equitable access to clean and affordable energy, and make progress toward being greenhouse gas free by 2045. And it also outlines a 10-year clean energy plan to meet the goals around reliability, affordability, and environmental responsiveness while meeting our regulatory requirements and ensuring service quality and equity.

The new portfolio of energy resources includes more wind and solar energy, and the plan paves the way for transportation and building electrification efforts to shift away from using fossil fuels.

And it also commits City Light to further study energy efficiency, distributed resources, storage, and customer solar potential under climate change and electrification loads.

And so finally, the plan commits City Light to continue developing relevant social equity metrics and include them while making future analyses and decisions.

And it incorporates additional climate change scenarios in future IRP analyses.

So what I'm trying to get across is that this IRP goes beyond what is required by state law.

So I commend City Light for making extra effort in engaging in forward thinking to address the resource challenges we face in the upcoming decades.

Thank you.

Are there any comments before I hand it back over to Council Member Nelson for closing remarks?

Okay.

Council Member Sawant.

Thank you, Council President Borges.

Apologies for not being able to have the camera on today.

I will be voting no on this Seattle City Light Integrated Resource Plan or IRP because I'm concerned that it begins to open the door to the privatization of the utility.

The IRP is a legally required document where City Light demonstrates that the city will have enough electricity in the coming years by calculating its expected resources and load.

It has been required ever since the Enron disaster when the rapacious private energy markets amassed immense profits by selling shares in future electricity that they didn't have.

and driving up the cost of utility bills and leading to rolling blackouts, the whole thing as we all know was a major scandal.

For many years, City Lights IRP has been very simple.

The utility had a surplus of electricity that it could sell wholesale to other utilities.

and could therefore simply say that no new resources would be needed.

This IRP is different because for the first time in many years City Light has calculated that they will need to start looking for more resources in a couple of years.

That raises the important question of where that electricity will come from.

In committee I asked City Light about their plans for new utility scale resources Do they plan to have the city build and own our own publicly owned new solar and wind generators, which I would very much support, or contract with other public utilities for the power, or contract with private for-profit power companies, which as I said in committee, would unacceptably open the door to privatization?

For the last century, people in Seattle have benefited from inexpensive and climate neutral electricity precisely because we have a public utility that owns and operates its own hydroelectric resources.

And because it is a public utility, regular working class people can organize to make demands when there are issues such as rates, the utility discount program which As I said in committee in my office when it was chairing, the Energy Committee played a big role in majorly expanding enrollment into the utility discount program and the Skagit River Salmon.

There is no guarantee of successful struggles, but with private utilities, there is really no space for democratic oversight at all.

Parts of the country that have relied on private energy companies have seen extreme price gouging and fatal brownouts and blackouts.

precisely because the private energy market is primarily interested in making profits, and in fact obscene profits, not providing power.

The example of Texas stands out.

This is the first IRP in years that has discussed adding substantially new power generation.

And I would be extremely concerned if the plan is to contract with private companies for that power, because it would mean that City Light was incrementally becoming dependent on the rapacious private energy markets.

Not all at once, but it would be a step toward privatization that I would not support.

As City Light explained in committee, the IRP does not specify in writing where the new power will come from, and for that reason I abstained in committee.

However, City Light representatives also made clear that they expect to contract with the private market and really had not even entertained the possibility of expanding the public resources of our public utility.

And for that reason, I will be voting no today.

As I said in committee, I do not object to contracts with other publicly owned utilities, such as the contract with Bonneville, a public hydroelectric power plant that was built as part of the New Deal.

And it is a good reminder that we need a real Green New Deal.

My objection is to contracts with private for-profit power companies.

Elected officials in Seattle pay great lip service to the Green New Deal.

But unfortunately for the political establishment, This is empty rhetoric.

There was a time in the 1930s when the threat of socialism was immediate, that the political establishment put real resources into public works, and the New Deal projects build powerful infrastructure like Bonneville.

To me, that is what a Green New Deal would really mean.

It would mean taxing massive corporations in our city like Amazon.

In other words, at the very least, increasing the Amazon tax working people's movements won in 2020 in order to build publicly owned wind and solar farms to meet our future energy needs and beyond to push the private profiteering and polluting utilities out of the market like Puget Sound Energy.

That is the IRP I will support, and I urge City Light to develop a Green New Deal plan for meeting Seattle's future electrical needs.

However, this IRP I cannot support and I will be voting no.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Any other comments before I hand it back to Council Member Nelson for closing remarks?

Not seeing any.

Council Member Nelson?

Well, my response is that this is a the IRP is renewed every two years and it is a long range lookout and it is an overstatement to say that that there are plans being made right now to contract with private solar and wind suppliers.

That was an acknowledgement that we have got to think about how we are going to meet many of the Green New Deal goals around moving from fossil fuels to more hydro because we're in a really tough place here.

We can't We can't just continue on business as usual.

It's the responsible thing to explore other sources of energy.

And as CEO Deborah Smith said that they are not even in the stage of talking about contracts.

I will just simply say that also we are bound to protect our ratepayers, and we cannot.

I think that the infrastructure needs to for solar and wind are far beyond our capacity right now.

So we're in a rock and a hard space.

Do we do we do business as usual?

Do we just or do we commit to massive infrastructure investments that will that will be very difficult, if not impossible for our ratepayers to pay?

So this is a long term planning document.

And I think that the innovation here is that the utility is even acknowledging the fact that we will need to make changes in our portfolio to meet increased demand because of increased electrification, climate change, which is decreasing our snowpack, et cetera.

And so that is how I would respond to the comments that Council Member Sawant made.

Great.

Thank you both for your comments.

Okay, so let's move forward then.

Will the clerk, I'm sorry, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the resolution?

Council Member Sawant?

No.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

And Council President Juarez.

Aye.

Eight in favor, one opposed.

Thank you.

The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it.

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

All right, moving on to item number four out of the Finance and Housing Committee.

And I see items four and five are Council Member Mosqueda.

So let's start with number four.

Madam Clerk, will you please read item number, the short title, Item number four to the record.

Report of the Finance and Housing Committee, agenda item four, Council Bill 123-96, relating to the financing of the Aquarium Expansion Project, creating a fund for depositing proceeds of tax-exempt limited tax general obligation bonds in 2023. The committee recommends that council pass the bill.

Before I hand it off to you, Councilor Mosqueda, I just want to add that for the viewing public, because I know that we know this, that there will be three amendments being proposed, Amendment A, B, and C by Council Member Herbold.

But at this point, Councilor Mosqueda is going to speak to and be recognized to provide the committee report on the bill.

Thank you, I think, a BNC might be related to the next item but I do believe Councilman oh I'm sorry amendment on this one as well so it's just one I apologize there's one on this one is three on the next one customer her what I saw you waving your hand that's what you're trying to get my attention.

So with that, thank you for correcting me I was wrong customer mosquito.

Thank you very much, Madam President, and I would like to share the introductory comments with my colleague and Council Member Lewis as well, but Madam President, maybe I'll just speak now and speak to both of these items as I consider them a package and then I'll hold my comments on the second one.

Appreciate, colleagues, your consideration of items number four and five on today's agenda.

These pieces of legislation have been considered as well by the Debt Management Policy Advisory Committee, or DEMPAC.

I, along with Central Staff Director, have the opportunity to sit on the DEMPAC Advisory Committee to consider any ordinance or item that may impact the City's debt management.

We did have a good and robust conversation at DEMPAC.

There was a lot of emphasis on ensuring that this is a strong financial investment for the city.

And you previewed that there is going to be an amendment by our colleague Council Member Herbold that I am supportive of as well.

This builds on some of the language that I had asked to be included in the package so that we are preemptively saying that if there's any chance that the aquarium is not able to meet its obligation to the city that the city has off ramps or strategies to make sure that we are recouping the revenue and also wanting to be very clear and yes we are supportive and supporting the aquarium but in our obligation to the city and many projects This is the last time we are able to offer such financial assistance so really appreciate the partnership that the aquarium, Friends of the Waterfront, and the community at large have been showing to the building of the aquarium as it's going to be intimately tied into our refined waterfront that will be accessible by all community partners.

residents and those who are coming to visit us as well.

Again, I'd like to share the opportunity with Council Member Lewis who has parks in his district and he has taken a real leadership role in making sure that this project moves forward.

So thank you very much for your consideration for this and I'll be voting yes on both pieces of legislation and appreciate your support today.

Great.

Council Member Lewis.

Thank you, Council President.

I'm okay with holding my remarks until the consideration of Council Member Herbold's amendment and putting the full amended bill before us.

I think that was a good thorough committee report.

So I don't have any other introductory remarks to add.

Thank you, Councilor Lewis.

And we will loop back to his Chair Parks.

All right.

Are there any other comments?

And I know who's going to raise their hand.

Councilor Herbold.

Thank you so much.

I move to amend Council Bill 120396 as presented on Amendment A on the agenda.

Thank you.

I'm sorry.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on amendment A.

Council Member Herbold, you are again recognized to address this amendment.

Thank you.

I'll make it short.

As mentioned in council briefing yesterday, this amendment is intended to take a belt and suspender approach to ensuring that the negotiation terms in the bill are honored.

The bill authorizes negotiation on the amendments to the agreement, but does not require the aquarium to agree to the negotiation terms sent out in the bill.

So the intent is to ensure that the executive does not use the authority in the bill without a final execution of the amendments to the two agreements authorized by the bill.

I raise this concern out of abundance of caution in the case that the conditions should change in the future or that there are delays in finalizing the agreement and not out of any concern that there is an attempt to not negotiate the terms laid out in the bill.

The amendment was circulated at 1020 on Monday morning by central staffer, Eric McConaughey, and is posted in Legistar.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

Are there any other comments before I move forward on a vote?

Okay, not seeing any.

Will the clerk please call, I don't know why I can't say clerk today.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment A. Council Member Sawant?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council President Fatis.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

The amendment A is adopted and the amended bill before the council.

Now the amended bill is before the council.

Are there any other comments on the amended before I hand it back over to the sponsors for closing remarks?

Council Member Lewis.

Thank you, Council President Juarez.

Appreciate being able to consider this legislation today in front of the full council.

I just wanna do a little bit of level setting at the beginning based on some emails we've received from community members in opposition to this legislation today about the implications for what we are considering, what it is, what it isn't.

what it can do, what it doesn't do, just to fully make the public and colleagues aware before we cast this vote.

This is not a proposal to give 20 million additional dollars beyond our initial commitment.

It's a loan that's going to be repaid by the aquarium in partnership.

So it is not in a sense, a new policy decision that we are making.

It is also not a policy decision that we're weighing in on, on whether or not there should be an ocean pavilion.

As some members of the community weighing in have indicated that this vote is, the decision has been made by previous councils before I was on this dais serving, and a number of us were, that the ocean pavilion would be a component of a revitalized waterfront project.

The Ocean Pavilion is indeed, as we discussed extensively in committee, integrated into the waterfront overwalk, connecting Pike Place Market, giving Pike Place Market for the first time, a second grand entryway into that iconic Seattle location to a rejuvenated Seattle waterfront with a brand new extensive waterfront boulevard park.

This policy decision has been made.

Whether this loan policy passes or is defeated today does not change whether there will be an ocean pavilion.

It just determines if that ocean pavilion is going to take longer to build.

and how expensive it's gonna be for us to build.

And that's really what the question that's in front of us is.

The question that's in front of us is can we be a creative partner with this important public asset on the Seattle waterfront that we own, the Seattle Aquarium, and can we be an important partner with the waterfront project, one of the most transformative legacy setting projects that we have in front of us as a city to make sure that this project is delivered on time and on budget.

We are very well aware of the cash flow issues that have been induced by the COVID pandemic in the city.

We're about to go into a fall budget session where we are going to be grappling still with the uncertainty and fluctuations in our general fund based on a resettling and reordering of the economy based on the impacts of COVID.

This is our way of assisting the aquarium with this very relatable problem that we ourselves are facing and how we can be creative in leveraging our resources to solve a temporary cashflow problem, to make sure that we are not in a position where work will have to stop, be halted, be mothballed.

And with those delays, as we well know, as people who oversee property or, uh, uh, property transactions and capital projects, we know that that comes with costs.

We know that in capital projects, delay means money.

This policy in front of us is a way that without raising additional taxes, without incurring a substantial amount of risk, this is a way that we can help make sure that these projects are done on time.

We also know that downtown Seattle's recovery is linked to a certain extent to the viability and success of our waterfront project and the placemaking that comes with it.

We know that 52% of the tax revenue that we receive in our general fund comes from downtown Seattle.

We want people to be able to go between the waterfront and downtown Seattle as a seamless experience that is made possible by the new overwalk that is integrated into the Ocean Pavilion.

And that is really the policy that's in front of us today.

It's making sure that as we come out of the pandemic, we are gonna be in a position to make sure that our recovery is gonna be supported by these big capital investments and improvements that have long been in the making in the post-viaduct waterfront space.

So I'm gonna be voting for this today.

I really appreciate the work of Council Member Mosqueda in putting this together for us to pass it before the recess.

I appreciate colleagues calling in and being flexible who otherwise had planned vacations to be away.

and we're able to accommodate coming to this meeting for this important commitment, not just for District 7, but for the city as a whole.

And with that, Madam President, I don't have anything else to add and would just say, I look forward to the vote.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

Council Member Sawant.

Thank you.

I will be voting no on items four and five related to increasing the aquarium renovation budget by $20 million.

$20 million is a lot of money and the aquarium is already somewhat expensive for working class families to visit.

If this increased funding is paid for by ticket sales, I would be concerned about what that would mean for those ticket costs for ordinary people.

And if it is not, I think that $20 million would be better spent on maintaining our parks throughout the city, including setting up clean public restrooms with unionized staffing, not to mention housing.

In committee, presenters blamed the increased construction costs.

on everything from COVID to the concrete strike.

If this bill had suggested paying for the 20 million by increasing taxes on the concrete bosses whose greed caused the concrete strike, not the workers and the team staff members who were fighting for their justifiable demands, it could have been different.

But in this form, I will be voting no.

Because this budget legislation requires two bills to effectively do one thing, these comments that I've just made are for both this item and the next item.

Thank you.

Before we go to vote, I have a few comments I want to make.

I normally don't like to make a lot of comments as I'm chairing the meeting as council president, but first and foremost, I want to thank council member Lewis for clarifying some of the issues that, and some of the issues that were brought up in public comment in the letters and calls that we have received regarding the zoo.

I used to chair, as you know, the public assets, which included the waterfront Seattle center park zoo.

and the aquarium.

And this was something that I had worked on along with Council Member Bagshaw for at least six years.

So I'm comfortable with it being a loan, an inter fund loan, which governments do all the time, every day, with interest to be paid back.

And I see it as good stewardship, particularly on behalf of the Chair of Parks, Council Member Lewis, those on the committee, and those that took the time to understand this public asset for the waterfront, As you know, I represent District 5, and I think Seattle North will give downtown and the waterfront a run for their money about the next place where people come.

But I'm really happy to support this.

It's a long time coming, so I will be voting yes.

So, all right.

Okay, so we are done with our remarks.

Is there anything else from Councilor Muscat or Lewis as kind of wrapping things up before we go to the vote?

Councilor Muscat, are you sure?

All right, so with that, let's, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the passage of the bill as amended?

Council Member Strauss.

Seizing.

Yes.

Thank you.

Council Member Sawant.

No.

Council Member Herbold.

Yes.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

Council Member Misqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

No.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

And Council President Juarez.

Aye.

Seven in favor, two opposed.

Thank you.

The bill passes as amended.

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

All right, let's move on to item number five.

This is also Council Member Mosqueda.

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

agenda item five, council bill 12397 relating to the financing of the aquarium expansion project, authorizing amendments to existing agreements with the Seattle Aquarium Society relating to such financing and providing further related matters.

The committee recommends that council pass the bill.

Thank you.

Council Member Esqueda.

Thanks, Madam President.

I think my earlier comments and echoing as well what Council Member Lewis noted suffice for this item as well.

Great, thank you.

Are there any comments?

And not, oh, no, not seeing any.

Okay, so with that, and Council Member Mosqueda said what she had to say on this item.

So then we will go right to the vote.

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

Council Member Sawant?

No.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

No.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council President Juarez?

Aye.

Seven in favor, two opposed.

Thank you.

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

So we are now to item number six from the Public Safety and Human Services Committee, which I confused everybody, This is where we have the three amendments.

Thank you for correcting me on that one.

This will come out of Council Member Herbold's committee.

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

Report of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee, agenda item six, council bill 12389, related to recruitment and retention of police officers in the Seattle Police Department, modifying a proviso in the 2022 budget by amending ordinance 126589, creating positions in the Seattle Department of Human Resources to assist with their recruitment to the Seattle Police Department, modifying appropriations in the 2022 budget by amending ordinance 126490, authorizing a hiring incentive program in the Seattle Police Department and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

The committee recommends that council pass the bill as amended.

Thank you.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

Just some opening remarks on the legislation generally.

I want to be really clear because there's been some confusion.

This legislation does not authorize $1.7 million in new spending because the council already has authorized $1.15 million in May.

Both in May and today, this is funding that is already in SPD's budget.

Instead, the bill authorizes $189,000 in hiring incentives during 2022 from existing funds in SPD's 2022 budget.

The second half of the bonus would be paid only after the probationary period established by the Public Safety Civil Service rules, which is one year, and officers who leave the department within five years would need to return the bonus.

Secondly, the bill transfers $228,000 in funds out of SPD, to the Seattle Department of Human Resources for four positions to enhance recruiting and the ability to administer tests which can speed up the hiring process.

This is in addition to funds that the council previously approved for SPD to hire folks outside of the department to accelerate background checks.

Finally, the bill funds some items specifically called out in the prior SPD recruitment and retention program and allows for funding for moving expenses for the council's earlier legislation in May.

The bill was voted out of committee last week with a vote of four to one.

Council Member Nelson was added as a sponsor at the committee meeting.

In the 2022 budget, council adopted funding for the Seattle Police Department hiring plan to hire 125 officers.

Hiring has been slower than SPD projected, so the bill uses existing funds already in SPD's budget in support of the hiring plan that the council already voted for and was already funded in the 2022 budget.

Seattle is the second highest starting salary.

On a policy basis.

The bonuses, um, was really important to me before moving forward on this, so I had staff compare figures from their cities as noted in the central staff memo.

Seattle offers the second highest starting salary, larger departments in the state.

But when one combines starting salaries, plus the bonuses, using the salary step and the proposed bonus, Seattle would be the second highest with a few other cities relatively close to what Seattle is offering.

Some have identified the fact that there was a study on a four-month program that started in 2021 and ended in February this year as proof that bonuses don't work.

I am trying to keep an open mind about the efficacy of bonuses.

I remain skeptical, but I can't ignore the results of the partial study from the one-year 2019 program shows that one in five applicants cited the bonus as one reason they sought work for the police department.

20% more applicants matters when for every 350 candidates who completes both components of the entry police officer exam, SPD only hires about 30 of those 300 successful applicants.

By the Public Safety Civil Service Commission's best estimate, for every 1,440 applicants, Seattle may be able to hire 30 police officers.

Said differently, that for every 12 applicants in 2021, we hired one officer.

Those who have said that we're prioritizing SPD over other departments, council has newly authorized that the city pay relocation expenses of people moving to work in Seattle for all positions in all departments as an incentive bonus.

The Seattle Human Resources Department is now using this tool to promote equity in hiring today because of the work that came before this and because of the council's vote in May.

As I noted at the August 9th SHS committee meeting with the ongoing analysis of Council Central staff, our timetable could result in some potential amendments.

So thank you for allowing time for these three amendments, Madam Chair.

Council Central staff in my office have been in regular contact with the Mayor's Office, the Public Safety Civil Service Commission, the the Seattle Department of Human Resources and Labor Relations in line with this ongoing work.

There are three amendments listed on the agenda, amendments A, B, and C.

Mayor's office has no objection to these three amendments, and I want to thank the mayor's office for their collaborative, ongoing engagement in this work.

Madam President, would you like me to speak to the amendments now, or would you like comments first?

Let's hold up.

I would like to see if there are any comments regarding your committee report before we go to your proposed amendments A, B, and C.

So are there any comments to Council Member Herbold's committee report that she just shared with us before we move on to the amendments?

Okay, I do not see any, so with that, Council Member Herbold, I believe you have something for us.

Thank you so much.

I move to amend Council Bill 120389 as presented on Amendment A on the agenda.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment A. Council Member Herbold, you may now address Amendment A. Thank you.

This amendment would add an evaluation requirement that mirrors the evaluation requirement on Ordinance 125784. That's the legislation that authorized a one-year Seattle Police Department hiring incentive program that began in June 2019 and sunsetted in June of 2020. You may recall that that evaluation was not fully completed, so it replicates what we had intended at that time.

The amendment would also add a sunset date of December 31st, 2024 to the SPD hiring incentive program consistent with the executive's plan, run the program through 2024. These were two issues that were identified as potential issues to address in Council Central Staff's memo.

Thank you.

Are there any comments in regards to the Amendment A?

And let me say one thing before I hand it off to you, Council Member Mosqueda.

And I do want to thank you, Council Member Herbold, you and your office for providing all of us yesterday with Greg Dawson and Anne and everybody, the memo that you sent to us explaining Amendment A, B, and C.

So I appreciate that.

Council Member Esqueda.

Thank you, Madam President.

I will save some of my comments on the underlying legislation until after the amendments are considered.

I will just note that I'm going to be supporting this amendment in front of us.

Obviously, I expressed concerns about the underlying legislation and Public Safety Committee last week.

But this amendment, if it is adding a sunset and adding and imposing evaluation requirements Those are two things that I think help scope this.

So while I don't necessarily agree with the underlying legislation, I will support this amendment because I think it helps to add an end date and evaluation criteria.

Thank you.

Are there any other comments before we go to a vote?

Not seeing any, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment A. Council Member Sawant?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Herbold.

Yes.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

Council Member Esqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

And Council President Juarez.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries and amendment A is adopted.

And are there any further comments on the amended bill before we move on to the second part of this amendment process?

Okay, not seeing any.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

I move to amend Council Bill 120389 as presented on Amendment B on the agenda.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Okay.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment B. Council Member Herbold.

Thank you so much.

This amendment would provide clarity about the groups of police officer candidates that are eligible for hiring incentives consistent with the Public Safety and Civil Service Commission's definition of candidates that are considered rehires.

And thus, when you're a rehire, you're eligible under the SPOG agreement for benefits reinstatement package that has economic value to these candidates.

Under the Public Safety Civil Service Commission rules, officers may request and receive reinstatement subject to approval by the Public Safety Civil Service Commission and Chief of Police.

Reinstated officers receive reinstatement benefits, including returning the previous Classification salary step and accrual rates for vacation and sick leave, as, as was in place when they left, and addition, the.

The Spog Guild contract allows this reinstatement package for all officers that return within two years.

So in addition, the reinstated officers do not have to retest and can begin work and get paid faster.

Again, these reinstatement benefits have economic value as hiring incentives, so the Amendment itself clarifies that the officers that are rehired that are getting this package again rehired within two years are not eligible for the bonuses.

Folks who are rehired after two years and thus not entitled to reinstatement package are not considered by the PSCSC as rehires and thus are not eligible for the reinstatement package and thus would be eligible for the bonus.

Thank you.

Are there any comments on Amendment B before we go to a vote?

Councilor Mosqueda.

Thank you very much.

Similarly, I'll be supporting this amendment today.

I think it further scopes who qualifies for the incentives and explicitly does not apply this to officers coming back within a two-year period.

So I appreciate the adaptation and enhancement to the legislation.

I'll be voting yes on the amendment.

Thank you.

Okay, not seeing any other hands.

will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment B?

No.

Council Member Solant?

No, sorry.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

And Council President Juarez.

Hi.

Eight in favor, one opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries, and Amendment B is adopted.

Is there any other further comments on the amended before we move forward?

Not seeing any.

Council Member Herbold, the floor is yours again.

Thank you.

I move to amend Council Bill 120389 as presented on Amendment C of the agenda.

Is there a second?

I will second it.

Okay.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment C. Councilor Herbold, we're back to you again.

Thank you.

This amendment would acknowledge that some of the provisions of Council Bill 120389 may require collective bargaining before implementation.

The amendment also clarifies that the department's existing use of 410 schedules, that's four days a week at 10 hours a day.

This is a desired schedule of police officers, but that the department's existing use is actually the result of an agreement between the city and the unions for limited implementation within the community response group, the officers that volunteer for that assignment.

and that further implementation of 410 schedules may require bargaining, but not the $10,000 related to the 410 schedules in this bill, and the other existing funding for the incentives are not things that need to be bargained.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Are there any comments before we go to a vote on Amendment C?

Okay, not seeing any, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the adoption of amendment C?

Council Member Sawant?

No.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

No.

Council Member Squierda?

No.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

And Council President Juarez.

Aye.

Six in favor, three opposed.

Thank you.

So the motion carries.

Amendment C is adopted.

And are there any further comments on the amended bill at this point?

And then I'm going to let, if there isn't any, before I let Council Member Herbold or others.

Okay.

Go ahead, Councilor Mosqueda.

Sorry, Madam President.

I believe you said my name.

I did.

Okay.

And then Council Member Morales, then Council Member Sawant.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thanks again for the opportunity to echo where I think there's a lot of common ground with the Chair of Public Safety and my colleagues.

Last week in the Public Safety Committee, we talked about how there was a joint concern, a joint concern being echoed by this Council that the previous administration has not yet followed up with the implementation.

of alternatives to public safety as funded by the council and as signed into law by the budget last year.

I think that there's some optimism that there's a greater sense of collaboration on how we could move forward with some of those alternatives, but we still are in a position where many of those strategies that are funded via the city, not the funding strategies that the council directly funded to community partners, that funding has gone out the door, but the strategies within our own city still have yet to be realized and I think that there's shared interest in making sure that those alternatives to public safety, get the attention and expedited implementation that they deserve so we can move forward with these commitments that were signed into law and prioritize in the last few years, that is where I think we have common ground and I look forward to working with my colleagues.

and the chair of public safety and continuing to push forward on those efforts.

As I also noted in committee in the public safety committee last week, I think that this is legislation that is not necessarily strategic when we are in the middle of bargaining and that is why I voted no on that last amendment and didn't have the chance to explain why but I do believe that this kind of conversation should be done at the bargaining table.

I also noted in my comments last week that it does not align with what I have heard directly from human service providers who are in direct communication with officers who on a daily basis are encountering folks who are responding to person down calls, who are responding to people who have substance abuse or mental health related needs, housing related needs.

And in conversations that officers have had directly with human service providers, they have said, and I quote from their report back, that there is no amount of funding that can compensate for officers not having a place to refer folks who are in the midst of crisis.

That is where I think we should be focusing our efforts.

That is what would help retention and recruitment strategies to make sure that officers are not in a place where they are bringing people to Harborview as a revolving door or seeing the same individuals on a repeat on a list of names that they know because these are the same people who have no place to go.

Officers right now are being called to respond to those calls, and we are doing everything we can to make it so that a badge and a gun person is not who is showing up for those calls.

But until then, what I think we should be doing is focusing on making sure that there is a landing zone, making sure that folks who have mental health or substance abuse, housing needs, have a place where they can be referred and there is not constant calls to 911 to show up for these individuals who truly need human services and not a badge and a gun.

So when human service personnel tell me that officers themselves are saying that additional compensation isn't going to help them with finding a landing zone for people in high needs and high stress, that is what I'm interested in responding to.

As I mentioned last week, A PR firm won't help officers have a landing zone for these people.

Hiring incentives won't necessarily help the force be able to make referrals that are necessary.

A marketing strategy that we're paying for won't help that.

And $150,000 for a consultant to find a new chief or to help with the chief search is not going to help with those issues that are being identified from officers and human service personnel who see folks on a daily basis who need additional housing, shelter, mental health, and substance abuse needs, especially for those with high needs and acute care services that we are not meeting in our city or region.

I look forward to again working with this administration, the mayor's administration and our council colleagues who have a shared interest in actually implementing those alternatives to public safety, but we need to both do that and pay attention to what our own city research has said.

And again, I will cite the quote recruitment and retention workgroup final report, which a link you will be able to find online from our own city department, a workgroup which included the Seattle Police Department.

This report did not identify incentive pay as a barrier to either doing hiring or retention for the Seattle Police Department.

The final report did not identify hiring incentive as a recommendation.

and our own city analysis of the hiring incentives used late last year showed that, and I quote, SPD communicated the department did not experience an increase in hiring since implementing a hiring incentive in October 2021. As also mentioned in the central staff memo, the research director of the Police Executive Research Foundation and the executive director for the International Association of Police Chiefs looked at whether or not there was any significant evaluations or research on the effectiveness of hiring cash incentive policing, and they said, and I quote, there is not yet a body of research to support this practice.

across the nation and within our own city, there is repeated questions, concerns about this as a strategy to address hiring, let alone retention and retention.

I bring up lastly to note a number of concerns with the strategy.

Our city human services department summarized that offering a hiring incentive is a short term strategy meant to induce the prospects of an individual accepting a job.

However, The money is a one-time fix that may not compensate for uncompetitive wages, difficult or unresponsive working conditions, lack of opportunity to develop relevant experience, skills, and limited promotion opportunities, and signing bonuses, for example, from newly hired external talent can negatively impact employee morale.

Employees promoted internally or already working on the job can feel undervalued and unappreciated when their financial package is not what is now being offered to new recruits.

This is what has been said is a potential motivator for the legislation that was transmitted by the mayor.

And again, our own city data said that hiring incentives are a potential for breaking trust with existing personnel.

and makes it harder to retain trust and improve morale within our own ranks when we offer programs like this.

So because this is not supported by our own city data, national data, and I think that we have more opportunities to focus on what officers are saying they need, which is landing zones for folks, I'm going to be voting against this legislation again today and look forward to continuing to work to implement the alternatives to policing that this council has supported.

And I thank you for the time to explain that.

Thank you.

Council Member Morales.

I don't have to unmute because I am here in chamber.

Thank you very much, Council President.

I first do want to say that I agree with Council Member Mosqueda.

I don't sit on the LRPC anymore, but I agree that it's not strategic to be offering incentives when we are in the midst of bargaining.

That said, I want to say what I've been saying for two and a half years, which is that when we have scarce public resources, we should be allocating them in a way that truly addresses our public challenges.

And we know that we have a lot of challenges in the city.

and they are things that won't be solved by the police.

Our homelessness crisis, our need for more affordable housing, our limited access to behavioral health care.

Our neighbors are struggling to make ends meet, and we know that many of them are experiencing violence.

and that there are community interventions that are treating the symptoms of violence, including the police, our peacekeepers, regional peacekeepers, our violence interruption programs.

These are important, but they do nothing to transform the neighborhood conditions that create violence in the first place.

What we really need if we want to address public safety is to focus our energy on building healthy communities, especially for our most vulnerable Seattleites and especially for our young people.

We need to put resources into changing the community conditions that lead to violence in the first place.

That means high quality, affordable housing, good paying jobs, access to capital to support entrepreneurship, youth mentorship, school nurses, afterschool programs, affordable mental health and other healthcare.

The SPD budget constitutes almost 23% of our, you know, one and a half billion dollar general fund.

That is, well, there are 42 other city departments that rely on what's left to fund their operating expenses and to provide city services.

SPD's budget is three and a half times bigger than DEEL.

It's four times bigger than the office of housing.

It's 36 times bigger than the office of economic development.

And the overtime budget alone is substantially larger than other city departments.

And it has become a backdoor for growing SPD's budget with very little oversight into how that money is spent.

And we all know that this is a problem because we as a council have been dealing with this for several years.

Until we acknowledge the disparity and the impact of these policy choices on the very people we claim we want to keep safe, until we reallocate our finite public resources in a way that can change the conditions that lead to public safety problems, we will continue to spin our wheels on safety.

I cannot in good conscience support continuing to deny other city departments the resources they need to provide critical services to Seattleites who need more than a badge and a gun to improve their communities.

For that reason today, colleagues, I will be voting no.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Council Member Sawant.

Thank you.

I will be voting no on increase I have explained my position on this many times in the past, and my office has had a consistent position.

Increased policing does not statistically result in safer neighborhoods.

The data shows that public safety is deeply affected by economic and social inequality, not police staffing, and these funds should be put toward reducing inequality.

In reality, inequality has spiraled further and further out of control, and crime rates are reflecting that.

As I said when I voted no on police hiring bonuses in May this year, rather than cop bonuses, these funds, along with an increase in big business taxes, should be put toward improving resources like public schools and childcare, publicly affordable housing, tiny houses to immediately shelter those without homes, and public parks and publicly accessible restrooms.

All of this should go hand in hand with expanding the number of unionized living wage inflation adjusted jobs.

Yes, it is not a lot of money in the 2022 budget, which is almost over, but the democratic establishment is committing to a program of hiring bonuses, which they will certainly try to add funds for in the 2023 budget.

Further, hiring bonuses are not the primary issue affecting police staffing levels or recruitment and retention.

If there is any moral question, it is entirely because of the way the police department has been used by the establishment.

During the BLM movement, the political establishment unleashed the police like an occupying army into our neighborhoods.

filling the streets with tear gas and flash bomb grenades, and as a result, earned the real outrage from community members.

Hiring bonuses will not overcome that justifiable outrage.

Council members have said again and again that they wish there could be accountability, but they say that that is an issue that needs to be negotiated in the contract, but this is simply not honest.

It is worth noting that council members who use quote-unquote bargaining as an excuse for the lack of accountability in the police department have no interest in actually bargaining to establish any real accountability when they do have the opportunity.

What is needed is real police accountability with democratically elected community oversight boards with real powers to hold the police accountable, including hiring, firing, and subpoena powers.

Above all, this whole issue is a reminder really of how the police under the capitalist system are fundamentally organs of state repression against working class people and oppressed communities.

Outrageously, the city's democratic establishment is offering more and more money to police officers at the same time that the Seattle Police Officers Guild or SPOC has not yet agreed to a contract with even the most insignificant accountability measures.

Let's not forget that Spog was expelled by the delegates of the King County Labor Council, our region's labor movement.

The majority of the rank and file union members in the Seattle area understand that an injury to one is an injury to all.

The police force that is used by the ruling class to actively oppress our homeless and low income neighbors and communities of color and to repress protest movements has no place in the labor movement.

I will be voting no, thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Council Member Lewis.

Thank you, Madam President.

I will be voting for Council Member Herbold's legislation this afternoon and thank Council Member Herbold for bringing this forward.

We know that we are nationally in a very competitive marketplace for attracting and recruiting members of the police service in our community and other communities.

Going forward, we know that a critical component of our comprehensive public safety system is going to have to be policing.

There is no constitutional society that I'm aware of that doesn't have some kind of law enforcement with a monopoly of force to enforce a social contract.

It's important to have a police force.

We know that in order to attract and retain those officers, we need to follow the lead of other cities to be able to compete for the same pool of potential recruits.

And just a quick perusal will show that if we look at some national cities that might not necessarily be peers, like Albuquerque, New Mexico, $5,000 for new recruit signing bonuses, $15,000 for laterals.

Springfield, Oregon, next to Eugene, Oregon, $10,000 signing bonuses.

And if we're gonna start being in the habit of learning from other cities, that are assigning bonuses as an incentive, we should extend our practice to learn from other cities on the other public safety innovations that they have been adopting over the course of the last two years.

And I specifically chose Albuquerque and Springfield because both of them have robust and well-developed alternative response programs to respond to a large percentage of 911 calls that we know the police do not need to respond to.

The growing national movement in low acuity first response is something that in 10 years is going to be adapted universally across the country.

People are going to look back on how public safety worked in the pre-2020 era and not gonna be able to believe the types of calls that armed gun and badge police officers used to be dispatched to.

And I wish I could sit here on the dais today voting for this important legislation, which is important because there are jobs only police can do.

And we have experienced significant attrition of police officers leaving without standing up significant alternative services to take on some of those responsibilities.

I wish I could be on this dais voting for that package and saying, that we are well on our way to being a national leader in providing those alternative responses.

But we frankly are not.

As Council Member Muscata indicated, this council has repeatedly funded various different initiatives for response alternatives and we have not been able to move forward over the course of the last two years.

I'm very encouraged by our discussions with the Harrell administration and by the statements that Mayor Harrell has made about our partnership to expand alternatives in the coming months with a renewed focus and effort that is a joint council and mayoral And I think that that is going to go a long way toward driving the kind of conversation we need to have on comprehensive public safety.

This measure today is important and it's critical to reverse our attritional losses in the police department, but in and of itself, it's not gonna be sufficient for the kind of result that a lot of community members have indicated a rejuvenated police staffing plan is going to lead to.

That can really only come through a continued diversification of the available responders to a continued emphasis on public health and welfare improvements.

I do just want to leave as a transition at the end of my remarks to the budget conversations that'll begin in earnest when we come back from recess, that the Denver STAR program, which the council in the city of Denver recently appropriated $1.4 million contract to support, $1.4 million in Denver is going to support six vans and 12 workers for those vans to provide low acuity public health based non-police involved first response.

And I only cite that to indicate that it's within our power to do this.

Other cities are doing it.

It's not prohibitively expensive.

It's not unduly complicated.

And I think that we really need to center that conversation as part of our budget deliberation and continue to put resources behind this as this council has done.

over the course of the last two years and have a renewed focus on a new partnership with the new mayor, where this will be a bigger priority and make sure that this does not cease being a council priority for executive implementation.

So with that, Madam President, I will be supporting this legislation today and look forward to future conversations to make sure we have comprehensive public safety policy in the city of Seattle.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

Is there anyone else before I make a comment before we move back to Council Member Nelson?

That's what I was gonna say.

I like to let you guys speak first before I say something, then hand it back over to Council Member Herbold to do closing remarks.

Got it.

Well, these will be my only remarks, I believe.

So, on February 15th, Reverend Harriet Walden sent Mayor Harrell and City Council a letter saying Mothers for Police Accountability supports more SPD hiring to reduce violent crime and enhance justice.

and ended by saying Seattle citizens deserve a safe city.

And so in response I put forward resolution 32050 calling for the development of an SPD staffing incentives program to accelerate the hiring of new officers.

This bill is the outcome I was aiming for, which is why I signed on as co-sponsor.

And I thank Mayor Harrell and his team for the work that went into this package and Public Safety Chair Herbold for being prime sponsor.

Thank you very much.

So I'm not going to repeat the grim shots fired statistics that I usually do.

I acknowledge that we need a better way to respond to people in crisis.

And we don't yet have that model set up.

And I also have to acknowledge that we are talking about more than people in crisis.

We're talking about systemic and serious crime.

And I don't believe that we can wait until the conclusion of contract negotiations to start saving lives.

So this bill will help us compete with other jurisdictions for the officers and investigators we need to reduce the number of people shot and killed on our streets.

It'll take years to build back up SPD's staffing levels.

And obviously, it's not the bonuses, it's not the money that will get us there necessarily.

What's more important, I think, is culture change.

And this bill is a recognition that we value the crucial role our officers play in creating a safer city.

And the retention components are an acknowledgement that we need to foster a more welcoming and supportive workplace.

So let's be clear, this is a means, not an end.

And so for now, passing this bill shows that when the mayor and city council listen to community and work together, we can start to solve problems.

And that's what a functioning city government looks like.

And that's what our constituents and new recruits want to see.

So I'll be supporting this bill.

Thank you, Council Member Nelson.

Is there any other words from my colleagues before I make some closing comments?

And then we hand it back over to Council Member Herbold to do her closing comments as well.

Okay, I do not see any.

So I will be supporting this and voting yes today.

And I actually agree with everything all of my colleagues have said, even with where they are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

in agreement or disagreement because I believe your words, I believe your truth.

And I've seen all of you in the last two years do a lot of hard work.

I particularly want to thank council member Herbold for taking on this very difficult, emotional and complex subject.

We both serve on the nationwide search for a new chief of police.

So her and I are in an interesting position as well as the LRPC, our labor group.

So the public doesn't see the hard work behind the scenes in dealing with the policy, the legality, working with the union, the executive, but more importantly, working with our communities.

So as I've shared, we have learned a lot these past two years, things that we probably already knew, but really came to fruition these last two years.

And I think we can all say and agree that good policy and common sense and an understanding of who we are as a city, our humanity, makes change, not slogans.

And I think that's where we're headed.

Is this perfect?

No, it's a step in the right direction.

And with that, I was gonna share this anyway, but I was actually gonna share it for another event coming up, but I wanted to share the words of Dr. Autumn Blackdeer.

And I wanted to share this because I think it's important, because I think this issue, we could talk all day about policy, about data, and a lot of things that we hear, but, You know, at the end of the day, it is about how we feel about public safety, community policing, and alternative means to policing.

And as Dr. Autumn Blackdeer has shared, you know, relatives, may you move from standing in your truth to walking in your purpose.

And today we are moving forward and walking in our purpose, hopefully, I believe, to a safe, healthy, and sensible policy that brings us, as council member, Nelson said, a safe city.

So I wanna say this in the context of the hard work that we've all done, but it's time to start healing.

It's time to start having conversations where we listen to each other and not holler over each other, that we respect each other's opinion, that we get away from, if you're not with me, you're against me, because that isn't how we're gonna get to safe community policing and protecting all of our community members.

So with that, I will be voting yes on this and I will leave it at that.

Okay, with that, I am going to hand it to Council Member Herbold to do closing remarks and then we'll move to a vote.

Thank you, Madam President.

Let me just start with my closing remarks here.

Appreciate the grace.

Again, this legislation uses existing funds in the Seattle Police Department budget toward the goal that council supported to hire 125 officers in 2022. This was approved in the budget.

SPD's revised hiring projection is 84 officers for the year.

So significantly fewer officers are possible to be hired than the number of hires that the council already authorized.

I've repeatedly said that development of alternatives, police response to 911 calls is a critical component of both our recruitment and retention and public safety strategies to make sure officers' workloads are sustainable.

Seattle is not unique.

Cities across the country are facing police officer shortages.

A critical part of a long-term solution is to lessen the load on officers and create new, more effective ways of responding to calls that do not require an armed police response.

We can't keep asking police officers to direct traffic help people in mental health crises when we don't have enough officers to investigate sexual assaults or respond to 911 calls.

Being a first responder is a very difficult job.

We should not make it more, we should not make it an impossible job.

Dallas Police Chief Brown noted in 2016, every societal failure we put on the cops to solve.

Not enough mental health funding, let the cop handle it.

Not enough drug addiction funding, let's give it to the cops, he said.

Schools fail, give it to the cops.

That's too much to ask.

Policing was never meant to solve all of those problems, he said in 2016. Dallas Police Chief.

Let me say it again for empathy.

Being a first responder is a difficult job and we should not make it an impossible job.

Council Member Mosqueda has noted that human service providers tell her that officers tell them They're not developing alternatives to actually help people.

It's harming to officer morale.

It's also important, especially with fewer officers, to right-size what we ask of officers, because there are tasks that only foreign officers can do, as Council Member Lewis mentioned today.

My support for this bill, funding recruitment and incentives proposed by the mayor and SPD has been dependent on the executive's recognition of this additional important component, the recruitment and training objectives, their commitment to develop a new 9-1-1 alternative call response program.

Last week, a week before last, I should say, a staff group between the Mayor's Office and Council of Central Staff finally started this joint work, including Seattle Police Department, Community Safety and Communications Center, and the Fire Department.

Additionally, the city's quarterly consent decree filing last month memorialized these shared goals, noting in this consent decree filed with the judge that, quote, the work group will recommend approaches that increase SPD for alternate response priority three and four calls in the near term through an alternate response pilot and evaluation of existing resources that could be deployed or more efficiently deployed on projects like special events.

And it goes on further to note that the mayor's office will post preliminary recommendations on the subset of calls that may be good candidates to divert from police or co-response and estimates process will be completed in the fall.

I appreciate the mayor and SPG bringing this bill forward and I also want to recognize interim chief Diaz's new before the badge program by this council when the previous mayor did not include funding for this program.

program connects officers with community in advance of state training.

I want to quote from the website for the program.

It's three parts.

Meet with community groups to have discussions as individuals about policing in Seattle.

Work with the wellness unit to obtain tools to help with the stresses of the job.

Three, learn about SPD precincts, officers, opportunities, and leadership.

And I quote that the website reads, in addition, before the badge, includes exploration of the policing profession's racist history, gender responsiveness, and the science of relationship-based policing.

I want to also flag as part of this larger body of work, the Seattle Public Safety Civil Service Commission has approved preference points for language skills in the past, and is committed to working on preference points for community service this year.

This is another way of ensuring that the folks that we are hiring for these jobs are the people that are best suited for them.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

All right, with that, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the passage of the bill as amended?

Council Member Salant?

No.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

No.

Council Member Mosqueda?

No.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council President Juarez?

Yes.

Six in favor, three opposed.

Thank you.

The bill passes.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Oh, no, I forgot to say something really important.

Um, can I absolutely.

Okay, then I'll come back.

Okay.

Lucky.

Okay, the bill passes as amended, and the chair will sign it and Madam Clerk, please fix my signature.

and Council Member Herbold, you are recognized.

Thank you so much.

I'm sorry.

And I hope, Madam Chair, you'll find these thanks appropriate because although I thanked the mayor and executive departments, we have to, of course, always thank our own staff.

I want to thank central staff, specifically Greg Doss, Anne Gorman and Noel Aldrich from my office for just hours of work that they've done to get this over the finish line in such a short period of time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

We are done with the committee reports and there were six of them.

So we will move on to our agenda to items removed from the consent calendar, and there were none removed from the consent calendar.

We'll move on to J, adoption of other resolutions.

There are no other resolutions for the introduction and referral calendar today.

And other business, is there any other business to come before the council before I go back and adjourn?

And I wanna thank those council members that called in from other places.

I appreciate it, Councilor Nielsen, I know that you're doing mom stuff, so thank you very much.

Thank you Councilmember Strauss for also calling in.

It really means a lot to us that you both took the time and I know you're not here on your vacation to call in.

Not vacation, I'm sorry, just a way to call in, so thank you.

All right, not seeing any.

This does conclude the items of business on today's agenda.

City Council will be on recess for the next two weeks.

Our next regularly scheduled council meeting is on Tuesday, September 6th at two.

I hope you all have a wonderful recess and we stand adjourned.

Thank you.