City Council 9/27/21

Thank you so much.

Okay.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Welcome back.

The September 27, 2021 meeting of the Seattle City Council will come to order.

It's 2.01 p.m.

I'm Lorena Gonzalez, president of the council.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Strauss?

Present.

Councilmember Herbold?

Here.

Councilmember Lewis?

Here.

Councilmember Morales?

Here.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Present.

Council Member Peterson.

Here.

Council Member Sawant.

Present.

Council President Gonzalez.

Present.

Ex present.

Thank you so much.

If there's no objection, Council Member Juarez will be excused from today's City Council meeting.

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

Colleagues, we do have a couple, we do have a, excuse me, we have one presentation this afternoon.

Actually, nope, strike that.

Two presentations this afternoon.

One will be to receive the mayor's budget address consistent with our city charter.

And the second will be a proclamation from council member Herbold in my office.

I worked with her on that proclamation.

So we'll go ahead and start with the first presentation.

So council members, I'd like to, Welcome Deputy Mayor Shefali Rangnathan.

She is here with us on behalf of Mayor Durkan to deliver the Mayor's Budget Address, which will be added to Item 1, which is Clerk File 314485 listed on today's agenda.

So I'd like to welcome the Deputy Mayor with, on behalf of the entire City Council, I'm going to go ahead and hand it over to the Deputy Mayor to deliver her remarks and to deliver the Mayor's Budget Address to us.

Deputy Mayor Wagner, welcome.

Good afternoon, council members.

It's my pleasure, pursuant to Seattle City Charter Article 5, Section 6, to present you with the mayor's 2022 proposed budget.

Hard copies of the proposed budget are being delivered to the city clerk, and the mayor's budget address will be available live at 5 p.m.

today on Seattle Channel.

We will also deliver the transcript at that time.

As you know, in the last few years, we have been dealing with the the global pandemic of COVID-19, but we have also, prior to that, been dealing with the crisis around climate change and homelessness, which are basically twin crises that have been exacerbated by COVID-19.

The mayor's budget reflects these values that I know that we share.

in our commitment to increase housing, an urgent need to scale the resources to shelter our unsheltered neighbors, record investments in undoing generational harm that we've seen through institutional racism, as well as promoting equity and then investments in tackling climate change and a commitment to keeping all of our residents safe in Seattle.

We look forward to working with all of you during this budget season.

And I wish you well on a collaborative and a very productive deliberation as you move forward with considering the mayor's proposed budget.

Thank you so much.

Thank you to you so much, Deputy Mayor Ranganathan, for being with us this afternoon and for those remarks.

Really appreciate it and wish you all well as you prepare for that live address at 5 o'clock p.m.

I'm sure many of us will be watching.

That, of course, assumes we are done here at 5 p.m., but thank you so much for being with us, Deputy Mayor.

Really appreciate it.

Good to see you again and hope you and your family are all so well.

Thank you.

Okay, we're going to move to our second presentation, which is a proclamation as described this morning by Council Member Herbold.

This is a proclamation declaring September 26th through October 3rd, 2021 as Diaper Need Awareness Week.

Council Member Herbold is going to first present the proclamation, and then I will open the floor for comments from any additional Council Members.

After we've heard from all council members who wish to make comments for the record, I will go ahead and suspend the rules to allow our guest to accept the proclamation and to also provide comments to the council and the viewing members of the public.

So Council Member Herbold, please take it away.

Thank you so much.

So I really appreciate the opportunity to present this proclamation along with Council President Gonzalez to Westside Baby, declaring September 26th through October 3rd to be Paper Need Awareness Week.

This morning, my council colleagues and I had the opportunity to affix our signatures to the proclamation, and the mayor is concurring.

I want to thank my colleagues and the mayor for their support of this national effort.

I'm particularly glad to be able to present this, given that not only do I chair the committee with oversight of human services, but of course, Westside Baby is headquartered in my district.

Diaper need is a lack of sufficient supply of diapers to keep a baby clean, dry, and healthy.

This proclamation is part of a national effort to bring awareness and attention to a health issue that affects one in three families in the United States.

Low-income families pay up to 14% of their entire income just for disposable diapers.

National research shows that diaper need is linked to higher rates of depressive symptoms in new moms, even higher than hunger.

It is linked to more frequent visits to the pediatrician for diaper rash and urinary tract infections.

As I mentioned this morning at Council Briefings, our community is so lucky to have Westside Baby step up to address this growing need during the pandemic, having distributed 360,000 more diapers than last year than the year previous.

A diaper drive is a great way to show your support during Diaper Need Awareness Week, and I encourage everyone to consider hosting or contributing to a diaper drive.

You can learn more about meeting diaper need at westsidebaby.org.

Tony Sarge is the Public Affairs Manager at Westside Baby and he's here today to accept the Diaper Need Awareness Week proclamation and share her thoughts.

Thank you so much Council Member Herbold for that presentation.

I'll make some comments as well as through the joint presenter here.

I'm excited to support this proclamation together with Council Member Herbold, our District 1 representative.

Over the last few years, I am proud of the work that we have done on this City Council to fund the Diaper Gap and resource service providers with what they need to support families with young children.

Without diapers, we know that families cannot access child care because many of our child care centers require that you drop off, drop off, that you also drop off diapers when you drop off your child at daycare.

So not having enough diapers means you can't drop off your child at the much-needed childcare centers, and it also means missed work, further exacerbating the financial challenges that many may be experiencing already.

So I want to thank all of the service providers.

I want to thank you, council colleagues, for your votes in support of identifying additional revenue, including some dedicated revenue from the Sweetened Beverage Tax and also from the Families Education Preschool Promise Levy to really meet this critical need in our community.

And I especially want to thank advocates like Westside Baby and others for everything you do to make sure our families, including their children, are healthy and cared for by meeting all of their needs, including their diaper needs.

So thank you so much, Tony, for being with us.

I am gonna open up the floor to see if any other council members have comments before we hear from Tony.

I don't see any other hands raised, so Tony, take it away.

Oh, actually, I almost missed a parliamentary procedure, which is that I have to suspend the rules.

So if there's no objection, the council rules will be suspended to allow Tony Sarge of Westside Baby to accept the proclamation and provide remarks.

Hearing no objection, the council rules are suspended.

And once again, I will welcome Tony Sarge to our city council meeting, and I'm going to hand it over to you to provide remarks to the council and members of the public.

Thank you so much, Council President Gonzales.

And thank you, Council Member Herbold, for your remarks.

We so appreciate your support this year and the many, many years you've supported this proclamation.

Again, my name is Toni Sarge.

I'm the Director of Public Affairs at West Side Baby, at Diaper Bank and White Center.

On behalf of our entire community, our staff, our board, our volunteers, we are so appreciative that you all took the time to honor this important Awareness Week.

Between the two of you, you really said everything.

National Diaper Need Awareness Week is just simply that, to promote that there are families impacted throughout the city of Seattle by diaper need.

And West Side Baby is so honored to work with over 100 programs throughout the county, including Seattle Public Schools, Seattle Housing Authority, and many other community-based programs in Seattle to get diapers right out to families who need them.

We distributed 2.4 million diapers last year.

In 2020, we anticipate distributing even more this year in 2021 in response to the economic challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic that are continuing to impact families.

well-being and economic security through this year.

So again, thank you so much for your support this year and always, we really appreciate it and see you next year.

See you next year when we, I'm sure undoubtedly, will also continue to celebrate and mark the significance of this Awareness Week.

Thank you, Tony, for being with us and appreciate all that you're doing for our broader community.

Really appreciate it.

Okay, colleagues, we're going to move to other items of business in our agenda.

First up is approval of the minutes.

There are no minutes for approval today, which means we'll have double the fun next week when we have two sets of minutes to review and approve.

So we'll go ahead and move to approval of the introduction referral calendar.

I move to adopt the introduction and referral calendar.

Is there a second?

Second.

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

Colleagues, we did hear this morning that we have an amendment coming to us on the introduction and referral calendar sponsored by Councilmember Lewis.

I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Lewis to make his motion.

Thank you, Madam President.

I move to amend the introduction and referral calendar by introducing Resolution 32021 entitled a resolution declaring that the investigation, arrest and prosecution of anyone engaging in Entheogen related activities should be among the city of Seattle's lowest law enforcement priorities and stating the council's support for full decriminalization of these activities and by referring it to the city council.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you so much.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the introduction and referral calendar by introducing Resolution 32021 and referring it to the City Council.

Council Member Lewis, I'm going to hand it back over to you in order to address the amendments before we open it up for any additional comments.

Thank you, Madam President.

We had a good discussion on Friday morning regarding what was at that time a draft resolution anticipated to be proposed and placed on the introduction referral calendar.

I don't frankly understand why it wasn't included initially on the introduction referral calendar, but anyway, here we are, given that there was a significant notice to council colleagues and even a discussion of the initial draft before introduction on Friday.

This resolution comes as a result of several months of process here at the City Council in engaging with Decriminalize Nature Seattle in discussions around what the future city policy should be regarding entheogens, also known as psychedelics, and the cultivation and use of these substances.

Council colleagues may recall that in June we signed a letter putting this matter on to the work program of the Overdose Innovation Recovery Task Force that has been meeting throughout the summer and into the fall.

That task force came back in August with a recommendation to this council that we begin to pursue some legislative strategy putting into practice a de-emphasis on the enforcement of existing laws in the state of Washington around entheogens and support for further decriminalization of these laws.

This resolution is the first step as a council coming out of that process following a symposium my office held a few weeks ago now to really queue up this conversation with some academics from the University of Washington as well as some activists in decriminalized nature Seattle.

This resolution is not by any means the the end of a potential council process, but is the start by acknowledging an existing policy from the Seattle Police Department released in the wake of the Blake decision emphasizing that this is not a current law enforcement priority of the Seattle Police Department.

in keeping with the goals of decriminalized nature and the goals of this council.

The resolution, of course, allows for the fact that those policy decisions could change in the past, so commits the council to continue to monitor this and look for ways to further solidify this policy, be it through internal SBD policy or be it through the potential of taking on some future ordinance at this council in some time to come.

But for now, this resolution also commits the city to seeking what we ultimately are going to need to really resolve this issue, which is a full legislation from the state in the vein of what the state of Oregon has already passed, which decriminalizes and allows the possession and clinical use of these substances.

So obviously not seeking to vote on this today as we are introducing it today, but I do want to get it in the hopper since the community stakeholders we've been working with this on have been waiting very, very patiently for some kind of council action.

I would also be remiss if I didn't mention that over the summer.

There was also a draft ordinance that was introduced by council member Sawant.

So this is clearly something that this council has been interested in and that we've been wanting to move forward on.

And I think it's important to make sure that we get it referred to the full council and have an ability to act on it early before we are completely consumed by our budget process.

So thank you so much for letting me do kind of a long feed up there.

Also thanks to Council Member Herbold for giving us some time to discuss this on Friday in the Public Safety Committee.

Thanks so much.

Are there any additional comments on the proposed amendment to the introduction and referral calendar?

Council Member Sawant, please.

Thank you.

As the sponsor, as was noted, as the sponsor of the ordinance to decriminalize the use of psychedelic drugs, I certainly support any such resolution.

However, I do not understand why when there is an ordinance in place, that the council is talking about a resolution because a resolution is not an ordinance.

In other words, the resolution asked the police to quote unquote codify policies to effectively decriminalize psychedelic drugs.

But as we know, resolutions from the Seattle City Council can only make requests.

They don't do not actually accomplish the same thing as a law.

And I certainly have, my office has brought forward many resolutions in cases where we haven't been able to do that.

But in the case where the city council has the full authority to actually pass an ordinance, I would prefer to pass an ordinance.

Because in this case, for example, to actually decriminalize psychedelics would require an ordinance.

And it is the city council that has the authority to pass such an ordinance, not the police.

And yeah, just to refresh the memory of the members of the public or those of whom they did not know about this, my office sent for introduction a council bill that would have done an ordinance, in other words, that would have done just that on June 29th, which is almost three months ago.

It was transmitted to councilmember Herbold as a chair of the public safety committee.

Unfortunately, that bill has not come forward.

And as I said, I would certainly support this resolution, but I would prefer that council members actually pass the ordinance from my office, which would actually decriminalize the use of psychedelics.

And we know that there is huge support for this in the community and especially among the scientific community and from medical and clinical professionals.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Councilmember Sawant, Councilmember Herbold, and then Councilmember Lewis.

Thanks.

I just want to make the point that I appreciate Councilmember Sawant's recommendation for legislation.

This resolution is coming on the heels of the OEIR task force recommendations and is aligned with their recommendations as we stated in our stated council's intent to consider the task force recommendations in the letter that Council Member Lewis mentioned earlier.

And again, this resolution is aligned with those recommendations.

Thank you.

Councilmember Lewis?

Thank you, Madam President.

You know, we can discuss this more when this resolution comes up for final vote.

You know, I very much appreciate Councilmember San Juan's comments because I think that there is scope to pursue some kind of future ordinance conversation and that this resolution will provide a roadmap to further structure putting forward an ordinance that is tailored to what we need to do.

It's been notable from taking some time to really delve into where the policy is that there actually are some things that are probably outside of the scope of the current SPD policy that was done in the wake of Blake.

For example, it's fairly silent on enforcement around cultivation as an example of some of these substances.

So, you know, by no, uh, um, By no stretch am I introducing this resolution today to be the council's final word in this subject area.

It's just that when we're wading into something as delicate as completely reconstituting the policy of the city and then hopefully eventually the state around entheogens, this process has been a lot more complex with a lot more moving parts than we expected it would be.

So this is just meant to be the first step, certainly not meant to be the final word on this.

And I guess I'll reserve most of my comments for actually debating the bill rather than the procedural motion of putting it on the introduction referral calendar.

So with that, I'll stop given that we have a crowded agenda today.

We do indeed.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

I did just want to clarify, since Council Member Lewis, you brought this up sort of as a question in terms of wondering why it wasn't on the introduction referral calendar, just as a reminder, the deadline to get legislation on our introduction referral calendar in the ordinary course of business is actually on Tuesday.

We ordinarily exercise a little bit of grace and let folks um get things to us on Wednesday or Thursday but it looks like we actually received the final um uh resolution for introduction at 5 p.m on Friday so unfortunately did not have an opportunity to include it on the regularly published introduction referral calendar there by necessitating this afternoon's procedural request to amend it accordingly.

So thanks for following through on that and glad we're able to get the amendment before us so that we can continue having this important conversation.

So with that being said, are there any additional comments?

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the amendment to the introduction and referral calendar?

Strauss?

Yes.

Herbold.

Yes.

Lewis.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

Mosqueda.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

Peterson.

Aye.

Sawant.

Yes.

President Gonzalez.

Aye.

It's in favor, none opposed.

The motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

Are there any further comments on the amended introduction and referral calendar?

Council President?

Yes, ma'am.

I apologize for the late breaking requests, but I think I'm going to ask Amelia to chime in here for me.

I think I need to request removal of item 14, which was an appointment that is not actually an appointment.

My apologies for being a little bit.

OK.

So you would like to have item 14 removed or held?

I am going to confirm this one second.

So item 14 is an appointment that I think was mistakenly placed on this agenda.

This person, I think their appointment ended already.

And so I don't think that they are supposed to be on this agenda.

Amelia, if you're on, can you confirm that for me, please?

That is correct, Councillor Morales.

During consideration of the agenda, an amendment will be made to remove that item.

Okay, so because we're on the introduction and referral calendar, so Councilor Morales, you want to make an amendment to the actual agenda.

So we'll get to that when we get to the agenda.

Now I understand why I was confused.

I was looking at the introduction and referral calendar and looking at item 14 on the introduction and referral calendar or trying to find item 14. But I do have you slated to make an amendment to the agenda as it relates to agenda item 14, and we'll get to that as soon as we adopt the introduction and referral calendar.

Thank you.

Yep, of course.

Okay.

I don't think I see any other questions on the introduction and referral calendar, so I'm going to go ahead and ask that the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the amended introduction and referral calendar.

Strauss?

Yes.

Thank you, Lewis.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

Skeda.

Aye.

Peterson.

Aye.

Sawant.

Yes.

President Gonzalez.

Yes.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Great.

Thank you so much.

I move to adopt the agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you so much.

It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda and we have a couple of amendments here.

The first one is going to be from Council Member Strauss and then we will hear from Council Member Morales on the aforementioned item 14. So I'm going to first recognize Council Member Strauss to make his motion to amend the agenda.

Thank you, Council President.

I move to amend the agenda to place item 19, Council Bill 120153, to item 11 on today's agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Great.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the agenda by moving item 19 to appear after item 10. Are there any additional comments?

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the amendment?

Drouse?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Mosqueda?

Aye.

Peterson?

Aye.

Zawahid?

Yes.

President Gonzalez?

Yes.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The motion carries and the agenda is amended.

Council Member Morales, I understand that you also have an amendment, so I'm gonna hand it over to you to make that motion.

Yes, I move that we remove item 14 listed as appointment 1619 from the agenda.

I will second that.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the agenda by removing item 14 from today's agenda.

Are there any additional comments?

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the amendment?

Strauss?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Mosqueda?

Aye.

Peterson?

Aye.

Sawant.

Yes.

President Gonzalez.

Yes.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

Are there any further comments on the amended agenda?

Hearing none, will the clerk, well, if there is no objection, the amended agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted as amended.

Okay, colleagues, we are now going to move to the remote public comment period for items on the City Council agenda, introduction and referral calendar, and the Council's work program.

I want to thank everyone for their ongoing patience and cooperation as we continue to operate this remote public comment system.

It does remain our strong intent to have remote public comment regularly included on our meeting agendas.

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

I'll moderate the public comment period in the following manner.

The public comment period for this meeting was scheduled to be 20 minutes, with each speaker having up to two minutes to speak.

However, we do have over 50 people signed up for public comment today.

In an effort to hear from as many, if not all, of those individuals who signed up for public comment, I am going to extend the public comment period, but shorten the amount of time provided to each person from two minutes to one minute.

This should allow us to hear from just about everyone who registered for public comment.

So colleagues, if there is no objection, the public comment period will be extended to a total of 60 minutes.

Hearing no objection, the public comment period is extended to 60 minutes.

Again, I'll call on speakers in the order in which they preregistered to provide public comment on the council's website.

Speakers must call in from the phone number used for this registration and using the meeting phone number, ID, and passcode that was emailed to them upon confirmation.

This is different than the general meeting listen, line, and call-in information.

Once I call your name, staff will unmute your microphone.

You will hear an automatic prompt of you have been unmuted.

And after you hear that prompt, you must press star six before speaking.

Again, you must press star six before speaking after you hear the automatic prompt that you have been unmuted.

Please start by reminding us of your name, the item that you are addressing, and as a reminder, your public comment should relate to an item on today's agenda, the introduction and referral calendar, or the council's work program.

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left of your allotted one minute.

Once you hear the chime, please begin to wrap up your public comment.

If you don't end your comments at the end of the one minute you've been allotted, then your microphone will be muted to allow us to call on the next speaker.

If you aren't able to complete your testimony today, I do encourage you to email the rest of your comments to us at council, that's C-O-U-N-C-I-L, at seattle.gov.

Once you've completed your public comment, you can disconnect.

We ask that you please disconnect from the line.

And if you plan to continue following this meeting, you can do so via Seattle Channel or the listening options listed on the agenda.

So the public comment period is now open.

It is 2.30 p.m.

So we will go until 3.30 p.m.

Again, as a reminder, you must press star six after you hear the prompt of you have been unmuted.

The first two speakers are Peter Condit, who is showing up as not present on my end.

So Peter, if you are listening, double check that information, call back and we'll give you your one minute.

So we will go to Kate Rubin, followed by Howard Gale.

Hi my name is Kate Rubin.

I'm the executive director of B Seattle and a renter living in District 2. I'm calling to urge the council to protect renters from displacement by voting yes on six months notice for rent increases and yes on economic eviction assistance.

These bills give renters the time and flexibility that is needed to find accommodations that allow them to stay rooted in their communities.

As a housing justice organization focused on the intersection of renters and people experiencing homelessness we recognize the direct connection between housing justice and racial justice.

Low income Black and Indigenous people of color are more likely to be renters as well as the first to be pushed out of their homes.

East Seattle is proud to be one of the many community community organizations endorsing the Solidarity Budget.

We understand how we use our resources as a city directly impacts the health and well-being of everyone who lives here.

The Solidarity Budget is anti-racist prioritizes the needs of our most marginalized and vulnerable communities and promotes collective care and liberation.

It should be the starting point for budget negotiations this year.

Council should adjust the mayor's budget to fully meet our community-generated demands.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Howard Gale, followed by Hannah Swoboda.

Good afternoon.

Howard Gale, District 7, speaking on the budget and police accountability.

On September 18th, the Seattle Times covered the story of Howard McKay, a retired longshoreman and elderly homeowner who was brutally assaulted in his own home by the Seattle police two years ago.

when the office of police accountability director andrew myer berg investigated mccain's assault he deemed it quote lawful and proper unquote without even bothering to interview the officers involved the city recently settled with mccain for a quarter of a million dollars of our tax money to provide a small measure of justice otherwise unobtainable our current police accountability system costs over ten million dollars so taxpayers pay twice for police abuse once to cover it up and if that fails a second time to compensate the victims The solidarity budget, which needs to be the starting point for all budget negotiations this year, demands that police accountability be removed from the SPD.

We need to go beyond that and use all 10 plus million dollars to create full civilian community control over police policy misconduct and discipline.

Go to see.

Thank you.

Next up is Hannah Swoboda, followed by Blythe Serrano.

Hi, this is Hannah Sobota.

I'm a renter in District 3, and I'm calling to urge City Council to vote yes on the two bills from Councilmember Sawant's office, one requiring six months notice for any rent increase, and the other one requiring landlords to pay economic eviction assistance if they raise rent by 10% or higher.

So since the start of the year, Seattle rents have risen at five times the national average.

Eviction moratoriums are ending.

The Seattle Times just reported that 60,000 Seattle-area renters are behind on their rent, And the majority of those people say that they're somewhat or very likely to face eviction in the next two months.

Now, this and the fact that rents are raising at 25% in Seattle are not isolated facts.

Renters are facing a massive crisis of unaffordable housing.

And meanwhile, corporate landlords are making huge profits.

Do we need these basic renter protections to stop the barbaric practice of corporate landlords making a quick buck at the expense of people's lives?

Vote yes today, no delays, no watering down.

Thank you.

Next up is Blythe Serrano, followed by Jessica Escalzo.

Hi, my name's Blythe.

I rent and work in the Central District and I'm calling in to urge the Council to vote yes on Council Member Sawant's bill, which would provide six months notice for any rent increase and would provide economic eviction assistance as well.

I also want to urge the Council to vote yes on Council Member Sawant's amendment, which would remove the means testing loophole in the economic evictions assistance bill.

Rents in Seattle have gone up an average of more than 25 percent just since the start of this year.

And as a renters' rights activist who has spent dozens of hours gathering signatures to rent control, I've had numerous conversations in the street with people who are facing rent increases of hundreds or thousands of dollars and have no idea how they're going to pay.

So many working-class people, myself included, don't have enough money in the bank to shoulder the cost of moving right now.

which usually include first and last month's rent, a security deposit, renting a new hall, and more.

And all of this is occurring while big landlords are making massive profits during a pandemic and eviction crisis.

So again, I urge you all to vote yes on both pieces of Council Member Sawant's legislation and her amendments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Jessica Scalzo, followed by Ava Metz.

Hi, my name is Jessica Scalzo.

I am a renter in District 3 and I'm calling to urge the council to vote yes on both bills.

One, to have six months notice for any rent increase.

And two, to provide economic assistance to people who are pushed out because their rent is being raised too much.

I have been in a position of having to move because of rent increases.

And because we had old pipes in our building, the landlord had to pay us to move and it helped immensely.

The second thing is finding new housing.

It takes a lot of time and energy.

It's like a full-time job and it definitely takes a toll if people are having to continue to do this over and over again.

So these two measures are really important to be able to protect against that and also to help with it if someone does have to go through that process.

Because rents have risen 25% since January 1st in the middle of a pandemic, the balance is still.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Ava Metz, followed by Trevona Thompson-Wiley.

Hi, my name's Ava, and I'm a renter in District 3, demanding City Council support the renter's rights bill put forward by Council Member Sean LaSalle on our movement.

Yeah, just like the person who spoke before me, I've had to move three times in the past three years because of rental increases.

This is completely normal in Seattle.

And to be very clear, it's not fun to move.

It's a ton of work.

And feeling like your living situation is always just tenuous and just subject to the whims of your landlord is very stressful.

And I feel lucky that I've found places I can afford, even if barely.

Many people are not so lucky.

Through organizing, we won basic renters' rights, like the cap on move-in fees.

This was crucial.

I wouldn't have been able to move if I had to pay thousands more.

But this is just the start to what we need.

We need rent control.

And as we fight for that, we need city council members to stand with renters, pass six months notice for rent increases.

This is a basic protection for renters to have any control over their housing situation.

Vote yes on economic eviction assistance.

This is a basic protection for renters who are struggling as corporate landlords.

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Trayvonna followed by Jacob Scheer.

I'm calling today to support Solidarity's budget.

Solidarity's budget should be a starting point for budget negotiations this year.

Council should adjust the mayor's budget to fully meet our community-generated demand.

The community the community deserves to be a part of the budget process and I will live with just my time.

I would love to hear everybody else.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for calling in today.

Next up is Jacob Shear, followed by Latanya Sevier.

Thank you.

My name is Jacob Shear.

I'm an organizer with Real Change, and I'm calling in today on behalf of Real Change to urge all council members to vote yes on council members who want six-month rent increase notice and her relocation assistance legislation.

We urgently need legislation that acknowledges and confronts the magnitude and scale of the crisis facing Seattle renters and it should be plainly clear to every council member that we are on the precipice of further and utter disaster for thousands of renters here in Seattle without measures like this.

As other speakers have noted, recent estimates show that around 50,000 Seattle renters are behind on rent as the local eviction moratorium nears expiration, and this number is likely an underestimate.

The COVID pandemic crisis is not over, despite what corporate landlords would like us to believe, and we need to be taking every possible measure to keep our neighbors in their homes.

And as Council Member Sawant has noted, and in real change we know this to be true, every eviction is an act of violence that we know often leads directly to homelessness.

Council Member Sawant's legislation provides urgently needed protections that will keep people in their homes and limit the power landlords have over their tenants' well-being and safety.

It is not hyperbolic to say that there are lies in line if we do not take measures like these immediately.

Thank you.

Next up is Latanya, followed by Alice Marabi.

Hi, good afternoon.

My name is LaTanya Sevier.

I'm a black non-binary person renting in Beacon Hill.

I work with the Black Friends Research Project and Solidarity Budget.

Today I'm calling to urge city council to listen to community.

Solidarity Budget should be your starting point for budget negotiations this year.

You should adjust the mayor's budget to fully meet our community generated demands.

Nikita Oliver had a great quote at Saturday's 2022 Solidarity Budget Summit where this community budget was launched, they said, and I quote, our budget is a moral document.

It says who and what we value and who we want to be, a city that is truly inclusive, truly welcoming, and prioritizes the needs of our most vulnerable and marginalized residents, because we know that is what will generate public health and public safety for everyone.

The solidarity budget is a broad group of racial, justice coalitions, environmental justice, climate organizations, labor unions, service providers, arts and cultural organizations, and other community.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Alice, followed by Alicia Lewis.

Good afternoon.

My name is Alice Marabe.

I'm a resident of District 4 and a part of Solidarity Budget.

I'm calling to urge council to adjust the mayor's budget to align with solidarity budget and with the urgent needs that community organizations have identified and laid out in their very detailed budget proposal.

I'm especially concerned that Mayor Durkin's budget adds a net of 35 officers to SPD when seven out of nine members of this council committed to defunding SPD by 50%.

SBD's budget for this year was about $363 million, but we know that most calls for service do not require a police response because 80% of calls for events that are considered non-criminal.

So we really need these millions of dollars to be freed up for urgent investments in housing, in the Green New Deal, transportation, education, childcare, food sovereignty, indigenous rights, and so much more.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Alicia Lewis, followed by Brett Frank Looney.

Hey, my name is Alicia Lewis.

I am a renter in district three.

I'm also calling to demand that the city council stand with our renters rights movement that is demanding six months notice for rent increases.

and economic eviction assistance.

As a young person supporting myself, I already struggled to keep up with the skyrocketing rent in Seattle, which corporate developers have driven up by 25% this year.

And just imagine how much more of a burden these out-of-control rents are on working families with children to support, especially during a pandemic and economic crisis.

And during all of this, the profits of corporate developers have been booming.

The City Council needs to take a clear stand on the side of working-class renters, young people, and communities of color.

It's shocking to me that in this dire situation, Councilmember Peterson would attempt to water down this vital legislation with the introduction of means testing for economic evictions assistance.

Means testing has been proven to be ineffective.

We need to support Councilmembers to want

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Brett Frank Looney, followed by Liam Easton Calabria.

My name is Brett Frank Looney.

I'm a third-generation housing provider calling in regarding Suwanse Council bills.

My family set roots in the Central District in the 1950s, fought redlining, and began providing housing for our community, something we continue to do today.

For the past 18 months, my family and I have deported our residents who are struggling to make rent.

These two bills before you today are not tenant-friendly.

The chair is proposing bills that will do more damage to renters than good.

Please note that the mom-and-pop landlords like myself would call it or not corporations.

Those groups would be fine if you passed these as a limited competition.

They're not your constituents.

We are.

A six-month rent increase notice or so-called relocation assistance would dramatically suppress housing stocks from those of us who provide affordable apartments in the city.

No small mom-and-pop could afford the relocation assistance that is being proposed.

Council has made it apparent that they want to drive those of us who provide affordable housing out of our communities and refuse to include us in the legislative process aside from these 50-second public comments.

Ultimately, these bills would hurt renters by eliminating affordable rental stock.

Instead, the city should focus on ensuring King County has the support they need to distribute funding for rental assistance in a timely manner.

I urge you to vote no on both bills before you take the bill.

Thank you.

Next up is Liam Easton Calabria, followed by Charlotte Thistle.

And Liam, I see that you are with us, but you'll need to press star six to unmute yourself.

Sorry about that.

Hope all can hear me.

My name is Liam Easton Calabria.

I'm a queer renter in district four, and I want to put support forward for Councilwoman Sawant's bills for eviction relocation assistance and for landlords to give six month notice on any rent increases I think we need to stand on the side of the working class and renters in this situation.

As many have noted, thousands are at risk of evictions, and each one of those is an absolute travesty of its own because evictions often lead to homelessness.

I think we should also consider the ramifications that evictions have on our public systems, like health care.

I work as an EMT, and often Homeless people rely on emergency services instead of getting, you know, housing, which they absolutely deserve.

And, you know, this is really costly for the public.

It also puts a lot of strain on the public health system during...

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Charlotte Thistle followed by Matthew Wilder.

Seattle City Council knows that 60 percent of Seattle landlords make less than $75,000 a year.

This was published in the city's own 2018 rental housing study.

Council members like Shama Sawant claim they're not out to hurt small landlords, yet they consistently attack proposals by Council Member Peterson that would protect us.

This hurts elderly couples who rely on rental income in their retirement, single mothers like me, artists school teachers and other middle income people who own rental property.

It also hurts tenants.

Our Seattle grassroots landlords group often gets requests from people specifically seeking a small landlord to rent from but we usually have to turn them away.

Most of us are leaving the business because of the anti-landlord legislation passed by this city council.

We need to reverse course and vote for candidates who protect small landlords as a valuable source of affordable housing in our community.

Thank you.

Next up is Matthew Wilder, followed by David Haynes.

Hey there, my name is Matt.

I'm a renter in District 3, calling in support of Council Member Suwant's renter protection bills.

Rents have gone up over 25% this year, and in a few weeks, over 200 people gathered to fight for rent control.

The rally was organized by Council Member Suwant's office despite the weather.

Yeah, when corporate landlords are victims, they're making a clear choice.

crisis for people.

Most evictions are coming from big landlords.

And that's what's creating the homelessness crisis that we see in the city right now.

I think there's no excuse for landlords not to give the six months rental notice or notice for rentals.

And we need all this with no watering down the delays.

Thank you.

Next up is David Haynes, followed by Daniel Wang.

Thank you, city council.

This is David Haynes.

We need to redevelop Pioneer Square.

We don't need to preserve a racist era of hastily built slum buildings.

We need waterfront access from the Pioneer Square.

were cut off by a nine-lane highway, plus first ave between Cherry Street and Yesler.

We must stop the drive-through road rage of commercial trucks.

They're just hauling past.

Anyway, the thing is, Pioneer Square has an open drug and prostitution ring that's protected by armed gangsters conducting uncivil war in the park.

This weekend, an old man trying to sit down in the park was told he had to leave if he wasn't there to buy drugs, and three criminals surrounded him, and the old man's yelling for help.

The thing is, and maybe that $10 million needs to go into the investment of Pioneer Square.

I could help out a lot, and others.

Anyway, it's time to put an end to the abusive landlord's oppressive mistreatment of renters, forced to pay inflated, dilapidated equivalent of over five mortgages, increase in property values as a courtesy from Democrats and Republicans doing their corrupt big bank favors as they solicit property taxes at the expense of renters being shaken down.

Thank you next up is Daniel Wang, followed by Daniel Swanson.

Hey, I'm a student renter in District 4. I'll start by acknowledging the incredibly brave Union carpenters that are taking on the agency and fighting for a fair contract, solidarity with their struggle.

Carpenters can't afford to live in the city they built, but increasingly in Seattle, everyone is struggling to live in the city they work in.

This year's average 25.6% rent increase is forcing out the nurses who run our hospitals, the teachers who take care of our kids, and the service workers that keep all our stores and restaurants open.

I think it's deeply shameful that Councilmember Peterson is trying to water down Councilmember Stilwant's economic eviction assistance with means testing.

It has been shown time and time again that means testing simply introduces more barriers to people getting the help they desperately need.

And in this case, you can't even argue that it saves public resources.

This relocation assistance comes out of the pockets of the same corporate landlords that have been raking in billions of dollars in profit over the past years by sucking the working people of Seattle dry.

Means testing serves absolutely no one but those corporate landlords.

And Council Member Peterson has made it obvious whose interest he serves.

To the rest of the City Council, vote yes on the strongest version of these tenant protections.

Do not let them get watered down.

Otherwise, it is clear whose interests you really represent.

Next up is Daniel Swanson, followed by Logan Swan.

My name is Daniel and I'm a renter in District 4. I'm here today to urge council members to vote yes on shaman's bills for six months notice for any rent increases and economic eviction assistance out of committee and without watering down.

As a wage worker at a small business in Wallingford it's hard enough to afford rent to begin with let alone navigate the constant cycle of having to find new housing every one to two years when my rent is raised to the point I can't afford.

Sometimes with notice given and only weeks before being offered to re-sign a lease.

The constant moving and enormous relocation costs are making Seattle inhospitable to the working and poor people that provide services build infrastructure and make Seattle an enjoyable city.

In fact, there are rolling tickets and wildcat walkouts happening on construction sites around the city right now where building trades workers are expressing their inability to afford rent and find consistent housing in the city they work in.

We need these renters' protections now more than ever, especially with the gauntlet that renters have been thrown into by the COVID-19 pandemic.

It would be a shame to see council members not support these bills.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Next is Logan Swan, followed by Stephanie Addy.

Hi, my name is Logan Swan.

I'm a District 2 renter and a rank-and-file union iron worker.

I'm calling today to demand the City Council pass Shama Swan's renters' rights legislation for a six-month notice for any rent increase, economic eviction assistance, and to vote yes on her office's amendment eliminating Peterson's corporate loophole.

As we've seen with the ongoing rank-and-file-led carpenter strike, even union and building trades workers are unable to keep up with the skyrocketing cost of living here, and we're fed up.

We need stronger renter protections, affordable housing for working families, And we need leadership that puts workers first, like Chama's office, who's now leading again with their plan for paid parking for workers, fighting wage theft, and protecting the fundamental right of workers to withhold their labor, the most effective tool we have to combat exploitation and oppression.

So I'm asking the rest of the council, which side are you on?

Renters or landlords?

Workers or bosses?

Thank you.

Next up is Stephanie Addy.

And after Stephanie will be Josh Smith.

Stephanie, I see that you are with us.

You just need to press star six so we can hear you.

Stephanie, you are still muted.

You need to press star six.

There you go.

Hi there, I'm Stephanie Addy.

I'm an essential worker and first generation immigrant.

I've lived in Seattle for six years and I've had to move five times That's an extreme financial hardship, and that I think that city council should absolutely vote yes on the economic eviction protection and the six-month notice required by landlords, and also to remove the means-based testing for people to receive economic assistance for eviction, because Seattle needs affordable housing that people, working-class people like myself can afford to live in, because if we can't live here, We're not going to commute an hour into the city to run your dumb coffee shops.

So you're going to have a situation where even more businesses will leave downtown.

So I urge you to vote yes on both items, CB119585 and CB120173.

Thank you so much and have a good day.

Thank you so much for calling.

Next up is Josh Smith followed by Leah Salerno.

Hello, my name is Josh and I am calling to urge the Council to vote yes on Councilmember Sawant's six-month notice for rent increases, yes on economic eviction assistance without Councilmember Peterson's amendment watering down the legislation, and yes on the solidarity budget.

These basic protections are critical.

Rents have risen above 25% in this year alone and over 60,000 Seattle renters are behind on rent.

This disproportionately affects marginalized communities like the LGBTQ plus community of which I'm a member.

These are not just statistics to me.

My family and I were forced to move out of our apartment in District 6 because the rent was raised and we couldn't afford it.

This was done by one of these small landlords who claim that they care so much about their tenants, but their actions prove otherwise.

This is passive income to them.

It is survival to us.

Thank you, Council Member Tawant, for fighting for renters' rights.

Council Member Gonzalez, stand true to your promise to end homelessness by voting yes.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Leah Salerno, followed by Margo Stewart.

Hello, my name is Leah Salerno and I'm a resident of Seattle District 5 and work with the Solidarity Budget.

I want to address the budget by saying the Solidarity Budget should be the starting point for the budget negotiations this year.

In order for all Seattle residents to live and thrive, all of the demands and investments of the Solidarity Budget must be implemented.

When it comes to the city budget, community should lead.

So the demands of community in the form of solidarity budget should lead the council this budget season.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Margo Stewart followed by Barbara Finney.

Hi, my name is Margo.

I'm a renter living paycheck to paycheck in First Hill.

And I'm also calling in to demand the council pass council members who want measures for six months advance notice on rent increases, and relocation assistance, as well as the legislation put forward for rent control.

Council also needs to vote yes on the amendment to remove a shameful means testing loophole produced by Peterson.

You know, I spent last month couch surfing because I had to suddenly move out of my old apartment, and I had to rapidly find a new place I could afford, an expensive housing market, while still working full time and not having a consistent place to stay.

And that's not to mention the humiliation of having to ask for help from friends who are already also struggling as renters.

And I was lucky enough to have friends who could help out.

So the idea that somebody who is economically pushed out of their housing should have to prove they're poor is absurd to me.

But I think the only way we can guarantee fighting against economic evictions carried out by landlords like Goodman Real Estate, Essex Asset Management, we need a strong movement for universal rent control, just like what Council Member Sawant is putting forward and what thousands of signatures have been gathered.

Thank you.

Next up is Barbara Finney and after Barbara will be Marilyn Yim.

Hello my name is Barbara Finney a homeowner in District 5 and standing in solidarity with Seattle with Seattle renters and the renters rights movement.

I'm also a member of American Federation of Government Employees Local 3197 and the 32nd LD Dems, both of which have endorsed the campaign for rent control legislation sponsored by the Council Office of Shawna Sawant.

I'm asking you to vote in support of the six months notice for any rent increase and for economic eviction assistance without loopholes with that means testing.

The majority of your constituents in Seattle are renters, and the well-being of Seattle renters is inseparable from that of our neighborhoods, communities, and city.

and support Councilmember Sawant's legislation, including vote yes on the Sawant amendment to remove watering down loophole from Councilmember Peterson.

The crisis facing renters includes professional workers struggling to pay rent in Seattle and means testing is counterproductive.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in.

Next is going to be Marilyn Yim followed by Patrick Gibson.

I'm calling to comment on the bills before you from the Sustainability and Renters' Rights Committee.

Each of these bills is excessive in every way compared to the existing tenant relocation assistance ordinance, which does have a 50% AMI.

It caps the amount of payment at $2,100 from the property owner, the city participates 50-50 in it, and the timelines are much more reasonable.

This legislation appears to have been developed with no regard to existing landlord-tenant laws, such as the move-in fee payment plan, which allows renters to have six months to pay out all of their deposit costs.

I'm not good men in ethics.

They're not here.

They're not commenting on this stuff.

I am a community member, and the legislative process has not been inclusive of small mom-and-pop landlords or property managers who can tell you what the actual impact of this legislation will be.

You were losing 5,000 units of housing in the last year, which is 15% of the rental stock.

And this is just going to continue to happen more and more.

So you need to take it back, vote no on these things, get data on what's really happening, and look at the whole tenant law.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Patrick Gibson, followed by Kevin Vitswong.

Hi there.

Hi, my name is Patrick Gibson.

I wanted to speak about the loopholes that have been either introduced or proposed in these two pieces of legislation as well.

I think all working people understand that loopholes like this, they only get bigger over time, they never get smaller.

And I think Council Member Peterson understands that and understands that his proposal is the thin end of the wedge to ultimately rendering this legislation useless.

So forget him, I ask all the other members of the City Council, will you vote in favor of these two pieces of legislation without corporate loopholes or will you stand with the landlord of Seattle instead of working people?

Thank you.

Next up is Kevin Fitz Wong, followed by Grayson Van Arstoe.

Hi, my name is Kevin.

I'm a renter in District 6. I'm calling to demand the council listen to renters and meet the pandemic air housing crisis with much needed robust protective measures.

Council members don't want six months notice for rent increase and relocation assistance bills.

are crucial measures that put the brakes on corporate landlords' ability to jack up rents and increase their profits willy-nilly, and they will keep people housed and secure during a pandemic.

These bills should be passed without Councilmember Peterson's means-testing loophole, which is a humiliating and counterproductive obstacle that only benefits corporate landlords.

So side with working people and vote for Councilmember Sondland's amendment to remove that loophole and pass the strongest version of these bills.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Grayson Van Arsdale, followed by Aiden Nardone.

Hi, my name is Grayson.

I'm a transgender central district renter, and I urge the full council to vote yes on Councilmember Sawant's two renters' rights bill today.

Moving in this city is hard.

Finding a place that you can afford takes weeks.

Saving up to move takes even longer, and some of us have to navigate frequent housing discrimination to find a new place as well.

If I were to get a notice of 10% rent increase tomorrow, I would immediately have to start looking for a new place to live, and I would likely have to leave the city to find it.

That's the case for tens of thousands of people in the city who are being held hostage by high rents and wages that aren't keeping up with the cost of living.

And to be clear with the earlier speaker, for every senior citizen, artist, or single mother who's a landlord, there are dozens more who are renters who are struggling with the high cost of living.

On top, landlords should support rent control, which would also help control skyrocketing property taxes, which often force those landlords to have to raise rents in competition with corporate landlords.

The council needs to vote yes on both bills, and on Council Member Sawant's amendment, fixing Peterson's means-testing law.

Thank you.

Next up is Aiden Nardone followed by Kurt Offus.

Hello, this is Aiden Nardone.

So what's next?

Are you going to go after landlords for delinquent utility charges incurred by tenants?

Will landlords be required to pay the reconnection costs when a tenant lands at their new place?

Why don't you just throw in cell phones, cable TV, Wi-Fi reconnection fees.

Establishing a precedent for financial assistance programs with no AMI qualifiers or an income verification process as presented in today's legislation is reckless, dangerous, and irresponsible.

Vote no on both of these bills and do not rescind Peterson's amendment.

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Kurt Offa, followed by Sonia Pona.

Kurt, I see that you're with us.

You just need to press star six so we can hear you.

Okay, Kurt, try star six one more time.

Kurt, if you can hear me, just go ahead and press star six on your phone in order to unmute yourself.

I'm still not seeing that Kurt is unmuted, so let's go ahead and hear from Sonia Ponath, and then we will circle back to Kurt.

Oh, Kurt, looks like we've got you.

Go ahead.

Yeah, hi.

I'm sorry.

Hello, my name is Kurt Oftus.

I'm a resident of District 6. Seattle is no longer a city where workers can afford to live.

I left a 21-year job as an inpatient psychiatric discharge planner at a non-profit psychiatric hospital where we had chronic turnover and low staffing, which I believe was exacerbated by many of my co-workers having to compete long distances from neighboring counties, having to take second jobs or do onerous levels of overtime to make ends meet, which is difficult to do when you work in a psychiatric setting.

Many left for better pay offered at for-profit hospitals.

The hospital increasingly was reliant on travel staff, which ironically had no housing problems because it was all paid for by the corporations that employ them.

Many of the patients I care for have their illnesses exacerbated by the high cost of living, as well as their families not able to help them.

Please support the bills to require six months notification for rent and moving assistance with no loopholes.

Thank you.

Next up is Sonia Ponath, followed by Matthew Offenbacher.

Hi, this is Sonia Ponath.

I'm a working mom in District 3 and a landlord myself.

I urge you all to vote yes on council members who want legislation today.

I do support the six-month notice for rent increase.

As a landlord, I can tell you I have a pretty good idea what my needs are, and I can communicate that to renters.

It's a major struggle to have to uproot your whole life.

I know that.

Please also vote for the eviction assistance.

It is rare that an actual small small landlord is going to hike up your rent so high.

That really is the corporate landlords.

We never have raised rents more than 10 percent.

And we've had renters for over 30 years.

It's their home.

People who are usually against this legislation are the corporate landlords.

They divide up their properties into separate LSDs so they can claim that title to be a small mom-and-pop landlord.

So, hey, don't raise your rent so high if you don't want to pay for eviction assistance.

And also, please vote yes on the amendment to remove the watering-down loophole in the economic evictions assistance bill.

It really is means testing.

Thank you so much for calling in.

Next up is Matthew Offenbacher.

I am showing that Jack Spadaro is signed up but not present.

I'm also showing that Megan Cruz is signed up but not present.

Also signed up but not present is Eric Souter.

So again, we're going to hear from Matthew Offenbacher and then we will hear from Julie Buana.

Hi council.

This is Matthew Offenbacher and I'm a resident of District 3. And I just wanted to tell you how enormously excited I am about the 2022 solidarity budget.

It's an amazing document that was produced by an incredible coalition of all the community groups who I have the most respect for and who I look to for leadership and knowledge about what's happening on the ground in Seattle.

The solidarity budget blueprint can move us towards the future of Seattle that I long to live in.

And to get to the future, council members, we really need you to begin right now.

And please use the solidarity budget document as your starting point, your yardstick, your guiding star and moral compass as you enter into budget negotiations this season.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Julie Buona, followed by Heather Steiner.

Hello my name is Julie Buona.

I am a resident of District 3 and a part of the Seattle Group for Police Accountability.

Council will begin considering the Mayor's 2022 budget.

In light of this I would like to highlight the 2022 Solidarity Budget a budget put together by hundreds of community members and organizations.

By divesting from policing in our harsh criminal justice system the Solidarity Budget reimagines community health and safety by investing in things like equitable housing, accessible infrastructure, food sovereignty, environmental justice, and much more.

Importantly, the solidarity budget should be a starting point for budget negotiations this year.

Council should adjust the mayor's budget to fully meet our community-generated demand.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in today.

Let's see.

Next up will be Heather Steiner and then I am showing Edward Lee, Jim Henderson and Addie Smith is registered but not present.

So then after Heather, we will hear from Tamar Wilson.

Hi, this is Heather Steiner.

Am I up now?

You are.

Go ahead.

OK, good.

There's a lot of feedback again.

My name is Heather Steiner.

I am an employee with the state of Washington Department of Health.

I work for the Department of Social and Health Services.

I'm sorry if I'm out of breath.

I'm done running some stairs.

But I am a renter in District 7. I have moved eight times in 10 years.

And this is because landlords keep raising my rent like crazy, exorbitant amounts.

I now pay double the rent that I did 10 years ago.

I actually, ironically, live in the same building I lived in 10 years ago when it was under different ownership.

And my rent is now double.

So I paid double the amount of rent that I did for an 800 and some square foot space, two bed, one bath for 400 square foot studio, the exact same thing.

Anyways, I asked that the city council please support renters in understanding how hard this is for us and that.

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Tamar Wilson.

And then I'm showing that Oliver Miska is registered but not present.

So after Tamar will be Joey Lopez.

Hello, council members.

Can you hear me?

We can.

Go ahead.

Well, thank you.

Hello, council members.

My name is Tamar.

I am a District 2 resident in Beacon Hill, a community organizer in the Black Lives Matter movement.

I was proud to go and see the September 18th River Control Rally last Sunday.

Last Saturday, over 200 Seattleites showed up in the ring to demand a people's solidarity budget and urgent council action to stem the coming tide of massive evictions, to adopt strong rent control without any corporate loopholes, but also including to vote yes on any six-month notice for the rent increase and economic eviction assistance.

Building up to the rent control rally, I spoke with literally hundreds of community members about their housing status.

and talking with them showed that many members, including black people and people of color, immigrants, women, and young people are being impacted disproportionately in a system that lets the rents raise 26% in one year with no sufficient notice, like six months or funds to move once forced into an eviction.

One young woman I talked to saw her rent increased by $450.

Thank you.

Next up is Joey Lopez followed by Jess Wallach.

Good afternoon Council President Gonzalez and members of council.

My name is Joey Lopez a First Hill resident and the Faith Land Initiative lead at the Church Council of Greater Seattle.

I appreciate the time to speak in favor of Council Bill 120157 unamended.

After the passage of this tool earlier this year the city's mayor and members of council realized that the amended policy while unintended does have a negative impact on efforts by black churches to curb displacement in their communities.

I strongly urge you to listen to Seattle's Black faith leaders who are saying that 80 percent of AMI will best support their efforts to curb displacement in their community.

I urge the council to be mindful of the long-term impact of their development decisions and the impact they will have to provide space for the return of displaced Black renters in a sustainable way that does not contribute that does contribute that does not contribute to further racial and economic segregation.

Again I urge you to vote yes on the passage of CB120157 unamended.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Next up is Jess Wallop followed by Joseph Brave Boyd.

Good afternoon Council.

My name is Jess and I'm an organizer with 350 Seattle.

I'm here today representing our 10,000 community members in Seattle King County and in support of a solidarity budget.

Despite decades of climate promises Seattle's climate pollution is still going up.

We've been told over and over again there's not enough money to fully fund the climate solutions we need.

But meanwhile policing gobbles up one quarter of Seattle's annual budget.

To put that in perspective with just half of what Seattle spent on policing in 2020 we could transition all of our city's low-income households off off the tools.

With the 2022 city budget Seattle has a choice to make.

Will we continue to invest in harms like policing the expense of climate justice affordable housing true public safety good jobs and healthy neighborhoods.

Or will we change course.

and prioritize community-led solutions for a Seattle where everyone can thrive.

Also, we urge you to make solidarity budgets, community-generated demands, your starting point for budget negotiations this year.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Joseph Brave Boy, followed by Coco Weber.

Hello, this is Joseph Brave Boy, National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 30. I'm calling in support of the renter's protection bills because right now not only are the low-income workers being pushed out of the city but we're losing the middle-income workers as well stymied business uh...

for example with the uh...

the i r s the uh...

treasury authorized higher two hundred people this year nominee dot forty because people can't afford to do federal job and sit in the city of seattle unrealistic openly what's happening with I think not only the workers themselves but the jobs that they do.

Taking the money out of Seattle and moving it into the faraway suburbs and such.

Just wanted to bring that up.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for calling in today.

Next up is Coco Weber followed by Ashley Thurkle.

Hello Council.

Thank you.

My name's Coco and I'm a D4 resident.

and a member of Deep Crescent Black Lives and I'm calling to ask you to support the solidarity budget and use it as your moral compass and starting place for this year's budgeting season.

I'm a former re-entry case manager.

I would pick people up from jail on their release day from King County Jail on 5th Avenue and again and again I saw that jails do not work.

The people that I was picking up who were in and out of jail multiple times every year just had worked significantly under-resourced and their problems were exacerbated by a lack of housing, a lack of wraparound services, needing support, that the problem was not solved by more jail and policing.

It would be solved by everything the Solidarity budget is asking for, resourcing communities in a meaningful way.

I ask you also to disregard Peterson's amendment as he is a former employee of CBRE and has.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Ashley Thurkle followed by Donald King.

Hi thanks I'm Ashley Thurkle and I'm urging you to vote no on the economic relocation assistance.

I'd also like to ask you to please get to know who your constituents who are landlords are.

We certainly aren't corporate landlords.

We rented out a legal apartment in our home to be able to barely afford to live in this city.

We are a small working family raising a child with disabilities that require costly therapies.

We have always rented lower than market and formed relationships with our renters because we basically live together.

Many small landlords especially those that live on the property do this.

We only raise rents when we need to in order to catch up with the market or when inflation and costs are on the rise or property and business taxes are skyrocketing.

We are renting out a part of our home because we're close to the edge, not because we're greedy corporations out to profit at the expense of other people.

We and many other small time landlords don't have the income to afford the thousands and thousands of dollars for relocation assistance or to be locked in.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Donald King, followed by Jason Walsh.

This is Donald King.

Good afternoon.

Council President Gonzalez and the council members this afternoon.

I am president and CEO of the Nehemiah Initiative Seattle.

Our mission is to provide affordable housing on underutilized church property of the historic black churches of Seattle.

And on behalf of the Nehemiah Initiative Seattle and our supporting faith-based organizations, including the Church Council of Greater Seattle, I'd like to thank Council Member Dan Strauss for the introduction of CB 120157 to correct the previous CB 120081 that passed into ordinance with an unfortunate amendment.

I appreciate Council Member Herbold's attempt to offer 80% AMI requirement for the faith-based organization's properties inside the urban centers and villages.

But the Amendment 1A to this bill is still too complex and restrictive.

Thank you for calling in, Donald.

Next up is Jason Walsh, followed by...

Okay.

Next up is going to be Jason Walsh, and then I am showing that William Shadbolt and Hans Peter Fink are registered but not present.

So we're going to move to Jason Walsh.

And then after Jason will be Sherry Druckmann.

Hey, Jason, you are in the room with us.

You just need to press star six to unmute yourself.

One more time, try star, pressing star six.

Oh, we had you and then you went back on mute.

So star six, there you go.

Okay, now it says I'm unmuted.

Sorry about that.

Afternoon, my name is Jason, he, him, and I'm a resident of Council District 4. I'm speaking today in support of Council Bills 119585 and 120173. I'm a recent graduate of the University of Washington's Master's in Urban Planning and Master's in Public Health Programs and a current renter.

I know the research that details the importance of housing security how it is a social determinant of health with cascading influences on health and from personal experience the toll that specter of housing insecurity can take.

During my studies my landlord raised the rent by over $3,000 per year and told me this days before the renewal of my lease.

Staying out of pocket for my education and working part time I did not have the resources to push back or walk away from the housing that I had.

basically had no choice.

I had to agree to the increase.

As some of you may know, college students experience financial pressures that can lead to personal health challenges and crises.

A study by the Hope Center for College Community and Justice found in 2019 that 60% of students experience food insecurity and housing insecurity or homelessness within a year of their study.

But you don't need these statistics to tell you what the right thing is to do.

Provide students and all renters in Seattle with a semblance of security.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Sherry Druckmann followed by Greg Cervana.

Hi this is Sherry Druckman and I represent the landlords for over 500 apartment homes in Seattle.

We urge you to oppose both the 180 day notice for any rent increase along with the relocation assistance.

Both of these bills do more harm than good.

The 180 day notice on rent increases amounts to rent control which violates state law.

90 cents of every dollar of rent pays the operating costs of rent increases insurance costs have increased over the past few years due to the massive increase in replacement value.

For the relocation assistance this is an impermissible tax on fee of rental housing providers and our industry.

Rental relocation assistance is rent control because it restricts rent increases.

Rental relocation assistance is not a means tested policy to assist those tenants needed most.

for rental assistance and works to advantage more expensive rental property.

And this also incentivizes higher rental rates at the end.

Thank you for calling in.

Next, we're going to hear from Greg Cervana and then after Greg will be William Shadbolt.

Greg, I see that you are in the Zoom room with us.

You just need to press star six.

to unmute yourself.

Try one more time, star six.

And again, make sure you're pressing the star, not the pound.

Sometimes that happens.

Oh, we had you for a second.

Try one more time.

There you go.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the Council.

My name is Greg Cervana, and I'm testifying in opposition to both CB 119585 and CB 120173. These are not data-driven proposals, but another in a long line of bills forwarded by this Council to erode property rights under the guise of this pandemic with the goal of total rent control.

Most importantly, these bills do nothing to produce even one more unit of housing to help with the woefully inadequate supply of rental housing In fact, these bills, along with a myriad of other anti-landlord measures enacted by the council, will do the exact opposite.

It will chase out the smaller landlords who cannot keep up with the confusing and ever-changing barrage of regulations that are being imposed upon them.

They're selling their naturally occurring affordable housing units in droves, and the reduction of this rental stock will not come back.

These bills amount to rent control, which violates state law.

Now, in the States, it seems a worthy goal to make rental rates predictable, but it ignores the very real conditions that largely uncontrollable forces have on property owners.

Thank you for calling in today, Greg.

Next up is William Shadbolt, and then after William will be Celine Russo.

Thank you very much, Council Members.

I'm William Shadbolt.

I'm a small housing provider in Seattle with three rental properties.

In the last year, my property taxes went up 12%, 17%, and 25% on those three rental properties.

I do not yet find out 180 days in advance what my property tax is going to be for the following year.

By enacting a 180-day net period, I'm going to have to increase rents more to be able to cover those property tax increases that I have no idea what the percentage is going to be.

Doing it whilst people like myself sell, This year, I'm enlisting two out of my three rental properties.

While I'm enlisting, I looked on the North West MLS.

It's the number of single-family homes available for rent.

In the years 2017 to 2020, it was between 100 and 1,400 available.

This year, 170. What are you doing this year?

Making a lot of money myself.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Selene Russo.

And then after Selene Russo will be Addie Smith.

Hi, my name is Selene Russo.

I'm calling, well, I'm from District 1 in Seattle.

I'm calling in support of the solidarity budget, which should be the starting point for budget negotiations for 2022. Council should adjust the mayor's budget to fully meet our community-generated demands.

We need a budget that puts the most resources towards our neighbors who have been the most marginalized.

We need a budget that prioritizes people over personal property and big business.

The solidarity budget was created by those in our community on the ground creating and council needs to listen to them.

I'm also calling to support a yes vote on the six month notice for rent increases and requiring landlords to pay eviction assistance and a yes to remove the loophole requiring means testing for eviction assistance.

If you are a renter, trust me, you qualify.

No means testing is needed.

Housing in Seattle has become insanely expensive and in an economic circumstance that causes most people to rent.

Thousands of us struggling to continue to live in Seattle because you're worried about creating a small economic hardship on a handful of small landlords.

And please back up your 20.

Thank you.

Next up is Addie Smith.

And then after Addie Smith will be Star Wiley.

Hi, can you hear me?

We can go ahead, Addie.

I am calling to demand that the City Council vote yes on the six month notice for any rent increased from Kusama.

So want vote yes on economic eviction assistance where the landlord please pay three times the rent if the tenant has to move after 10% or greater rent increase and vote yes on the amendment to remove the water down loophole in the economic evictions assistance bill.

I also want to ask that the City Council, as well as Governor Inslee and Representative Suzanne DelBean, Representative Jayapal, Representative Cantwell, Representative Adam Smith, Representative Patty Couture, Representative Patty Murray, and Governor Inslee.

I want to repeat that.

The laws have to change.

The judges, the attorneys, the system is all rigged based on the laws that are being passed, and we need them to intervene.

And one of those laws specifically is a law that protects races.

So the law that I'm speaking of in particular is.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Star Wiley.

And I'm showing that Karen Taylor and Joe Wall are registered but not present.

So Star Wiley will go next.

And then after Star will be Jennifer Lakish.

Good afternoon council members.

My name is Star Willie and I'm a renter in District 7. I'm calling today to echo the many community members who have called to urge you to please vote yes on the two renters protection bills and the amendments put forth by council members to want.

Voting yes today will help prevent homelessness in Seattle.

Rent is too high for workers to afford living here.

If rent goes up people are forced to move.

With six months notice we'll have a better chance to save up for moving and that is vital.

We need rent relocation assistance if our rent goes up more than 10%, as it's already very hard to afford and moving is very costly.

As rent goes up all over the city, it's harder and harder to move.

Please help us stay in Seattle by voting yes.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in today.

Okay, I am Now seeing that the next speaker I called on is showing is not present.

So I'm showing that Joe Kunzler is not present.

Jennifer Lakish is not present.

So we're going to move to Catherine Dawson and then Gabriel Mahan or Mayhem.

Go ahead, Catherine.

Hi, I'm Catherine.

I'm a renter in District 3. I'm calling to add my voice to the support for renter protections.

And specifically, I'd like to emphasize the importance of passing Council Member Salon's amendment to remove unnecessary means testing requirements The majority of Seattle renters, Seattle residents are me and over 40% are rent burdened.

As rents have risen over 25% landlords are profiting while renters cannot continue to afford their homes, property.

Catherine, I'm sorry, you cut out on us.

We can't hear you.

Are you there?

Okay, Catherine, we're not able to hear you.

It might be your reception.

Oh, I apologize.

Can you hear me now?

Yeah, you got, yes, we can.

You have about 26 seconds left.

We stopped the clock, so go ahead.

Thank you.

I want to point out really strongly that we know means testing doesn't work.

It adds an unnecessary barrier that often prevents people who most need benefits from accessing them.

By adding a means-testing amendment to the economic eviction program, you're legislating that people on the brink of eviction who cannot afford their housing and are more likely to end up unhoused have to fulfill yet another logistical task in order to access aid.

And as someone who's relied on our state's unemployment and health benefit system, I know how significant those barriers are.

So please vote yes on Council Member Solange's amendment, and please vote yes on renters' protections.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Okay, our last speaker that I have that is both signed up and present is Gabriel, and we're going to go ahead and shift to him.

Go ahead, Gabriel.

Hey, my name is Gabriel.

I'm a tech worker and renter in District 3 calling in support of Councilmember Swann's bills, requiring six-month notice for rent increases and economic eviction assistance without loopholes or measures that are effectively means-testing.

My apartment complex in the Central District is filled with folks in everyday professional jobs like teachers, administrative aides, and others.

After our building got bought out by a big rental corporation, my neighbors are scared, not just that the rent is going to go up dramatically, but we're all terrified of the uncertainty of not knowing how much it's going to go up.

You know, two months is not nearly enough time to plan for what could be a very dramatic uprooting of our lives, and while we really need rent control and the stability that comes with it, at the very least we could get a decent heads up.

If we're priced out, get some help, in relocating.

I understand the cost rise, but there are absolutely no reason that our corporate landlord can't give us a reasonable heads up.

Right now, we're all playing some cruel waiting game, dreading the day we get to find us that we've only got two months to pack up and uproot our lives.

I urge council members to vote yes on both bills.

My neighbors deserve nothing less.

Thank you for calling in today.

Okay, just checking in with our IT department to see if we have anyone else in the waiting room that I have perhaps inadvertently missed.

There are no other public comment registrants.

Great, perfect.

Well, we are ending just about on time.

It's 3.32 p.m., so we are gonna move to other items of business on our agenda.

First up is payment of the bills.

Will the clerk please read the title?

Council Bill 120183, appropriate in mind, these are in claims to the week of September 13th, 2021 through September 17th, 2021, and ordering a payment thereof.

I move to pass Council Bill 120183. Is there a second?

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

Are there any comments?

Hearing no comments, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Strauss.

Yes.

Herbold.

Yes.

Lewis.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

Busqueda.

Aye.

Peterson.

Aye.

Sawant.

Yes.

President Gonzalez.

Yes.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

Will the clerk please read item one into the record.

agenda item one, clerk file 314485, Mayor Janney A. Durkin's budget address on the 2022 budget.

Thank you so much.

Councilmembers, as presented and delivered earlier by Deputy Mayor Ragnafon, the mayor's budget address has been distributed and is now included in this clerk file.

So the council will now move to accept and file it.

Again, this is just the acceptance and the filing of the budget address, not the actual budget, which we are slated to receive later today.

So I will move to accept and file clerk file 314485. Is there a second?

It's been moved and seconded to accept and file the clerk file.

Are there any additional comments?

Hearing none, will the clerk call the roll on accepting and filing the file.

Strauss?

Yes.

Herbold?

I'm sorry, Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Thank you.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Esqueda?

Aye.

Peterson?

Aye.

So what.

Yes.

President Gonzalez.

Aye.

Eight in favor.

None opposed.

Thank you so much.

The motion carries and the clerk file has been accepted and filed.

Will the clerk please read item two into the record.

Agenda Item 2, Council Bill 120157, relating to affordable housing on properties owned or controlled by religious organizations, modifying affordability requirements adopted in Ordinance 126384 and amending Section 23.42.005 of the Seattle Municipal Code and Section 10 of Ordinance 126384. Thank you so much.

I move to pass Council Bill 120157. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you so much.

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

I'm going to hand it over to Council Member Strauss, who is the sponsor of this bill, in order to make comments on the bill.

Thank you, Council President.

As this has been discussed at Council briefing, Council Bill 120157 makes changes to Council Bill 120081 which the Council passed on June 28 to increase the affordability requirements from 60% AMI to 80% AMI.

Council Bill 120081 implemented a new state law that allows for larger buildings than zoning would have otherwise allowed.

for affordable housing developments on sites owned or controlled by religious institutions.

The state law defined affordable housing as 80% of AMI as did the original bill of Council Bill 120157 that was transmitted to Council and voted out of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee.

We did in committee consider the amendment to require 60% AMI but moved forward without that requirement.

The full council, as we all know, ultimately passed a similar amendment lowering the affordability requirements to 80% AMI.

making Seattle's law more restrictive than the state law.

Following these votes, my office and others were contacted by churches and community organizations expressing deep concern with the amendment, including from the Nehemiah Initiative, which works with historically black churches in Seattle to save many black churches in the central area and to combat displacement.

These stakeholders shared that 60% AMI requirements threatened the viability of certain affordable housing projects, meaning they would lose affordable housing units that would otherwise have been built under this ordinance.

And additionally, I heard that churches had planned to use this ordinance in ways that are more broad than what the city council discussion reflected.

In some cases, churches may wish to build affordable housing to allow their members to return home to the communities that have already been displaced from.

Some of these members may not qualify for 60% AMI units, and they still have been displaced.

Also understanding that churches can still have a range of affordability of the units.

Not all units must be placed up to 80% AMI.

At this point, I don't believe that the city needs to micromanage how these religious organizations best serve their congregations.

I think I'm pretty much done.

I just want to say that this legislation will amend the previous council bill to provide more flexibility to churches to serve their congregations, build the needed affordable housing, and maintain themselves financially so that they can continue providing services to their community.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you so much, Council Member Struss, for giving us some initial comments on the bill as introduced as Council Bill 120157. I do know that folks have comments to make about the underlying base bill.

We do have one amendment to consider.

So as usual, we will go through the amendment, have a conversation and deliberation around The amendment will take a vote on the amendment.

And then once we know whether the bill is amended or not, we will open up the floor to comments on the general bill.

So without further ado, I'm going to go ahead and hand it over to Council Member Herbold to make her motion on Amendment 1. And then I will ask if there is a second.

Thank you, I move to amend Council Bill 120157 as presented on Amendment 1, which was recently distributed.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to amend Council Bill 120157 as presented on Amendment 1. I'm going to hand it back over to Council Member Herbold to walk us through Amendment 1.

Thanks so much.

So I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this amendment.

This amendment would allow the higher 80% AMI rental affordability threshold in those urban centers and villages identified in the comp plan as having a high displacement risk.

But should the amendment pass, it would maintain a 60% AMI rental affordability threshold in other locations throughout the city.

Just for some context of what that all means, at 60% AMI, a qualifying one-person household would pay an affordable rent of $1,162.

A qualifying four-person household would pay an affordable rent at $1,726 a month for a three-bedroom.

Rented units that are developed on property owned in urban areas and villages with high displacement risk by religious institutions that receive this density bonus, allowing them to build, in some cases, nearly twice the number of units, would have a more permissive percent of AMI affordability threshold, and their units could be rented at a rate of a studio being rented at $1,545 a month and a three bedroom apartment renting at $2,295 a month.

That's the description of the amendment just as you know why I why I think it's so important.

I know we talked about the fact that state law permits maximum 180 percent AMI affordability threshold we discussed at with the other version of the ordinance.

I really appreciate hearing via Council Member Strauss's office that the sponsor for the legislation in the state legislature, Representative Whalen, who represents the 46th District of Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, Clyde Hill, Medina, Yarra Point, and Hunts Point, that her legislative intent was that it be at the 80% threshold.

But again, We are no way prohibited from considering the needs of renters in our cities by lowering the affordability requirements, just like we do with other local housing programs that are authorized through the state legislature.

For instance, MFTE, there's a higher affordability threshold that we could offer, but we don't.

We reduce the affordability threshold because that's what renters in our city need.

To my knowledge, no one has demonstrated, and I know council members have asked, how a 60% AMI threshold affordability requirement would thwart the goal of incentivizing the development of affordable housing by our religious institution partners.

Again, the density bonus can increase the development potential of these parcels by up to double.

Further, the development pro formas that we have seen when requested not seem to account value of land itself, which the religious institutions own.

If you don't account for the value of land, that will lead to a return on investment calculation that looks like a loss.

But whether the developers are religious institutions or private developers, we do not need to incentivize developers to build units at these rents, which are nearly market rate.

If we allow all religiously owned properties throughout the city to develop at 80% AMI, we're actually creating a disincentive for religious institutions to partner with nonprofit developers, resulting in fewer rentals out at affordability rates.

So now that we're reconsidering this issue, the alternate path I'm proposing maintains the 80% AMI threshold within urban centers and villages identified in the comprehensive plan as having higher displacement risk, This includes the central district, Columbia City, Beacon Hill, Rainier Valley, and other areas where historic black communities continue to be displaced.

Thank you.

Okay, colleagues, any comments or questions on that amendment?

I see Council Member Strauss has his hand up, please.

Thank you, Council President.

Council Member Herbold, I absolutely appreciate the spirit in which this amendment is brought in because you are correct in understanding we have to serve for the poorest amongst us and 80% AMI does not necessarily do that.

There are many different avenues that we fund housing and set in requirements for 60% AMI throughout the city.

But at this point, I do not believe that it is appropriate to limit higher affordability levels only to some urban villages and centers.

These are lines drawn on streets and the problems that our city faces, and those are for zoning specifically.

So I have heard of projects in other districts that would be prevented from using this flexibility and the flexibility that they were expecting because they are not located in urban villages or centers.

I have also similarly not heard any external stakeholders advocate for this amendment.

when I've reached out to do my stakeholder and only heard of opposition.

So nothing personal here.

I absolutely appreciate the spirit in which you're bringing this.

I unfortunately will oppose this amendment today.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Any additional comments on proposed Amendment 1?

Council Member Peterson, please.

Thank you, Council President.

And just for the viewing public who might not be as familiar with this legislation, this is, we had adopted, the council had adopted legislation and then some groups approached the mayor's office and wanted to see the legislation changed.

And so the mayor, It's coming straight to the full Council for discussion today, and I think there were some.

You know, I appreciate the points made by both council members who have spoken.

It was a close vote to begin with on the original legislation.

So it sort of makes sense that there would be these good ideas floated from the various council members.

And I really think that Councilor Herbold's amendment is a compromise.

It's basically saying that, okay, even though the original legislation allowed additional time under the higher income 80% AMI, that perhaps that wasn't enough time for some churches.

So what this amendment's doing is geographically, it's saying those churches that did approach the mayor's office and were very vocal about it, they would be able to stay at 80% AMI.

And so I think that this compromise that we don't want to make a citywide policy when we don't necessarily, we don't need to apply it citywide.

It makes sense to apply it geographically as Council Member Herbold has done in the high displacement areas.

So I will be supporting this amendment.

I do see it as a compromise from the original bill.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

I see that Council Member Mosqueda's hand is up.

Please go ahead.

Thank you very much, Council President.

Thank you, colleagues, for the opportunity to chime in on my support for the underlying bill.

I will be voting no on this amendment.

I do appreciate that we do have the chance to talk about this again, if you'll recall.

The last time we talked about it, it was one of the hottest days in record for Seattle, and many of us were huddled near fans in the dark trying to stay cool on a very hot afternoon.

to now have a chance to l that was passed with the I was a no on the amendme around, but having the c through the amendment this that it's slightly differ the nuance that was tryi why I am voting no on this, even though it is a tweaked amendment from the original.

I think the bill, as transmitted, contains several large public benefits by maintaining the continuity of AMI levels across the city, but I'm just going to focus on two very briefly.

The first is that maintaining the AMI threshold at 80% means that organizations will have the ability to create affordable housing without seeking as much public subsidy, and that is a huge public benefit.

That means our public affordable housing dollars can be stretched to go further to create more deeply affordable housing throughout the city.

And I do think that it thwarts the goal of creating more affordable housing if religious institutions have to compete for public subsidies if the threshold were to be lowered to 60% AMI.

That means there's fewer funding sources that could be braided together to create that affordable housing, which is the goal of this legislation, both in the city, I know it's our goal, as well as the state legislature.

By keeping the 80% AMI threshold at the current level of where it's at, we are opening up the ability for more of these religious organizations to be able to access complimentary funding sources that are not public subsidy only, and that way we can help these organizations build the housing that is our overall goal.

The Nehemiah Initiative also emailed us earlier today, I believe, showing how if the threshold was lowered to 60% AMI, that it would actually support their existing projects.

We don't want to be in a position where we are in any way, even unintentionally, reducing the ability for us to build more affordable housing units across our city.

And in the document that they sent us, they showed how their numbers don't pencil out under 60% AMI and leave these religious organizations potentially in the red, whereas 80% AMI would provide small income stream to make these projects more viable.

Number two, the ability to build that 80% AMI units will function as an anti-displacement policy.

This bolsters religious institutions' ability to not only provide housing for communities that have been largely affected by gentrification and displacement, but this also helps us prevent future displacement in our communities where these religious institutions have experience with working with communities, especially our elders and our communities of color who are experiencing higher rates of displacement.

So working with them, allowing them to braid funding, keeping it at 80% AMI, I believe is a win-win.

So I'll be voting no on this amendment and yes on the other land bill.

Thank you, Council Member Mosqueda for those comments.

I see that Council Member Morales has her hand raised, so I'm gonna hand it over to her.

Thank you.

I too appreciate the, the, you know, what you're trying to accomplish Councilmember Herbold, this isn't something that I will be able to support.

the amendment that is mostly because we have heard from a lot of folks in our community who aren't supportive of this amendment and who specifically requested as we were the underlying legislation was being considered who are waiting religious institutions here who are waiting for this bill because they do have a project that they're waiting to proceed with and want to be able to provide housing for their young families.

The amendment, as I understand it, would really limit, limiting to urban villages doesn't provide flexibility to these institutions that are outside of those areas, like the institution that I'm talking about who contacted our office.

I think it's important that we proceed with the underlying legislation and with the, frankly, with the original intent of the state sponsor who had passed the 80% AMI, which is what advocates had been pushing for at that level.

So I am supportive of the underlying bill, but will not be supporting the amendment itself.

Thank you.

Any additional comments before Council Member Herbold?

You'll have the last word.

I'm just looking for any other hands raised on Amendment 1. I'm not seeing any other hands raised.

I did want to make some comments on Amendment 1 as well before we hand it over to Council Member Herbold and have her close out debate.

So colleagues, the bill before us today does include reporting requirements that will help us better understand this policy tool and how we can support more community-led affordable housing projects.

That is in the base bill without the amendment.

Since this issue last came before the council, I have had the opportunity to personally meet and hear from several impacted stakeholders, specifically from stakeholders representing the interests of black churches in Seattle, about the need for flexibility without losing sight of our goals around affordable housing across the city of Seattle.

My staff have worked through some of the scenarios with the Office of Housing and mayoral staff on this particular issue and I do believe that the bill before us without amendment will allow for a future decision.

on affordability thresholds to be informed by data collection.

Therefore, today I'm going to vote yes on the underlying bill, but unfortunately cannot support the proposed amendment.

In doing so, this does not deny the need for ongoing need for deeply affordable housing throughout our city and in every single neighborhood, including those that are at greatest risk of gentrification and displacement.

Indeed, we know that the greatest housing needs are faced by those in the 0-30% area median income.

The recent McKinsey report estimated housing costs in the Seattle King County region would be about $1 billion.

And it pencils out to be about needing an additional 37,000 units of affordable housing to address the needs of those on the extremely low income spectrum.

So I want to acknowledge that I, just like many of my colleagues and so many in our region, share a really deep commitment to addressing these housing needs.

But I have also heard loudly and clearly in the weeks after our initial vote on this council bill that the city council should forego the temptation to place the burden of meeting this deep need on the few religious institutions who are in a position to realize affordable housing communities in our city.

So, so in a letter, for example that we received today from Michael Ramos of the Church Council greater Seattle he writes quote generations have lost wealth and assets to redlining and other systemic colonial violence, even as rents and property taxes rise to an affordable levels.

The majority of black land-based assets in Seattle are owned by Seattle's historic black churches.

It is essential that we recognize black churches as an essential asset, cultural hub, and service provider for black Seattle residents and consider the ways we may support them to leverage their assets towards community development in the face of ongoing white supremacist violence.

We must also be mindful of the long-term impact of our development decisions, providing space for the return of displaced Black renters in a sustainable way that does not contribute to further racial and economic segregation." Close quote. I think it is important that we not substitute our judgment for the judgment of black churches who advocated for the new state law. The reality is that before their statewide advocacy, we wouldn't be in a position to be considering this affordable housing bill at all. So black church leaders have unequivocally also told us since the passage of a similar amendment that this amendment before us now will similarly tie their hands. In this instance, the proposed amendment has the effect of reducing the income threshold from 80% to 60%, but now has a layer of geographic restrictions that could potentially further exacerbate the racial disparities associated with concentrating growth in our urban villages and urban centers. Or in the words of Donald King from the AMI initiative, which was recently shared with me, he wrote, quote, I agree that the limit of 60% may be more aligned with most black households, but I still believe that 80% AMI provides for more choice and acknowledgement of the reality and aspiration of black renters to be considered more prosperous. The 60% AMI will negatively impact the land value of the property that our black churches seek to leverage for a more independent and less subsidized housing production. So I want to thank Donald King, the Housing Development Consortium, Community Enterprise, the Church Council of Greater Seattle, and all the other stakeholders who have reached out to share details of why this bill is needed without Proposed Amendment 1. And I encourage my colleagues to also vote no on this proposed amendment. Again, since my initial vote, I have had deeper conversations about the operational impacts of adjusting the income threshold. And while I am deeply committed to more deeply affordable housing, I think this bill is simply the wrong vehicle by which to effectuate that desired outcome at the level we truly need across the city of Seattle. So as a result, I'm convinced that voting for the council bill that is before us without the proposed amendment will help black churches in our city combat anti displacement and it will do so in a manner that respects their self-determination while leaving the door open to address our shared desire to incentivize and or require other developers to incorporate a lower income threshold in their projects. So with that being said, I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Herbold for purposes of closing out debate.

I will keep it very short.

As I've said, I believe that having the threshold at 80%, we are actually creating a disincentive for religious institutions citywide to partner with non-profit developers.

Something that feels really lost in this conversation is that this legislation affects religious institutions all across the city.

According to the SDCI director's report, there are 692 parcels throughout the city owned by religious institutions, of course, not all of them.

are large enough or have enough space to take advantage of this added density.

But nevertheless, they are all over the city.

They are not only in locations where black churches are facing displacement.

The Housing Development Consortium wrote today to say that the 60% AMI will negatively impact the net operating income of the projects that the black church seek to leverage for more independent and less subsidized housing production.

My amendment was intended to address this directly by allowing more expensive rental housing to be built in those areas where black churches are faced with displacement.

Council Member Mosqueda, you referenced being able to review the assumptions underlying the conclusion and the analysis that 60% AMI housing would not pencil out.

I would greatly appreciate the opportunity opportunity to review those assumptions.

When I have done so, as I mentioned earlier, I saw that the value of the land was not included in the assumptions, making it look as if there was a rate of return.

or return on investment, sorry, that would support the argument that they're not penciling out.

But once you include the value of the land that these density bonuses in many cases would double, that is not the case.

I just want to also, again, underscore the point that I made this morning, that if you look at the data from The 2017 American Community Survey, 80% AMI housing, so housing that is developed at the 80% AMI threshold of affordability will be out of reach for 69% of black renter households.

that we have 14,320 black renter households in the city and housing at these rates will be unaffordable, out of reach for 69% of them.

I believe that when we're looking at a public benefit, we should be looking at creating something that is not market rate housing and 80% AMI housing is essentially market rate housing.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Council Member Herbold.

OK, that does conclude debate on Amendment 1. So I'm going to ask the clerk, please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 1. Strauss?

No.

Herbold?

Herbold?

Yes.

Lewis?

No.

Morales?

No.

Mosqueda.

No.

Peterson.

Yes.

Sawant.

Yes.

President Gonzalez.

No.

Three in favor, five opposed.

Thank you so much.

The motion fails and the amendment is not adopted.

Now we are going to open it up for general comment on the underlying bill.

Are there any additional comments on the bill?

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll?

Oh, never mind.

Council Member Sawant, go ahead.

Sorry, thank you.

So I think that in considering this legislation, we need to be concrete about what it actually accomplishes and what the cost is, you know, on the one hand, this program is based on increasing the height limits or density allowed on church land or affordable housing and I certainly support increasing density.

And so, in my view, the program as a whole does not sacrifice anything.

On the other hand, this policy has been described as creating affordable housing to stop gentrification and reverse displacement.

And I am very concerned that it will not accomplish that because if today's bill passes and the affordable housing limits are increased to 80% of area median income, it becomes shockingly expensive.

And Council Member Herbold actually has gone over the data I don't know if that is the case.

I don't know if that is the case.

Rent for a one-bedroom apartment pegged to 80% of area median income is $1,851 per month, which is $550 a month more than if it were pegged to 60% of AMI.

And in fact, it's actually more expensive than the average market rate rent for a one-bedroom in Seattle.

So we're not talking about you know, minuscule differences.

We're talking about a big difference.

And I believe Council Member Herbold just referenced some of the conclusions that can be reached from ACS data, community survey data, which is basically the census data, which Council Member Herbold, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you said that 80% AMI benchmark essentially would mean that 69% of black households will not be able to afford it.

Actually, before I go on, could you just confirm that, please?

Yes, 80% AMI housing is out of reach for 69% of black renter households in Seattle.

Okay, thank you.

And so it's just, it's just too expensive to actually have an impact on displacement and gentrification, which is the goal of this, which is the stated goal of this whole effort.

And that's because the whole premise is to be dependent on for-profit housing, on the for-profit housing market to make housing affordable, which the for-profit market has resoundingly failed to do for decades.

In fact, affordability problems are dramatically worse now than a decade ago.

The argument for increasing the rent limit by 550 dollars a month, which is just whopping.

I mean, we're talking we just heard from renters who are just having an absolutely hard time.

And that problem is disproportionate and compounded for black households, as we know.

So the argument for raising the rent limit that we have heard is essentially that developers and property owners, which are churches in this case, will not be able to afford to build a housing if it is less expensive without public subsidy.

But that is exactly where, I mean, that's where the problem lies.

I mean, that is exactly why so many activists, including Black Lives Matter activists helped to build the tax Amazon movement to win the Amazon tax attacks on big businesses to fund affordable housing.

I mean, that cannot be the last word.

That's not enough.

And in fact, we will need a massive fight using the people's budget movement this year to make sure that The actual funds are allocated to affordable housing in the way that it was intended when the council voted on it.

I don't know what Mayor Durkin has planned to do, but you know, we'll see when we look at the draft budget from mayor's office.

And even last year, actually, funds from the Amazon tax were used to backfill the budget shortfall.

I think we have to tax big businesses more.

I mean, they are making money hand over fist, and we should make sure that all the money that was intended already to build affordable housing should be used, and additional revenues should be raised progressively to make sure that there are no budget cuts either.

We should not pit one against the other.

I mean, and it's just, it's just foolhardy to depend on the for-profit real estate market.

And I just don't see how this is viable.

I mean, I would be open to, you know, to supporting this.

I mean, and to be very honest, I mean, I really acknowledge the good intentions of the Church Council of Greater Seattle, so many of the faith community leaders.

who I believe genuinely want to build affordable housing and my staff and I again very honestly spent a lot of time looking into the numbers to see if this was going to be something justifiable but it's just again if we want to be data-driven then I just don't know how this is going to be viable.

I understand that that faith leaders want to try this legislation to build affordable housing.

And I also understand that many of them also supported the tax Amazon movement.

And so I would really urge them to understand that we cannot ask working class renters, much less black community working class renters, to pay unmanageable rents and then call it affordable housing.

That just cannot happen.

We actually need the expansion of taxes on citywide taxes on big business, and also we need to bring enough pressure to bear to force the state legislature to tax the rich statewide to greatly increase funds for affordable housing.

We also need rent without corporate loopholes not just in Seattle but also statewide so that we can make the market rate housing also affordable.

So I think given all these It's really difficult.

And I would also note that as far as I know, and my staff knows, and we have made sure to ask a lot, we have not heard from any renter or a Black renter, much less advocating for this change.

Thank you.

Any other comments on the bill?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Thank you very much.

I first want to thank the Nehemiah Initiative for their work and advocacy and deep education that they did on this legislation in the last few months and earlier this year.

I am happy to see this legislation back before council where we've all had a chance to sit with it and not a hundred degree rooms and try to make some decisions in the moment.

I feel like this has been an opportunity for us to really have engagement both with community and among council and restore here today a key facet of the legislation to ensure that this is workable, workable for religious organizations and our communities to actually build affordable housing that is needed.

I also want to be really clear about something.

No one is saying that this legislation alone is going to build the affordable housing that we know we all need across the city.

We are all committed to building that affordable housing and that is why the majority of council both sponsored and passed jumpstart progressive revenue for the payroll tax in Seattle and that's why we had a unanimous Council vote for the spend plan, which puts two-thirds of that funding into building affordable housing.

We all know that we need this, and I think by passing this legislation today, we should continue to underscore that building affordable housing is not on the backs of our community church organizations, our religious institutions, nor can it all be done on religious properties.

So this is one small but important component to our overall goal to build affordable housing.

I also want to say I am appreciative of the conversation that we've had around the AMI levels.

Again, I think that restoring the AMI levels to 80% AMI is going to be a win-win in both achieving affordable housing and working towards our shared goal on this council of advancing anti-displacement strategies.

Religious organizations as well do not have to build up to the 80% AMI threshold.

choose a different level affordability if they want requiring them to have a will be able to potential affordable housing develo heard time and time again, don't want to be held to standard.

And that's what directly from them in our I appreciate that we are taking an important step today and that we also, at the same time and the same breath, are recognizing that this is not going to solve our affordable housing needs and that we're going to continue to work on building more deeply affordable housing, creating the funding sources to do so.

And like we did last year through Jump Start, progressive revenue in Seattle, which focused on 60 percent, actually 30 percent AMI and below, that we will continue to focus on more affordable housing and workforce housing across the city with more progressive revenue sources at our fingertips soon, which again, as a standalone are not enough to solve our deep housing and affordability crisis across this region.

So much more work to do, but excited about this legislation today.

Thank you so much.

Are there any other additional comments before we hand it over to Council Member Strauss to close it out?

I'm not seeing any of their hands raised.

So Council Member Strauss, why don't you close us out?

Thank you, Council President, and thank you, colleagues.

Echoing Council Member Mosqueda's comments about the jumpstart ordinance that is going to be funding so much of our housing needs.

Council Member Herbold, Council President, Council Member Mosqueda, the four of us were the original four co-sponsors, so I absolutely see each of your dedication to this.

I'll just briefly state that this bill does not require religious institutions to put the housing at 80% AMI.

It allows them to go up to 80% AMI.

It's my understanding that there will be a mix of those housing units and the religious institutions are different than other institutions where that those dollars will be funneled back into their organizations to support their congregations that are providing services to their communities.

I'm not here to micromanage them.

I appreciate everyone's intent on this bill and where everyone's coming from.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold, for your understanding of my position today.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Okay, that does close out debate on this council bill.

So I'm going to ask that the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Strauss?

Yes.

Herbold?

No.

Lewis.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

Peterson.

No.

Sawant.

No.

President Gonzalez.

Aye.

Yes.

Five in favor, excuse me, six in favor, three, five in favor, three opposed.

There you go.

Thank you.

That's all right, I was keeping tally too.

Okay, so the bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?

Will the clerk please read items three through 10 into the record?

and reappointments.

as members Pioneer Square Preservation Board for term to March 1st, 2023, and appointment of Jose Lorenzo Torres as member of Pioneer Square Preservation Board for term to March 1st, 2024.

Thank you.

I move to confirm appointments 2039 through 2046. Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to confirm the appointments.

Council Member Struss, I'm gonna hand it over to you as the sponsor of the appointments to walk us through these.

Thank you, Council President.

I will be brief.

The Pioneer Square Preservation Board evaluates development proposals in the Pioneer Square Historic Board based on design guidelines for preserving historic architecture of the Pioneer Square neighborhood.

We have four appointments and four reappointments to the board today, all from the mayor.

As the clerk stated, Lauren Cush, She is a Pioneer Square resident and technical sourcer for Uber Technologies.

Maureen Alenga wrote Seattle Architecture, A Walking Guide to Downtown and Bridges of Seattle.

They are a content writer for the Seattle Architecture Foundation.

Linda Colley is the director of real estate services with Unico Properties, which manages buildings in the neighborhood.

Alex Royuta is the current board chair and is a principal at Royuta Architects.

Felicia Salcedo works for All Home at the King County Department of Community and Human Services in Pioneer Square.

Lindsay Pflugrath is an attorney with Karen Cross and Hempelman who works and lives in Pioneer Square.

Kenush Nafisi is the vice chair of the Pioneer Square Preservation Board and manages the Lucknow building in the neighborhood.

And lastly, and not leastly, Jose Lorenzo Torres is a senior architect working at Perkins and Will and has served on the board of the Seattle Architecture Foundation.

Thank you, Council President.

That is my report.

Thank you so much.

Are there any additional comments on these appointments?

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the confirmation of appointments 2039 through 2046?

Strauss?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

Peterson.

Yes.

Sawant.

Yes.

President Gonzales.

Yes.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The motion carries and the appointments are confirmed.

Will the clerk please read item 19 into the record.

A report of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee, agenda item 19, Council Bill 120153, relating to land use and zoning, adding a new section 23.49.167 to the Seattle Municipal Code to provide alternative development standards for small lots located in downtown mixed residential zones.

The committee recommends the bill pass.

Thank you so much.

Council Member Strauss, you are the chair of the committee and I'm gonna hand it over to you to provide the committee report.

Once again, there is one known amendment to this underlying council bill, but we'll address the base bill first and then move to the amendment.

Thank you, Council President.

This legislation modifies development standards for small lots in Belltown to encourage development and to allow for the use of innovative construction methods like modular and panelized construction.

For years, small one and two parcel lots in Belltown have been identified as being infeasible to develop due to the size constraints of these sites and the development standards for the neighborhood.

This legislation does not increase the development capacity of the sites, but shifts setbacks and massing requirements to allow building shapes that enable modular construction, where units essentially must be stacked from above after being built offsite.

Modular construction is more sustainable and costs less to build, owning to the offsite fabrication of these units.

I support Council Member Lewis's amendment, and I urge colleagues for a yay vote.

Thank you, Council President, that is the committee report.

Thank you so much.

Okay, I'm gonna hand it over to Council Member Lewis to make his motion to put Amendment 1 before us.

And then after he makes his motion, I will ask for a second.

Council Member Lewis.

Thank you, Madam President.

I move Amendment 1 to Council Bill 120153. Second.

Okay, it's been seconded.

Thanks so much.

It's been moved and seconded to amend Council Bill 120153 as presented on Amendment 1. Council Member Lewis, I know you already spoke to this during Council briefing, but why don't you go ahead and walk us through Amendment 1 again.

Thank you, Madam President.

No need to go too deeply into this, given my comments this morning, though I will just thank again the community members who brought this amendment forward and had it further refined by our partners over at the Department of Planning, as well as the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections, and Noah Ahn in the Straus office, who was helpful in assisting Parker Dawson in my office in cobbling this amendment together over the course of the last few days.

The amendment, as I mentioned earlier, is designed to put in some accommodation and recognition of some of the existing development and setback standards in the Belltown neighborhood.

It would revise the current bill to limit building width to 95 feet rather than 100 feet.

It would also require setbacks to make sure that there's suitable space for light and pedestrian traffic in between some of the structures that would be built under this incentive legislation.

As I mentioned, This morning, it does have the support of the departments as well as Council Member Strauss, as he just indicated.

So I appreciate this as a testament to the value of people calling in for public comment and sending us emails.

It does lead to material differences in legislation at times.

So thank you so much, and looking forward to just move on this amendment and proceed to the underlying bill.

Thank you so much, Council Member Lewis.

Are there any additional comments on Amendment 1?

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 1. Strauss.

Yes.

Herbold.

Yes.

Lewis.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

Peterson.

Aye.

So what?

Yes.

President Gonzalez?

Yes.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

Are there any further comments on the bill as amended?

Council Member Strauss is already letting me know that he does not have any closing remarks.

So with that being said, debate is now closed on the bill as amended.

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

Strauss.

Yes.

Herbold.

Yes.

Lewis.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

Peterson.

Aye.

Sawant.

Yes.

President Gonzalez.

Yes.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

Will the clerk please read item 11 into the record?

The report of the sustainability, excuse me, and renters rights committee agenda item 11, council 119585 relating to residential rental properties requiring a minimum of 180 days prior written notice to tenants whenever the housing costs to be charged a tenant are to increase and amending sections 7.24.030, 22.202.080 and 22.206.180 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

The committee recommends the bill pass as amended with Council Members Sawant, Morales, Juarez, and Lewis in favor and with an abstention from Council Member Peterson.

Thank you so much.

Council Member Sawant, before we go through the steps of discussing the bill, would you also like to have agenda item 12 read into the record for purposes of discussion, or are you fine handling each bill separately?

We'll take a vote separately on both of them, but just for purposes of the conversation.

Either way is fine with me.

I think separately will also work.

Okay.

Well, we'll go ahead and do it separately.

And if it starts looking like people want to comment on item 12 as well, then we'll go ahead and take a pause and have that read into the record at that time.

Okay, I'm gonna hand it over to Council Member Sawant, who is the chair of the committee, in order to provide the committee's report.

Thank you, and I would like to make a few comments before moving the amendments, if that's okay.

This legislation, sorry, I'm sorry, I'm speaking about item number 12.

See what I mean?

We're already headed down that path.

Go ahead.

I know.

This legislation is the first of two bills from my office addressing the crisis renters face from rising rents.

As I've reported in the Sustainability and Rental Debt Committee and also in successive Monday morning briefings of the City Council, the data from apartmentlist.com, a landlord website, shows that rents in Seattle have increased over 25% in 2021 alone.

I mean, this is just a staggering rate of increase.

If this trend were to continue, rents will have increased by 40% by the end of this year.

Imagine getting a 40% increase in your wages.

I mean, that's just unheard of.

So undoubtedly, this is an unmanageable situation for renters.

And also, it's a clear exposition of why we need rent control.

And as members of the public and as the CAATSA members know, my office has drafted rent control legislation, which we hope to bring to a vote in December but in the meantime we do need legislation to mitigate the harm that is going to be experienced by renters because of the skyrocketing rents.

And that's what today's both both the bills today are intended to do.

This bill in front of us right now requires landlord to provide six months notice for rent increases.

Currently in Seattle, only two months notice is required, which is not nearly enough notice for renters to rearrange their lives when they're displaced by rent increase, particularly given how difficult it's going to be for them to find another rental home, just given how unaffordable most housing has become across the city and this is also a national phenomenon.

And also, as I've mentioned before, this bill was originally requested by the city of Seattle renters commission.

Increasing the notice landlords are required to give renters for rent increases cannot stop the rent increase, but it does give renters the time they will need to find new housing and rearrange their lives if and when a rent increase forces them to move.

the sustainability and renters rights committee recommends the city council pass this bill as Amelia mentioned with four votes in favor none opposed and one abstention.

I just wanted to read and extract from a letter that was sent to the city council by a social worker Heather Steiner who also spoke in public comment a little while ago who works in the Washington state department of social and health services who says quote I've had to move slash relocate eight times in 10 years because my landlords kept raising my rent every year by 5 to 10 percent.

I work in social services for DSHS with disabled people and I do not get income raises at anywhere near this level.

I cannot absorb thousands of dollars in rent increases every year so I keep being forced to move every 12 months and it is getting so hard on me, my pets and my work patients who operate out of my home office.

These people are very disabled and any change to their schedule and structure is very hard on them and I am drowning here.

My work is very important to me, but if I cannot find a way to keep my head above water financially, I will be forced to abandon all my disabled patients and find a higher paying job.

So I really urge the city council to vote yes in favor of this bill because it's clear that it will make a real tangible difference in the lives of renters.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Council Member San Juan.

Are there any other comments on the bill?

Council Member Peterson, please.

Thank you, Council President.

Colleagues, on this bill, during the committee meeting, I proposed an amendment to exempt small landlords defined as owning four or fewer units in Seattle, and the amendment failed by a narrow vote, and so I abstained that committee to give myself more time to think about what to do today.

I do appreciate the intent of this bill and support helping struggling renters A theme of our response to the COVID pandemic has been to boost rental assistance for those in need.

We've also adopted several renters' rights bills during the past two years, including the winter ban on evictions.

I've heard from many small landlords, though, that the influx of multiple changes to the landlord-renter regulations has created confusion and discourages them from continuing to provide rental housing in Seattle.

Currently, we provide 60 days notice, and so this bill would triple that time period One approach would have been to perhaps double that to 120 days and then see how well that worked before tripling it.

Regardless, I support expanding the notice period for larger corporate landlords, but my amendment again would have exempted small landlords owning four or fewer units.

And since that committee meeting, nothing substantive has changed in the bill.

In fact, I've heard from multiple mom and pop landlords with concerns.

I will be voting no on this bill, mainly because it does not exempt small landlords.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Next up is Council Member Morales.

Thank you, Council President.

I am supporting this bill as I did in committee.

In my opinion, this bill merely asks a landlord to give a few more months notice for rent increases.

It does not, because state law currently bans rent stabilization, this bill does not prevent a landlord from increasing the rent, nor does it restrict the amount of an increase.

And while this does mean that landlords have to wait a short amount of time before implementing an increase, the more important piece of this bill for me is that it means tenants have adequate time to find a new job, to find new housing, to deal with child care issues that may present as a result of this change, or to make any other number of adjustments that may be necessary so that they can pay for a rent increase or make the plans to move out and find something that's more affordable.

So, um, I think this is, uh, a relatively small ask, uh, from the landlords, but could have a really acute impact, uh, and meaningful impact for, um, for tenants.

So I will be supporting the legislation.

Thank you.

Council Member Morales, are there any other comments on the bill?

I'm not seeing any hands raised customers want anything you'd like to say in closing.

Just that, of course, there are advocates that I would like to publicly thank, but I'll save them for the second bill, because both the bills were advocated for together.

And only to add that small landlords are not the ones increasing rents by high rates, which is where it makes a difference how much notice you have.

So as far as both the bills today that we are considering are concerned, they simply don't affect the small landlords.

who are not actually looking to gouge their tenants.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Council Member Silva.

Okay, that does conclude debate on this bill.

So will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Strauss?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Mosqueda?

Aye.

Peterson?

No.

So what?

Yes.

President Gonzalez.

I seven in favor, one opposed.

Thank you so much.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?

Will the clerk please read the short title of item 12 into the record?

Agenda item 12, Council Bill 1201783, relating to relocation assistance for economically displaced tenants.

The committee recommends the bill pass as amended, with Council Members Sawant, Morales, Lewis, Peterson in favor, and with an abstention from Council Member Juarez.

Thank you so much.

Okay, I'm gonna hand it over to Council Member Sawant, who is the chair of the committee, to provide the committee report.

Thank you, President Gonzalez.

This is the second bill from my office in helping to address the crisis renters face with ballooning rents.

It would require landlords to provide relocation assistance when they end up displacing their tenants with outrageous rent increases, a process that has come to be known as economic evictions.

We know that Over the past decade, there has been massive displacement and gentrification of our neighborhoods, particularly driven by skyrocketing rents, forcing thousands from their homes, neighborhoods, and often the city.

And we also know the link between increasing rents and increasing homelessness, with every $100 increase in average rents proving to lead to an increase of 15% in homelessness.

And these are nationally recognized Studies, we've already seen the statistics of the rent increase in Seattle already being 25%.

And we're seeing the effects of Seattle Times reported recently that 60,000 Seattle area renters are behind on their rent.

And it's obviously showing the combined impact of the rents having increased so dramatically over so many years.

And on top of that, having the crisis of the pandemic and the economic collapse, all of that burden landing on renters.

And the studies show that 60,000 Seattle-area renters are behind on their rent, most of whom owe more than one month's back rent.

So this is a serious crisis in the making.

Imagine 60,000 more people facing the prospect of housing instability, including homelessness, when the eviction moratorium ends.

And then in the meanwhile, rents are still going to be going up unless rent control is established citywide and statewide.

And also, we should note that this kind of out-of-control rent and housing cost is not an act of God.

It's not something that inevitably happens.

It happens because of the way the for-profit market functions, and it is driven by macroeconomic factors.

It's primarily being driven by ballooning real estate speculation.

The cost of residential housing goes higher and higher because investors believe, and these are major billionaire Wall Street speculators who believe they will be able to sell it for even more in the future.

And then property owners end up charging ever higher rents to cover the artificially inflated mortgage.

And it becomes a vicious cycle as far as renters, especially the most marginalized communities, are concerned.

Overall, it leaves fewer and fewer affordable choices for working people in terms of housing in Seattle rents renters who are displaced by redevelopment are eligible for relocation assistance to the tenant relocation assistance ordinance, but renters who are forced to move.

by outrageous rent increases and you know where there's possibly no redevelopment happening or no renovation happening but the rent just went up so much that you were forced to move.

They also face the exact same burdens of displacement, the exact same costs of moving but they get no compensation and this bill if passed would make the renters eligible for relocation assistance when they're forced to move by a rent increase of 10% or more.

And it is similar to relocation assistance programs that already exist in other parts of the country.

In 2018, Portland, Oregon enacted an ordinance requiring landlords to pay relocation assistance to renters facing economic displacement by rent increases of 10% or higher, similar to the bill here.

Just very quickly, I wanted to explain the more technical aspects of the bill for members of the public who may not have had the chance to follow the discussions in the committee itself.

Under this bill, if you are a renter and your landlord raises the rent by 10% or anything higher than that, and you are forced to move because of that, you are eligible to get relocation assistance equal to three months of rent.

The landlord is responsible for paying that relocation assistance, but the payment goes to the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections to account for the power imbalance between landlords and renters.

Any renter who has tried to get back their security deposit from their landlord knows what I'm talking about, knows how impossible to deal with that power imbalance between landlord and renter can be.

If the landlord does not douse their renter and does not raise the rent astronomically, which is true for most small landlords, they do not have to pay relocation assistance.

Similarly, if a renter can afford to pay the rent increase and is not forced to move, then there is no question of, I mean, the question of relocation assistance does not arise regardless of the size of the rent increase.

But when both happen, that is when the landlord increases the rent by 10% or more and the tenant is forced to move as a result, that is when the landlord needs to pay relocation assistance equal to three months rent.

If roommates are displaced by rent increases, they're each eligible for relocation assistance based on their own fraction of the monthly rent.

So if there's a large rent increase that causes one roommate to move and the other can afford to stay, the renter who moves is eligible for relocation assistance proportionate to their share of the rent.

I really appreciate all the work of Asha Venkatraman from the city council center staff, as well as the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections, as well as the staff at the city attorney's office, all of whom did a lot of hard work over months, making sure that all the administrative details were clarified and refined to make sure this program is up and functioning if this ordinance were to pass by the council.

And yeah, as I mentioned, I have two amendments that are attached to today's agenda.

Whenever that's fine, I can move those.

Okay, I do think we should go through the amendment process first now that we have a sort of report on the base bill.

And so, so I think we should consider the amendment first and then we can hear comments.

I guess there's several, there's two amendments.

So I think we should go through the amendments and then we can have a conversation on the bill as amended if indeed it is amended.

Thank you.

I move to amend council bill 120173 as presented on amendment one on the agenda.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment 1. I'm going to hand it back over to Council Member Sawant to walk us through the contents of the amendment.

Thank you.

I expect that this will not be a controversial amendment.

It pushes back the effective date of the legislation to July 1st, 2022 in order to accommodate the time that the Department of Construction Inspection say they need to set up the infrastructure to administer the relocation assistance program.

As I mentioned, when introducing this agenda item, SCCI plays a significant role.

And it will be playing a significant role in administering this relocation assistance program to avoid the power imbalance between renters and landlords, especially corporate landlords.

Renters will apply to the SDCI for relocation assistance, and if they're approved, the SDCI pays the renter and collects those funds from the landlord.

This is similar to the role The department plays under the tenant relocation assistance ordinance, although the actual application process is different because it's a different program.

SDCI intends to set up an electronic system for renters to apply so that they can efficiently process applications.

And this is the time they will need to set up that system.

Obviously I would prefer renters to be protected as soon as possible, but it is necessary to have this infrastructure in place.

So I recommend that council members support this amendment.

And once again, my thanks to the department of construction inspections.

Thank you, Council Member Swann.

Are there any additional comments on Amendment 1?

I'm not seeing any other hands raised, so why don't we go ahead and have the clerk call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 1. Strauss?

Yeah.

Herbold?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Mosqueda?

Aye.

Peterson?

Aye.

So want.

Yes.

President Gonzalez.

All right.

Eight in favor.

None opposed.

Thank you so much.

The motion carries and the amendment is adopted and I'm going to hand it back over to council members.

So want to make her motion on amendment two.

Thank you.

I moved to amend council bill one two zero one seven three as presented on amendment two on the agenda.

Is there a second?

I will second it.

It's been moved and seconded to amend.

The bill is presented on Amendment 2. I'm going to hand it back over to you.

Consumers want to walk us through the amendment.

Thank you, President Gonzalez.

This amendment essentially reverses, if passed, would reverse an amendment that was passed in the Sustainability and Renters' Rights Committee last Tuesday.

That was an amendment from Council Member Peterson to require means testing for renters to get relocation assistance under this bill.

The legislation in its current form, as a result of that amendment, would require renters displaced by rent increase to attest that they are low income making no more than 80% of area median income to be eligible for location assistance.

In committee I oppose that amendment primarily because any means testing as we know from many established statistical studies creates a barrier for the most vulnerable people to apply for the assistance they need, and that's primarily the target community that needs this assistance.

And additionally, there's also no benefit to limiting this legislation by income, because just like in many other renters' rights that the council has passed this year, there is a means test built into the life circumstances of being displaced by a rent increase, because it's going to be working people and low-income people and people who are financially vulnerable who are going to be facing the displacement problem.

This amendment would remove the means test returning the legislation to its original form and it also adds whereas clauses explaining that means tests create a barrier for the most vulnerable people.

Council members hopefully have also reviewed the analysis from the city attorney's office that Asha Venkatraman from staff forwarded to all council offices last week.

It should make all council members confident that there is no legal concern in passing this amendment.

There are many reasons why means testing creates a barrier for most vulnerable people to access the rights they need.

People find it humiliating or are overwhelmed by the bureaucracy involved or assume they would not qualify when they actually do or just find it daunting to fill out the paperwork but So all of this can happen, and these are not idle speculation.

This is what social surveys have found over decades.

And from food stamps to Seattle's utility discount program, the qualified people who access these means-tested programs are a fraction of those who are eligible for the program.

So it would be important to eliminate barriers in order to increase the barriers.

The fact that someone has been forced to move by a large and rent increase should be enough evidence that they need relocation assistance.

And I would urge council members to vote yes on this amendment to simplify the application process for renters to remove unnecessary means testing.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Council Member Sawant.

Are there any additional comments or questions on amendment two?

Council Member Lewis, please.

Thank you, Madam President.

I would just say I don't actually agree with the characterization of the memo distributed by law that it doesn't pose any legal issue.

I'm not in the habit of discussing our advice from law in public.

If there was an interest in having a executive session to discuss it in detail, I would support that.

But I think I'll just leave it at that.

I don't want to give any guidance to potential plaintiffs that want to destroy this important policy.

The other thing I would just add is, you know, going back to our discussion about the right to counsel legislation and the amendment that was proposed at that time, I believe by Council President Gonzalez, there's a difference between a self-attestation and a means test.

It is not clear to me that the amendment as passed in committee would require a burdensome process of submitting paperwork and being approved and everything else.

It would merely require a tenant to attest that their means are within the AMI requirement that is set, which is different than that attestation being tested by some kind of large bureaucratic system or some kind of overburden, some paperwork requirement.

So for those reasons, I'm going to maintain the position that I had in committee on this and vote against this amendment.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

Are there any additional comments on Amendment 2?

Council Member Peterson, please.

Thank you, Council President.

So yes, I supported this bill at committee when it was after it was amended to have it tailored to those earning 80% of AMI or less.

I think that's an important policy to have in place for bills like this.

I think that we I think the way the bill stands right now, it has that in it.

And I think we would have to put on the record some rational basis for why we'd be extending it to higher income households at this point.

And I think it would be helpful if we kept it the way it is and analyze it after we put it in place.

It is a big change from what the existing law is.

And I think having it tailored to lower income households be helpful for it to be sustainable.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Peterson, appreciate it.

Councilmember Herbold, please.

Thank you.

I actually have much to add.

Councilmember Peterson made the point I intended to make.

The recitals speak to the needs of tenants least able to afford housing and the fees that come with displacement.

And it speaks specifically to vacancies in affordable rental housing and that there aren't very many.

And of course, higher income renters would not be eligible for that housing.

If we wanted to extend this to higher income renters, I think we would need to articulate the reasons for doing so.

Thank you.

Any additional comments on Amendment 2?

Okay.

I don't see any other hands raised, so Council Member Sawant, anything else to add before we call the roll?

No.

OK, thanks so much.

OK, well, that does close out debate on Amendment 2. So will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 2?

Strauss?

No.

Herbold?

No.

Lewis?

No.

Morales?

Yes.

Mosqueda?

No.

Peterson?

No.

Sawant?

Yes.

President Gonzalez?

Yes.

Three in favor, five opposed.

The motion fails and the amendment is not adopted.

Are there any further comments on the bill as amended?

Council Member Herbold, please.

And as usual, Council Member Sawant, you will have the last word.

I just want to express my support for this bill.

Tenant advocates have long sought for a way to ensure that landlords don't use their unfettered right to raise the rent to avoid the requirements of the city's tenant relocation assistance ordinance.

As drafted and as permitted under state law, the tenant relocation assistance ordinance gives rights and financial assistance that are reserved for tenants displaced by renovation, demolition, demolition and change of use.

But we know that that's not the only reason why tenants are displaced from their housing.

They're also displaced either as a way to circumvent the tenant relocation assistance ordinance or just for purely the reason of giving a large rent increase.

Back in 2014, Council Members O'Brien and Licata tried to address this very issue with legislation that prohibited rent increases for the purpose of avoiding the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance.

Um, the law required that landlords that increase the rent by 20% or more when that results in a tenant vacating the unit within 90 days.

Um, if that landlord that applies for a permit to substantially rehabilitate the unit within six months, the owner could have their building permit denied.

until the owner went back and paid the penalties.

And this was a very roundabout way of addressing this very troubling issue.

This approach is much more straightforward.

And as mentioned, it also addresses the issue of large rent increases that are not necessarily intended to circumvent TRIO, but still have the unfortunate result of displacing renters.

So really appreciate Um, the work that's been that's been done, um, by council members want and her office as well as, um, many, many years of an ad advocacy about this issue.

Thank you so much, Councilmember Herbold.

Are there any additional comments on the bill?

I'm not seeing any other hands raised.

Eso Council members want.

Please close this out, and then we'll take a vote.

Thank you President Gonzalez and thank you Council Member Herbold for your comments and I certainly agree that both Council Members Licata and O'Brien were also, were when they were on the council strong advocates for these ideas and I appreciate their work.

I just wanted to share one thing.

When we hear from, and we often as a council hear from corporate landlords, and I'm not saying that in an idle manner, I'm actually referring to corporate landlords, not small landlords.

It is important for us to compare their claims to what working class mentors experience.

Today, or maybe earlier, I can't remember exactly, but I think We all as Council members received an email from a corporate property management company called Thrive Communities in opposition to these mentors rights, both this one and all future ones.

And they are, I believe, among the top 10 evicting landlords in the city.

And Thrive is a corporation that they report that they own or manage 6,000 rental housing units in Seattle.

And coincidentally, Bia Lacombe, who is a community organizer working in my office and is a renter herself, used to rent from Thrive.

And she actually wrote up her experience, and I thought it would be useful to read it.

I mean, this is what a lot of our She says, quote, renting from Thrive Communities on Capitol Hill was nightmarish.

The building was in complete disrepair, and getting a hold of anyone from Thrive who managed my building was consistently difficult.

There was garbage everywhere inside and outside of the building.

The washers and dryers were regularly out of order, and the external building doors were also often broken and unlocked.

There were constant issues with the entire building's hot water, and water pressure, and it was never repaired despite many residents submitting maintenance requests over the course of months.

Maintenance requests would often go completely ignored.

This is a building where the smallest studio apartment of 285 square feet is renting for $1,300 a month.

I was overcharged nearly every month and had to chase down a manager who could fix the charges.

And if I hadn't noticed it, they would have continued to overcharge me as I'm sure they did with many other tenants.

When I was trying to move out, I couldn't get a response to any phone calls or emails for over a month.

And because they had moved offices and not announced it to any residents, I could not find anyone to speak to in person about moving out.

The new office was not listed online and I had to drive around to various locations to finally locate someone who managed my building.

I was overcharged by hundreds of dollars for my final month's rent and I still have not received my security deposit back even though I moved out over two months ago.

I can't get a response from anyone at Thrive to correct my incorrect rent charge, but they continue to hound me with emails saying, I have a balance due, end quote.

This is, I thought this was a powerful and sort of, you know, it has the details of what renters face.

This is the power imbalance between renters and big businesses that control the rental housing market.

This is not about small landlords.

And so, yeah, I do believe that this bill is also as important as the bill that the city council just passed, and I appreciate that.

I thank all the hundreds of people who signed various petitions for renters' rights, including the rent control petition, the over 200 people, including union members from unions as diverse as the Book Workers Union, the Physicians Union, and the Carpenters Union.

and also many other unions, including leaders from PT17, from members from SEA, many of whom attended and spoke at the Rent Control Now rally despite the inclement weather.

I thank the City of Seattle Renters Commission for both these ordinances, because they reviewed and voted to endorse this ordinance.

They're doing a lot of excellent work.

I really appreciate Be Seattle, Real Change, Washington can activists Community Action Network activists like Gina Owens, who Gina Owens has actually appeared and spoken at our committee panels many times, members and leaders of UAW 4121 who have been strong advocates for renters rights members of the Seattle Education Association, and many other housing advocates.

including members of Socialist Alternative.

Again, I wanted to repeat my thanks to Arsha Venkatraman, the Department of Construction Inspections, and the City Attorney's Office, and everybody who has spoken in public comment today and before.

Finally, as I've said throughout this discussion, relocation assistance is a policy that is essential for renters in crisis.

Data from the Puget Sound Regional Council's transportation survey actually shows that in many Seattle neighborhoods, more than 35% of all moves are caused by displacement.

So this is a policy that would have far-reaching benefits.

And I appreciate all the community members who have pushed this this far, and I urge you to keep advocating for rent control.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Council Member Sawant.

Are there any additional comments on the bill?

All right, let's go ahead and take the roll.

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

Strauss.

Yes.

Herbold.

Yes.

Lewis.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

Peterson.

Yes.

So what?

Yes.

President Gonzalez?

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

Congratulations everyone who's been working really hard on this issue.

Okay.

Will the clerk please read the short title of item 13 into the record.

I reported the community economic development committee agenda item 13, Council Bill 120162, establishing a new 15th Avenue East business improvement area.

The committee recommends the bill passes amended.

Thank you so much.

Okay, I'm gonna hand this over to Council Member Morales, who is the chair of the committee to provide the report.

Thank you, Council President.

Colleagues, this is a bill to create the 15th Avenue BIA.

We discussed this in the Community Economic Development Committee on September 8th.

We heard from proponents of the BIA and also held a public hearing on the 8th.

So as you know, the way this works, local businesses vote to assess themselves, to provide cleanup services, graffiti removal, to be able to host neighborhood events and marketing, provide marketing services to the local businesses.

I will say we did have some concern.

We heard from some commercial tenants about their concern.

As you know, it is the property owners who get to vote on whether or not to assess themselves.

The small businesses who may rent from these owners don't get to participate in that vote.

So we hear from some of them that they were concerned about the impact on them, assuming that this may pass down in the form of higher rents.

So I did amend the legislation in committee to ensure that at least two commercial tenants are on the board and that we include the option of using some of the assessment revenue to pay for small business assistance or other programs that can help keep small businesses from getting displaced.

I do want to thank Councilmember Peterson and his staff who had proposed similar legislation when the U-District BIA was passed several months ago.

So thanks for working with us to do something similar here.

And as Amelia said, we did pass this unanimously out of committee on September 21st, so I am encouraging my colleagues to support the bill.

Thank you so much.

Are there any additional comments on the bill?

I don't see any hands raised, so will look quick.

Please call the role on the adoption of the bill.

Strauss.

Yes.

Herbold.

Yes.

Lewis.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

Misketa.

Aye.

Peterson.

Aye.

Sawant.

Yes.

President Gonzales.

Aye.

Eight in favor none opposed.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

Will the clerk please read items 15 through 18 into the record.

Agenda items 15 through 18, appointments 2035 through 2038. Reappointments of Dia Kanna and Whitney Nakamura as members of Seattle Women's Commission for a term to July 1st, 2022. Reappointments of Min Pease and Jamila Williams as members of Seattle Women's Commission for a term to July 1st, 2023. The committee recommends these appointments be confirmed.

Thank you so much.

I'm going to hand it over to Council Member Morales to walk us through these appointments.

Thank you.

I'll just share a little bit about each of these candidates briefly.

Diakana is a diversity and inclusion manager who develops strategies to increase representation of underrepresented talent to create more equitable work environments.

Jenny Nakamura is a Family Services Manager at Tiny Trees.

She has an extensive background and deep commitment to supporting women and girls and is eager to continue growing in her involvement here on the Women's Commission.

Min Peace leads Echoing Green's Impact Investing Program.

Echoing Green is a 30-year-old nonprofit that supports startup entrepreneurs in seeking to make positive social and environmental change.

And Jamila Williams is the Digital Communication Specialist at Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest and Hawaii.

She served on the Outreach Committee at You Grow Girl and is on the Organizing Committee of Radical Ravens, as well as the Women of Color Advisory Group, the YWCA of Seattle, King County.

And the committee recommends that all of these candidates be reappointed.

Thank you so much, Council Member Morales.

Are there any additional comments on the appointments?

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the confirmation of appointments 2035 through 2038?

Strauss?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Mosqueda?

Aye.

Peterson?

Aye.

Sawant.

Yes.

President Gonzales.

Yes.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The motion carries and the appointments are confirmed.

Will the clerk please read item 20 into the record.

The report of the Finance and Housing Committee, agenda item 20, Council Bill 120178, amending ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 budget, changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, all from various funds in the budget, and lifting a proviso, all by three first vote of the city council.

The committee recommends the bill pass as amended.

Thank you so much.

I'm going to hand it over to Council Member Mosqueda, who is the chair of the committee to provide the report.

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, this is the legislation that I mentioned this morning that I am so excited about, Council Bill 120178. Item number 20 on our agenda is the legislation that follows up on the priorities that many in the community had worked on for years and the priorities that you, Council, had worked to prioritize in last year's budget and the budget cycle in 2019 as well.

This legislation lifts the proviso excuse me, on $30 million that we had set aside and put a proviso on for the strategic investment fund following through on the years long process and advocacy by community organizations that work to ensure that the city made good on its promise that when we sold the Mercer mega block that we maintain our commitment that $30 million would go to investments in communities historically experiencing displacement and having lack of access to high-opportunity neighborhoods.

As a reminder that this legislation was fully established in 2019, when in addition to allocating a portion of the Mercer Mega Sale to historic investments in housing, the City Council also passed a budget proviso to create community-driven strategic acquisition funds.

This included an advisory board to make recommendations on how to spend the money to support equitable development projects in communities experiencing high rates of displacement and low access to opportunity as defined by the community themselves.

Last year, we as a council worked to reinstate the $30 million fund when this funding was cut by the mayor's proposed 2021 budget.

In the 2021 final budget, we made sure that this funding was prioritized and the community celebrated.

It is exciting to celebrate again today to see this provides a lift and the legislation today move forward.

We will now be able to see the $30 million that had been requested by the community at a fair minimum get out the door to community-driven anti-displacement acquisitions supporting investments for the creation of housing, child care, small business, and community space.

We've heard time and time again from community advocates that it is very important, if not one of the most important things that we can do to displace, to combat displacement, is to make sure that we are taking land off the open market and to make sure that the city does everything it can when we have underutilized public property to hold it in our hands.

Since the sale of the Mercer Mega Block, we have changed our policies in the city to maintain public land in public hands and use it for promoting public good.

But this sale had already been in the works prior to my arrival on council and the community organizations that knew that this transaction was already in place demanded that the community organizations be able to at least get $30 million in addition to the investments in affordable housing to build assets that promote resiliency and support community vision.

So this piece of legislation and this property has been through a long process.

And I think we are in a much better position public policy wise to make sure that future properties like the Mercer Mega parcel remain in public hands.

And then today we're following through on that commitment and the vision of the community and the community advisory board and the hard work of OPCD, especially Julia and Uba.

who have presented to our committee meeting a handful of times and their intensive work that they did and their brave actions that they took to stand up to make sure that the project applications, the selection process was really in alignment with what the community had been calling for.

We know there are many, many worthy projects that have not been selected for this limited pool of fund.

We are very much interested in continuing to work with members of the public, council colleagues here, to continue to leverage additional dollars coming in through the door, such as through the jumpstart progressive revenue legislation that we passed last year to see which additional projects we can continue to move forward as we seek to fulfill the vision of those who had applied for these dollars in whole.

Colleagues, I wanna thank you for your consideration today.

I know many of you have been working on this for many years and to the community as well as the members that I mentioned at OPCD.

And I wanna thank Aaron House, who has been working on this for a number of years as well for Aaron's work on this legislation in front of us today and hope to have your support.

Thank you so much.

Colleagues, are there any additional comments on the bill?

Hearing none will a quick please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Straus.

Yes.

Herbold.

Yes.

Lewis.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

Mesqueda.

Aye.

Peterson.

Aye.

Swan.

Yes.

President Gonzalez.

Aye.

8 in favor.

None opposed.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?

Is there any further business to come before the council?

Hearing none, colleagues, this does conclude the items of business on today's agenda.

Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on October 4th, 2021 at two o'clock p.m.

I hope that you all have a wonderful evening.

We're adjourned, thanks so much.

you