Good afternoon, everyone.
My name is Marguerite and I am the chair of the board of directors of the Seattle City Council.
Again, today is October 29, 2020. The time is 2.04 p.m.
I want to thank you all for joining us again.
We had a one-hour recess for our lunch break.
Thank you very much colleagues and staff and teams for making this break and this remote meeting possible.
Before we continue with our discussion, could we please have
Council Member Gonzalez.
Here.
Council Member Herbold.
Here.
Council Member Juarez.
Here.
Council Member Lewis.
Present.
Council Member Morales.
Here.
Council Member Peterson.
Here.
Council Member Sawant.
Here.
And Chair Mosqueda.
Present.
Nine present.
Thank you very much, Madam Clerk.
Okay, colleagues, previously on our session one, we got through the first five items on the agenda all the way through the Office of Sustainability and Environment.
We are gonna now continue with items six, which is Seattle Parks and Recreation, and then item seven, SDCI.
I accidentally ordered those in reverse order in my comments prior to the break, so I wanna make sure folks know we are following the agenda as published.
Madam Clerk, do you mind reading in item, Roman numeral item number six and seven, just for the record, and we will start.
Roman numeral item six and seven, Seattle Parks and Recreation and Seattle Department of Constructions and Expections.
Excellent.
Okay.
Thank you very much, everybody.
Let's go on with SPR, Parks and Recreations, and I will turn it over to Tracy.
Good afternoon, Tracy.
Very good.
Council members, good afternoon.
Tracy Rathsliff, Council of Central Staff, hoping to slip in quickly and slip out quickly with five CBAs for Seattle Parks and Recreation, the first one being SPR-01A-01.
Council Morales sponsored this and as did council members who want and Strauss and Lewis.
This council budget action would add $150,000 to Seattle Parks and Rec to fund a feasibility study to assess the recreation and community gathering space needs for the Georgetown community, including the potential need for a community center.
Thank you very much Councilman Morales.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Tracy.
Colleagues, I am having terrible internet access today, so I'm going to keep my video off in hopes that I don't lose service again, connection again.
So this council budget action is for $150,000, as Tracy said, to fund a feasibility study for Georgetown.
Our Office of Planning and Community Development, through their Equitable Development Community Indicator Report, assessed Seattle communities based on the following indicators.
Proximity to community centers, access to public libraries, proximity to grocery stores, access to parks and open space, and air pollution exposure risk.
Georgetown has none of these things except for air pollution exposure risk and a couple of small parks.
So part of why we are doing this is because the community is really interested in access to a community center.
The report expresses the rationale of why it matters that communities have walkable access to community centers, stating that community centers provide low-cost fitness, recreation, and learning opportunities.
There are also places where residents can connect with each other.
And by tailoring programs to the demographics of surrounding residents and offering space that groups can reserve for gatherings, community centers, they can also help support ethnic communities.
These spaces can, for example, provide inexpensive venues for practicing and sharing forms of expression, such as dance, that are central to cultural identity.
Georgetown is one of the few areas in the city identified as a, through the Racial Equity Index area, as an area that ranks as lacking or limited on all of the indicators that I mentioned above.
In 2017, the Seattle Parks and Rec Park and Open Space Plan had several target goals, which included that every household in Seattle should be within one to two miles of a community center.
Despite this, the community center strategic plan did not include an assessment of Georgetown.
But there are various reports that have identified the need for open space and community space in Georgetown, including the Seattle Foundation's Georgetown Green Space Vision.
Finally, the parks and rec has outstanding commitments to add community centers throughout the city.
The list that we have includes Green Lake, Lake City, Mercer, South Lake Union area.
These projects are on a priority list to be possibly to be funded with future parks district funding.
In addition, Council has asked for feasibility studies for Aurora-Licton Springs community, which has been delayed due to COVID.
Notably, none of the neighborhoods on the list are in Georgetown or in the South End.
So I am asking on behalf of our Georgetown residents that we include the addition of Georgetown as a feasibility study priority and that we to be able to fund that feasibility study with the $150,000.
Councilmember Morales, thank you so much.
You came through nice and clear.
Sorry we don't have you on video today, but I'm happy to have you present that.
And there was no technical issues there.
Just want to make sure you knew that.
I did have a question about that last comment, and perhaps either the proposing council member or central staff can answer.
Can you elaborate a little bit more on the comment that was made about citywide up towards the North End and what the delay is citywide?
In terms of the, I wasn't sure about the feasibility study on Licton Springs.
I think it was just because of the pandemic, SPR couldn't get out and do that feasibility study for Licton Springs.
They're planning to do it, but they couldn't do the community engagement that they would have wanted to do because of the pandemic.
I see, so maybe the Council Member Morales, I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but the point is, other feasibility studies have already been advanced to various stages while they've been put on hold because of the pandemic.
Nothing similar was proposed for Georgetown in the past, so you're trying to sort of play catch up.
That's right.
Okay, got it.
Madam Chair, if I may.
Please, go ahead, Council Member Juarez.
Thank you.
Tracy, you might want to flesh this out a little bit more for Council Member Morales.
The reason why Green Lake and Lake City were designated, and particularly Lake City, is because after the six-year study from Parks, those two were set for demolition.
So being built in the 50s, that was basically where the capital went.
Then they did a study for Aurora, Licton Springs, which has nothing ever.
And so that's why they had the feasibility study that was put into the budget last year, which is now on hold.
So it isn't that there was any preference.
We would base it on the superintendent's six-year cycle and the study from when the voters passed the Metropolitan Park District in 2014. And they were specific in how we could spend that money and then looking forward.
So long story short, when we get into next spring and we can finally get back out there and look at the Metropolitan Park District and the money and start the cycle again, I'm hoping that we capture places that Council Member Morales just shared where we can start including those kind of parks, green spaces, a 10-minute walk shed, all of those things.
So I just wanna make sure that historically, statistically, financially, budget-wise, and what the voter approved that people understand that it wasn't just a matter of, oh, we're just gonna do these two community centers and we may do a feasibility study.
Those were based on the parks report And the fact that, as I shared, Green Lake and Lake City have been set for demo for almost five or six years.
So this has been a long time coming, that's why.
Is there anything you want to add to that, Tracy, except for the fact that we're going to try to start up our six-year cycle again and be able to capture the other needs that our other council members' districts are going to want to look at that?
Right.
I think that's absolutely correct.
And I do think that the 2016 Community Center Strategic Plan did identify Rebuild as the best options for Lake City and for Green Lake, which is what put them on the path to having more robust planning done.
for those two community centers to be rebuilds that would actually have to be funded in the next MPD or find other resources from the city to do that.
And then, of course, we also have the new community center that will be going into the former block, mega block parcel down in South Lake Union, and there are tenant improvements that are going to need to be made to that community center space.
So you got a few significant community centers that are going to be in line and going to be needing funding in the next NPD or through other city resources.
Tracy, can you do me a favor and maybe post and certainly share with Council Member Morales that study?
Because I want people to know that we didn't just pick and choose.
We literally went from the study and been working on this since 2015. So I just want to be, everyone to have the same information.
And so when we start this cycle again, we can start sitting down with, I can start sitting down with our colleagues and district representatives about particular neighborhoods and needs.
But right now, as you know, parks and MPD took multimillion dollar hits to backfill the general fund.
And I think parks is just a completely another discussion.
Thank you.
Yep.
Okay, thank you for that context.
Council Member Morales, please go ahead.
Yeah, I just want to respond to to council member waters, you know, I'm certainly not meaning to indicate or imply that there was, you know.
a random selection of what's happening.
I'm merely pointing out that the Georgetown neighborhood suffers from all of the indicators that OPCD has identified as problematic in terms of access to services and suffering from the air and noise pollution that that neighborhood, due to where it is situated, is coping with.
And something like a community center can help to offer the kind of services and the kind of access to recreation, indoor recreation in particular, that folks in the neighborhood are really asking for.
So I'm looking forward to talking again with you and with Tracy to make sure that we're moving in that direction.
Thank you.
Absolutely.
Thank you, Council Member Morales.
Okay, thank you so much.
So on this one, we have Council Member Morales as the prime.
Co-sponsors include Council Members Sawant, Strauss, and Lewis.
Thank you all.
Let's move on.
Moving on to item SPR 2A1, sponsored by Councilmember Lewis and co-sponsored by Councilmembers Morales and Peterson.
This council budget action would add $50,000 in REIT to the Seattle Parks and Recreation Neighborhood Response Program in the 2021-26 Capital Improvement Program budget.
This action would restore funding to this program that was reduced by $50,000 in the Mayor's 2021 proposed budget.
bringing total funding for this program to $250,000 in 2021. Great, Council Member Lewis, please.
Thank you very much, Tracy.
You know, this budget ad comes from really talking to community members who really value the service that the Neighborhood Response Program has been able to provide in allowing for quick minor infrastructure replacements, just being really responsive to people that are organized in the community and are using our parks and are able to identify things that can enhance, you know, our our park system and the experience.
I realize that there's still a considerable amount of money that's left in this even with the $50,000 cut.
I wanted to bring this forward to make sure that as we're going forward, you know, this, this, these critical, uh, sort of basic, um, uh, government programs that, you know, similar to, um, uh, your voice, your choice and other, um, things that I've been, um, raising throughout the process are still sustained and that there is continuity.
And I kind of put this in the same category and, and just think it's a good, um, uh, service that the city provides and would like to see it maintained.
Are there additional comments on this one?
Okay, thank you so much.
We did have a quick discussion on this last week too, so appreciate the clarification there.
Prime sponsors Council Member Lewis and co-sponsors include Morales and Peterson.
Wonderful, thank you very much.
Let's move on to the next one.
This would be SPR 3A1 and this one is also a primary sponsor is Council Member Lewis.
with Council Members Juarez and Strauss as co-sponsors.
So this statement of legislative intent would request the Seattle Parks and Recreation to assist with the assistance of the Department of Neighborhoods to conduct a feasibility study looking at strategies for activating the East Queen Anne Green Belt.
The East Queen Anne Green Belt offers trail access, benches, and great views of Cascades and Lake However, the presence of garbage being dumped in the area and other issues in the Greenbelt has raised safety concerns by the community and has caused a slippage in the use and enjoyment of this area by the city residents.
So this feasibility study would look at strategies for overcoming these safety concerns.
The council would request that SPR provide a report to the council on the results of this study by June 30th, 2021. Thank you, Council Member Lewis.
Thank you, Tracy.
So the East Queen Anne Greenbelt is a really unique part of our outdoor space.
It leads into McLean Park, which is actually officially a city park.
you wouldn't really be able to see sort of where the dividing line officially is.
But in practice, it sort of works like a fairly large park system that could rival on the other side of Queen Anne, Kinnear Park, which is sort of a similar environment that's fully developed and updated for recreational use.
And even for bike and pedestrian connections of interbay to the Uptown neighborhood and Queen Anne.
I think that a similar project could be undertaken with the East Queen Anne Greenbelt to provide those kinds of recreational opportunities to the neighborhood over on that side of Queen Anne and to potentially even connect various disparate parts of that neighborhood with trail networks and other sorts of recreational opportunities.
As I've said before, while it is accessible, it is not really maintained, nor is there sort of a broader vision or purpose for that space, even though it is owned by partially by parks and then some of it owned by other city departments.
that is already in public ownership but currently being underutilized.
Wonderful.
I don't see any additional questions.
I saw an additional hand.
So Council Member Lewis, joined by Council Member Strauss, Juarez, and Peterson.
Let's keep going.
Beautiful.
Moving on to SPR 4A1.
Again, primary sponsor being Councilmember Lewis and Councilmembers Strauss and Gonzalez as co-sponsors.
So this statement of legislative intent would request parks in collaboration with SDOT to study the feasibility, cost, and process involved in the potential development of a park.
on SDOT-owned property located at the southwest corner of Mercer Street and Dexter Avenue North intersection.
The property is currently SDOT right-of-way that was created as part of the Aurora Tunnel construction project.
Council requests that SPR provide a report to the council on the results of the study by September 1, 2021. Thank you, Council Member Lewis.
So this is a parcel of property that I'm aware of just from walking around the district and have been for the last couple of years.
Initially, when I brought this forward, I had been a little bit more prescriptive and floated the idea of a dog park.
That's partly informed by the fact that whenever I kind of walk by this parcel, it is being used by residents as a sort of unsanctioned dog run already.
But that conceded, you know, I'm not really that prescriptive about what particular use parks would want to make of it as a park, but it is clear that people are using it for recreational and outdoor purposes.
I think it's a unique opportunity to take advantage of this parcel that, as Tracy just said, was created from the highway or the tunnel 99 tunnel project.
This used to be a concrete hole in the ground back in the day when, before we had the Mercer realignment and everything else that went in with that and was, I don't remember the road that used to be there, but I'm sure it, well I mean it was definitely vacated because now it's the screen space.
So the land currently from work that Catherine Sims in my office did before she went off to law school and kind of working on this project when we were actually still meeting in person.
So it's been a while that my office has been developing it, found that it is currently owned by SDOT.
So the parcel is in city ownership.
And I think this would be a good first step to look at the feasibility of whether this would be an appropriate parcel for developing a park and transferring it from SDOT to parks as the general fund gets a little bit more flush in the future.
And hopefully in time for us to visit this sly in the next budget cycle and maybe follow up on whatever Scott and parts are able to determine and report back to us.
Wonderful.
Thank you very much.
Are there any questions?
Okay.
Thank you for the explanation on the amended approach here.
I see council member Morales and Lewis.
I'm sorry.
Council Member Solant, Peterson, Strauss, and Gonzalez are added on as co-sponsors on this one, Council Member Lewis.
All right.
Wrapping it up here, the last one for Parks 5A1.
primary sponsor, Council Member Sawant, co-sponsored by Council Member Morales and Lewis.
This statement of legislative intent would request Seattle Parks and Rec to work with the Snoqualmie Indian Tribe to design and place signage at Licton Springs.
That would include information on the cultural and historical significance of the springs.
The council requests SPR to complete this work no later than May 31st, 2021. Thank you, Council Member Sawant.
Thank you.
And thanks to consumers Morales Lewis and warriors for sponsoring this budget amendment.
This statement of legislative intent amendment requires a request parks to work with this will call me try to design historical signage in Lincoln Springs.
Indigenous activists in Seattle have been organizing for several years to really amplify the history of Licton Springs.
In this past year, they appealed to the Landmarks Preservation Board and successfully landmarked the springs, which I believe is the first time the Landmarks Preservation Board has protected something other than a building.
Almost 3,000 people signed a petition circulated by the UNEA, which is the Urban Native Education Alliance, supporting that landmarking, explaining that, quote, since time immemorial, Licton Springs has been a recognized sacred site and a natural curator resource for the Duwamish and other Coast Salish tribes of the Puget Sound region.
For countless generations, Coast Salish people have gathered at Licton Springs to harvest the sacred red ochre medicine used for traditional healing, ceremony, spiritual renewal, and celebrations.
Licton Springs is one of the last remaining cultural and holy places of the Duwamish and other Coast Salish people.
Community activists are requesting that the Parks Department install historical signage uplifting this history.
The activists who organize landmarking have been in touch with the park staff and report that the workers in the parks department have been very supportive and helpful.
However, because this is an issue that indigenous activists have been demanding for several years, my office and the community organizers want to ensure that The mayor's office follows through on completing this project and it does not become a casualty of mayor's budget cuts to the parks department.
So this statement requests parks to continue working with those indigenous activists to complete the design and installation of this historical and cultural signage in Licton Springs.
Thank you, Council Member Sawant.
I am seeing a handful of names.
Councilmember Swann was already joined by Councilmember Morales, Lewis, and Juarez, and all adding their name as well.
Councilmember Strauss, Council President Gonzalez, and Councilmember Monson.
We've got those five extra added.
Thank you very much.
Yep.
Thanks, Councilmember Swann.
Tracy, thank you.
Does that wrap us up with parks and recreation?
Yeah.
All right.
On you go.
Here we go.
Okay.
I believe we are on to our final category.
Ketel, we're ready to walk through SDCI.
Yes.
Hello.
So Ketel Freeman, Council Central staff, I'll walk through these.
11 council budget actions and slides related to the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections proposed budget for 2021. Starting out here on agenda item number 30. This is STCI 1A1.
This would add approximately $99,000 and one FTE housing and zoning technician to SDCI to the property owner and tenant assistance group for tenant outreach.
This would restore funding and position authority for a position that the council added last year, but which was never filled.
That position is repurposed to the mayor's proposed budget for an elevator inspector.
Council Member Strauss is the primary sponsor of this potential amendment.
and Council Member Juarez and Gonzalez are co-sponsors.
Thank you very much.
Council Member Strauss, please go ahead.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Ketel, and thank you, Council President Gonzalez and Council Member Juarez for co-sponsoring.
As Ketel mentioned, in previous years, the council has included funding and authority for SDCI to hire additional staff member for the property owner and tenant assistance group, which administers tenant protections and resolves requests for tenant services.
This program benefits both landlords and tenants.
This position was never hired, and in the 2020 budget, it was redirected to be an elevator inspector position in the department, and that inspector position is also necessary.
That's why I'm proposing to add new funding and re-establish this position authority.
The property owner and tenant assistance group needs additional staffing to resolve complaints and requests.
Their turnaround times are now up to 68 days, which is a difference from years past.
And with the economic fallout of COVID-19 continuing and eviction moratoriums eventually lifting in the future, I expect this workload to go up, not down.
And I believe we should be proactively providing the resources to handle this increase of cases.
And so that is why I am bringing this forward.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.
Are there additional comments or questions?
Okay, I see Councilmember Lewis adding the names to your co-sponsors, which included Juarez and Gonzalez.
Thank you very much, colleagues.
Question?
Yes, I'm so sorry, Councilmember Herbold.
So, he's looking for the virtual hands now.
I didn't see the real hand.
Go for it, please.
I just want to confirm that I heard Council Member Strauss correctly.
He said, Council Member Strauss, did you say that the funding was not used for the purpose of an attendant outreach staffer, but instead was used for an elevator inspector?
And Quito, correct me if I'm wrong, but that is my understanding.
That's correct.
And I think that what that reflects is a couple of things.
One is a hiring freeze associated with downturn in general fund revenue this year.
And also, when this is true, probably across departments is true for a couple of positions at STCI, repurposing position authority to keep people employed with fee funded positions as opposed to general fund funded positions.
So a hiring freeze for the council's priorities, but not for the executives.
I would like to add my name to this, please.
Thank you.
Thank you, Council Member Hurdle.
We will add your name to this.
Perfect.
Thank you.
Very helpful clarification and very frustrating.
Let's go on to the next one.
Moving on here to agenda item number 31. This would add two positions, one FTE Arborist and another FTE Housing and Zoning Inspector to SDCI and an appropriation of about $275,000 to fund those positions to improve enforcement of current tree regulations.
This is sponsored by Council Member Strauss with co-sponsors and Council Member Morales and Council Member Peterson.
Thank you, Council Member Strauss.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Ketel.
Thank you, Councilmembers Peterson and Morales for co-sponsoring it.
This proposal would add funding to expand enforcement of tree regulations by hiring two additional members of this team that conducts enforcement.
I think all of our offices have experienced getting calls from residents who are panicked about a tree being taken down in their neighborhood without much notice.
Too often, we cannot do enough for them.
Part of that is because we urgently need to pass a new tree protection ordinance, which I'm committed to doing.
But in the interim, before we pass that new ordinance, we can also address the current weaknesses in our enforcement practices.
I have heard too many examples of tree enforcement staff getting to a location a minute too late and finding a stump where the tree once was.
Um, and in 2018 tree enforcement actions were being resolved in 51 days on average in 2019, that rose to 169 days.
And this year it's been 147 days and that's not due to any city staff, not doing their job or not doing it well enough.
It is the fact that we are at a time that we just need more attention paid, uh, and more resources to be able to enforce the tree regulations that we already have on the books.
our enforcement staff need to be equipped to protect trees and prevent illegal removals, rather than just enforcing rules and imposing fines after precious trees are already gone.
By adding additional staff tree enforcement teams, we'll be able to more quickly deploy and reach more sites across the city to prevent tree removals before they happen.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Ketel.
Thank you, Council Member Strauss.
Are there any additional questions?
Seeing none, we do have council members already signing up to support this.
So council members Morales and Peterson joined by council members Solant and Lewis.
Great, let's move on.
All right, moving on here to agenda item number 32. This is STCI 3A1.
This is a statement of legislative intent.
It would require quarterly reporting by STCI on permanent turnaround times.
That would include total review days at STCI, as well as time to an initial plan review.
A baseline report would be required in mid-January.
Council Member Strauss is the primary sponsor of this potential amendment, and Council Members Peterson, Juarez, and Gonzalez are co-sponsors.
Council Member Strauss.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Kito.
As colleagues, as you may see, I have my prime sponsorships within the committee in which I chair.
That's where my focus has been, and I appreciate all of our colleagues' work in their committees as well.
Thank you specifically to Council President Gonzalez, Council Members Peterson and Juarez for your co-sponsorship of this statement of legislative intent, which will require SDCI to report in January and quarterly thereafter on permit review times and progress towards meeting review turnaround goals.
The report should include process times for simple construction permits, complex construction permits, and master use permits.
STCI has been managing a large backlog of permit applications for several years, and it is common for it to take around 24 months or two years for a permit decision to be made.
These long review times do not create just a challenging level of unpredictability for applicants.
It also reduces our ability to bring the housing we need online in an efficient manner.
SDCI has taken several great steps in recent years to address the backlog, including increasing permit fees and changing staff practices, which has better enabled them to turn around permits quickly.
And these reports will just help council better understand what additional barriers remain to shortening review time so that we can address any complications or barriers in real time.
and to identify how council may be able to help in this jurisdiction.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Ketel.
Thank you.
Are there any additional questions or comments?
So the idea is not a complex report on policy recommendations.
You're looking for point in time information to better inform future policy decisions.
That's correct, chair point in time, Paul, information to help us craft policy.
And if barriers appear along the way or are discovered through this process, it enables us to take action in real time.
Thank you very much.
OK, joining council members Peterson and Gonzalez in the co-sponsorship is council member Peterson.
I'm sorry, council member Lewis.
Getting to the end of the day, guys, I'm sorry.
Council Member Lewis and Council Member Morales.
Thank you.
Okay, moving on here to agenda item number 33. This is SDCI 4A1.
Again, sponsored by Council Member Strauss and co-sponsored by Council Members Juarez and Gonzalez.
This would add half a million dollars in general fund to SDCI for tenant outreach, education, and other services.
There's about $615,000 in the mayor's proposed budget for these services.
Last year, STCI competed about $915,000 for tenant services.
There were some one-time additions made by the council that are not reflected in the mayor's proposed 2021 budget.
I'll just note that this is pretty similar to agenda item number 37. Council, of course, could consider them to be distinct and or additive to each other.
Thank you.
Council Member Strauss, please go ahead.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Ketel.
Thank you, Council President Gonzalez and Juarez for co-sponsoring this proposal would increase, as Ketel said, increase funding for SDCI for tenant outreach and education contracts by $500,000, an 81% increase over the proposed budget.
This request recognizes the importance of this work and the increase in need for these services that will likely result from the economic impacts of COVID-19 and the eventual end of the state-level residential eviction moratorium.
This year, these grants have been provided to organizations to assist tenants being able to stay in their place, and these funds are used to provide services including eviction defense, case management, tenant counseling, and education.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Kito.
Thank you very much, Council Member Strauss.
Are there any questions, comments?
Council Member Sawant, please go ahead.
Thank you.
As Keetil noted, this budget amendment is effectively the same as amendment 37 on today's agenda from my office.
To keep things simple, I've already indicated that I co-sponsored this budget amendment and would urge Council Member Strauss to also co-sponsor number 37 so that we can simply combine them.
And in reality, it would have been far simpler if Council Member Strauss had just co-sponsored the budget amendment that my office sent to him weeks ago rather than submitting a duplicate of it, but it doesn't matter.
The important thing is that these tenants rights organizations are funded.
So I will co-sponsor here and urge council members to do the same on item number 37, and effectively urging all council members to supporting both.
And I will hold my other points about why this funding is so important when we come to number 37. Thank you.
Thank you.
Very good.
I see Council Members Juarez, Gonzalez, joined by Council Members Sawant, Morales, and Herbold.
Excellent.
Thank you so much.
Let's go on.
Okay.
Agenda item number 34 is SDCI 5A1, sponsored by Council Member Sawant with co-sponsors of Council Member Morales and Council Member Gonzalez.
This is a statement of legislative intent, which requests report by SDCI on the mechanics and cost of setting up a transferable rental histories system.
It would require reporting to the Sustainability and Renters' Rights Committee.
Thank you.
Council Member Sawant, please go ahead.
Thank you.
And thank you to Council Member Morales and Council President Gonzalez for co-sponsoring this.
And also Council Member Juarez has indicated that she would like to co-sponsor, so I appreciate all that.
The statement of legislative intent requests that the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection design an administrative structure and estimate associated costs for the city to maintain transferable rental history background check reports.
The intention is to do the administrative planning that will allow the sustainability and renters rights committee post budget season to draft and pass an ordinance creating a structure to allow the rental history of histories of tenants to be transferable from one landlord to the next.
which will allow prospective tenants who have paid for a background check already to reuse the results of each house or apartment they apply to.
And it will also allow the city to set policy for what is and what is not acceptable content or a background check.
For example, I think renters should be able to remove an attempted unjust evictions that were not upheld by the courts from their rental histories.
But right now there is no technically feasible way to prevent that information from being sent to prospective landlords.
There are real administrative challenges to maintaining transferable rental histories, IT challenges, privacy concerns, and others beyond that.
So this statement of legislative intent will ask the department to think through how to address those challenges in preparation for making that possible.
Thank you.
Additional comments or questions?
Okay, just confirming Council Member Juarez, I think you mentioned that she would like to co-sponsor, is that correct?
Okay.
Yes, that's correct.
Thank you very much, Council Member Juarez.
We have you reflected along with Council Member Lewis.
And I don't see additional hands at this point.
So to summarize, we have Council Members Morales, Juarez, Lewis, and Council President Gonzales signing on as co-sponsors with Council Member Sawant as prime sponsor.
Okay, thank you very much.
And Council Member Herbold, we just want to say your name for the record as well.
I saw you add your hand on that as well.
Any questions?
We got that capture.
Okay.
All right, moving on here to agenda item 35. This is SDCI 6A1, another statement of legislative intent.
This requires a report by SDCI on standard residential lease terms.
Those terms would be developed in consultation with the Seattle Renters Commission and could inform future legislation.
Sponsored by Councilmember Swann as the prime sponsor, with additional sponsors and Councilmember Morales and Councilmember Gonzalez.
Thank you very much, Councilmember Swann.
Thank you.
And thank you to Council Member Morales and Council President Gonzalez for their co-sponsorship.
I believe Council Members Herbold and Lewis have also co-sponsored, if I'm not wrong.
And like the previous item, this proposes also a statement of legislative intent requesting the Department of Construction and Inspections to work with the Seattle Renters Commission to draft standard terms appropriate for all residential rental leases with input from organizations representing renters and landlords.
In the last meeting of the Sustainability and Renters Rights Committee chaired by my office, we heard from renters whose landlords prohibited them from displaying Black Lives Matter signs in their window.
So this is one example.
It's just one of the many outrageous and unjust lease terms that renters end up accepting in their leases because the overwhelming majority of renters have no power over what's actually in their lease.
The idea that the lease is some mutually agreed upon and negotiated document is a fiction in most circumstances.
So the intention of this statement of legislative intent is to prepare for a future ordinance to require all residential rental leases to contain certain standard terms.
Obviously, there will be other parts of a lease that change from home to home, but there will be some standard terms that should make up basic rights and responsibilities for all renters and all landlords.
It will require broad community input to know what lease terms should be considered universal.
So this statement requests that the department and the Renters Commission work on making those recommendations.
Thank you, Council Member Swann.
Are there any questions?
I'm not seeing any questions, Council Member Swatt.
I do see Council Members Herbold and Lewis joining with Council Member Morales and Council President Gonzalez as co-sponsors.
Thank you very much, Council Member Swatt.
And the next one.
All right, moving on to agenda item number 36. This is SDCI 7A1.
This would add $750,000 in general fund SDCI to contract with an organization such as the Housing Justice Project for eviction legal defense.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
And again, thank you to Council Member Morales and Council President Gonzalez, and I believe also Council Members Lewis and Herbold who have agreed to co-sponsor.
This budget action adds $750,000 to the Department of Construction and Inspections to contract with a renter eviction defense organization such as the Housing Justice Project of the King County Bar Association to provide free legal defense for any renter facing eviction in Seattle.
If the Council supports this, my office will also propose an associated ordinance to create the right to counsel for all renters facing eviction in Seattle.
There are about 1,200 eviction court filings each year in Seattle, not counting unfiled evictions or pre-eviction notices.
The Housing Justice Project estimates that $750,000 would fund an additional five attorneys and two paralegals, and also is very emphatic in stating that this is absolutely necessary, not only given the prevailing status quo, but also what we expect to see once the moratoriums are lifted.
So it is really important that renters have an attorney with them.
And studies have already shown that there will be a wave of evictions after the emergency ends and the moratoriums are lifted.
And even outside of the pandemic itself, there is a recession which has been unfortunately exacerbated because of the pandemic.
And so the overall number of tenants who will be facing evictions in the very near future is going to very likely explode.
A couple of years ago, the people's budget movement won the first city of Seattle funding for an eviction defense attorney.
And the following year, we were able to increase with council support.
We were able to increase that to two eviction defense attorneys.
The housing justice project estimates that a 56% overall success rate estimates a 56% overall success rate since 2019 in keeping tenants housed.
up from less than 24% two years ago.
So even these small investments have had a big impact.
And as anybody who's been a renter in their life knows, that makes all the difference.
Not having an eviction on your record makes all the difference.
This budget amendment would provide funding to make access to legal representation a right for any renter facing eviction in Seattle.
But of course, as I said, we need to follow this up.
I would like to ask for an ordinance to create the right to counsel for all renters facing eviction.
Thank you.
≫ Thank you very much, Councilmember Sawant.
Are there extra questions?
I have a question about the sequencing, Councilmember Sawant.
Because you funded or you championed in the council funded positions in the past that didn't require that Position or policy change that you would be seeking through legislation.
I think they.
I would say they are both necessary pieces, meaning the funding for eviction defense attorneys is absolutely crucial because without that funding, they wouldn't have that assistance possible.
Most renters won't be able to afford legal defense in any way.
So just having the funds makes a huge difference.
And the funding from, I mean, I'm not sure.
I mean, it's hard to predict how many renters will be in unfortunate position to having to seek this kind of assistance.
But we developed this dollar figure estimate based on what the Housing Justice Project advised us.
So in that sense, this budget item would be the funding to make this possible.
But then we also want to encode it in the law that if you are a renter facing eviction in Seattle, then by law, you have the right to legal defense.
Thank you for that clarification.
And then also just for central staff, can you remind us as well, we do have some funding that we have as a council, a champion for 2021 through the jumpstart payroll tax, I think to the tune of $8 million, is that correct?
I don't know.
Perhaps if Allie is on the line, she could chime in.
I can tell you what the council appropriated last year as on a one-time basis for eviction legal defense.
which doesn't answer your question, but that was $230,000.
But that's some additional context.
I'm not seeing, not, we can, we'll have to, I'm not seeing Allie chime in here, so we'll get back to you.
I'm here.
She's on the line.
I'm sorry.
Allie Pinochet, Council of Central Staff.
Yes, that is correct.
There was $8 million for rental assistance.
And so, um, and it's, it's some of that is for like the home, um, the home based program that has expanded in COVID and that sort of thing.
So it's not for eviction, um, legal defense.
However, it is a good partnership between the attorneys that work with the housing justice project and other things to have a resource available to help, um, uh, cure evictions if there are funds available.
So the two investments would.
work in hand-in-hand, but those funds in the jumpstart were to the Human Services Department for Rental Assistance and Homelessness Prevention, which does not typically include the funding for the eviction legal defense.
That's very helpful.
Thank you very much.
OK.
There we go.
Thank you very much to, let me just summarize that one real quick.
I know we had one additional Council Member Lewis, great, along with Morales and Gonzalez as co-sponsors.
Thank you very much, Council Member Sawant.
Last three, Council Member Peterson.
We have one more here from Council Member Sawant.
I keep getting one line off in my spreadsheet here.
This is SDCI 8A1.
This was previously discussed.
This one would add $500,000 in general fund to SDCI for tenant outreach, education, and organizing.
Council Member Swann is the prime sponsor with co-sponsors and Council Member Morales and Council Member Lewis.
All right, Council Member Swann, sorry to cut you off there.
Let's do your last one.
Thank you.
And thank you to Councilmembers Morales and Lewis for co-sponsoring.
As I mentioned when we just discussed the previous item on today's budget, this is a budget amendment to increase funding for renters rights organizations to support renter right education and organizing.
As we know, organizations like the Tenants Union of Washington State, be Seattle and Washington Community Action Network do incredibly important work to help educate renters about their rights and organize buildings to bargain collectively against landlords who might be exploitative or even abusive.
They do heroic work with chronically insufficient resources, as we know, and given the deluge of evictions that is expected over the next year in Seattle, And this is going to be a nationwide problem.
It is essential that the city increase funding to these community organizations.
Half of Seattle is renting and the funding available to support them is just shockingly limited.
And even with such limited resources, these organizations have had a significant impact.
My office has been proud over the last two years to have joined BC Seattle in the tenants rights boot camps where renters from across the city see posters in their neighborhood and come to have their questions answered and get support in their housing situations.
And we were also proud to join the Washington Community Action Network some years ago in successfully fighting to limit renter move-in fees.
And we have again and again worked with the Tenants Union to organize renters whose landlords have blatantly violated their rights, including the demonstrations that then successfully helped to pass the Carl Hagelin law in early 2017. Again and again, renters have called my office, and I'm sure other council members have also had these calls, and we get them in touch with organizers and the tenants union, along with the renters rights enforcement staff at the Department of Construction Inspections, who are also extremely helpful.
There is no question that these organizations are overworked, and I hope all council members will co-sponsor this small increase in their funding.
Thank you.
Additional comments on this one?
Any additional questions?
Thank you so much for your earlier comments as well.
I see Council Member Morales and Council Member Lewis signed on as co-sponsors.
Okay, I think we are to our last and final category, the long-awaited SDC.
Long-awaited last three from Councilmember Peterson.
Sorry, y'all.
Let's go ahead and go through those.
Councilmember Peterson, thank you for closing us out today.
Councilmembers, cute old Truman, why don't you go ahead and walk us through this?
Sure.
So the next action is SDCI 9A1.
This would add $250,000 in general fund to the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections to develop and implement a data gathering and monitoring system to track both economic and physical displacement.
The action is contemplated by Resolution 31870, which was the companion resolution to the Citywide MHA Bill.
Council Member Peterson is the primary sponsor of this potential amendment to the Mayor's proposed budget, and Council Member Herbold and Council Member Morales are co-sponsors.
Okay, thank you, Council Member Peterson.
Thank you, Chair Mosqueda, thank you, Ketel, and thanks to my co-sponsors, Council Members Herbold and Morales.
It's really refreshing to find this common ground that we have on displacement issues.
We discussed this important issue during issue identification.
I know we support creating more affordable housing throughout Seattle.
And in addition to supporting new construction, we also want to ensure a net gain in the total amount of affordable housing.
So we need to track and measure both new and existing affordable housing.
When adopting major new land use changes or moving ahead with new construction projects, we want to make sure we have a detailed and accurate system to track the potential loss or demolition of existing naturally occurring affordable housing and the potential displacement of low income households.
This will enable us to better quantify and mitigate our new and existing stock of affordable housing.
So the council attempted to address this challenge by adopting Resolution 31870, Section 2G, which asks the city executive to collect data and report to us and to the public on the status and trends of displacement of low-income households.
This needs to include rent levels and the supply of naturally occurring affordable housing.
We need to better understand the net impacts.
These funds are needed to set up the system so we can collect the detailed housing data to ensure we achieve the goals of more low-income housing, more integration in our neighborhoods, and less displacement of Seattle residents.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.
Questions or comments?
Okay, I am seeing no questions or comments.
You have two additional folks adding their names Councilmember Sawant and Councilmember Lewis who are joining your existing co-sponsors, Councilmembers Herbold and Morales.
Thank you very much.
Let's go to the next one.
All right, the next action is STC I 10 a one.
This is a statement of legislative intent sponsored by council member Peterson and co sponsored by council members herbal and Lewis, the statement of legislative intent would request that STC and the office of housing report to the council's land use and neighborhoods committee on payment.
Versus performance under the city's mandatory housing affordability program.
As the Council members will recall, when the Council adopted the framework for the mandatory housing affordability residential program through Ordinance 125-108, the Council intended that in areas outside of downtown and Southlake Union, developers should be indifferent for larger size projects as between payment and performance.
So this would be a report to help quantify how developers are making their choices since the program has been implemented.
The report will be due to the Land Use and Neighbors Committee on February 1st.
Thank you.
Council Member Peterson.
Thank you, Chairman Mosqueda, thank you, Ketel, and thank you to my co-sponsors.
The framework for the mandatory housing affordability program adopted with ordinance 125-108 requires real estate developers to include housing affordable to low-income households in their housing projects or to pay a fee in lieu of performance to the city office of housing to contribute to the construction of affordable housing.
That ordinance sets policy on the balance between on-site performance and payment in lieu as follows.
The council will consider raising payment amounts to avoid a bias toward payment.
In other words, we're striving for a 50-50 balance of building affordable housing on site right now versus writing a check and building it later.
So building the affordable housing on site implements important social justice principles such as building the affordable housing immediately instead of years later and integrating the affordable housing within each neighborhood instead of concentrating it elsewhere.
While the current status of that ratio is reported annually by the Office of Housing, we should see the data more frequently, and we also need to combine it with the information from the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection, because developers indicate their choice when they apply for permits.
So this item requests that we produce the data together and more frequently, so we can really know, are we meeting the goal of the 50-50 balance?
Thank you.
much.
Are there additional comments or questions?
I'm seeing no additional comments or questions.
You did speak to this Council Member Peterson.
You mentioned that the report is already being, or the information is already being generated in the MHA annual report.
Basically, you'd like to see that quarterly.
Yes, and then making sure we're combining with the SDCI information.
OK.
And then what effect would this slide have in addition to the report that we're already receiving?
You basically would use that to inform possible policy decisions mid-year versus on an annual basis.
Well, if the goal is 50-50, we need to know for sure, are we achieving 50-50?
And then it's possible to consider updating the policies so we get back to the 50-50 if we're not achieving the 50-50.
But the initial thing is just getting the report that's combined and more frequent.
OK.
Thank you so much.
I don't see any additional questions on this.
I will note, I may have some follow-up questions just on sort of the desired goal for this report.
And then also on the previous one, there's a lot of different ways to define displacement, economic displacement, cultural displacement, physical displacement, and would like to make sure that we're looking at the role that development is having and not just using displacement as one blanket term.
So I'll follow up with you on those two items, if that sounds good.
And Ketel, I don't know if you had any thoughts about whether or not there was a certain category of displacement that was being evaluated.
So from what I understand, the proposal from Council Member Peterson would be using information that participants in the rental registration inspection program could provide.
So in that sense, that would be looking, it would allow the city to get disaggregated information about current rents that would probably need to be aggregated and anonymized for the purposes of reporting, but it would provide a level of information that the city doesn't currently have about rents by building.
Very helpful.
Okay, no additional questions.
Let's summarize co-sponsors, Council Member Herbold and Lewis being joined by Council Member Sawant as well.
Okay, are there any other amendments today?
One more.
Okay, let's do this last one.
All right, so the final action for discussion today is SDCI 11A1, and this is I'm sponsored by Councilmember Peterson with co-sponsors and Councilmember Herbold and Councilmember Lewis.
This would provide $758,000, approximately $758,000, which is one-third of the 2021 proposed appropriations for the government's policy safety and support budget control level at SDCI.
That's the budget control level that funds code development work, not just land use code development work, but also construction code development work.
That proviso would be automatically released when an ordinance meeting that was contemplated by Resolution 31902 for updated tree protection regulations.
So the provisor would be released when that ordinance is transmitted to the council.
Excellent.
Council Member Peterson.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
≫ Thank you.
� due to a variety of circumstances, we don't have that new tree ordinance yet.
This proviso would strongly encourage SCCI to prioritize this work in 2021. And we need the executive to comply with the resolution.
We need a stronger tree ordinance to protect our urban forestry canopy.
And I'm happy to answer questions about this.
Are there questions, colleagues?
Council Member Strauss?
Thank you, Chair.
And thank you, Council Member Peterson, for your continued dedication to tree protection work as the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee Chair.
And even actually before I came to being a council member, I helped draft with Ketel and Yolanda the resolution in which we just referenced.
And since taking office, I've been working with you and SDCI to move that ordinance and other directors' rules forward.
Maintaining a collaborative relationship with the department that we're working with is quite important to me.
And maybe that's partly due to the fact that I am chairing that committee.
And as you may have known, and as I shared with you, I had a similar Form A that would proviso work within SDCI to focus on council-driven actions.
This is a budget proviso that has been in place in years past.
I put that Form A forward and you may notice that at the council briefing on Monday, October 12th, I stated that I had 14 Form As.
By the time that the agendas were published, I only brought forward 13 Form As.
And that's because this was essentially that 14th proviso.
I've been assured that this work will be completed.
And as well, if it's not completed, we can put this proviso in place during a quarterly supplemental budget.
So at this time, I have great concerns with this proviso, simply because I'm looking to I'm concerned that using this proviso could set back the work rather than move it forward.
As always, I am dedicated to continuing to work with you on this, and should this proviso be needed in the future, I know that we have quarterly opportunities to put one forward.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Councilmember Peterson, for all you do.
Seeing none, thank you for that background.
Also, Council Member Strauss and for the walkthrough of this amendment suggestion, Council Member Peterson, I see Council Members Herbold and Lewis as co-sponsors with you.
Okay, have we reached the end of the list now?
Thank you very much for bearing with me.
Sorry I was one line ahead of a few times there towards the end of the day.
I know it's been long days for everyone and there's one more long day coming.
So I hope you get a lot of rest tonight and eat a great breakfast because tomorrow is slated to be a relatively long day in comparison.
Allie, would you say that that is accurate given that you wanted to provide us any preview of tomorrow?
Sure.
Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.
Tomorrow you will hear presentation of proposals related to the Department of Transportation, proposals related to the city's homelessness response, as well as the Seattle Police Department.
And that includes related departments like the proposal to move the parking enforcement officers out of SPD, as well as emergency operations.
and other related functions.
So there's about 50 or so proposals to discuss.
That is the most.
So I would expect both by topic and the numbers, it could be a longer day.
But you're all moving through them relatively quickly.
So thank you for that.
Absolutely.
I'll echo that.
Thank you, and thanks back to central staff.
our comms, IT, clerks teams, our individual offices as well.
We'll get you out of here about two hours early.
We plan to see you tomorrow at 9.30 a.m.
We'll have our final meeting to walk through Form Bs on October 30th, 2020, Friday.
Public sign-up opportunity starts at 7.30, so we'll give 30 minutes to get at the top of the agenda.
And I would do, before we close out, want to give anybody who didn't get a chance to physically raise their hand, to virtually raise their hand, or to speak up during the co-signing period to let us know if you'd like to co-sponsor any of the amendments.
Excellent.
Seeing none.
We did a good job today, folks.
Enjoy the rest of your evening.
We'll see you tomorrow at 930. This meeting is adjourned.
Thank you all.
Thank you.