Seattle City Council 7/27/2020

Thank you so much.

The July 27th, 2020 meeting of the Seattle City Council will come to order.

It is 2.07 PM.

I'm Lorena Gonzalez, President of the Council.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Morales.

Here.

Mosqueda.

Here.

Peterson.

Here.

Salant.

Here.

Strauss.

Present.

Lewis.

Present.

Herbold.

Here.

Council President Gonzalez.

here.

Eight present.

Thank you so much.

Presentations.

I'm not aware of any presentations.

Approval of the minutes.

The minutes of the city council meeting of July 20th, 2020 have been reviewed.

If there is no objection, the minutes will be signed.

Hearing no objection, the minutes are being signed.

And I'd ask that the clerk please affix my signature to the minutes.

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

Hearing no objection, the introduction and referral calendar is adopted.

Approval of the agenda.

If there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

We are now going to move into public comment.

Colleagues, if you recall, we've now split up public comment into two sessions.

There's the first public comment and the second public comment.

So we have now reached the first of those two public comment periods for items on today's agenda that are listed for final action.

which are shown under the committee reports and adoption of other resolutions sections on the agenda.

This added option is a new approach to public comment to allow additional opportunities for members of the public to participate and share their comments with the council.

This is the, um, uh, an opportunity for us to make sure that we create space to hear first from those who are calling on items subject to the final decision by council members today, while also still creating space for those who have more general public comment, uh, to provide those public comments to us in a second session.

So we are going to go ahead and begin our first public comment session.

And let's see.

Go ahead and read some of these preliminary comments.

I'd ask that everyone please be patient with us as we continue to learn how to best operate this new system of public comment period separation here.

And we, of course, are always looking for ways to fine tune this remote process and adding new features that allow for additional means of public participation in our council meetings.

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

However, the city council does reserve the right to end or eliminate these public comment periods at any point if we deem that the system is being abused or no longer suitable for allowing our meetings to be conducted efficiently and in a manner in which we are able to conduct necessary business.

I'll moderate both public comment periods.

The public comment period for this particular period will be a 20, 20 minutes and each speaker will be given, let me see, we have quite the list of folks who called in.

So we're gonna do one minute per speaker.

I will call on each speaker by name and in the order in which they registered on the council's website.

If you have not yet registered to speak, but would like to, you can sign up before the end of public comment by going to the council's website at seattle.gov forward slash council.

The public comment link is also listed on today's agenda.

Once I call the speaker's name, staff will unmute the appropriate microphone and an automatic prompt of you have been unmuted will be the speaker's cue that it is their turn to speak.

I'd ask that you please start by telling us your name, the item that you are addressing.

And as a reminder, the first public comment period is limited to items on today's agenda that are listed for final action.

These items are also shown under the committee reports and adoption of other resolution sections on agenda.

The second public comment will be for general public comment.

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

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

And if speakers don't end their comments at the end of the allotted time provided, then the microphone will be muted to allow us to move on to the next speaker.

Once you've completed your public comment, we'd ask that you please disconnect from the line.

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

So I'm now going to go ahead and open up the first public comment period.

I see that our tech department is ready to go.

And our first speaker is Brittany Belay, followed by Charles

Hi, good afternoon, Council.

Thank you for being here.

My name is Brittany Bush-Bolay.

I am the chair of Sierra Club Seattle Group.

I'm calling to emphasize our support of funding the maximum possible amount of transit service in the SDBD renewal via a 0.2% tax rate.

Though the present is strange and uncertain, we must look to the future right now and do all that we can to ensure transit continues to exist and that its use can pick back up after COVID so that we can keep our climate fight on track to victory.

We also have to ensure that those who depend on transit now can still get to work to health care and to child care reliably and on time.

We believe that Seattle voters are in a mood to take these bold steps towards a better healthier and more equitable sustainable future.

Seattleites want to ensure that themselves and their neighbors have clean and safe transportation options.

Voters are even more likely to support a bold transportation benefit district if they see their local elected officials leading in that direction.

You can be assured that you have our full support today and that the measure will have our full support at the ballot box in November.

Thank you so much.

Thank you so much.

Next up is Charles Paul, followed by Julia Pachuto.

Hello, my name is Charles Paul.

I'm a 7th district.

Hi, Charles, just a minute here.

You're breaking up on us a little bit, so let's try this again.

We've reset your timer here, so let's, why don't you, before we start the timer, why don't you give me a test 1, 2, 3.

Test 1, 2, 3.

That sounds a little bit, yep, that sounds good.

Okay, here we go.

Awesome.

I'm a 7th district renter and 36th L.D.

precinct officer calling today to talk on amendments 1 and 2. While we deal with the COVID-19 pandemic, we must not lose sight of the existential threat posed by climate change.

Increasing and bettering our public transit services is one of the single most important and most effective tools that cities have in fighting climate change.

So this reason and others, I support amendments one and two to expand and extend the sales tax to 0.2% and extend to 2026. Thank you very much.

Have a great day.

Thanks for calling in.

Next up is Julia followed by Charlie Latham.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Julia Pachuto and I'm with Puget Sound SAGE.

I'm here to support Council Bill 119833, We were here last week advocating for a transformative spending plan on a bold new progressive revenue, and today we come frustrated to be making a difficult decision between cutting integral transit service and regressively taxing low-income communities to fund that transit.

Clearly, we need better solutions to funding transit and regional solutions, which is why we strongly support Council Resolution 31960, and look to to push for progressive funding sources and seek regional solutions in 4 years.

Even though we needed better connected regional transit system yesterday significantly eroding the service we have in Seattle will only further undermine BIPOC communities who are facing a triple threat of state-sanctioned violence higher rates of COVID-19 due to environmental and medical racism.

Thanks for calling in.

Next up is Charlie followed by Nathan Dickey.

Hi my name is Charlie Lafamme.

I'm with the MLK Labor Council.

I'm also a rank and file member of OPEIU Local 8. I'm here to talk about our support for the Transportation Benefits District in Seattle and the surrounding area.

Transportation is just something that everyone thinks about every day.

Our region continues to grow and working people need to get around.

We support this proposal and specifically the 0.2% tax for the simple reason that we have a transportation funding crisis.

From Tim Eyman's 976 that we didn't vote for, to the COVID economic crisis, to the West Seattle Bridge, we're in a deep hole.

And we know that working people and vulnerable communities are going to pay the price.

Not everybody can work from home or live close to where they work.

This measure would go so far to filling our budget gap and help our economic recovery.

It would help people's lives.

So thank you for your support of this measure.

And on behalf of the labor community, I strongly encourage you to pass it.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Nathan Dickey, followed by Ryan Pecker.

My name is Nathan Dickey.

Hello.

Can everybody hear me?

Yes.

We can hear you.

Yeah.

OK.

I'm Nathan Dickey.

I live in Ballard on 15th Avenue and I can feel and hear the traffic increasing as the economy reopens but what I'm missing is the frequent transit and I'm hoping not to miss that further.

I'd like to speak out in support of the Transit Benefit District and especially Amendments 2 and 3 in support of maximizing income while minimizing effects on essential workers.

and appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Ryan Packer, followed by Leah Missick.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Ryan Packer.

I'm calling in support of the full 0.2% sales tax.

I do agree with all of the elected leaders that this is a bridge to a regional solution.

And because of that, we can't The bridge can't fall short.

We can't be digging ourselves out of a hole in four years.

We need to go into a full Metro Connects package.

Rapid ride lines in Seattle have been deferred or even canceled altogether.

Not acceptable for a climate-forward city.

I'm also very concerned about the four-year timeframe conflicting with the Move Seattle levy, which is already going to be a heavy lift to get voters to reapprove after the timid response that this mayor has given to that levy.

And so I urge you, I should say, to go the full 0.2%.

We really can't leave anything on the table.

Thanks so much.

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Leah followed by Stacey Wedlake.

Good afternoon.

My name is Leah Misick and I'm the Washington Transportation Policy Manager at Climate Solutions.

We're in strong support of a robust transportation benefit district funded by a 0.2 percent sales tax.

The transportation sector is responsible for the largest share of Seattle's climate pollution.

Reducing dependence on personal vehicles while expanding transit access and other clean options is critical for Seattle to achieve its climate goals.

Additionally, transit is truly crucial for many members of our community.

The data show lower income Seattleites are more likely to use transit, and for a variety of reasons, not everyone drives, including a member of my own household.

So we urge you to approve as strong of a TBD as possible by utilizing the 0.2% sales tax.

Anything less means unnecessary and damaging cuts that could put our transit system on a death spiral.

Seattle voters overwhelmingly approved our last TBD, and since then, we have seen growing transit ridership and declines in per capita transportation-related carbon emissions.

We must build on this progress rather than commit to cuts.

Thank you, Council Member Morales, for the amendment authorizing the 0.2% sales tax, and we urge the rest of Council to support it.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Stacey, followed by Kalayo Pestaño.

Hi, my name is Stacey Wedlake.

I'm a current University of Washington researcher that focuses on technology use and skills and a former member of the Community Technology Advisory Board, and I'm calling in support of the Internet for All resolution.

I believe this builds upon the city's leadership in digital inclusion programs, such as the technology matching fund grants and the current digital equity initiative.

It's critical that we identify other solutions to get the entire city affordable home broadband devices and the skills and support they need.

The work in this resolution is on an aggressive timeline, but it's not fast enough for those in need.

It's time for the city to truly prioritize these needs and identify long-term revenue streams to support this work.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Calayo, followed by Matthew Lang.

Hi, this is Calayo Fasanio with API Chaya, a Seattle-based organization supporting survivors of sexual and domestic violence and human trafficking.

On behalf of our campaign, Wi-Fi is a Lifeline, we thank council members Peterson, Gonzalez, and Juarez for putting forth the resolution Internet for All.

Our coalition recognizes that this is a step in the right direction, but it does not address the dire need for those who are experiencing a lack of access to lifesaving resources, as well as care and connection now, as already existing technological access disparities go further as a result of COVID.

We're also in support of community calls to defund SPD.

As a survivor-led organization, we support calls for council members to hold SPD responsible for violence against Black, Indigenous, people of color, including responses to survivors of sexual and domestic violence that increase harm instead of safety.

We reject the use of survivors of gender-based violence as a justification for a city budget versus into policing and punishment.

We are in support of the Crim Seattle's budget proposal and also request that funding be allocated for more free Wi-Fi hotspots like the ones provided by Seattle Public Library.

We also ask that — Thank you.

Next up is Matthew Lang followed by Ana Z. Bartz.

Hi there.

My name is Matthew Lang.

I'm the lead organizer at the Transit Riders Union, and I have a testimony from one of our members to read into the record.

My name is Olivia Hagman.

I live in District 3, and I'm a member of the Seattle Transit Riders Union, and I'm calling in support of Councilmember Morales' proposal in bumping the sales tax to 0.2% as opposed to 0.1%.

If the council sticks with the mayor's proposal for an increase of 0.1%, Seattle commuters will be heavily impacted by the limited services I rely heavily on bus service, especially this fall and next year where I will be returning to work.

The folks who will be most impacted by bus service cuts are disabled people, low-income folks, and black and brown communities.

I urge the council to adopt council members Morales' proposed amendment and send this to November ballot.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next up is Ana followed by Amin Amos.

Hi, this is Ana Zevarts.

I'm the program director of Rooted in Rights at Disability Rights Washington.

I'm also a member of the King County Metro Equity Cabinet and a member of the Seattle Pedestrian Advisory Board.

As Rooted in Rights, we are calling to support the four-year instead of the six-year tax levy to allow us to look for a more regional solution on a shorter timeframe so we can ensure that our transit can serve people who do not and cannot afford to live within the city limit.

We are also supporting the 2.2%.

We have heard that it's not fair to ask people who don't use transit to pay for transit.

This is the sort of dangerous divisive rhetoric that has allowed Tim Eyman to win at the ballot box year after year.

A reliable, equitable, and accessible transit system benefits us all.

Thanks.

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Amin followed by Rachel Brown.

Hello my name is Amin.

I'm a district 3 resident and I'm calling in support of the Internet for All resolution.

Reliable fast Internet access has become more important as people find ways to work educate and live in this new environment.

As an example the library love you was overwhelmingly supported and provides important resources to our community.

Expanded Web access will ensure that more people can access digital library materials and other items.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Rachel Brown, followed by Madeline Coyley.

Hello, my name is Rachel Brown, and I'm calling to comment on CB 119833 relating to transit funding in Seattle.

I'm calling as a board member of Seattle Subway and as a member of the Transit Riders Union, and I'm also a resident of District 3. I fully support funding the TBD to the fullest extent, including Council Member Morales' amendment to fund at 0.2%.

And I also support Council Member Peterson's amendment to extend the TBD funding for six years essential for people like me who depend on public transit and want to continue to live in Seattle without the expenses and the pollution of relying on a car.

This fall I will be starting my master's in urban planning at the University of Washington and will be depending on transit more than ever to get to and from class assuming we're able to go.

Thank you for your time and I urge you all to support amendments 1 and 2.

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Madeline followed by Karen Taylor.

Hi, my name is Maddie Coyley and I am calling from District 7 in favor of increasing the sales tax to 2%.

The loss of transit service will leave essential workers stranded and while sales tax is regressive, purchasing a vehicle or relying on ride share will be even more unaffordable to our lowest income earners.

I also ask the council to continue their commitment to defunding the SPD and investing in community and follow the guidance of decriminalize Seattle and King County equity now.

The Seattle Police Department's behavior this weekend was horrifying.

Protesters had to warn local residents to get indoors and close their windows as the police pushed through residential streets and dropped flashbangs off of buildings.

We it is too late to reform and we need to defund and restart.

Thank you.

Next up is Karen Taylor followed by Benjamin Brazenly.

Hi my name is Karen Taylor.

I am poor and disabled and awesome and I think that we should fund transit at 0.2 percent.

This is a really good example of what government can do is we all pay in a little bit and we get something.

I can't magic up a bus for myself.

I never will be able to, so I need the government to do that, and I'm relying on y'all to do that in the best way possible.

And then the awesome part comes into play, because transit isn't just for work, you know?

It's for me to participate in the community, to see my friends and family, to go to a park.

And the community is better for us poor and disabled folks.

There's no reason for us to be shuttered away just because we can't afford rideshare or have a car.

So I thank you for your time and consider us ordinary folks and what we have to offer and how we confront.

Thank you.

Next up is Benjamin followed by Kevin Vitz Wong.

Good afternoon.

My name is Ben Brazemly.

I'm also a Seattle Subway Board member and I currently live in a carless renting household on Capitol Hill and my fiancee works at a hospital on First Hill.

I'm here today to ask that you please minimize the cuts to Seattle Transit Service using all the tools available to you today.

I urge you to allow voters to authorize the two tenths sales tax for six years because it will be the bare minimum that we need in our recovery.

We absolutely.

Go ahead.

We absolutely need to think about those that need transit the most but we must also maintain a visionary goal of transit accessible city for everyone.

There has been a few concerns raised about voter approval, equity, and regionalism.

We trust voters in federal will vote for transit.

This measure is not perfect.

It's still a 40% cut to the SPD on top of other forthcoming transit cuts.

But we need those, that funding for transit service, and we need it in order to not live a harsh reality with even less transit.

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Kevin followed by Alice Lockhart.

Hi thanks.

My name is Kevin Bitswong.

I'm a District 6 renter and Seattle Public Schools employee and I'm calling to ask you to please vote in support of the Internet for All resolution.

SPS students will likely begin the school year at home and any steps we can take towards affordable municipal Internet as a utility will help education equity even after the schools reopen.

I'm also asking you to support the full .2% sales tax to fund public transit so we don't have to reduce this crucial service.

And also please follow decriminalize Seattle's lead and their four-point proposal to reinvest at least 50% of SPD's budget.

Thank you.

I yield my time.

Okay, next up is Alice followed by Jason Clackley.

Hi, Council.

I'm Alice Lockhart for 350 Seattle in favor of STBD Amendment 2. The proposed 0.1 percent would cut 82 percent of STBD bus trips.

0.2 percent would cut 40 percent.

That's deep enough.

There is a single reason why the Seattle metro area could buck the national trend of decreasing bus ridership.

We had great buses and we depend on those buses.

We depend on them to get home late at night.

And we are less safe, the longer we wait.

That's from my personal experience.

Workers depend on them to reach jobs where the employer, not Metro, sets the hours of employment.

People who cannot drive depend on our bus system.

People who will lose their cars in the COVID economy will count on their bus system.

And the privileged folks, Oh, I'm sorry, missed.

Conversely, people who now take the bus won't be able to afford to buy cars to get to work with cuts.

And the privileged riders, we need them not to abandon the bus system that has been the single ray of hope that Seattle can curb its greenhouse gas emissions.

Please vote for Amendment 2.

Next up is Jason, followed by Kitty Wu.

Thank you.

My name is Jason Clackley and I'm in support of Internet for All.

I'm the Artistic Director of the Vera Project and a cohort member of the Digital Equity Work Group with Seattle Music Commission.

I also live in District 2. Shout out to Council Member Morales.

I want to put some weight behind this resolution and I just want to make sure that everybody knows clearly that so many of our small community organization non-profit organizations have been carrying so much water for digital equity.

And we really need the local government support to provide a massive helping hand in this.

DARE was able to scrape together a couple laptops for some of our kids recently to do online classes, but we really need that gap to be, you know, filled here.

We asked the Seattle government, and most importantly, the mayor's office, which hasn't historically invested in this infrastructure, to intervene in establishing serious public-private partnerships that bridges gap from our most affected youth.

We the digital equity cohort are putting out a letter soon and we hope that you can take a look at it.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much.

Next up is Kitty Wu followed by Renee Peters.

This is Kitty Wu and I'm addressing the Internet for all resolutions.

I'm a I am co-director of nonprofit Tulsa Zulu at Washington Hall.

I'm a mother who lives and works in District 3. I'm a cohort member of the Digital Equity Work Group and sit on the City of Seattle's Music Commission.

I support C.M.

Peterson's resolution.

Affordable Internet in Seattle is a problem and has been a problem for as long as I can remember.

We have done enough surveys and reports.

We know the problems and we know the inequities.

The time has now passed to do the work.

We need Internet for all.

We will continue to have folks fall into this ever-widening hack.

If action is not taken today please adopt this resolution.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Renee, followed by Charles Fowles.

Vice Chair, I'm the current Vice Chair of the Community Technology Advisory Board, or CTAB.

My name is, again, Renee Peters.

I'd like to register my support for the Internet for All resolution.

Our board has taken a lot of care to keep a good pulse on the latest progress that the city's making in responding to the COVID crisis.

We've seen the work from Seattle Public Schools and Public Library that they're embarking on to increase student and public needs through Internet access.

And we've had them come to speak at our meeting.

It's very clear that this problem needs to be addressed at the largest scale.

CTAB is looking forward to partnering with City Council and all involved parties to provide perspective throughout this process.

For example, our Digital Equity Committee is already developing a robust body of work on telemedicine with a specific focus on the elderly community, which falls at an intersection of increased medical needs and limited ease of access to online tools.

Also, what would it look like to provide a solution to those in Seattle who experience homelessness, who also fall at the intersection of increased needs but lack of access?

In short, we're excited that the city is committing to finding a solution, and we'd like to hear more details about implementation timeline along the way.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Charles, followed by Torgy Madison.

Hello, members of the Council.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Charles Fallas.

I'm a member of Seattle Subway, as well as a resident of Pioneer's Neighborhood in District 5, testifying in support of Amendment 1 and 2. My current bus route, the weekday peak only 77, is all but set to stay eliminated, requiring an extra 20 to 30 minutes walking around trip to reach my job downtown by riding the 41 bus.

This extra lost time will be amplified by a drastically less frequent bus network if we do not fund transit as much as we can.

Waiting outwards of 30 minutes during the p.m.

rush hour for a bus to show up or one that had space was a normal occurrence at the current funding level pre-COVID.

How will anyone be able to use our buses reliably if service hours are cut 80%?

Thank you, and I yield the remainder of my time.

Thank you.

Next up is Torgy Madison, followed by Devin Glazer.

Hello, my name is Torgy Madison, and I'm speaking in support of the Internet for All resolution.

I chair the City of Seattle's Community Technology Advisory Board, along with Renee Peterson, who you just heard from, who is our vice chair.

Council Member Alex Peterson and Council President Leonard Gonzalez have introduced an absolutely critical Internet for All resolution.

As King County nears nearly 15,000 coronavirus cases, the need to stay home and stay healthy has never been stronger.

Staying home saves lives.

During our board meetings, we've heard one issue consistently raised.

How do we make sure that our kids can keep learning?

This pandemic isn't going away anytime soon, so online learning is going to become the new normal.

Without a commitment to universal Internet access, the children already disenfranchised will be pushed further away from their peers.

We have an opportunity now to join New York and Chicago as leaders.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next up is Devin, followed by Grace Nordoff.

Hi, this is Devin Glaser from Upgrade Seattle, calling also to vouchers in my support for the Internet for All resolution.

particularly the action items that support municipal broadband.

I, like many of you, am currently on four social distancing, really missing being there in person, seeing your faces.

But I am reliant on internet infrastructure in order to connect, to be civically engaged, and also just to work.

I can't imagine what life would be like if I didn't have robust internet access.

And unfortunately, there are plenty of people in our community who do not have robust home internet connections.

I got a bit of a kick listening to the council members complaining about their own home connections.

And know that I feel for you, because a lot of us are underserved, even if we are not the most marginalized.

And the most marginalized are, of course, the most underserved.

The Internet for All resolution, I think, makes very strong steps towards creating up and running out of time.

I mean, school broadband, and I specifically like the plug for a Schiller-ready plan to make sure we can take advantage of federal stimulus money, assuming there's a better world to come in November.

Thank you for your time.

Thanks for calling in.

Next up is Grace Nordoff followed by Derek Lum.

Good afternoon council members.

My name is Grace Nordoff.

I call on this afternoon to voice my support for the Internet for All Seattle resolution.

I am a patron and supporter of the Seattle Public Library and a long-serving member of the board of the Seattle Public Library Foundation and I live in District 4. The Seattle Public Library and its branches all throughout the city have been a primary provider of internet access to those citizens who cannot afford it otherwise.

But COVID-19 has closed public libraries and schools as well.

The places for public internet access where citizens seek information for education housing and jobs.

These closures have exacerbated the discrepancy in the city between those who have access to the internet and those who do not.

So as the city determines the best way to bridge this public access gap to the Internet please count on the Seattle Public Library and Foundation and our resources to help address and prioritize this important community need and lifeline to information and opportunity.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Derek Lum followed by Lyndon Judge.

Hey there everyone.

This is.

Eric from Interim CDA a community development nonprofit in the International District.

I'm calling in today on the Seattle Transit Benefits District to express our support for the .2 percent tax.

We just think it's unacceptable to have a 82 percent service cut.

That will just unfortunately harm lower income essential worker families.

Many of them live in the areas that we serve such as International District South Seattle.

So we think this act is needed to preserve as much service as possible especially for the Route 7 and 36 and 106 and other routes that serve primarily low income areas.

Thank you for your time.

Next up is Lyndon Judge.

And then colleagues, before we hear from Lyndon, we have reached the first 20 minutes of public comment.

I'm going to go ahead and extend us to 3 o'clock.

So that's an additional, we'll go for close to an hour here at the end of the day.

I'm going to ask that our tech department I'm going to ask the speaker to reduce the time to 45 seconds so we can hear from more folks.

This will be our last speaker at a minute and the rest of the folks will be at 45 seconds.

Next up is Lyndon Judge and then we will hear from Michelle Dillon.

As a car-free Ballard resident, I rely heavily on the rapid ride D line and 40 bus routes, both of which would be drastically cut without this amendment.

Preserving transit service is essential to keeping our city accessible to all residents as well as achieving our climate goals.

A robust and reliable transit network benefits all city residents, including those who don't use it by reducing traffic and reducing harmful carbon emissions.

Please preserve as much transit as possible by passing Amendment 2 and increasing the sales tax funding to 0.2% the maximum allowed.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

OK, we're going to now go to 45 seconds.

And there's no objection to extending public comment until 3 o'clock.

So next up, we will hear from Michelle Dillon and then Sabrina Roach.

Hi, my name is Michelle Dillon.

I'm a 4th District Seattle resident.

I'm calling to discuss Resolution 31956 to establish City Council's goal to implement internet for all in Seattle.

This is a vitally necessary project should be supported to the full extent of the City Council and the council should seek local and regional partners to ensure its success.

To that end please consider leveraging the expertise of the Seattle Public Library which has always been essential to digital equity and closing the digital divide.

The library is a trusted community resource for students workers nonprofits and more and please use it as such.

Thank you for your support of Internet for All and for considering the library as a natural partner to make Internet for All a success.

Thank you.

Next up is Sabrina followed by Shoumya Tripathi.

Sabrina.

That would be me on the mute.

That's okay, go ahead.

I'll start over again.

All right, I'm here in support of the Internet for All resolution.

I am the program director for the National Digital Inclusion Alliance and a cohort member of the Seattle Music Commission's Digital Equity Group and the Washington State Informal Internet Access Crisis Team.

In 2015, I initiated Upgrade Seattle, a campaign for municipal broadband digital equity with Devin Klaeser, Karen Tarrant, And in the years since, I've become much more focused on affordability and support for digital learners.

It's going to take a nuanced, multi-pronged effort to get more satellites online.

And I think this resolution will help focus the effort.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Stromya, followed by Vic Vong.

Hi, my name is Shoumya Tripathi calling on behalf of Asian Counseling and Referral Service based in the Mount Baker neighborhood.

I'm calling to voice our agency's support for SCVD as well as Amendment 2 that increases the tax rate to 0.2%.

While our aggressive sales tax is far from ideal and disproportionately burdens low-income communities of color, losing 75% of service hours would be devastating to our community.

As an agency that serves API immigrants and refugees, both in South Seattle and who are displaced to the outside of the city, We know that our clients and community members are reliant on expansive and affordable transit.

We urge council to support amendment two and ensure that the revenue raised from this tax prioritizes service hours and transit routes on the south end.

That's all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Vic followed by Curtis.

Hi.

Hi, Merle.

Oh, hello.

This is Vic.

Oh, sorry.

And I'm calling on behalf of API Chaya.

We're an organization that supports survivors of gender-based violence.

I'm a youth organizer, and we would like to testify in support of municipal broadband.

We only regret that it took so long for this to happen as we are mincing through the pandemic, but we are thankful to Juarez, Morales, and Peterson for putting this forward.

We are looking at youth and people who are struggling to report abuse to stay connected to friends because we know that isolation leads to abuse.

We also know there are many youth serving organizations that usually give services but are scrambling to reach youth who either don't have internet or can't afford devices.

So this internet is a really important way to increase access to resources.

Additionally, we are in support of decriminalize Seattle's budget proposal as a survivor-led organization.

We support calls for council members to hold SPD.

Thank you.

Next up is Curtis followed by Logan Bowers.

Good afternoon, Council.

I'm Curtis Heimerl.

I'm an assistant professor of computer science at the University of Washington and a constituent of District 4. I'm calling to show support for the Internet for All resolution.

My own work focuses on Internet access throughout the world, and COVID has shown the limitations of the existing solutions of marginalized populations throughout Seattle.

Seattle should be a leader, given our expensive connectivity efforts of my own and others, and I urge this to be moved on and hope to be personally involved in the future.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Logan Bowers, followed by Daniel Heppner.

Good afternoon, council members.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Logan Bowers, and I'm a renter in District 3. I'm speaking today to ask you to adopt Council Member Morales' proposed amendment to raising the sales tax component to 0.2%.

Council Member Musqueda, you astutely noted several weeks ago that we cannot meet another recession with an austerity budget.

It didn't work out last time.

It won't work out this time.

Council members, without this amendment, this levy is austerity.

We're dropping the $60 car tax.

A household has to spend $60,000 on sales tax-eligible stuff like restaurants and merchandise before they pay more under a 0.2% tax.

Almost everyone, except a few ultra-wealthy families, come out ahead.

Why on earth would we, in effect, cut the risk in a recession so that the wealthy can get a tax cut?

Thank you so much.

Next up is Daniel followed by Jeremy Une.

Hi, I'm Daniel from District 6. I'm calling in support of increasing the transportation benefit district sales tax to 0.2%.

Seattle's rapid ride lines have already been deferred, a delay which is not acceptable for an environment and equity first city.

A 0.1 or 0.15% tax are not adequate for us to reach our goals as a city.

I also support extending the benefit district length to six years rather than four years, especially since we now know that the council has the power to decrease the sales tax and increase the existing vehicle license fee without voter approval should I-976 get struck down.

Thank you.

Next up is Jeremy, followed by Sarah Shifley.

Good afternoon, council.

My name is Jeremy Unayak.

I'm before you on behalf of ATU 587. the Seattle-King County bus drivers.

We support the renewal of the Seattle Transportation Benefit District.

The task of funding is no easy matter, and yet even in a pandemic, people need to get to work, go to the doctor, go to the store, and our drivers have consistently shown up to move Seattle around.

Transit has been and remains an economical way to move around the large city, and for some residents, this is not only a smart choice but a lifestyle choice.

Metro has become a national example of good transit and helped bring it there.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Sarah, followed by Alex Hudson.

Hi, my name is Sarah, and I'm a member of the Transit Riders Union.

Despite its regressivity, TRU supports increasing the Transit Benefit District sales tax to 0.2%, as proposed by Council Member Morales.

The benefit of increasing transit service outweighs additional tax.

For example, the additional tax that less than a person would need to spend on a single Uber ride if their bus that they rely on to get to work doesn't arrive.

The people who will be hit hardest by the loss of transit service are those who most need service during this economic and public health crisis.

people who can't afford the luxury of a personal vehicle, and people with disabilities.

If the city council truly cares about the quality of life of Seattleites who rely on transit, they must fund our transit system.

Thank you.

Next up is Alex Hudson, followed by Karen Tering.

I'm Alex Hudson, Executive Director of Transportation Choices Coalition, speaking to Council Bill 119833. Renewal of the STBD is necessary to ensure that Seattle has adequate transit service to meet what people need and deserve from this lifeline public infrastructure.

Throughout this process, TCC's goal has been twofold.

Ensure the STBD prioritizes and invests in adequate levels of service to meet existing and future needs, and create the policy that will mitigate risk for a winning measure in November.

It's clear that stakeholders from across communities share a common vision for a transit-oriented recovery that centers the needs of people who count on transit.

Today, I celebrate that you will undoubtedly bring more revenue to transit service and urge you to make choices and support alternative rate options that mitigate the risk facing this measure in the next phase of discussion.

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Karen, followed by Robert Cruikshank.

Hi this is Karen Toring.

I live in Seattle District 3 and I'm calling to support Internet for All.

As a member of Upgrade Seattle I have been in front of this council for years talking about this thing.

I'm a little tired of doing it now but there are two words in this resolution that give me hope and that is action plan.

The City of Seattle needs to act on municipal broadband and bringing internet to everyone.

I think we all realize what we've been up against with COVID-19, and there's no better reason to do it than what we are living through now.

Thank you.

I support.

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Robert, and then we will hear from Joe Riley.

Hi, my name is Robert Crookshank.

I'm a District 6 resident who lives in Greenwood, and I'm with the Sierra Club.

I urge you to pass the amendment to the STDD proposal that would raise the sales tax by 0.2%.

There aren't very many voters out there who would vote for a 0.1 or 0.15% increase, but would somehow vote down a 0.2% increase.

But as we know, there are very many Seattle voters who have time and again proven they will vote for transit, and they will do so again during this crisis.

We also can't rely on a regional solution, nice as it will be.

I work with a group of transit advocates in 2014 to propose a Seattle-only measure, which city officials eventually place on the ballot.

We have to take care of ourselves first.

Finally, please pass the broadband resolution.

It's inequitable to leave broadband to the private sector.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Next up is Joe.

And our last speaker in the public comment period, number one, is Colleen McAleer.

Hi.

Am I being heard?

Yes, we can hear you.

Oh, excellent.

Okay.

Thank you, everyone.

Let's wrap things up.

My name is Joe Riley.

I'm a development director at Seattle Subway, and I'm urging you guys to support a .2 transit benefit district.

Under a .1 plan, I'm concerned that bus service will become unusable with infrequency of service compounding with social distancing measures that reduces capacity.

And in support of .2, I do ask the council to consider that regressive taxation is not the same thing as regressive outcome where .2 can actually maintain a level of transit service quality that yields a net progressive living condition for people where a .1 cannot.

We defeated Iman's initiative by 3-1 so we do have the votes for .2 and we do need enough bus service hours to avoid the transit death spiral whereby large cuts to transit ridership will create a negative feedback loop of dramatically further ridership loss.

Thank you.

Last up is Colleen.

Yes good afternoon Council Members and thank you Council Member Peterson for bringing and Council Member Gonzalez and Juarez for bringing the Internet for All to City Council.

Reliance on Internet access for education health care and connectivity for all populations is so needed in today's world as much as electricity itself.

20 years ago when Internet access was introduced in powerful schools in the Rainier Valley not only the kids became techies that their parents got to use the computers at school at night and so the whole family benefit.

Internet for all will remove the educational inequities at least make it better.

Provide access to libraries and provide access to health care.

We support action all action plan which also details that provides a universal broadband Internet services and how to do it for all city residents as a matter of equity.

Thanks so much and I support the bill.

Thank you so much for calling in today.

Colleagues, that does conclude our first public comment period on items on today's agenda for final action.

So I'm going to go ahead and close out that public comment period, and we're going to move into hearing comments related to the Introduction and Referral in Council's 2020 Work Program in a public comment period.

Part two, if there's no objection, the public comment period will be extended until 3.15 p.m., which allots approximately 20 minutes.

Hearing no objection, the comment period will be extended to approximately 3.15 p.m., and we will go ahead and commence the second public comment period relating to items on the introduction referral calendar and the council's 2020 work program.

Again, we'll be accepting comment for up to 20 minutes approximately.

And I'd ask that each speaker begin by stating their name and telling us what they are calling in about today.

And we'll go ahead and open up that public comment period now.

So first up is Richa Dube followed by Kanti Maffi.

Thank you, Council Members.

My name is Richa Adube, and I'm a supporter and volunteer with the Coalition of Seattle Indian Americans, as well as a small business owner licensed in Seattle.

Our group follows the leadership of King County Equity Now and Decriminalize Seattle.

Council Members, we have seen that the commitments made by Mayor Durkan about avoiding police brutality continue to ring hollow.

Calling Saturday's citizen protests riots, was a transparent excuse by the police to quell the voice of the people by using brute force.

What price a city mayor who cannot protect the residents of her own city from Border Patrol agents being sent by the federal government?

Why aren't we taking a stronger stand like other cities, like Philadelphia?

The answer is simple.

Refund SPD.

Fire Chief Best.

Impeach Mayor Durkin.

Thank you.

Next up is Kanthi, followed by Thomas Meeks.

Good afternoon.

I'm a volunteer with the Coalition of Seattle Indian Americans and we follow the lead of King County Equity Now and Decriminalize Seattle.

I call upon the council repeatedly to defund this militant terrorist group called the Seattle Police Department starting with firing Major Mayor Durkin and Chief Best.

The protests of the past two months have shown that the SPD routinely terrorizes the very people it should protect.

using tear gas, pepper spray, flashbang grenades, hiding badges, turning off body cameras, detaining people without cause.

The list of brutal atrocities is just endless.

At this point, we are repeating this like a broken record.

What is the council waiting for to ensure the safety of its own people?

Fire Durkin, fire Best, drop charges on all protesters,

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Thomas Meeks, followed by Hassan Khan.

Hello, my name is Thomas Meeks.

I'm a resident of West Seattle.

I was injured in Saturday's protest.

I decided to be on the line facing police officers for the first time because of the judge's ruling allowing use of crowd control devices in limited use cases.

I saw indiscriminate use of crowd control devices, though, against the crowd.

Blast balls exploding above head, a young woman being maced in the face for nothing other than holding a sign, and had two inches of skin removed from my thigh through my jeans from a blast ball that exploded just behind me while I was standing towards the front.

The police officers are breaking the law.

We need to take another tack, get rid of Mary Durkan, and show that there's some accountability here.

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Hassan, followed by Howard Gale.

Do we have Hassan?

Hassan is on the line, yes.

Hassan?

It looks like we might be having some technical difficulties, so I'm gonna, we'll come back to Hassan if he's available again, we'll call on him again.

But let's go ahead and move over to Howard Gale.

Hi, this is Howard Gale from Lower Queen Anne District 7. On June 15th, the council banned a variety of police crowd control weapons.

As with the discussion on defunding the police without proper insight and analysis, council legislation could well end up with folks getting still getting abused, but now by half the number of police simply using fewer weapons.

To recast an old phrase, the beatings will continue until policy improves.

Here are a few crucial policy reforms the council must enact.

Create specific and distinct policies for the policing of First Amendment activities as opposed to generalized crowd control policies.

Most important, prohibit the use of any crowd control devices that cannot be traced back to individual officers, make police use of force reports and police disciplinary records easily and publicly accessible, and make...

Thank you.

Next up is Megan Ibarra, followed by Wynne Greenwood.

Good, I think.

Megan?

Okay.

Can you hear me now?

Yep, we can hear you.

Go ahead.

Good afternoon, I am Megan Iuerra, calling regarding City Council's veto-proof majority pledge to cut SPD's budget by 50% in response to broad public support.

As of July 23rd, there was $188.6 million left in SPD's 2020 budget.

50% of that is $94.3 million.

In the next two weeks, Council will vote on a rebalanced 2020 budget.

City Council can put their pledge into action by voting to first, eliminate SPD functions such as navigation team that conducts violent sweeps of our houseless neighbors, transfer functions of 911 dispatch out of police control and SPD budget, reduce SPD's budget across the board, a correction after a 68% budget bloat, and in place, fund community investments instead.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Wynne Greenwood, followed by Stephanie Fox.

Good afternoon.

My name is Wynne Greenwood.

I live in Beacon Hill.

I'm an artist and educator and I support the proposal to defund SPD by 50 percent and to direct those funds towards community-based solutions outlined by Decriminalize Seattle and King County Equity Now.

I believe the vote to defund SPD is a vote about quality and health of community.

When I heard the presentation by Decrim Seattle at the budget hearing this month I came away with the understanding that the alternative structures we need to truly support Seattle's communities are already here.

I believe in the practicality and possibility of their proposal.

The knowledge, the structures, the relationships are already in place to start and scale up citywide transformation.

It's time now as a city for us to start living what we imagine freedom, equity and care to look like.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Stephanie Fox, followed by Joanna Bitten.

Hi, my name is Stephanie Fox.

I'm a resident of Beacon Hill and I'm the executive director of Jewish Voice for Peace.

And I'm calling in support of defunding SPD by at least 50% and reinvesting in community.

I believe it's necessary because I don't want my two-year-old child to grow up in a city where Black people and Indigenous people and houseless and trans people and protesters are brutalized and killed and caged, and that that's what we call safety.

Budgets are moral documents, and they do what they say they will do.

And a system and a budget invested in punishment, brutality, violence, and control will do only that.

safety and health will flourish when we invest in the flourishing of our communities.

So please reinvest in community-based solutions to health and safety by voting to eliminate and transfer SPD functions across the board by at least 94 million.

Thank you.

Next up is Joanna followed by Leah Moreno.

Hi, this is Joanna.

I'm a constituent of District 7. I'm calling on all council members to support defunding the police by 50 percent.

Moreover, we need to direct those funds towards Black and Brown communities and fund education and health rather than to reimagine policing.

I need you to also meet our additional demands as well.

Amnesty for all protesters, including the 45 arrests that happened Saturday, close the youth jail now, not in five years, and to recall Durkin, who literally collaborated with the Trump administration to get the crowd control weapon ban overturned.

SPD has no problem using excessive force.

An illegal observer was maced by a cop, which violates city ordinances.

We are not safe in a city with Durkin as mayor.

Additionally, I would like you guys to include the Everyday March organizers in budget meetings so that they can, because we are the ones that are putting in all the work, not King County Equity Now and Decriminalize Seattle.

I yield my time.

Next up is Leah Moreno followed by Derek Bonafilia.

Hello, my name is Leah Moreno.

Hello, my name is Liam Moreno.

I'm a resident of District 5. First, I'm calling in support of the most robust funding possible for Council Bill 119833 and in support of Resolutions 31956 and 31960. Transit and information access are both vital investments for an equitable city.

Affordable broadband especially cannot come too soon, and the current pandemic crisis has made clear how investments in Internet are as vital a utility and are both necessary and overdue.

Mobile hotspots and library access are important, but they're not sufficient to meet this need.

Second, I want to address the appointment of Lauren Squire to the Seattle Planning Commission.

Her focus seems to be on pedestrian and bike solutions.

I want to stress equal considerations for residents of varying ability and for whom walking and biking is not an option.

Transit planning needs to work for everyone.

Thank you for calling in, Lee, and my apologies for filtering you into the second public comment.

Looks like you should have been in that first phase, but we'll try to get it right next time.

Okay, next up is Derek, followed by Hassan Khan.

Hi, I'm a renter in D6, and I'm calling today to urge you all to...

Sorry.

I'm a renter in D6.

I'm a renter in D6 calling today to urge you all to use the full extent of your positions as city council members to defund SPD by 50 percent.

Invest in Black communities and free all protesters.

It's obvious that there are going to be obstacles like Jenny Durkin and Spog but I'm calling on you all to stand up and face these obstacles rather than using them as an excuse.

If Jenny Durkin is blocking these demands, remove her from office for allowing SPD to flagrantly abuse the residents of this city.

If SPOG tries to block these demands, go after them for every single time they've broken their contract throughout this uprising.

If that doesn't work, find another way.

That's why you're elected, to stand up, fight back, and do the right thing.

Next up is Hassan, followed by Gabby Gauthier.

Hello, my name is Khan Hassan.

And I'm calling to my comment is we have seen that the commitments made by Mayor Durkan about avoiding police brutality continue to ring hollow.

Calling Saturday's citizen protest right was a transparent excuse by the police to quell the voice of the people by using brute force.

What price a city mayor who cannot protect the residents of her own city from border patrol agents being sent by the federal government?

Why aren't we taking a stronger stand like other cities like Philadelphia?

The answer is pretty simple.

Defund SPD.

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Gabby followed by Jesse Bonifilia.

Hi my name is Gabby and I'm a renter in District 6. I'm also a member of Sunrise Seattle and a graduate student studying trauma-related disorders and their treatment.

I'm here to add my voice to the call to defund SPD by at least 50 percent invest that money into the Black community and to drop charges against all protesters.

Living in fear can have a profound impact on physical and mental health.

Every day that the SPD is operating at this capacity is another day we're sacrificing the health and safety of those in the Black and Indigenous communities.

We need systems of community care that work for everyone.

Enough is enough.

To my city council member Dan Strauss, I urge expediency in this matter.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Jesse followed by Ethan Manz.

Hi, my name is Jesse and I live in District 2. I believe in defunding FPD and reinvesting in the community if necessary.

Growing up in a white military family with family members who are also police, I wrongly believed that police kept us safe.

Seeing the murders of Charlene Lyles, Sean Fuhrer, and many others in our city and across the country, I've quickly learned how incorrect and harmful that belief was.

This is affirmed even more in the disproportionate display of force from SPD during protests, which I've experienced from the entirety of protesting starting May 30th, but particularly this when a blast wall was thrown into a crowd that exploded on my legs and ripped through my clothes.

Please I am demanding that you support the King County Equity Now and defund Seattle.

Defund.

Thank you.

Next up is Ethan followed by Maxwell Goodwin.

Hi, I'm a resident in District 2, and I'm joining many other concerned citizens in calling to remind the Council to hold true to their pledge to defund the Seattle Police Department by at least 50%, starting the rest of this year, and to implement the Kanawai-Seattle and King County Equity Analysis 4-Point Plan.

When we think about what safety looks like, it's not armed mobs of racist officers roaming the streets.

It's having a safe place to sleep.

It's having access to food.

It's having access to opportunity.

I support the four-point plan to defund SPD and use those enormous amount of funds that are used to brutalize the people of Seattle and instead invest them into housing and community-led solutions that prevent crime from happening rather than penalizing people who are forced into crimes out of poverty.

I see the rest of my time.

Thank you.

Next up is Maxwell followed by Sally Kincaid.

Hello, my name is Maxwell Goodwin.

I'm a District 3 resident, but I'm planning to move when my lease is up.

I'm not sure to which district.

I'm a small business owner who hopes to have a storefront soon.

When I do, I hope police aren't eating chemical weapons, terrifying explosives, and military vehicles that scare away business and keep people scared at home, not to mention set up military-style checkpoints that literally keep customers away.

Some business owners are scared of property destruction from protests, but honestly, if you pay attention, just to you that do that, millions just hit things like Starbucks, Big Bang, racist pop stores, jails and ice building, and the clothing store that was owned by the cop that shot Charlene Lyle.

And it's pretty obvious that the trash cans toppled over in the streets are to keep police away, or at least slow them down, which is pretty understandable at this point, including graffiti on big, fancy apartment complexes, but no broken windows.

Honestly, if they graffiti Black Lives Matter or F the police on my floor, I'll wear that proudly.

Thank you.

Next up is Sally, followed by Erica Bonilla.

Okay can you hear me.

We can hear we can hear you.

Go ahead.

Okay.

My name is Sally Kincaid and I'm calling as a Seattle resident and property owner.

I'm calling because I've been so frustrated by what's happening in the city that I call home.

I don't think I should have to remind you that Seattle is suffering the effects of COVID-19 not only the effects of the illness but its effects on the economy and the quality of life.

And then, of course, there's the issue of rampant homelessness and the drug-related criminal activity.

But I'm calling about the fact that I believe the Seattle Council is making matters far worse by enabling the deliberate wreckage of downtown and beyond.

People who have been referred to as peaceful protesters who are actually behaving as thugs have been allowed to continually cause violence.

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Erica, followed by Jenny Price.

Hi, good afternoon.

My name is Erica Bonilla.

I completely disagree with the person who just spoke.

I have been a PCO for the 41st District for two years and just recently moved into the Ballard neighborhood.

I'm also a psychology student at Seattle University and have been involved in several protests where I have been made and tear gassed.

By police officers I have a chronic condition which is asthma and this is not good.

I'm calling to defund the Seattle Police Department by 50 percent and instead invest that money into community-based programs like mental health social work.

We must not train police officers and they must be defended by at least 50 percent.

We must push Jenny Durkin to resign and no new youth jail not in five years now.

This issue should be a priority in our district.

Thanks.

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Jenny Price followed by Robert Cruz.

Hi my name is Jenny Price and I'm a resident of District 6. I'm also a member of the Sunrise Movement in Seattle.

I'm calling to voice support for the demands of decriminalized Seattle and King County equity now.

which include defunding the Seattle Police Department by at least 50 percent and reallocating those funds to community-led health and safety systems.

I believe defunding SPD and reinvesting in community is necessary to reduce the amount of harm caused by racist policing and instead invest in the well-being of our community.

By redirecting those funds to things like housing child care and food programs.

The City Council has the opportunity to demonstrate a commitment to real public safety.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Robert Cruz, followed by Seth Halloran.

Hi there.

I'm a resident and voter of District 5 and a housing worker in District 4. I want to be sure we include in the discussion the scope of resource improvement, defunding the police by at least half to the tune of $85 million that's remaining in this year for specific reinvestment in Black and Brown communities.

And also not jailing protesters that should be freed or caging kids in a new jail, neither now or in five years.

And also Mayor Durkin should take accountability for her culpability in police perpetrated violence and resign.

In addition, we need to stop doing sweeps of homeless encampments, and we need to start funding services that give jobs to those who need them and to the youth.

And then, of course, we need to start looking out for renters who may be facing an evictions crisis, so that renters can organize and they can have eviction defenses.

Thanks, and I yield.

Thank you.

Next up is Seth Halloran, followed by Joe Kunzler.

Hi, my name is Seth Halloran.

I live in District 6, and I'm calling to express my support for all of King County Equity Now's demands.

I believe the city council should defund SPD by at least 50%.

I believe the city council should remove Mayor Durkin from office because she has shown that she has no regard for the humanity or safety of her city.

And I support the Internet for All bill.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in.

Our last speaker for this afternoon is Joe Gonzalez.

Well, thank you, President Gonzalez.

As always, you are incredibly awesome as a council president, but that isn't why I called.

First, I endorse, second, and fully stand behind the comments on the Seattle Transbenefit District, but I'm calling today to protest very firmly the request for a subpoena of press footage of events that is making the press a target.

It's making citizen photographers like me a target.

even at public meetings.

This is very, very dangerous, very simple result.

Maybe it's time to impeach and try and remove Council, excuse me, Mayor Turcotte from office peacefully and non-violently, but through a judicial system led by the City Council.

This is an attack on the free press.

We need to do something.

And I ask that you please get that subpoena against our friends in the media removed, please.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for calling in.

Colleagues, that concludes our public comment session.

It is 3.15 p.m., so we're going to go ahead and close out our public comment session and begin with items of business on our agenda.

I am happy to report that she is feeling better and she has been on the call with us and in this meeting with us.

She called in shortly after the roll call.

I wanted to make note for the record that councilmember Juarez is present and has been listening to public comment, and I just want to welcome you, Council Member Juarez, to today's meeting.

Thank you for making the time to call in and for letting us know that you'd be able to join us.

Okay, next up, we are going to go ahead and do payment of the bills.

I'd ask that the clerk please read the title.

Council Bill 119836, appropriating money to pay I will move to pass the council bill.

Is there a second?

It has been moved and seconded.

Are there any comments?

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

Aye.

Sawant.

Aye.

Strauss.

Yes.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Lewis.

Yes.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Herbold.

Yes.

Council Member Juarez.

Council Member Juarez.

Council President Gonzalez.

Aye.

Eight in favor.

None opposed.

Thank you so much.

The bill passes, and the chair will sign it.

I ask that the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation.

Okay, agenda item one.

Will the clerk please read agenda item one into the record?

I report at the Select Committee on Sale Transportation Benefit District Funding.

Agenda item one, Council Bill 119833, related to a sales and use tax providing for the submission to qualified electors of the city at an election to be held on November 3, 2020. Your proposition to collect a sales and use tax to fund transit and related transportation programs in Seattle.

The committee recommends that this will pass as amended.

Thank you so much, Madam Clerk.

So here is what I think we need to do, because there's a lot of moving pieces on this particular council bill.

So if there is no objection, we will first hear from the committee chair, Council Member Peterson, to present the committee report.

And then we can consider the possible seven amendments in the following order.

I would propose that we consider amendment two, which was published on the agenda.

That is Councilmember Morales' proposal to increase the tax rate from 0.1% to 0.2%.

Then I propose that we consider amendment six, which was not published on the agenda.

That's my proposed amendment.

It would increase the tax rate from 0.1% to 0.15%.

And then there are, there is another potential amendment 6B that was not on the agenda and would require the rules to be suspended.

That is being potentially brought forward by council member Mosqueda.

And it would amend, it would be an amendment to remove the increase to low income, to the low income spending cap category with those, with any additional funds being directed to transit service.

We also have amendment 8, we could then consider amendment 8A or 8B, also not on the agenda.

That amendment would be brought forward by Councilmember Herbold and would propose to increase the emerging service category cap.

Then we could consider amendment number one, which is on the agenda that's being brought forward by Councilmember Strauss and proposes structuring the levy, changing the time length of the levy from four years to a six-year term.

And then we would hear amendment number 7A or 7B, also not on the agenda, but amendments being brought forward by Councilmember Strauss, which would be technical fixes to clarify the term of the measure if the term of the measure is extended to April 2025 or April 2027. And then lastly, we could consider amendment number three, which was on the agenda.

That's my amendment to include explicitly essential workers in the low income spending category.

So if there is no objection to that order of discussion of the amendments, then we will consider them in that order.

Madam Chair, Madam President, could you just repeat the numbers sequence for me real quick, if you don't mind?

I got the descriptions, which I appreciate, but I just wanna make sure I got that right.

Okay, amendment two, amendment six, potential amendment 6B, amendment 8A or 8B, amendment one, amendment 7A or 7B, and then we will conclude with amendment three.

All right, it's like we're having a select committee meeting of the STBD.

Heavy here, but here we go.

Okay, I didn't hear any objection.

No objections?

All right, let's rock and roll.

So hearing no objection, the order of the discussion of the amendments will be considered in that order.

Council Member Peterson, as chair of the committee, you are recognized in order to provide the committee report.

Thank you, Council President.

Colleagues, our Transportation Benefit District has been operating successfully for the past six years after voters approved the current version in 2014. On Friday, July 17, our Select Committee on Seattle Transportation Benefit District funding unanimously passed Council Bill 119833 to renew funding for that important transit measure.

And we voted on all seven of the published amendments at that time.

A theme at committee was to prioritize transit service over road work, which we did by moving more dollars from road work into transit and requiring that a majority of all new funds go toward transit service.

I think we can all agree it's disappointing that Tim Eyman's initiative 976, which was rejected by a whopping 76% of Seattle voters, has removed approximately half of the funding source We hope to overturn that measure in the courts.

If we do overturn I-976, I support doubling the car tab revenues that we are allowed to increase as a council.

At the same time, we can't ignore that ridership on King County Metro has plummeted by over 72% during the COVID pandemic.

Moreover, a second wave of the coronavirus is an imminent concern as we've seen with our governor last week imposing additional restrictions.

Yet I am upbeat on the future and the future of transit.

It's going to, the demand is going to increase and I'm hopeful we're going to get back to the high levels that were the pride of the nation and that will continue to increase that transit ridership.

Today, there are additional amendments for consideration.

And while we are likely to hear a robust debate about some of these amendments, just hope the general public sees that there is unity and that we all support transit and want to renew this measure.

One of the key amendments or two amendments we'll debate today is about the tax rates.

One of the amendments would propose to double the tax rate, to double the sales tax to 0.2%.

I am not able to support a doubling of the sales tax for all the reasons that we don't like sales taxes.

I am pleased to see the compromise amendment from Council President Gonzalez to make sure we get more revenue for transit.

that we are going to be able to vote on the amendments that we are going to be able to vote on.

If we are able to vote on more than the proposal that was transmitted to us, this amendment would increase to 0.15% which we discussed a little bit this morning.

Council President, after we vote on all the amendments today, I would like to make brief final remarks before the final vote if possible.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson, for those introductory remarks.

It is 3.25 p.m.

now, so I think we should go ahead and get started on the amendment work.

So let's go ahead and start with amendment two, and the primary sponsor of that is Councilmember Morales, so I'm gonna hand it over to Councilmember Morales to make her motion to formally put amendment two before the council.

Thank you, Council President.

I move to amend Council Bill 119833 as presented on Amendment 2 on the agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to adopt amendment two.

Councillor Morales, you are the prime sponsor of that amendment and you are recognized in order to address your amendment.

Please.

Thank you.

Colleagues, we had a robust conversation about this this morning, but for the benefit of the public this afternoon, I want to thank you again for the discussion that we had last week about this amendment.

As I said, I'm looking to try to protect as much as possible service hours, up to 150,000 service hours for our neighbors, even as we do struggle with an increase in a sales tax.

I withdrew it last week to allow more time to hear from stakeholders, and I want to say that after speaking with several community organizations in my district, including ACRS, Refugee Women's Alliance, Skipta, Interim, El Centro de la Raza, One America, Beacon Safe Streets, Rooted in Rights, the MLK-Lake King County Labor Council, Teamsters 117. I've decided to bring the amendment back for consideration.

These stakeholders understand what's at risk if we move something to the ballot that will reduce transit service so drastically.

So I don't want to belabor the point.

I will just say that the 0.2% increase is an effort to protect the transit system that we've already invested in.

And cutting Seattle's investment to $30 million a year will wipe out that system and harm those who need transit the most.

So I am moving this amendment and asking for my colleagues' support.

Thank you, Council Member Morales for those remarks and really appreciated the, as you put it, very robust conversation around all of these amendments this morning.

So this is a continuation of that conversation, of course.

Colleagues, any other comments on Amendment 2?

Council Member Mosqueda.

.1% sales tax increase would have on households and estimates that the amendment would mean an annual cost of about $9 per household making about $25,000 a year, or about $12 per household making around $50,000 a year.

So we can't underestimate the impact of that dollar amount on working families.

We also know that cutting transit, which is a lifeline for the very same folks that we're concerned about having to pay this tax, would have a much more repressive and harmful impact without being able to get to work or child care or their other critical services like medical appointments.

We've heard from folks who are supporting this effort from labor partners and SAGE and other folks today.

So I will continue to support this effort, and if this does not pass, I will also support we are doing everything we can to get additional dollars in hand to preserve where possible or reduce the burden of the cuts that are expected.

I appreciate the efforts that have been put forward today to do just that.

Thank you.

Sales taxes are a terribly regressive tax that put the burden of funding transit on poor and working class people, leaving big business and the super rich relatively untaxed.

And many council members have acknowledged this reality.

If, on the other hand, we allow the cuts to happen, it will impact workers who depend on transit for basic mobility.

Some of those same working families who are hit by the regressive taxation, and as was mentioned in public comment, it hits people with very low incomes, people with community members with disabilities in many different ways, and it will hit transit workers, the union members of ATU 587. The choice between increasing the sales tax and austerity cuts to budget hours is a false choice where working class people and the marginalized communities and poor people lose either way.

In deciding whether to support this amendment, what's decisive for me is whether other council members would be willing to support progressive funding alternatives to this regressive tax.

I mentioned in committee 10 days ago that legally, it is not true that sales taxes are the only option for funding transit.

Yes, the transportation benefit districts are a legal construct that have certain identified funding sources.

However, there is nothing in the law that hasn't been that would prevent the council from passing some other progressive general fund tax and using those funds to pay for bus service.

For example, the city council could pass an ordinance to increase the tax rate in the just passed Amazon tax.

Increasing those tax by a quarter of a percent would be sufficient to raise the funds to eliminate the transit budget cuts without any sales taxes at all.

I asked the question at that time, would council members agree to support that?

Another example is the city could put on the ballot a 0.2% increase in the B&O tax rate and use that instead of sales taxes because they are not regressive like the sales taxes.

It is less progressive.

The B&O taxes are less progressive than the Amazon tax because the Amazon tax only taxes the largest 3% of big businesses.

I would like to make that motion.

I indicated I would abstain from a vote for .2% sales tax rate at the committee to give time for the city I have to share with members of the public that in the past 10 days, I am not aware of any other council members supporting shifting transit funding away from sales taxes towards avenues for progressive taxation.

And the reality is the political establishment in Seattle and elsewhere always tries to put the burden of taxes on working people unless there's a movement to fight back.

We won the Amazon tax only because we had a massive and democratically organized movement with a ballot measure that was a credible threat to big business.

The fundamental lesson of the false choice that we are left with today, instead of progressive taxes, is that the political establishment cannot be trusted to support the interests of workers unless they're forced to do so by a sufficiently powerful movement.

I will be voting yes on increasing the proposed sales tax rate by an additional 0.1%.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Are there any other comments?

Council Member Strauss, please.

Thank you, Council President.

As I stated in my comments earlier this morning, the duration is what's most important for me.

Just by listening to my colleagues' comments and consideration between 0.2 and 0.15 and 0.1, I'm not hearing a majority of comments because that's all we have to go off of here on either 1.1 or 0.2.

And I'm wondering if there is, folks are coalescing around 0.5.

Maybe that's a question out of order, but figured I would ask it in the open session.

Councilmember Morales?

I think that is a good point.

I can't compel colleagues to say what they don't want to say, but there is obviously the alternative proposal of amendment six, which is my .15.

People are welcome to signal a preference one way or the other if they are comfortable doing so.

Thank you.

I will be supporting the Amendment 6. I have expressed my concerns in the past about increasing taxes that have a disparate impact on low-income people and the sales taxes is one of the most regressive forms of taxation.

I understand from the analysis that increasing the sales tax from 0.1% to 0.2% will be for car owning lower income households, it will be outweighed by not having to pay the car tax.

I should say car-owning households generally will be outweighed by not having to pay the car tax.

as well as car owning lower income households.

It's the low income households who don't have a car that would, under this proposal, see their total tax burden rise by increasing the sales tax from 0.1% to 0.2%.

I understand that there is a good conversation about whether or not the loss of transit service outweighs the negatives around having the total tax burden rise for low-income households who don't have cars.

But I do believe that Councilmember Gonzalez puts forward a good compromise to help address the negative impact of loss of transit service to those households, and also while minimizing the regressivity of the taxation.

And so I will be supporting that.

I also, as Council Member Gonzalez explained this morning, have concerns that this is the first tax measure that we are going to be putting on the ballot in a, post-COVID time where people are very impacted across many socioeconomic spectrums negatively impacted by the economic realities of COVID-19.

And this is so important to our city that I just really don't want to risk I know that we have a lot of work to do.

I know that we have a lot of work to do.

I know that we have a lot of work to do.

I know that we have a lot of work to do.

I know that we have a lot of work to do.

I know that we have a lot of work to do.

I know that we have a lot of work to do.

I know that we have a lot of work to do.

I know that we have a lot of work to do.

I know that we have a lot of work to do.

I know that we have a lot of work to do.

I know that we have a lot of work to do.

I know that we have a lot of work to do.

I know that we have a lot of work to do.

I know that we have a lot of work to do.

I know that we have a lot of work to do.

I know that we have a lot of work to do.

I know that we have a lot of work to do.

I know that we have a lot of transit advisory board for their weighing in both on the size of the tax as well as the term of the tax.

So thanks again.

Thank you so much.

Colleagues, any other comments on Amendment 2?

Council Member Lewis, please.

Thank you so much, Madam President.

You know, frankly, I'm still in a place where I would like to see no increase of the sales tax at all over the 0.1%.

I understand that there are a lot of tradeoffs that that would involve in terms of future service cuts or potential service reductions.

I continue to be very optimistic.

that the city is going to prevail in our litigation to unlock car tabs again as a component of our transportation benefit district strategy.

That councilmatically, we will be able to work with the county on a regional successor that could potentially go up to $100 on the car tabs, above and beyond the $60 car tabs that we have currently had.

and that that revenue could have a massive impact, especially on a countywide basis, to restoring those transit hours.

But, you know, that's still a risk, and there's still a lot that needs to be worked out for that to happen.

So I do think it's warranted to send to the people of Seattle the 1.5 number so that we can have that option to go up that high in the event that we're not successful in Olympia litigating in the court the repeal of Iman's initiative.

I would also signal that it would be my intent to seek only renewing the existing .1 in the event that we are successful and that we do unlock those car tabs for my comments this morning.

I would support the $1.5 million.

In the meantime, to avoid the worst of the reductions in service, I would support the .15 that has been proposed by Council President Gonzalez.

of litigation.

So just wanted to put that out there.

And I do want to thank Councilmember Morales for giving us the option of having this discussion because I know that it was a I think it was important that this was thoroughly vetted, that there was a really lengthy conversation about these impacts, and I do think that the compromise that the Council President has put forward is a good one and it's what I intend to support.

Thank you, colleagues.

Any other comments or questions about Amendment 2?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, Council Member Morales, any last words that you'd like to offer, or would you just like us to vote?

Let's just do it.

I know, I see, for those of you who can't see the entire grid of the council, there's many of us who are fanning ourselves, so we hope everybody's staying safe in this heat.

Okay, without there being additional discussion, I'm gonna go ahead and ask the clerk to please call the roll on the adoption of amendment 2.

Morales.

Aye.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

Peterson.

No.

Swant.

Aye.

Strauss.

Yes.

Lewis.

No.

Herbold.

No.

Juarez.

no council president gonzalez no four in favor five opposed thank you so much madam clerk the motion fails and amendment two is not um adopted so we'll go ahead and move to amendment six I will move to amend Council Bill 119833 as presented on Amendment 6, recently distributed.

It's been moved and seconded to adopt amendment six, a sponsor of this amendment.

I will just briefly address it and then open it up for debate and discussion.

Colleagues, we talked about this quite a bit this morning.

I just wanted to reiterate that I think that at the end of the day, it's important for the members of the public to know that this city council is committed to increasing the original proposal that we received from the mayor to to mitigate against deep service cuts to our frequent transit network.

Again, as we mentioned and discussed during this morning's council briefing, even under a 0.15% model, even under a 0.2% model, which would have been the maximum amount legally allowable for us to send to the voters, we are still expecting cuts to service from king county metro as a result of the COVID-19 economic crisis.

And the significant decrease in ridership in large part because our system relies on people paying fares in order for it to be viable.

And so I think it's important for us as councilmembers to fairly and accurately communicate to our constituents that the Seattle Transportation Benefit District is not going to be additive if passed by the voters as it has been in years past, but instead it will function to be a base and to hopefully allow Seattle the flexibility to buy the services that we need, but we will still be reliant on King County Metro to provide those services and to and to commit to providing those available services.

So just really quickly, at .15%, it will, in essence, provide us with an additional $14 million a year, according to the Seattle Department of Transportation.

This would allow us to buy about 30,000 hours for West Seattle and between 120,000 to 165,000 service hours would be available system wide.

that we would consider as a council before finalizing the spend plan.

If we do the math there, it gets us to a potential total range of 150,000 to 200,000 total service hours in a 0.15% tax scenario, tax rate scenario, with the currently available revenue forecasting.

So for a sense of scale and under normal circumstances, 175,000 services.

In addition to that, we are looking at how we can make sure that 175,000 hours could maintain our current SDVD investments in the frequent transit network including 30, 15, and 10 minute we are being prudent in going with the .15% route and making sure that we can make some specific decisions about the budget once the levy is approved I think is going to be helpful.

Sorry about the interference there.

I'm going to try to focus here instead of multitasking.

I really appreciate hopefully the support that folks can give this potential amendment, amendment six.

I think it's a reasonable alternative.

I do want to thank I think it is important for us to recognize that right now we are having a conversation about how much more revenue we can generate in order to mitigate against deeper service cuts.

I appreciate the opportunity to work with all of you on that we are going to be able to continue to fund our voters who will be asked to tax themselves in order for us to continue to fund really critically important transit services.

And I'm really happy that one of the amendments that we will be I think it is important that we include essential workers in our low income program.

I think that is so important for us to do.

Especially given what we know about who essential workers are in our city.

I look forward to folks support of both amendment six and amendment three.

I will pass it on and see if anyone else has any comments or questions about amendment six.

Councilmember Morales.

We need to make sure that we are able to increase or preserve as much transit as possible, as much service as possible for our community.

And I think this is an important step for us to take.

So I do plan to support this amendment.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

I appreciate the support.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Thank you, Council President.

I echo Council Member Morales' comments.

I want to thank the both of you again for continuing to make sure that there's additional dollars in hand.

In addition to Council Member Peterson, thank you for stewarding this through to this point so that we can have a final vote today.

Council President, I would very much like to support this amendment and, if possible, include a friendly amendment that we had I would love to have amendment 6B in front of us if it's possible to suspend the rules to consider that as you consider amendment 6. Hold on here.

Yes.

It would be appropriate for us to consider your amendment to my amendment before we take a vote on amendment six.

So why don't we go ahead and go through those steps now, Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you, Madam President.

I assume that there's no objection, then, if I go ahead and make the motion to consider amendment 6B?

I am so sorry.

I am needing more coffee today.

Councilmember Esqueda, we are going to go ahead and consider your amendment to amendment six that was not circulated by noon that you would like to present that did not meet the council rules.

The council rule will need to be suspended before we can consider it.

If there is no objection, Hearing no objection, the council rule is suspended, and Council Member Mosqueda, now you may proceed with moving your amendment.

Thank you, Madam President.

I move to amend Council Bill 119833 as presented in Amendment 6B, which was recently distributed.

Second.

Okay.

So it's been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment 6B.

And Council Member Mosqueda, you may now address your Amendment 6B.

Okay, thank you so much, Madam President.

Again, thank you to you and your office for your partnership on this potential amendment to Amendment 6. Amendment 6B proposes to increase the rate to 1.5% at, I'm sorry, 0.15% as the Council President has described it and as we discussed this morning.

But it does not change the spending caps.

Under 6B, the spending caps would remain as they are in the bill.

I'm happy to take any questions that you may have.

Together, this council is working through these amendments to make sure that we're prioritizing key services, especially as Council Member Morales described this morning, folks specifically in her district that are coming from more black and brown communities, lower wage workers who are especially reliant on transit right now to get to essential services and essential jobs.

I want to thank Council President Gonzalez for her Amendment 3, which she just alluded to as well, which will specifically call out essential workers, which I think is a critical component of this proposal.

Amendment 6B in front of us really helps to make sure that we're supporting the goal of increasing the ability for individuals to access key transit services and making sure that we look at frequency and services as this proposal moves forward or is implemented.

I absolutely support the ongoing conversations around transit passes for low-income individuals and essential workers, and I think that we have an opportunity to partner with the county.

The county has an upcoming launch of their free and low-cost fare program this fall, and that program will focus on leveraging existing Lyft infrastructure to fully subsidize Metro services for customers who earn at or below 80 percent of the federal poverty level.

So as we work in partnership with Metro, it'd be great for us to continue to promote our value as a council that we want more people to access transit services, making sure that the program can accommodate essential workers and have a better understanding where the needs are.

And as we do so, I think that the amendment in front of us really makes sure that we address what we continue to hear from a lot of the folks who called in today and community members around the city, that we want to see how we can address the cuts in services and frequency that we're already hearing about.

we have a lot of people who are concerned that low wage workers and especially communities of color are able to maintain access to transit services.

I'm really excited about this friendly amendment and working in partnership with the prime sponsor, Council President Gonzalez, to put forward this change so that we can really balance, I think, what we heard from in terms of the regional King County and our ongoing commitments to make sure that we preserve as many routes as possible and lessen the reductions in key services so that we can promote ridership, especially for our most marginalized neighborhoods so that more people have access to transit and essential services.

Thank you, Councilmember Mosqueda.

Are there any questions or comments on this amendment?

I do consider it a friendly amendment.

Councilmember Herbold?

Thank you.

Yes.

So my question is, is that given that these are caps, not minimum spending requirements, I'm not quite sure why we wouldn't want to increase the cap for access to transit for youth, low income and seniors, given that our proposal that we have before us now we are talking about an increase in overall revenue.

If we are going to increase the revenue collection from one-tenth of a percent to 0.15 percent, that's going to result in an increase in overall transit capacity, and it seems like having funding cap of 10 million is based on a tenth of a percent assumption of revenue.

So I just think if we are expanding the capacity of transit, we also have to be able to contemplate the expansion of access of these populations to transit.

and again, the 23 million in Council President Gonzalez's amendment isn't required spending, it's a maximum number of dollars to be spent.

And so I'm just concerned that we're not allowing ourselves to consider, for instance, $11 million in spending, given that we have this increase in in capacity contemplated by the increase in the size of the tax.

I would start by saying we know that even though it's just a cap, we know that those numbers can be very powerful, and we don't want to set expectations that we're going to have the ability to go to a certain level or that any money is going to be drawn away from other transit services and frequency.

We also heard pretty strongly from community partners, including in transit and in labor, that services and frequency are some of the biggest priorities that they wanted to see invested in.

This is, I think, an effort to also say that there's ongoing investments in passes at our county level.

So it would be a nice partnership to make sure that we're not drawing dollars over to certain areas, even though it's just considered a cap.

I'm just concerned that if we're expanding frequency of service and numbers of routes, and we're not also expanding the ability of low-income people, seniors, and young people to access that, that we may be doing ourselves a disservice.

I'm not suggesting that 23 million as the cap is the right number, but it certainly seems like it should be something higher than the $10 million that was based on a tenth of a percent.

to be able to make the most out of the revenue spent.

We are trying to preserve as many routes as possible.

We're trying to preserve frequency as much as possible.

And we don't want to have folks have access to passes when the bus isn't coming maybe every 20 minutes and starts coming every 40 minutes.

I think we're making these tough decisions about access to passes versus frequency of service.

And I think that when we partner with the county and we basically just lift the cap, we're able to then have the passes continue to go into effect with the county partnership and try to preserve as much frequency as we can with services.

the number of routes and services that we have in place.

So it was really trying to find that right hybrid between both making sure people have passes and that the buses actually came.

And I know there's other members who have been working on this in the text of Council Member Morales' bill.

I know that that was something that you were also grappling with.

But I think that it's both are needed and we're just trying to raise the cap so we're not drawing a line that we might not be able to meet.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions or comments on proposed Amendment 6B?

I would just say that I struggled with this question as well.

I think really the policy question before us is whether we want to still stay committed to these low income programs.

I think the answer to that is yes.

Then the question becomes at what level and And I think that, you know, we could increase it by a little bit or we can increase it by a lot, which was my original amendment.

But I think ultimately what the other policy question is here is what we want to see in terms of the overall health of the frequent transit network citywide that is accessible to to all transit riders regardless of income.

And so I think for that reason, I can understand why Council Member Mosqueda is bringing forward Amendment 6B, which leaves the low-income programming intact, but if the We are looking at a $1.1 million level associated with the 0.1% proposal that was originally submitted to us while still saying that the additional revenue generated from a 0.15% proposal can and should be I'm not sure if that's the right way to put it.

I'm not sure if that's the right way to put it.

I'm not sure if that's the right way to put it.

I'm not sure if that's the right way to put it.

I'm not sure if that's the right way to put it.

I'm not sure if that's the right way to put it.

I'm not sure if that's the right way to put it.

I'm not sure if that's the right way to put it.

I'm not sure if that's the right way to put it.

I'm not sure if that's the right way to put it.

I'm not sure if that's the right way to put it.

Councilmember Peterson.

Thank you and I don't know if it helps others making a decision but the memo that we got from central staff breaks out the budget that SDOT was planning going forward.

They set the buckets the categories at higher levels than what they're budgeting so they're only budgeting $7 million for the low-income passes on average.

So the $10 million bucket provides a lot of cushion for it to go up, if that helps folks today.

That is helpful.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

That's a good reminder.

I appreciate it.

Okay, any other questions or comments on Amendment 6B?

that.

Thank you.

Anything else in closing remarks?

continue as much as we can in this really tough economic time to make sure that we're providing as much access to transit services and support to access passes as we know that the recession will be long and these services are really critical.

So I appreciate the work that we've done with your office, Council President, and thank you for your flexibility on this language.

Absolutely.

Okay.

I'm going to go ahead and close out debate on Amendment 6B and ask the clerk to please call the roll on adoption of Amendment 6B.

Morales.

Morales.

Aye.

Aye.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

Peterson.

Aye.

Swant.

Aye.

Strauss.

Yes.

Lewis.

Yes.

Herbold.

Yes.

Juarez.

Yes.

Council President Gonzales.

Yes.

Nine in favor, nine opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Okay, are there The motion carries in Amendment 6B is adopted.

Are there any other comments on Amendment 6 as amended?

Okay, hearing none, I think we talked about this a lot during council briefing.

We've talked about, we've debated it a lot here.

So I'm going to go ahead and ask the clerk call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 6 as amended.

Morales?

Aye.

Mosqueda?

Aye.

Peterson.

No.

Sawant.

Aye.

Sprouse.

Yes.

Lewis.

Aye.

Herbold.

Yes.

Juarez.

Yes.

Council President Gonzales.

Yes.

Eight in favor, one opposed.

Thank you so much.

The motion carries and amendment 6 as amended is adopted.

Thank you so much, colleagues.

We're going to go ahead and move in the order I described.

So we are now going to consider, I believe, amendment 8B.

And this is going to be from Council Member Herbold, and please correct me if I got the the letter wrong, but I do think it's 8B.

So I'll go ahead and recognize you in order to have you move your amendment 8B.

Thank you.

I move to amend Council Bill 1198.33 as presented on amendment 8B, recently distributed.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment 8B.

Council Member Herbold, you are recognized in order to address the amendment.

Again, much like I argued in the last amendment, this does not require additional funding.

It increases a funding cap for emerging mobility needs related to COVID-19 response and recovery, and the closure of the West Seattle Bridge in proportion with the increase of the size of the levy from $6 million to $9 million.

It increases the funding cap, again, for both the bridge.

the bridge has been closed for a number of reasons.

one is for emerging mobility needs related to COVID-19 response and recovery.

so that relates to the social distancing requirements of metro.

but also for the closure of the west Seattle bridge and impacts to west Seattle and south park residents.

And that is if a repair is chosen, obviously much longer if a replacement is chosen.

Last week they indicated repair could take even longer than previous estimates.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, how the emerging needs funding in that particular scenario would sort of stack up to service capacity pre-COVID-19.

And the response from Metro is that with a 10th of a percent STBD with the spending for emerging needs.

It would allow for capacity that would be close to pre-COVID-19 levels, but not at those levels.

And again, we need in West Seattle and South Park to do a mode shift from 17% of people taking transit to 30% of people taking transit.

There's no way we're going to be able to meet those goals.

If we are only able to add capacity that is close to pre-COVID-19 levels.

Some of the improvements that Metro has indicated would require third-party funding, like additional STBD, include upgrading the water service to two boats up to all day and all year round.

adding 773-775 water taxi shuttle improvements and or a new third route, again rapid ride C service frequency upgrades for both peak and off-peak, robust service between Admiral and downtown, doesn't exist right now, and similarly route 50 service frequencies upgrades to the Soto Link Station.

These are all things that are going to need additional revenue above and beyond what we're contemplating right now.

King County Metro presented last week before the West Seattle Bridge Community Task Force and noted that their plans do include adjusting service in the event that there is a high bridge instability and or long-term closure of the low bridge, which could shift even more towards a need for the water taxi.

So again, this is not, allowing for the change in the cap does not require this level of spending, but it would allow additional, it would allow for additional spending of an additional $3 million going from $6 million to $9 million.

And again, that isn't $6 million to $9 million specifically for West Seattle bridge-related spending.

That also includes the COVID-19 response and recovery spending.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

Are there any comments or questions on Proposed Amendment 8B?

Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you, Councilmember Herbold.

I am sorry if you've already said this, but can you repeat for us what type of stakeholdering has been done or conversations with the department about what impact this sort of earmarking would have on the proposed use of dollars already?

So again, it's not it wouldn't be earmarking it's not it doesn't require the spending but there already is an emerging emerging needs category that is for both COVID-19 recovery and emerging needs associated with the West Seattle bridge.

We spoke with King County Metro last week about what the impacts would be and what these additional dollars could be spent on.

I just gave the list of those things.

Water taxi, the shuttle to the water taxi.

Let's see, what else did I say?

Additional peak and off-peak service to RapidRide.

this is all information from Metro, and robust bus service between Admiral and downtown, which absolutely does not exist right now, and Route 50 frequency upgrades to the Soto Link station.

And so it's an additional maximum of $3 million, again, not all $3 million annually for the emerging needs associated with the West Seattle Bridge closure, but also associated with COVID-19 response and recovery, which is very focused on making sure that there is the ability to add service commensurate with the needs to reduce the number of people who are on each bus.

Colleagues, any other I think that is all I have.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments on proposed amendment 8B?

Councilmember Pedersen, please.

subsection E that you would be amending includes transit service?

It is only transit service.

Those things are only transit service.

So I think the issue is, you know, I think the policy question is, is do we want to increase the amount in the emerging needs bucket to what I think would be a total of $9 million, if your amendment passes.

Did I get that number right?

A total of $9 from $6.

From $6.

So it would increase that fund by $3 million for emerging needs.

So I guess the policy question is, would we rather have the additional $3 million go to emerging needs that are not yet known or or do we want it to go to sort of existing needs that we're aware of now in terms of transit services?

I mean, again, we have to shift the number of people taking the bus from 17% who are taking the bus pre-COVID-19 to 30%.

So that is a very known need, and perhaps emerging needs is not the right term.

I was just going to pivot to that by saying that, that, you know, I think, um, I think these are emerging needs appears to be the category of things that, that are still developing, but that we are aware, uh, are a gap in how we are able to meet the transit needs of, um, of riders throughout the city.

And, and certainly, The points you make about West Seattle in particular are rather significant, even in pre-COVID with, you know, maximum transit services being provided.

Most buses, if not all of the buses in and out of West Seattle were just packed to the gills.

And so I think we're going to see even more of that in the future.

I am going to support amendment B, 8B, with the understanding that it is going for transit service projects that will help our mobility across the city and with the understanding that capital projects and needs related to capital infrastructure is dealt with in a different part of the levy, and also we are looking at a lot of federal, regional, state, county resources to address the capital-based needs.

So I feel comfortable after this discussion in supporting Amendment 8B.

Okay, any other comments or questions?

All right.

I'd ask that the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 8B.

Morales.

No.

Mosqueda.

Mosqueda.

Peterson.

Yes.

Salant?

No.

Strauss?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Juarez?

Yes.

Council President Gonzalez?

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda, I didn't get your vote.

Okay, so.

I'm sorry, can you call on Council Member Mosqueda one more time?

Sure, Council Member Mosqueda?

Yes.

Seven in favor, two opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion carries and Amendment 8B is adopted.

Okay.

We're going to move along now to Council Member Strauss, who is going to move Amendment 1. So, Council Member Strauss, I will hand it over to you to make your motion.

Thank you, Council President.

I move to amend Council Bill 189.833 as presented on Amendment 1 on the agenda.

Is there a second?

Okay, it's been moved and seconded.

Thank you.

To adopt Amendment 1, Council Member Strauss, you are recognized in order to address Amendment 1.

Thank you, Council President.

I spoke at length this morning at Council briefing for the viewing public's reference, understanding that we have a lot before us today and many more agenda items I'll make this brief here.

Six years allows for the continuity of service that four years does not provide.

It allows us to have a predictable and dependable length of time for us to be able to fund our transit service.

When we look at regional transit benefit districts, which I believe that we need to move to, there is still the opportunity for a regional transportation benefit district to be created in four years.

As well, if that is the case, it is still important for Seattle to maintain some of its leverage within King County Metro to be able to provide the level of service that Seattleites desire and require.

So again, this is not in competition to a regional measure.

This creates a continuity of service.

If you were to have it at four years and the regional service, the regional authority was to be stood up, there would still be a six month gap in our ability to collect and implement the revenue and the services that we want.

I do have another amendment to address that issue should this amendment fail and or pass.

So we are able to make changes in the future.

We are able to go back to voters.

What we know now and today is that within this pandemic and this crisis, et cetera, it's hard to tell what next week will look like, much less in November or in four years from now, 2020 was said to be the year for a regional measure.

I think that it is important that we have the authority to run this transportation benefit district for six years, even if we make changes in that interim.

Thank you, Council President.

Those are my remarks.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Are there any comments or questions on amendment one?

Council President, if I may, it's Council Member Juarez.

Yes, please, Council Member Juarez.

Thank you.

We had a lengthy discussion on this July 17th, if you all recall, at 10 in the morning.

in which the motion to reduce this from six to four passed.

And I was concerned then about reducing the term or the duration from six to four years in light of some of the comments that we talked about before.

The vehicle license fee in I-976 and my concern that move Seattle will expire and also some of the transportation dollars that we seek from the county and that particular election year.

Also that the Transit Advisory Board wanted six years, and I tend to look to people who have subject matter expertise and who are pretty much waist deep in this stuff to advise us, hence the Transit Advisory Board.

If we're going to, at one point when people wanted to double the tax, but lessen the year, and then complain that this is a sales tax that's regressive or a tax on people, that seemed inconsistent to me.

So in light of today's vote, we're now, we have a compromise of we're going to the amendments that passed, that we are not going to double the tax, that we had a compromise, and thank you Gonzales, Councilor Gonzales and Mosqueda, that we can look at a tax of 0.15%.

And with Council Member Herbold's recent passage that we just did on her amendment, which I think was phenomenal, I again am going to voice my support that this should have stayed at six years.

And I can only say that at the Taxing Authority and our ability to have something on the ballot where we agree to tax ourselves is very powerful.

And just a quick note, I know there's been a lot said today about a lot of things and I'm not going to talk a lot because I don't think this should be an award show where we have to thank everybody in God.

I just want to say that I'm just a big proponent of putting things on the ballot when it comes to a tax.

It doesn't mean that I'm against or for, it means I think that people should decide and we should give them credit for that, that they have an idea of what's going on.

The proposition that this council member, me, that somehow I'm against things and for the police is categorically wrong.

Again, I'm back to a plan, a percentage, how we get there, what we decide to put out to the voters, and what we don't, and that we have a respectful conversation about how that happens.

And I'm sorry for that little side note.

As you know, I wasn't able to be there this morning.

So anyway, I am going to voice support for Council Member Dan Strauss's amendment, that the duration of this should go back to six years, not for the reasons that were stated earlier.

And Council President, thank you for giving me the opportunity to vent just a tad.

Not at all.

Thank you so much for your comments.

Are there any?

Okay, I see more hands up.

So we will now hear from Councilmember Lewis and Councilmember Herbold.

We'll follow him.

Councilmember Lewis.

Thank you so much, Madam President.

As with the other day, I remain committed to the four year.

I mean, I think all of us can agree that this is not a ideal transportation benefit district, given that all of our tools are tied up either in court or they haven't been invented yet.

I think forcing the conversation earlier, as I discussed this morning during briefing, is the better course forward to get what I think we would all like to see, which is the countywide transit benefit district with the $100 car tab fees and with a 1% sales tax that is more broadly assessed rather than only on Seattle taxpayers.

I would like to see that sooner rather than later.

I think that setting it at four years creates that sense of urgency and that is why I'd like to stick with it.

I don't wanna see the imperfect transit benefit district we're gonna make last more than it needs to or last longer than it needs to.

Council Member Herbold, please.

Thank you.

I first want to thank Councilmember Strauss for bringing this back before us.

I really appreciate this.

As somebody who voted in the minority last time in support of the six years, I'm glad we're having another opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of both terms.

I really believe that a six-year term will give us more leverage in negotiation.

We can opt not to collect funds in years five and six in the event of a successful regional measure.

And as it relates specifically to us having more leverage in a regional measure, if this is a six-year term, I think that's simply because if Seattle has funding in place, our bargaining position is better.

And one of the reasons why this is so important is because our measure includes funding for programs to support transit access to low-income residents, seniors, and youth.

as well as students participating in the Seattle promise scholarship program.

as well, again, as programs targeted to seniors and public housing residents.

our bargaining position is stronger to preserve the funding for these kinds of programs with a six-year levy than if a four-year levy is on the verge of expiring.

Also, if a four-year King County measure failed in 2024, the city would need to go to the ballot in perhaps very early 2025. as we had to do after the April 2014 countywide measure failed with 46% of the vote that year.

So again, that doesn't give us very much time to come up with an alternative measure.

And I just, I don't wanna repeat the experience this year when we were, I'm hoping that the county would put a regional ballot on a regional measure on the ballot.

And as we've seen, we've had to scramble a bit here to get our version on when that didn't happen.

I served on the regional transit committee last year, and it was I think it is definitely challenging for King County Councilmembers who wanted to be able to move forward.

I don't want our city to be left in the position that we were left in in 2014 and again this year when we had to vote on a really quickly developed measure.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President.

I just wanted to signal, as I did at the beginning of today's discussion, that I will be supporting moving from four years to six years again.

I know that we are all committed to working on a regional approach.

The resolution that Council Member Peterson and I are bringing forward later today will help with that.

I think it makes sense for us to support the city's stated commitment as we work for both more progressive options and faster options in our region.

The STPD package at six years supports better long-term planning for SDOT and nothing prevents the city from replacing this with a regional package in four years should those conversations continue with the county and that they go well.

I did support four years to go to six years and ensure that we have the substantial amount of, well, that we have more money to help with some of our critical services as we continue to engage with our county partners.

So I appreciate both of these items going hand in hand and I'll be supporting six years.

Any other comments?

Council Member Morales.

Thank you.

Just quickly.

Um, I just want to restate, uh, my concurrence with council member Lewis.

Um, I do think that we need to, um, have the opportunity to have the conversation sooner with their, our regional partners.

Um, I don't think even with the additional funding that we are going to be able to have now, um, that this is the package that will truly meet the needs of our community.

And I think the sooner we can move toward a regional solution and encourage a different kind of conversation about how we fund transit in the area, the better all of our neighbors will be served.

So I plan to continue supporting this amendment.

Sorry, continue to support four years over six.

Okay, any other comments, colleagues?

Oh, Council Member Strauss, close out debate, please.

I just wanted to say thank you to you, Council President, and you, Council Member Juarez, for your grace and space as we tackle large, important issues before us virtually and while there is a series of layers of other crises facing our nation.

So thank you for your patience, grace, and space with me as we delve into the duration of this benefit district moving forward.

Thank you.

Okay colleagues so I'm going to go ahead and close out debate and I'd ask that the clerk please call the roll on adoption of Amendment 1.

Morales.

No.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

Peterson.

Aye.

Swant.

No.

Strauss.

Yes.

Lewis.

No.

Herbold?

Aye.

I'm sorry, yes.

Juarez?

Aye.

Council President Gonzalez?

No.

Five in favor, four opposed.

Okay, the motion carries and Amendment 1 is adopted.

Are there any further comments on, oops, sorry.

Hold on a minute.

Motion carries and amendment one is adopted.

We're gonna go ahead and now move to amendment seven B, which is council member Strauss's amendment.

So council member Strauss, I am going to ask you to make your formal amendment of seven B so that it can be before the council.

Thank you, Council President.

I move to amend Council Bill 119833 as presented on Amendment 7B.

Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment 7B.

Council Member Strauss, you are recognized in order to address the amendment.

Thank you, Council President.

I'm bringing forth this amendment as a technical correction.

This is meant to cover the delay in tax collection that occurs when the Department of Revenue implements a new measure.

It would have been useful in the last measure, and assuming that Seattle Transportation Benefit District passes at the ballot box, we will still need to have a collection.

We will have a collection gap, and this amendment ensures the next time we're faced with this choice, who will be funded through the implementation of the next measure, which means that this will ensure tax collection from January 1st, 2027 to April 1st, 2027. Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Any questions about Amendment 7B?

Okay.

Hearing none we will go ahead and call the roll.

I'll ask the clerk to call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 7B.

Morales.

Yes.

Mosqueda.

Yes.

Peterson.

Yes.

Salant.

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Lewis.

Yes.

Herbold.

Yes.

Warras?

Yes.

Council President Gonzales?

Yes.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion carries and Amendment 7B is adopted.

We are now going to move to Amendment 3. So I will move to amend Council Bill 119833 as presented on Amendment 3 on the agenda.

Is there a second?

Check it.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment 3 as sponsor of the amendment.

I'll address it really quickly.

Pretty simple, straightforward amendment.

We add a recital clause that acknowledges that transit provides mobility to essential workers as they perform essential functions to combat the COVID-19 emergency.

It also revises Section 2, Item C, to allow the low-income program to be spent and used to provide transit passes for low-income medical workers, healthcare workers, first responders, pharmacy workers, grocery store workers, and other workers deemed essential by any state order.

So the effect of this is to simply include essential workers in the levy spending plan if the voters approve the levy.

I will ask that the clerk please call the roll.

I just wanted to chime in and say thank you for bringing this forward.

I think that it's really smart to include this amendment here today to make sure that essential workers are explicitly called out and that we emphasize our ongoing support, not just for the work that they're doing right now, but for programs to support them.

And during this crisis that is COVID, we know that there's increased need for us to continue to elevate this type of work and make sure that we're not decreasing services there.

I think it's important for us to be able to say thank you.

I want to say thank you because I feel like this amendment strikes a very nice healthy balance of what we want to accomplish and the emphasis on essential workers.

Aye.

Peterson.

Aye.

Sawant.

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Lewis.

Yes.

Herbold.

Yes.

Juarez.

Yes.

Council President Gonzales.

Yes.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion carries and amendment three is adopted.

And we will go ahead and now move to the substantive bill.

There are no additional, there are no additional amendments for us to consider on this council bill.

So I will make a general call for any comments on the council bill as amended and Council Member Peterson, you will get the last word when we close out debate.

Colleagues, any questions on the council bill as amended?

Seeing none, we'll go ahead and recognize Council Member Peterson for final remarks, and then we will call the roll on this bill.

Thank you, Council President.

You sure there are no more amendments?

No, I'm just kidding.

This is a good day for public transit.

Many were concerned that with the turmoil and uncertainty of the COVID pandemic and economic recession, we might not be able to renew the funding for this transportation benefit district.

In fact, our colleagues at King County had to temporarily abandon a regional measure as they shifted their attention to the public health crisis.

So it was up to us here in Seattle to beat the clock before the money for transit expired.

Fortunately, we share common ground that public transit is an essential and affordable option to move the most people in our region as we look forward to a vibrant economy and a healthy planet.

and despite the divisions and conflicts that many people might see reported in the media, the mayor and the city council can pull together and row in the same positive direction when we direct our energy toward the hard responsibility of governing.

It was healthy for us to have this robust yet respectful debate on the trade-offs of the various details and then to compromise to move it forward.

It may not be perfect for each of us, but it is necessary for everyone.

We are ready to send the Seattle Transportation Benefit District to the voters.

Let's do this.

Thank you, Councilmember Pedersen for those remarks.

I just wanted to, before we have the clerk read, excuse me, before we have the clerk call the roll, I did want to take a quick moment to publicly thank Kelvin Chow from our Council Central staff policy analyst who's been working on this issue and really appreciate all of his work.

And as the members of the public will see, we kept him busy until the very last minute with all of these important amendments for our consideration.

So thank you to Cal.

Also wanted to thank my own chief of staff, Brianna Thomas, for her work in shepherding the various amendments from my office through the process.

Thank you all for the good conversation and let's go ahead and have the clerk read, excuse me, have the clerk call the roll on the passage of the bill as amended.

Morales?

Yes.

Mosqueda?

Yes.

Peterson?

Yes.

Swart?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Lewis.

Yes.

Herbold.

Yes.

Juarez.

Yes.

Council President Gonzalez.

Yes.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

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

I'd ask that the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

Moving through our committee reports, we are now going to consider agenda item two.

Will the clerk please read item two into the record?

The clerk might be on mute.

Thank you.

The report of the City Council, agenda item two, resolution 31960 relating to transit funding, declaring the City of Seattle's resolve to work with King County on a future countywide transit measure, pursue progressive revenue options to replace the sales and use tax, and focus on equity and sustainability concerns.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I will move to adopt resolution 31960. Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded, and I'm going to go ahead and recognize Council Member Mosqueda.

You are, as the prime sponsor of the resolution, you are recognized in order to address this item.

Thank you, Madam President.

In order to put the resolution as amended in front of us, I'd like to move to amend Resolution 31960 by substituting Version 4 for Version 3. Second.

been moved and seconded.

Thank you to adopt the substitute.

Council Member Mosqueda, you are recognized in order to address the substitute.

Thank you very much.

And again, colleagues, I think this is a very exciting vote that we just took.

So the resolution here today is coupled with the important piece of legislation that we just voted on to send to the ballot.

It's complex in its nature that we're facing an economic crisis at the same time that our lower wage households and most vulnerable families will need government services even more so, given the uncertainty that's created due to COVID and the impacts of Initiative 976 on the economic downturn, the proposal that will be on the ballot will be critical to making sure that people can access needed services.

But the resolution calls for us to continue to do more.

We know that there's uncertainty in economic recovery in front of us.

We know that it is important for us to continue to invest in the resiliency of our community and that we can do so as we couple and work together with our county partners.

Particularly, it's important for us as a region to continue to invest in our lowest income communities who are disproportionately people of color and disproportionately impacted by COVID and the economic recession.

And frankly, the inequitable economy that we had prior to COVID.

Transit is a lifeline for all of our communities as we try to promote the use of transit and non-car modes of transportation.

It's important for us to continue to invest in those systems, especially for making sure that lower income folks and all Seattleites are able to access transit in this downturn.

In spite of lower riderships over the last several months due to COVID, since STBD was approved in 2014, transit ridership has increased significantly in Seattle.

We needed the measure that we just passed, and we also need our county partners to continue investing with us to create a progressive system that will directly benefit our entire region, including low-income communities.

So the resolution that's been put forward in front of us is really a partnership, a partnership with King County, the jurisdictional partners, community advocates, transit advocates, to re-regionalize transit spending and create a future that is planning for a countywide transit measure.

This resolution works towards replacing regressive sales tax and uses taxes in a more progressive way to fund transit services in Seattle with other progressive revenue sources.

We spent a lot of time over the last few weeks talking about the regressive nature of the tools in our tool belt, and we just talked about it this afternoon.

The resolution in front of us puts forward our commitment to making sure that future transit packages are moving towards more progressive nature of revenue sources for these important transit needs.

and we'll also be raising revenue so that we can have a more robust investment in transit services around our region.

The resolution, as I mentioned this morning, follows a letter sent by King County Council President, Council Member Balducci, and signed by Executive Constantine and King County members Colwell, Stembowski, and Upthegrove, who affirm their intention to engage in conversations around regional transportation benefit district conversations.

Part of their letter reads, transit has provided much-needed mobility options for essential workers and first responders and has helped to ensure that the people throughout King County have had a way to get to essential services, including grocery stores and medical treatment.

Even with transit services significantly reduced in response to COVID, the network has continued to function, currently providing more than 125,000 trips a day.

During the last few months of the pandemic closures, for instance, we've seen that the routes with the least reduction in ridership have primarily been from those in South Seattle and South King County.

Those communities are using transit still to make sure that they can access key essential trips to workplaces, to shopping, to child care, and other critical services like health care.

I'd like to thank Councilmember Peterson for co-sponsoring this resolution and Mayor Durkin for concurring on it, as our understanding is that they will concur.

I also want to thank advocates who spent time on both the legislation that we just passed, and specifically this resolution in front of us, from Transportation Choices, Rooted in Rights, MLK Labor, and Puget Sound SAGE.

Also to Blake Trask from Councilmember Balducci's office and my office.

Thank you to Sejal Parikh and Aaron House for all of their work, both on the resolution.

and on the previous STBD package that we just approved.

Really appreciate your work.

Thanks again Councilmember Peterson for helping shepherd us through this.

Thank you so much.

Are there any other comments on the resolution?

Councilmember Sawant.

Thank you.

I will be voting in favor of this resolution for regional funding for metro because working class people need transit service beyond Seattle's city limits and especially as the cost of housing has pushed more and more working people, especially working people of color outside city limits.

However, it is also important that we not allow the idea of regional funding to be used as an excuse by anybody on the city council to be used as an excuse for opposition to local progressive transit funding options.

I'm not implying that this resolution is doing that, but I'm just saying that in general, I think we have to be aware of that, because I recall when we started fighting for the Amazon tax in our movement, the mayor and the Chamber of Commerce immediately responded by saying the issues of housing and homelessness were regional problems, which we don't disagree with.

They're regional problems.

In fact, this is a nationwide problem.

But they said that, therefore, the city of Seattle should not tax big business to address them.

I support the county or state the past decade's trajectory, we can just wait for them to do so.

We will have to continue fighting to implement progressive developer impact fees.

And I certainly, in my office, will be continuing that to fund transit and to use developer impact fees to fund transit in 2021. And I urge the ordinary people in the movement that we not be sidetracked by the vain hope that we have heard many, many times for progressive county funding or regional funding in general.

Are there any additional comments?

Council Member Hurdle, please.

Thank you.

So just real quickly, I want to just speak as a council member who represents a district at the southern edge of Seattle that we've really taken a deep dive in our discussions around the Seattle Transportation Benefit District about how bus service doesn't stop at the city limits and the logic for designing routes doesn't necessarily fit with city boundaries.

In fact, some of the bus service that very large numbers of people depend on have more stops outside of the city limits than within the city limits.

So it's really important in designing this levy and in future levies, that we struggle with how to provide service and what level of service for routes that go across the city limits, but that our constituents desperately rely on.

And this resolution for a regional approach to transit funding is really important for that reason and many others as well.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Council Member Herbold.

Any other comments on the resolution?

Okay, hearing none, I ask that the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the substitute.

Morales?

Yes.

Mosqueda?

Yes.

Peterson?

Yes.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Council President Gonzalez?

Yes.

Eight in favor and none opposed.

Thank you so much.

The motion carries.

The substitute is adopted and version four of the resolution is before the council.

Are there any additional comments on the resolution as amended?

Okay, hearing none, I ask that the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the resolution as amended.

Morales?

Yes.

Musqueda.

Sorry yes.

Peterson.

Yes.

Swant.

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Lewis.

Yes.

Herbold.

Yes.

Council President Gonzales.

Yes.

8 in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

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

As the clerk, please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

Colleagues, really quickly, if there is no objection, Council Member Juarez will be excused from the remainder of the July 27th City Council meeting.

hearing no objection, Councilmember Juarez is excused from the remainder of today's City Council meeting.

Thank you so much.

I now ask that the clerk please read Agenda Item 3 into the record.

Agenda Item 3, Resolution 31956, establishing the City Council's goal to implement Internet for All Seattle, a vision of enabling all Seattle residents to access and adopt broadband Internet service that is reliable and affordable.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Council Member Peterson, we'll get to you right now.

So just wanted to queue you up there.

I will move to adopt Resolution 31956. Is there a second?

Second.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Council Member Peterson, you're the prime sponsor of this resolution that I had an opportunity to co-sponsor with you, and I'll hand it over to you in order to address the resolution.

Thank you, Council President.

I'll also be reading the remarks from Council Member Juarez, who's another co-sponsor.

So this, colleagues, is the Internet for All Resolution, Resolution 31956. I announced and distributed the resolution on May 18, and we introduced it officially on July 6, and we are happy to have the leadership of Council President Gonzalez and Council Member Juarez and I know other Council Members support this.

So thank you for your commitment and leadership to this social justice technology issue.

I do want to acknowledge the executive for their efforts thus far to pursue digital equity.

To acknowledge the over 25 meetings, my staff had initial preliminary meetings with stakeholders.

This will continue, this outreach and engagement process.

Our Department of Information Technology will continue this process.

Really, this resolution kick-starts the process of expanding access and adoption of Internet that's reliable and affordable.

There is a substitute resolution, so Council President can remind me on the parliamentary procedure for that.

That substitute simply makes minor and technical corrections and fleshes out a few sections.

The staff distributed this.

It's on the agenda today.

The big picture is that this is just a resolution that outlines our aspirational goal.

It states the importance of providing internet access to all residents in Seattle and begins the work of hearing back from our Department of Information Technology.

In a city that prides itself in leading the world in technology, the COVID crisis has laid bare the inequities and injustice of the digital divide.

We can no longer allow limited internet access to prevent learning, to impede our workers, or to hinder our small businesses and nonprofits.

In the words of a local nonprofit leader here in Seattle that's supporting this resolution, Inequities in Internet access lead to disparate outcomes.

Access to the Internet has become a fundamental way people participate in society.

This proposal will move us closer toward equitable Internet access.

It's time to ensure reliable and affordable access to the Internet as part of our city's vital infrastructure for social justice, for education, and for economic development.

Let me now please read the comments from co-sponsor Deborah Jorez.

Council Member Juarez writes, with the advent of the COVID crisis, inequities in our society have been exposed.

We have seen schoolchildren unable to access schoolwork because of lack of access to technology.

We've seen small businesses challenged to adapt to an economy that is more dependent on the Internet than ever before.

This resolution presented today will help us take a solid step forward.

We need to expand internet access and make it more affordable to empower all students to participate in remote learning and to enable our small businesses to succeed in this new economy.

I, Council Member Juarez, have long advocated for equity and access by working with groups such as Literacy Source, a public library system, and am pleased to have been a co-sponsor on this resolution to further expand internet access for all.

I would like to move to resolution 31956. Thank you.

We do have to get a substitute version before us.

I would look to you to make the formal motion to introduce substitution version 3 for version 2B.

It's been moved and seconded to adopt the substitute.

Council Member Peterson, I know that you just addressed the substitute.

Are there any additional comments either from you or other colleagues on the substitute?

Okay, hearing none, I ask that the clerk please call the roll.

Sorry.

Okay, no, that's okay.

We're just voting on the substitute bill right now, so we'll be voting on the whole thing in just a minute.

Okay, great.

So let's go ahead and have the clerk call the roll on the adoption of the substitute.

Morales?

Yes.

Mosqueda?

Yes.

Peterson?

Yes.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Council President Gonzalez?

Yes.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Thank you so much.

The motion carries.

The substitute is adopted and version three of the resolution is now before the council.

Um, and I'm going to go ahead and open it up now, um, to colleagues for further comments on the resolution.

I think I saw Council Member Sawant first, then Council Member Morales and then Council Member Herbold.

Council Member Sawant, please.

Thank you.

I will be voting yes on this resolution, of course.

Comcast and other for-profit internet service providers are not interested in internet for all, or even in quality internet for some, actually.

They are interested in their own profits.

That's why they make the internet so expensive, and that's why they sign you up at one rate, only to have your bill skyrocket.

That is why your internet runs at one-tenth the advertised speed, if you're lucky.

What we really need is municipal broadband run like a utility, public utility.

In my time on the council, I've seen many, many studies and reports on internet for all and on municipal broadband.

This resolution requests another report, and I will support that.

But what has been missing in all these years is not another report.

What has been missing is the political will take on Comcast and actually build out a municipal broadband network in the city.

Political will is the central component here because Comcast is completely opposed, Comcast and other telecom corporations are completely opposed to municipal broadband and winning municipal broadband therefore will require elected officials willing to take on the might of Comcast.

The people's budget movement in the past has fought for the funding to build the pilot that was proposed by one study that is building municipal broadband as a public utility in one neighborhood, learning lessons from that, and then building it out in the entire city.

but at that time, the majority of the council did not agree.

This autumn, this coming autumn, this year, the people's budget will bring that proposal back, the proposal to have a pilot program for municipal broadband, and I believe that all council members who will vote yes on this resolution today should vote yes on that proposal also.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Next up is Council Member Morales, and then we will hear from Council Member Herbold.

Thank you, colleagues.

I do appreciate this resolution.

Several years ago, I was working with the Upgrade Seattle folks to try to get more interest in municipal broadband at the city council.

So I do think it's important that we seek out the kind of solutions that other cities have tried.

and, you know, understand what lessons they've learned about municipal broadband.

I would love to see that language restored, unless I'm looking at the wrong version of the resolution.

But I think more importantly, what I want to say is that there are two things to make sure we continue to bird dog as my Texas family would say, a commitment to ensuring that the dig once policies are followed so that whenever the city digs up the street or constructs a bike lane, that they put that publicly owned fiber down.

That's 90% of the costs of expanding a network in the first place.

The second thing is that, you know, as Council Member Sawant was saying, we've got stacks of reports.

We know that this is an important tool, especially that issue has been brought into relief in light of COVID and the understanding of how deeply inequitable access to internet is in our community, especially for young kids who are struggling with trying to get their schoolwork done.

So I really think we need to commit to a plan, a shovel ready municipal broadband plan, so that if there is any federal stimulus money that might be coming down the pike in the next couple of years, we can apply and we have our project ready to go.

I think developing a plan for how we would build that out could really support any efforts that we want to make for potential federal money, you know, And we will need hundreds of millions of dollars to get this done.

But Chattanooga did it.

I think we need to be prepared to do it, too.

Thank you, Council Member Morales for those comments.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

So as we all know, everybody gets really excited about Internet for All, but in the past when the city has studied implementing municipal broadband, the capital costs have proven to be a really big barrier.

And it's my hope that we can, through the work of this resolution, allow for the consideration and study of more creative methods to building a municipal broadband network.

Last year, I was really excited about a statement of legislative intent that I had proposed.

And this statement of legislative intent would have directed Seattle Public Utilities to examine the feasibility of utilizing the city's water pipe infrastructure for developing a municipal broadband network.

I put forward this slide last year.

Unfortunately, the budget chair did not bring it and I was inspired by the success in Anacortes where they achieved significant cost savings and drastically minimized street disruptions by not having to rip up the streets because they were able to feed fiber optic cable into the water pipe.

So I want to thank Councilmember Peterson and his staff for including mention of exploring this creative method to build a municipal broadband network.

And then lastly, I want to just echo what we all know to be true.

that the public health emergency has laid bare the gaps in access to so many essential services in our city.

Access to internet is no exception and COVID-19 has showed us that it is more important now than ever that the city must ensure that everyone has reliable and affordable access to the internet so that we can work safely from home and so that our children have reliable access to continue their education.

Thank you, Councilmember Herbold.

Are there any other comments on the resolution?

Okay.

Oh, Councilmember Mosqueda, please.

Thank you.

To the sponsors of the resolution, can you just quickly summarize for me what the next steps are after this passes today, which I'm going to enthusiastically support?

Sure, I'll go ahead and take that question.

The next steps are, it puts it in the court of the executive, who we've been talking to during the development of this resolution.

They're already doing digital equity work, but we need them to come back to us with their initial short-term, long-term solutions.

how they're going to put forward the action plan for implementing this.

And so they're gonna come back.

Ideally, we'll be having the committees in September.

So they're gonna come back in the middle of September, right before the budget is unveiled by the mayor for the fall budget process in case there are any financial implications for what they're proposing to do.

So hope to hear back from.

Seattle Department of Information Technology, Wednesday, September 16, and the Transportation Utilities Committee.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson for that description.

I think, you know, the resolution, the substitute version, aside from reestablishing and reiterating the City Council's goals around enabling Seattle residents to access and adopt broadband internet service that is both reliable and affordable, it does also do a thorough and succinct gap analysis.

So this gap analysis would include no-cost and low-cost programs that are already available in the city of Seattle, while also then looking at where the actual gaps in affordable Internet access and adoption for Seattle residents exist.

And so this would be, I think, an update to, excuse me, it would be sort of that novel approach that Councilmember Herbold has been you know, sort of referenced.

And so I think for me, the biggest part about this is sort of really getting into that gap analysis.

It's also an opportunity for us to look at lessons learned from other cities who've been able to be successful in this effort, and then also creating an action plan that details recommended steps for, that the city of Seattle can take to expedite universal access to and adoption of affordable broadband internet service for Seattle residents.

And to do that in the construct of a meaningful partnership with nonprofit organizations, business community, philanthropic interests, Seattle Public Schools, et cetera, et cetera.

And so it also, I think, will be important that action plan also include questions around the infrastructure, what resources might be needed in order to implement the action plan, and a timeline that we would like to finally have as part of a clear work plan, action plan on this.

Because for those of us who've been serving on the council for a while, we know this is not the first time we've addressed issues related to broadband access.

And so I think it's important for us to make sure that we're advancing the ongoing analysis around internet for all.

I was really proud to be able to work with Councilmember Peterson and his office on co-sponsoring this resolution.

I won't belabor all of the points that folks have made.

Obviously, we are seeing in this pandemic the disproportionate impact of the lack of internet access when most of us are functioning almost entirely in our professions via the internet.

And I think it's so important for us to finally pull together an action plan to implement the many previously stated goals of the city.

And now is the time to do that.

So really excited about the opportunity to advance this resolution and advance this body of work.