Committee on Finance and Housing, Sept. 20, 2022

everyone.

Thank you very much for joining the Finance and Housing Committee of the Seattle City Council.

Today is Thursday, September 20th, 2023, and the time is 9.32 a.m.

I'm Teresa Mosqueda, Chair of the Finance and Housing Committee.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Councilmember Herbold?

Councilmember Herbold?

Here.

Got it?

Sorry.

Present.

Councilmember Nelson?

Present.

Council Member Lewis.

Present.

Madam Chair Mosqueda.

Present.

Madam Chair, that is five present.

Okay, excellent.

Thank you all for joining us.

Long time no see.

Great to have you all back in chambers and thanks to the community members for being here and with us on the line today.

We do want to acknowledge that this is the last Finance and Housing Committee meeting of 2023 prior to budget, so thank you for your ongoing participation this year and really appreciate the work that we've done together as we head into the budget.

We will be putting this, can you hear me okay?

We will be putting this committee on hold along with the other policy committees as we transition to all things budget in the upcoming three months.

That will take us through December and if there's additional pieces of legislation that this committee could consider after budget, we will go ahead and reconvene.

But I just wanted to thank you all for your participation.

Thanks to Freddy de Cuevas, who has been our clerk here in Finance and Housing, and to all that make these committees run, including comms and the clerks and IT and all of you.

So, appreciate your participation in this last meeting today.

We do have three items on our agenda.

The first item is actually three pieces of legislation which includes a briefing discussion and a possible vote on the legislation that we were briefed on last week.

This is legislation to update and modernize the City of Seattle regulation for four higher transportation services, a reminder on that.

We plan to vote it out today, but not ask for it to be moved to full council until after the budget so that King County Council has time to deliberate on their similarly crafted legislation and pass on a corresponding timeline.

Everybody's intent across the city and county is to get those pieces of legislation signed into law before the end of the year, and we are on track to correspond with their timeline.

The second item on our agenda is a briefing discussion and possible vote on two pieces of legislation related to the Office of Housing Property Transfer.

This is two pieces of legislation that allow for the Office of Housing to transfer the properties at the Sound Transit property and Finney Ridge property, and appreciate that there's public comment on that today to eliminate the community interest.

And lastly, we will have a briefing and discussion on the conversation we started last week regarding staggered elections, a possible resolution that would result in a vote of the people in 2024. And you will have a chance to see some of the suggestions that our committee members suggested in the last committee meeting reflected in the legislation that we've updated and attached to our agenda.

And central staff will walk through those changes for your discussion today.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Oh, excuse me.

Was there an objection?

No.

Okay.

Double checking.

Hearing no objection, today's agenda will be adopted, and we are going to go ahead and move on into public comment.

Madam Clerk, I think I do want to run the video one last time for today, and we will go ahead and have public comment after the video runs.

We do have three people signed up online, and we'll start with those folks, and then if there's anybody else that would like to offer public comment, In the room, please note that you still have time to sign up for that, and we will get started with the public comment right after that.

Please note you will have the full two minutes to provide all of your public comment today.

And with that, I'll turn it over.

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

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

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

Here's some information about the public comment proceedings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

At that time, you must press star six.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The public comment period is now open.

and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

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

Thank you, Seattle.

So we're going to get started with remote public comment.

We have Bilan Aden online.

This is Bilan Aden.

Go ahead.

Are you able to hear me?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

I'm making a public comment on CB 120660 transfer of land site 5 to 5 through 11. Dear Chair Muscata and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to you today.

My name is Sulan Aden and I'm the Associate Director and Co-Founder of African Community Housing and Development, also known as ACHD.

ACHD was founded in 2018 by the African Diaspora community in response to skyrocketing cost of living and rampant displacement throughout Seattle and King County.

ACHB is led by the community we serve.

Our executive leadership and board of directors all identify as African descent.

In 2022, we provided services to almost 9,000 individuals throughout 55 zip codes.

And since the beginning of the pandemic, distributed close to 38 million in rental and basic needs assistance to households throughout King County.

We're also proud to operate the Delridge Farmers Market, which is open every Saturday from May to October.

In addition to our holistic community programming, ACHD is an emerging Black-led developer.

Our team has worked closely with Habitat for Humanity since early 2022 to co-develop a dynamic and innovative partnership over multiple projects that will build our capacity as a developer.

Our partnership is rooted in community needs and leads with collaboration, capacity building, and co-learning.

The three sites awarded to ACHD and Habitat for Development represent the first projects in ACHD's portfolio, and the opportunity to build 65 affordable home ownership units in the rapidly gentrifying Rainier Valley.

The Rainier Valley Affordable Home Ownership Initiative is the result of years of work from community coalitions at the South Core, the Office of Housing, and countless others.

ACC and Habitat will work to deepen the connection between community and these new developments using this opportunity to address the ongoing displacement of community members through robust affirmative marketing and outreach to women and BIPOC-owned businesses.

We hope you move forward with transferring these properties and are available for any questions.

Up next we have, we have Eric Provitz.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, great.

Yeah, I'm Eric Bravitz.

I'm the Director of Real Estate Development for Homestead Community Land Trust.

And I'm calling in in regards to CB 12659 and CB 12660, the transfer of land.

So at the risk of stating the obvious, we have a serious housing affordability problem in the city of Seattle and surrounding areas.

And to the extent that transferring these properties can lead to the development of some additional permanently affordable housing, I urge council members to support this transfer.

And that's it.

Thank you very much.

Up next, we have Maria D'Angelo.

Hello.

Hi go ahead.

Can everyone hear me.

Okay.

Hi.

Good morning.

My name is Mara D'Angelo.

I'm the Deputy Director of Transit Oriented Development at Sound Transit.

I'm here to speak in support of Council Bill 120660 which will transfer 7 properties from the City of Seattle to nonprofit organizations for the development of affordable homes.

This legislation is a culmination of five years of interagency collaboration between Sound Transit and the City of Seattle to envision a community use for Sound Transit-owned surplus properties in the Rainier Valley.

The properties have been largely vacant since the completion of Central Link construction in 2009. However, they were difficult to develop due to their small size and irregular shape.

The Office of Housing Homeownership expertise unlocked the development potential on these sites and provided a pathway for both agencies to advance equitable development in the Rainier Valley.

In 2018, Sound Transit and the city started developing the Rainier Valley Affordable Homeownership Initiative.

In 2019, we partnered with local organizations, including SouthCore and Puget Sound SAGE to conduct extensive community engagement through which we heard broad support for homeownership opportunities larger units for multi-generational families, and culturally relevant retail and services.

We are so pleased to support these projects from Habitat for Humanity, African Community and Housing Development, Homestead Community Land Trust, and Rainier Beach Action Coalition, all of which achieved these community-identified outcomes.

Sound Transit's transit-oriented development program facilitates affordable housing, and a surplus property by offering the land at a deep discount to our agency and developer partners.

In 2021, Sound Transit transferred 10 total properties to the city at no cost, representing an investment of approximately $9 million.

You still have five seconds.

Anything else?

Thank you for the opportunity to support this legislation.

Awesome.

Thank you, Mara.

And thanks to Frida Cuevas for reading out those names.

We're going to go to folks in the room now.

The first up is Joshua Wilter, followed by Cliff Cawthorn.

Good morning, Joshua.

Good morning, Chair Mosqueda and members of the committee.

My name is Joshua Welter with Teamsters Local 117. You have in front of you a package of legislation related to re-regulating the taxi industry that, you know, comes from the Executive's Office, FAS, as well as King County, or Rawls.

You know, when you re-regulate the entire industry, you're probably going to hear a lot of different opinions at different times or whatever.

The thing that allows us to come to the table on this legislation is the language that caps excessive fees as regulators mandate that the industry moves to new kinds of technology.

So we're in strong support of that language in the legislation.

I also want to say that we're appreciative of the amendment coming forward today from Council Member Alex Peterson around having more safety for any kinds of experiments with autonomous vehicles.

We think that that's an important improvement to the legislation.

So we want to support that as well.

Thank you so much for your time.

Excellent.

Thank you very much.

And good morning, Cliff, followed by Amin Stiefvall.

Good morning.

Good morning Chair Mosqueda, Councilmembers, great to see y'all, albeit virtually.

I am here, my name is Cliff Cawthon, I am the Advocacy and Policy Manager for Habitat for Humanity of Seattle-King, Quetaz Counties.

And I'm here to support Council Bill 12-0660 and also in support and gratitude for a decision made by the Office of Housing to award African Community Housing Development and Habitat III city-owned parcels along MLK Jr.

Way.

Habitat for Humanity and the African Community Housing Development Organization are thrilled with the decision that will give the opportunity to create 65 affordable homes, as you previously heard, in the Rainier Valley as part of the Rainier Valley Home Ownership Initiative.

We're bringing together strengths of both our organizations in order to create a greater combined good for the Rainier Valley community.

And I want to stress that every single day, families from hundreds of racial, ethnic, national identities, backgrounds, go to work, live, and play along the long Rainier Avenue and MLK Junior Way.

And our homebuyers who have lived on MOK, in my own experience, surveying renters, have faced challenges in their neighborhoods as rents rise.

Homeownership provides a way for these community members to stay and thrive.

In fact, according to the Department of Commerce's Homeownership Disparities Work Group, 49% of BIPOC Washingtonian households and just 31% of black Washingtonian households own their own home, compared to 68% of white Washingtonian households.

These families deserve to be able to stay and thrive in their communities.

The reality of these systemic disparities runs deep, and our trailblazing partnership is a historic effort to directly address building homeownership opportunities and with intentionality and by taking action.

When we're done with this project, we will have built three family-sized townhomes in two 31-unit condo buildings, one of which will feature commercial space on the ground floor for local business and for service providers that will strengthen the community and tradition of BIPOC-owned family businesses along the MLK Jr.

Way and throughout the Rainier Valley.

I'm just here today to thank all of you for hearing this bill as well as thank the office of housing and to say that we can all move forward together and become stronger together as a community.

Thank you.

Excellent.

Thank you very much.

And after Amin will be Chris Van Dyke.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Thank you for taking this legislation that we have been waiting for so long.

I I'm here for the second day, and we were really hoping that this legislation will be one that takes into account on all the parties.

When you say taxi or for hire or for hire industry as a whole, dispatch companies are integral part of that.

To me, instead of the focus being streamlining deregulation, to create a whole new chapter and capping an industry that in itself already struggling is something that is absolutely not necessary.

To support that, I'll talk about Puget Sound Dispatch.

For the past 25 years, we have not increased our service fees.

25 years.

We have had just 8% for inflation about two and a half years ago.

That was the one time we've increased fees.

There is not excessive fees in here.

We have a processing fee that most of people do not understand that we charge, which is to make sure that it offsets the cost of complying with all the accounts that we process.

Drivers get paid every week.

for account work that Puget Sound Dispatch may or may not collect ever.

We have hundreds of business without a business and they never paid us as a dispatch company, yet the drivers collected their money on time within a week.

So there are a lot that People that wrote this piece do not understand about this.

And this is where we want to make clear that please sit with us, talk with us, understand this, because to help this industry, dispatch companies are important piece.

I'll add one more point.

I know my time has expired.

An average driver of Puget Sound Dispatch or Seattle Yellow Cab is over 10 to 15 years.

If that does not speak volume of how we treat our drivers, I don't know what does.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you so much.

And welcome up, Chris Van Dyke.

And the last person that signed up to provide testimony after Chris will be Habie Jamal.

Okay, great.

And then if there's anybody else who would like to provide public testimony, there's still a chance to sign up.

Good morning, Chris.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm Chris Van Dyke.

I'm the Assistant General Manager for Eastside for Hire.

I am also an associate of Taxi Research Partners, which is based in Northern Ireland.

Now it's based in Texas, but we do consulting around the world.

I am not speaking for them, but I am an associate of them.

I want to thank the Chair for the extension of time.

for the community to engage on this.

As I understand your comments, our biggest problem with this is that, best summarized by the number of pages in the TNC legislation is 65. And most of that is lined out text.

The length of the Taxi for Hire Ordinance is 95 pages with very little lined out text.

The goal here, which is laudatory, is to streamline things for us, but the way it's come down despite our early on notifications to staff that we were in no position as an industry post-pandemic, as Amin Shafao said, to sustain any regulatory burden.

What we need now is a de minimis approach.

Last night, I had 95 notes on changes that need to be addressed on this legislation.

Some major, some minor.

Major on reciprocity between city and county.

Rates, rate setting, other things.

These are major, major changes that have not been discussed.

We look forward to the opportunity to discuss them.

I emailed these changes to every one of you.

You've all got them, I'll send them again.

I'm happy to sit down and talk with staff anytime, but we would like to deal with this before it becomes a burden.

And if I may, I'll just refer to Green Cab in 2008. Legislation from on high, directive proactive from county government resulted in the bankruptcy of a number of taxi cab operator families.

In 2009, lease caps were instituted.

By city, that was top-down driven.

The lease cap ordinance provided for $1,000 fine.

The net result was that lots of our drivers got fined $1,000 because they didn't have them notarized.

I defended on those.

Flash forward, and I'll make it real quick, ride share, 2012 to 2014, you all know the result of that.

We got to wrap up.

Thank you so much.

And the last person to speak is Hebi.

Good morning.

And if anybody else wants to provide testimony, you're welcome to.

Oh, wait.

Let's give you your full time.

OK, go ahead.

Good morning.

My name is Hebi Jama.

I'm a cab driver.

I'm with the union.

I'm a member of the union.

So one thing I just want to talk about is the new technology.

And the pricing, whatever they say, like the price when it goes up, a dispatch company can add on it.

So what happened to the poor people?

Well, you need to ask that question.

What happens to the person who depends on a taxi to take their kids to school?

They call for a taxi and take them, and they paid the money from their pocket.

You need to ask that question.

Because if you say the price goes up, I will not go take care of those people because they're not paying enough.

There's a big money going up here, and I'll be chasing this money.

So that dynamic pricing, whatever you call it, is not going to work for our community.

So those changes, you have to consider it, because a lot of people depend on us transporting them.

But then when you say new technology, this is the way it goes, and the future, God knows it doesn't work for us.

Another thing, accountability to dispatch companies.

If we don't have accountability to them, then It's not going to work for the drivers because the dispatch will do whatever they want.

They can fire you whenever they want.

They shut you down whenever they want.

And that's all.

Simple.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else that would like to provide public testimony?

Going once, going twice.

Okay.

Well, thank you very much for all the public testimony today.

And I don't see anybody else online.

Okay.

We are going to go ahead and close out public comment for today.

Thanks so much for coming in and dialing in.

Madam Clerk, could you please read items one, two, and three for the record?

Agenda item number one, Council Bill 120652. Agenda item number two, Council Bill 120653. And agenda number three, Council Bill 120656, relating to taxicabs and for hire vehicles for briefing discussion and possible vote.

Thank you so much.

I want to thank you, colleagues, for the time that you've taken to discuss these three pieces of legislation.

Last week, we did have a meeting where we had the chance to walk through the four higher proposed legislation.

Again, I want to thank the mayor's office and Finance and Administrative Services, who I believe are here with us for technical feedback, if needed, folks from FAS.

But this has been a process long in the making.

Predates kovat the interest from various stakeholders was to make sure that the proposed legislation Helped us modernize and update city policies and provide better alignment with the county as it relates to for hire and taxicab industry regulations and to allow for drivers to more successfully compete in and increase their earnings.

Last week, we had an overview of the legislation from FAS, followed by a presentation from central staff.

Thank you again to Karina Bull for being here.

And I wanted the chance to follow up with you on some possible amendments.

I know Council Member Peterson, you and I chatted about an amendment on the dais, and thank you for following up on that.

So Karina Bull will be able to walk through the proposed legislation with us again today.

Again, there's three pieces of legislation, one amendment, As a reminder, the intent of this legislation is to ensure that the work from King County and the city together is able to pass prior to the end of the year, and the outcome will be to streamline taxi regulations.

This legislation is intended to accomplish that goal, and the ordinance anticipates the impact of technology on taxi dispatch services, provides guardrails to protect consumers and drivers through those transitions, including regulating and capping fees.

I appreciate the conversation we've had with the mayor's office and FAS and members of the public who are here today and continue to provide public comment for how we can continue to fine-tune some pre-introduction changes on this legislation.

These changes are reflective in the substitute bill that we walked through last week, and we will also update that with Councilmember Peterson's amendment if it prevails today, which I am very supportive of.

Thank you to Carina from Central Staff for kicking us off and walking us through the underlying legislation.

If you don't mind summarizing the three pieces in front of us again, and then we can get into the amendment.

As I noted, and I just want to double check, FAS is here to provide any answers that are technical in nature.

I will turn it over.

Thank you.

Hello, Matthew, and hello again.

Thank you for being here.

Please let me know if you have any additional comments.

Of course, Matthew Eng and Beth Gappert from Finance Administrative Services just popped their heads in.

So if you have anything else to add in addition to what central staff does, of course, feel free to jump in.

Okay, Karina, I'll turn it over to you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Karina Bull with Council Central staff.

I will describe two amendments that are for the committee's consideration this morning.

And before I do that, I will also provide a brief overview of the three bills that comprise this legislative package.

The first one is CB120652.

It is the Transportation Network Company Regulations Ordinance, and it would amend the existing code to conform with new state regulations for TNCs and their vehicles and drivers, and it would remove provisions that are specific to taxi cabs and for hire vehicles.

And those provisions would be established in a new code, which comprises the second bill, which is CB120653, Taxi and for Hire Vehicle Regulations Ordinance.

And this would establish a new chapter To regulate the taxi cab and for hire vehicle industry, the amendments that I will present today relate to that bill.

And then the 3rd, and final bill CB120656 is a for hire interlocal agreement, which would authorize an updated agreement between the city and King County to jointly administer and enforce these regulations.

The 1st amendment I will share on the screen 1st amendment proposal.

Is sponsored by council member mosquito and it would do 3 things at 1st, it is requesting the adoption of a substitute version of the taxing for higher regulations ordinance.

The substitute version would have 3 main changes.

1st, it would add recitals on the legislative intent for capping the deductions that regional regional dispatch agencies can take from fares paid by passengers.

The.

Introduced bill reflects a Pre introduction change that would cap the deductions that regional dispatch agencies can take from fares, which the intention of that, which is added in this recital is reflecting the fact that this.

Ordinance would require new technology, the smart taxi meters.

It is unknown exactly what will result from that.

New technology, but there is been instances and other jurisdictions of things happening that indicate that the dispatch agencies could increase deductions from the fares.

So this would proactively cap those deductions at 10%.

Uh, the 2nd proposal for this amendment would.

Relate to the requirement and introduce legislation for companies to develop internal policies for drivers and owners.

The introduced legislation require these internal policies to be submitted to the director during the annual license renewal period.

And it also would have precise components that would need to be included in a deactivations policy.

So, these amendments would remove the due date for, and the requirement to submit those policies to the director.

The director could still require submission of the policies by rule, including a due date.

And the 2nd piece is that the requirements for the deactivation policy are slimmed down.

There would be removal of the opportunity to be heard with representation of the driver's choice, and there would be removal of adjudication of disputes by a neutral 3rd party under a just cause standard.

So, the policy would still require notice of the deactivation and the opportunity to be heard, but several components would be removed.

And just as a reminder would be.

looking for this policy in the context of an inspection, but they would not be enforcing implementation of it.

And that is what this amendment seeks to accomplish.

Okay, great.

I do see a question.

We'll entertain a question before we put the legislation in front of us officially.

Council Member Nelson, did you have a question on the underlying legislation?

I should say the suite of legislation in front of us.

Please go ahead.

I have a question on this slide here.

What is the current charge that's being charged by dispatch agencies?

The current charges are between, well, we know from one dispatch agency, 5 and 10%, we're collecting information on what the charges are from other, from another dispatch agency as well.

And so that type of information will continue to be gathered.

to make sure that there is a complete understanding of the landscape that's happening now, of what dispatch agencies are charging.

That can be something that I will work with the county staff and the county's review of the legislation as well.

If there are things learned that would impact this, Requirement or maybe that would could build upon this recital that could be reflected possibly in King counties deliberations or when the council is reviewing this again in later December.

So, what if there are companies that are charging more than 10%?

Yeah, so if there are companies that are charging more than 10%, then that would need to be considered.

In the cap, and is it would need to be considered if.

That would be something that council members would want to entertain as an amendment to the current language.

And there would need to be consideration of the implications of a higher charge happening right now.

What kind of implications?

Well, so if it's a, if it's a higher charge than 10%, then that would reflect that the current cap is lower than what some companies are doing now.

And so that would need to be considered the impacts on the company's current business practices.

But right now, we are still doing information gathering to find out what's happening on the ground regarding those different kinds of deductions that are happening.

So are we allowed to cap it at less than they're charging now?

Is there any legal risk for that?

That is something that would need to be explored on whether there are legal implications of that.

And so that kind of analysis and research can be ongoing.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

I just want to pause before we put the legislation in front of us.

Is there anything that Finance and Administrative Services would like to add as a base overview of the legislation and the package in front of us?

No, not at this time.

We'll continue working with Karina to provide information on the current state of rates and fees as they're charged by the dispatch agencies.

Excellent.

Okay, wonderful.

Well, colleagues, I would like to just tee this up for us.

We do have three pieces of legislation.

The clerk has already read them into the record.

And Madam Central Staff Bull, do you mind on reminding me, we are going to move a substitute 120653. And then is it on the substitute that Council Member Peterson's amendment also hangs?

So, okay, so Councilmember Peterson's amendment would be to the adopted substitute version of the bill.

That is my understanding.

Perfect.

Okay, then we will go ahead and move that to get it in front of us so we can consider your amendment, Councilmember Peterson.

All right.

Colleagues, I'm going to move to get the, oh, excuse me, Councilmember Herbold, did you have something else?

I just seconded what I thought was your motion.

I will take that so that we can get it in front of us.

Colleagues, I move the committee recommends passage of Council Bill 120652. And thank you to Council Member Herbold for seconding that.

The legislation is now in front of us and I would like to Make sure that we have the substitute in front of us so that council member peterson's amendment can hang on the substitute I want to first thank the mayor's office again.

Brianna thomas was in here earlier Last last week and I know that she has spent a lot of time on this as well I want to thank fas for your steadfast work to work with a number of stakeholders and over a number of years on this So, thank you And to Teamsters 117, folks in the room who've been here from the dispatch companies, and central staff for your collaboration on the language in front of us.

We have pre-introduction changes that reflect some of the language that we've heard from many workers and drivers across this county, and I'm excited that we've been able to work in partnership with the mayor's office and FAS with central staff's leadership on this.

We have this, in order to move the substitute, I'm going to go ahead and move that the committee consider the substitute to Council Bill 120653. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you so much.

The committee, am I doing this correctly for central staff and the clerks to have the substitute in front of us now?

Councilmember Mosqueda.

Yeah, I would recommend that if possible, we could focus on first passing Council Bill 120652 and then moving on to 120653 with the attached amendments to it.

Oh, I'm sorry.

That's what I was trying to ask.

So it's 653 that has the amendments to it.

As is presented on the agenda, and Karina is nodding her head.

Okay, no problem.

So on Council Bill 120652, is there any questions on Council Bill 120652?

And Karina, do you mind summarizing the title of that piece of legislation for us again?

Yes, so the 120652, Transportation Network Company Regulations Ordinance,

Would amend smc 6.3 1 0 to conform with new state regulations for TnC's and their vehicles and drivers, okay great and now we have the chance for questions any additional questions council members Hearing none, and I I did ask our clerk to do something outside of the room for us real quick So I'm going to go ahead and call the roll I'm going to call the roll on the passage of this legislation.

Thank you much very much colleagues for joining us here today Councilmember Herbold vice chair Yes, okay, just didn't come through.

Yes, Councilmember Peterson.

Yes.

Councilmember Nelson.

Aye.

Councilmember Lewis.

Yes.

And I as chair vote aye.

That is five votes in favor.

The motion has received sufficient votes to be referred to the full council for consideration.

The motion carries and the committee recommendation that the bill pass will be sent to the September 26th Seattle City Council meeting for a final vote.

That was Council Bill 120652. Moving on to Council Bill 120653, this one will have a substitute in front of it.

So I'm going to get the base legislation in front of us.

I move the committee recommends passage of Council Bill 120653. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you very much.

It's been moved and seconded to consider Council Bill 120653. And Karina, before we consider the substitute, do you mind reminding us of the title and intent of this piece?

Sure.

As CB 120653, the Taxi and For Hire Vehicle Regulations Ordinance would establish a new chapter, 6.311, to regulate the taxicab and for hire vehicle industry.

Excellent.

Thank you.

And we do have one amendment to this ordinance.

Council Member Peterson, would you like to move your amendment?

Yes, thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

Colleagues, I'd like to, let me just get to my notes here.

Colleagues, I wanna move to amend Council Bill 120653 with Amendment 2 as published on this morning's agenda.

Thank you very much, I will second that.

Thank you.

And just want to double check for the clerks.

Does noting Amendment 2 suffice for the procedural motion in front of us?

If the intent is to consider Amendment 2 before the substitute, then you may proceed.

Great.

I think that is accurate here.

Council Member Peterson, I'm going to turn it over to you to describe your amendment, please.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda, and I know that I support the substitute bill for this, 120653 as well, and I didn't know if central staff had said that my amendment two would be amended.

to that substitute or if it matters, if it's independent.

I understand where we're at.

I apologize for the confusion here.

I do think that we should get the substitute in front of us.

Great.

And then I will turn it back to you.

So, Amelia, apologies for that.

I understand what your clarification was now, but I would like to actually do our substitute.

Great.

Is that okay, Council Member Peterson?

Oh, yeah.

Terrific.

Yeah.

Do you mind colleagues if we just rescind that motion?

Hearing no objections to rescinding the substitute motion, we'll consider it rescinded.

Apologies to members of the audience too.

This is fun.

Okay.

I'm going to get the substitute version of the substitute in front of us.

I move to amend Council Bill 120653 by substituting Amendment 1, Version 1 for Version D1A.

Second.

Thank you very much.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any comments on the substitute before we consider council member peterson's amendment to the substitute?

Okay, hearing none council member peterson.

We will go ahead and turn it to you and then of course we're welcome to take comments on the substituted substitute amended version Councilman peterson.

Would you like to move your amendment?

Thank you, Chair Muscat.

I know there are a couple different ways we can do this.

I'll say it, one of the ways, and Amelia Sanchez can correct me.

So colleagues, I move to amend Council 120653, the substitute version, with Amendment 2 as published on this morning's committee agenda.

Perfect, second.

Thank you.

Council Member Peterson, would you like to describe your amendment?

Yes and also I know really appreciate the work that Karina Bull and central staff and and my legislative aide Gabby Lackson did on this amendment.

I appreciate the positive comments we heard from the public commenters today.

Chair, I appreciate your support of this amendment, too, as well.

Colleagues, I can speak to it briefly, and then if Karina wants to walk us through it.

But colleagues, this amendment will ensure coordination and alignment among the various city departments.

The Financial and Administrative Services Department is the lead on this legislation, and we also want to make sure that FAS department coordinates with our Seattle Department of Transportation and emergency responders regarding future autonomous driverless vehicles.

Section 6.311.470 subsection C of this legislation addresses future rulemaking authority for the executive to work out some details after the law passes.

States, unless granted such authority by the director by rule, an autonomous vehicle providing for higher transportation services is prohibited from autonomous operation.

This provision to prohibit autonomous operation until there's explicit prior approval is a good start.

And as I noted at our previous meeting, I crafted an amendment hoping to make it even stronger for protecting both safety and labor.

This amendment will help to ensure that adequate safety precautions are taken to protect residents.

Should autonomous vehicles ultimately be authorized to operate by for-profit transportation services, by incorporating at least the basic safety and regulatory requirements that we already worked hard to craft and are enforcing through the Seattle Department of Transportation for autonomous vehicle testing.

The safety requirements presented in this amendment resemble those requirements from SDOT's autonomous vehicle testing street use permit requirements, but allow for the development of additional director rules that cater to the commercial nature of driverless operations for higher transportation services.

Driverless technology being developed by various corporations, experimenting and testing at various levels on our public streets, in different cities.

It's not ready to deploy at scale, especially here in Seattle, but I understand that these emerging technologies, we have to sort of, we have to put in precautions in advance, guardrails, and so that's what this amendment does.

Thank you.

Excellent.

And I will jump in the queue.

I don't see anybody else with their hand up on this amendment.

I want to thank you, Council Member Peterson, for bringing forward this amendment and for all of your work in creating guidelines for the autonomous vehicle pilot.

I do consider this a needed and friendly amendment.

I think it adds some additional oversight to ensure we have strong safety requirements in the event that there is interest in autonomous vehicles entering the for hire market.

I really want to thank you and Gabby in your office for reaching out to our team, reaching out directly to Aaron House, the Chief of Staff in my office on this, and for the really thoughtful approach to this amendment.

And of course, to the stakeholders that we checked in with, I think across the board we heard that there wasn't any concern with this and probably a good addition to the legislation.

So thank you for your foresight to bring this forward and very supportive of this amendment here today.

I see Council Member Herbold.

Please go ahead, Vice Chair.

Thank you.

Likewise, I'd like to thank Councilmember Peterson for bringing this amendment forward.

I also appreciate your work with the Teamsters on the amendment.

I understand them to be supportive and that the amendment is aligned with protecting the driver industry for under-regulated competition while we sign regulations on the industry of autonomous vehicles.

There's a lot of, I think, exciting questions about the future of travel.

But I think there's a lot of very untested and under-tested issues associated with autonomous vehicle technology.

I'm going to turn it over to you, Mr. Chairman.

the purpose of this amendment, but I think it is something for a future council to consider, is that the city of Seattle and the county, King County Metro, has for many years been lauded as a city with great transit use and diversity of transit use, particularly income diversity.

We know that unusually high percentages of high earners regularly have commuted on transit.

And so I think there's a really good question to ask of what happens to our transit base if we allow for travel in autonomous vehicles by four hire drivers in that often won't be accessible to lower income residents.

So with the possibility of higher income transit users moving over to more for-hire vehicles.

That has an impact on our transit base, which has an impact on the ability of people who depend on transit to be able to have access to a system that is sustainable and functioning.

So again, I know this isn't really the purpose of this amendment, but I think the amendment itself gives us some time to answer the questions around safety while also building a potential on-ramp in case these technologies do get authorized in the future.

Thank you.

I will be voting in support of this amendment.

Councilmember Peterson, any closing comments?

No, thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

I know central staff, I know everybody's got this amendment online and can look, it's very simple, just a couple of paragraphs, but if you wanted to go through it as well on the screen.

Corina, do you mind just pulling it up so that viewing public can see it real quick and then we can have some final comments and then we'll go to a vote.

All right, so for the viewing public, this is the text of the amendment, and it would establish conditions that the director would have to meet before granting authority for the autonomous operation of these vehicles before they could provide for higher transportation and a driverless manner.

So, the 1st condition is that the director would need to get concurrence and advance.

from the directors of a number of departments, the Community and Safety and Communication Center, Department of Transportation, Fire Department, and Police Department.

And then next, the director would need to establish specific safety and regulatory requirements, including, but not limited to, so this is not an exhaustive list, advanced notification of deployment, notice of contact information and outreach events, first responder interaction information, Proof of insurance acceptable tool to the city and identification notification of collision and other items also noted that there is needed to be demonstrated compliance with a state Department of licensing requirements, including self certification and any other requirements from state law.

So it's very detailed in the amendment, but again, it could be even more regulations if the director so decides.

Great.

Council Member Peterson, anything to add?

Thank you, Chair.

Nothing to add.

Appreciate your support.

Absolutely.

Okay.

I don't see any additional hands, and thank you, Karina, for your fast work on that amendment as well.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson, for working with the community on bringing this forward.

Madam Chair, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment Number 2 to Council Bill 120653 as substituted?

Councilmember Herbold.

Yes.

Councilmember Peterson.

Yes.

Councilmember Nelson.

Aye.

Councilmember Lewis.

Yes.

Madame Chair Mosqueda?

Aye.

Madame Chair, that is five in favor, none opposed.

Thank you so much.

The motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

The substitute bill as amended is now before the committee.

Are there any further comments on the bill?

And I'll just note for folks, I'm going to be sharing some comments after we consider all three pieces of legislation, but is there any additional comments on the legislation in front of us?

Again, we have Council Bill 120653 as amended.

Hearing none, Madame Councillor?

My apologies for interrupting.

At this point, the committee just adopted Amendment 2, which amended the substitute.

Now there needs to be a final amendment to the substitute as amended.

That's what I was just about to call the roll on.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of Substitute Bill 120653 as amended.

Council Member Herbold.

Wait, I'm a little confused.

I'm sorry to interrupt.

We're on item number two.

Item number two is Council Bill 120. So we're basically voting on it?

Yes, just a second.

Let me clarify where we're at.

We're on Council Bill 12065. Three, that's agenda item number two.

It has been substituted and then we amended it.

We just voted on the amendment to the sub and now we're voting on the substitute as amended.

Okay.

So you would like to make some comments on agenda item number two.

I have a question.

Go ahead.

So is this the piece of legislation that concerns the medallions, yes?

Can I have a question?

Yes, yes.

So this legislation would have the reciprocity endorsement system for the medallions.

One medallion to operate in King County and Seattle.

Right now, there needs to be two medallions.

Okay, so my question is, what happens if people already have two?

I mean, is that a lost investment, or what happens?

Yeah, so this will likely have an impact on driver investment in that second medallion.

The driver could potentially sell the medallion if there's a market for it.

The driver could also potentially split the medallion and lease a second vehicle that someone could pay for.

So they would have the medallion for the second vehicle.

The driver could pay the owner of the medallion to drive that vehicle.

So those are potential ways to mitigate the impact of going to a single medallion system.

But yes, I mean, this is likely to have an impact on drivers.

The intent is for a more streamlined, efficient way of allowing drivers to operate in Seattle and King County.

And so this would benefit new entrants to the market, but could impact those that are already

Okay, follow-up question.

How much do the medallions cost?

And Matthew, have you looked at the impacts of streamlining into one?

I guess you have, but do you know how much they cost?

Well, so we don't sell medallions.

Neither the city nor the county sells medallions.

If there are new medallions issued, they're done usually through a lottery process.

So sales take place.

secondary market between private sellers.

We make it optional to disclose a sales price.

I believe right now we're probably around $15,000, $20,000 for a medallion.

And I also should clarify something that Karina said earlier.

We have been very sensitive to the issues of dual medallion holders or owners and the investments that they've made.

And so this legislation is reflecting options for dual medallion owners once, if this kind of new medallion arrangement is adopted, options for dual medallion owners.

Up until now, If you have a dual medallion, you are not able to split that medallion.

So once you've joined a city medallion and a county medallion, it's basically treated as one medallion and you're not able to split.

What this legislation will do is allow a dual medallion owner to split the medallion.

So they can break it back down into the city medallion and the county medallion.

And so with those two medallions, they may decide to sell one, So that may be a way to recoup a least part of the investment that was previously made.

They may choose to keep the medallion as a dual medallion and operate as they do now.

They may also choose to split the medallion and put a second vehicle on the road and take advantage of the reciprocity endorsement system that we're proposing.

So we think there are some options there.

Nothing is mandatory with regards to what a dual medallion owner may do.

But there are some options now available where currently there are not.

And is the county in line with you on this?

Yeah, for this to work, the county has to be in line.

And that's why this kind of delicate dance here between the two jurisdictions needs to continue and the language needs to be really the same in regarding, regards to medallions.

So that the reciprocity endorsement system will work, so that the option to split a dual medallion will work.

Great.

Okay.

Great questions.

Any additional questions?

I'm not seeing any additional questions.

Thank you for that.

Just to confirm where we're at in the process, item number two on the agenda has been substituted and amended.

So we are going to consider a final vote on 120653. Council Member Herbold, please make some comments if you'd like.

I would.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to comment on the final passage.

Since our last meeting, I have been considering the feedback that we have heard from industry professionals.

Some folks do have concerns with the legislation, and their concerns have been about whether or not the legislation makes it more challenging for taxi cabs to be able to compete with ride share companies.

My understanding of this bill is that it actually eases several of the regulations that are actually stricter on taxi cabs than on rideshare app drivers, including reducing the driver age minimum and allowing valid driver's license from other states.

But on the other hand, some of the rights we have fought for that protect ride share drivers, like minimum payment or the right to accept or reject trips, don't one for one transfer over to taxi cab drivers.

I think those are issues that are worthy of future exploration on the part of FAS, the disparities between state regulations of app-based TNC drivers and our city and county regulations on taxi cabs.

I know this legislation works to meet a need that has been named by some of the folks giving public testimony about insurance rates.

As the supporting documents to the legislation say, the city doesn't have control over most factors influencing insurance rates.

It can adjust some requirements, and in doing so, the city and county can build a more competitive insurance market that can potentially mean lower insurance premiums for drivers.

Really appreciate the Repucocity endorsement system.

With the streamlined process for appeals and permanent reduction in annual medallion and driver licensing fees, this means drivers will have to spend less money on maintaining their requirements to operate their business.

Appreciate how this legislation is working to support the industry of entrepreneurship.

and recognize that there are some issues that folks have identified that in the future might be addressed with more time.

We are running out of time against the county's deadline and our own committee schedules.

So really appreciate Madam Chair for bringing this package of bills forward and just wanted to state for the record the issues leading me to in balance support this bill.

Thank you.

Wonderful.

Okay.

And again, we're on agenda item number two, and then we'll consider agenda item number three.

Thank you for the comments on the substitute as amended.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the adoption of the substitute bill 120653 as amended?

Council Member Herbold.

Yes.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Council Member Nelson.

Yes.

Jane.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Madam Chair Mosqueda.

Aye.

Madam Chair that is four in favor one abstain.

Wonderful the motion carries and the committee recommendation that the bill pass will be sent to the September 26th Seattle City Council meeting for a final vote.

Okay we're gonna consider item number three and then we'll be done with all.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Um, the bills will be are delayed until yeah, sorry.

Yes.

I've already said this.

I'm sorry.

It's just in the script.

Uh, the motion carries in the committee recommendation that the bill pass will be held.

Until December, along with the other 2 pieces of legislation, let's go to agenda item number 3. I move the committee recommends passage of Council Bill 120656. Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded.

Karina, would you like to describe 120656?

Yes, this bill, the for hire interlocal agreement would authorize an updated agreement between the city and King County to jointly administer and enforce for hire transportation regulations.

Okay, any additional comments on the legislation in front of us?

Okay, I will use this as an opportunity to comment on all three bills and then we'll be done.

Again, thank you.

Please go ahead Council Member Nelson.

So this is the, I just want to make sure that the comment in the central staff memo about timing is also applied to this one.

If council approves the city's legislative package before the county completes their deliberations, the council would need to introduce new legislation to incorporate any county amendments rather than amending the current package.

So that is also at play in this piece of legislation.

I don't think that's accurate.

I think that there were two options outlined in the central staff memo.

One was to pass the three pieces of legislation at full council and then if that were the case, then we would do what you just described in the central staff memo, which is we'd have to reintroduce new legislation and consider any amendments.

That the county has passed what we have in front of us is three pieces of legislation that we are passing out of committee We will not hear those at full council And then if there are amendments that we need to make as a city council to align with king county We will consider those prior to full passage at full council so that we are in alignment So there's two options, I think, outlined in the central staff memo.

And the first one is what we are going with, which is holding final passage to confirm that we are in alignment.

And then we will do any adjustments necessary prior to final passage at full council.

Karina, anything to add to that?

That is the correct summary.

Okay, great.

Council Member Nelson, any questions about that?

Yeah, in the central staff memo, it's the 1st option is if we take it, we'll have to introduce new legislation.

I'm just trying to figure out if that is likely or not.

And the central staff memo refers to 653, not 654. So I was asking if that.

Timing issue also applied to the interlocal agreement.

That was the nature of my question.

Okay.

Yeah, thank you for clarifying.

I understand.

Yes, the timing issue applies to all 3. bills, even though I guess my pointed issue ID was on the for hire, the taxi and for hire vehicle legislation.

Reason being that in my discussions with county staff, who are my counterparts at the county, they are identifying technical edits that the county may consider, county council may consider for all three of the bills.

And so if any of those technical edits are substantive, the city council should consider adopting them.

Even if they are purely technical, it could help the public and help readers to have all of the language be aligned.

Okay, well, thank you very much.

For the record, I voted yes for the first piece of legislation 652, assuming that that was not contingent upon the county's process.

But I will be abstaining from this final piece of legislation as well.

Okay, thank you, Council Member Nelson.

Additional comments?

Okay, excuse me, just sorry to double check.

FAS, did you have anything you wanted to add to that from a technical perspective on alignment?

No, but thank you for being thoughtful as we work with the county to pass multiple pieces of legislation.

Wonderful, thank you so much.

I'm going to say some comments, and I'm going to treat this as closing comments for the whole package.

Thank you for your consideration of this.

Sorry for the back and forth on the procedural motions here today.

That is on me.

I just want to thank you for the work that this committee has done in partnership with the mayor's office, FAS, and our partners who are in the room.

I want to thank Teamsters and the drivers union who have been actively providing feedback along with the dispatch companies.

Thank you very much for your collaboration and your partnership as we work to update the city policies related to for hire and taxi cab industry requirements.

I do have a lot of optimism that this in partnership with the King County changes will allow for drivers to more successfully compete.

and increase their earnings.

I'm very thankful for the ongoing conversations that we're having with King County and the united efforts that our jurisdictions have to align and streamline regulations and ensure consistency across policies.

I really am appreciative of the language that we have now voted on to anticipate the impact of technology on taxi dispatch services, the impact of potential technology on autonomous vehicles, and that we've included guardrails to protect consumers and drivers.

I want to highlight the legislation that is really significant for workers This compilation of regulations helps align around vehicle age limits so that vehicles that have aged past 15 years give additional drivers time to operate their otherwise very safe vehicles.

They still have to pass annual inspections.

This is a really good thing for economic security for drivers, and it helps to ensure that there's greater stability in their earnings.

I think it's a positive and really practical update that will benefit drivers.

I also want to thank the drivers for the continued feedback on how dynamic pricing has affected their ability to have earnings and stable and predictable earnings, and that we've been able to incorporate some of that feedback here.

Again, thanks to Karina Bull from Central Staff for your quick and thoughtful work over the last few months to fine-tune this legislation in front of us and in partnership with the executive and our partners in labor and the industry.

I really feel like this strikes a a good compromise on how we can adjust the regulations in this sector and still ensure that we are creating stability and predictability for workers.

I want to thank as well the folks at the mayor's office.

I mentioned Breonna Thomas as well this morning.

I think that there is great work that we've put in here to ensure that there's additional compensation for some of the changing dynamics in the industry.

And I have to thank as well Mayor Bruce Harreld, who when he served on Seattle City Council, he was the sponsor of a resolution that pointed us in the direction back in 2018 to head down this road.

I look forward to getting this across the finish line as soon as budget completes, and King County Council also takes action on this.

Again, colleagues, we will be holding this legislation in anticipation of a full vote once the county is able to adopt our legislation to ensure that these policies, to the largest extent possible, mirror each other.

Given our different jurisdictions and code, it's going to not exactly be carbon copy, but the intent and outcome should be the same.

so that we create consistency for drivers and dispatch companies.

Thank you all for your participation in this process.

And Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll on agenda item number three?

Yes.

Madam Chair?

Aye.

Madam Chair, that is four in favor, one abstain.

Okay, thank you so much.

The motion carries and the bill recommendation that do pass will be sent to the Seattle City Council, full council for consideration upon the passage of King County's action as well.

Madam Chair, could you please read items number four and five into the record?

Agenda item number four, council bill 120659, an ordinance relating to the transfer of city real property for housing development.

And agenda item number five, council bill 120660, an ordinance relating to the transfer of city real property for housing development.

For briefing discussion and possible vote.

Excellent.

Well, thank you and welcome to our virtual panel.

We have Andrea Akita, the Deputy Director from the Office of Housing, as well as Erica Malone from Office of Housing and Tracy Ratzcliff from our central staff.

I appreciate you all for being here today.

We had the chance to preview some of this legislation in council briefing last week when it was on the introduction referral calendar.

I want to thank Andrea Akita and Erica Malone from the Office of Housing for being here today with us, along with Tracy Ratzcliff, who has been working on this legislation within central staff for a few months, I think.

We have two very exciting pieces of legislation.

You actually heard from from Habitat for Humanity earlier today, who testified in support of the legislation, and from some others on the line as well, who are excited about how this transfer is going to be allowing and utilizing city-owned surplus property to create nearly 100 new permanently affordable home ownership opportunities, including family-sized units.

This legislation builds on previous actions of the council, including passage of legislation that I sponsored prioritizing city-owned surplus property for affordable housing with an emphasis on working with organizations rooted in and serving communities most at risk of displacement.

Office of Housing is going to walk us through the detailed legislative history of these two sites and the legislation we have here today as milestone steps in the process that we had envisioned for how to utilize surplus property because we are now at the stage of transferring this land to the housing partners who will actually build the housing on site that will serve the community for generations to come.

I am very excited because this also includes new permanently affordable homes on these sites that will be created using Jumpstart Progressive Revenue.

And as a reminder, Jumpstart, the spend plan codified 5% of the housing proceeds to go towards permanently affordable home ownership opportunities, serving communities who've been most impacted by displacement and denied home ownership opportunities due to past discriminatory policies like redlining and racist covenants.

It is exciting, wonderful, and long overdue to see these efforts come together to create not just housing for those who need it, but also home ownership opportunities to help families root in place, which will be permanently affordable housing for generations to come.

The Office of Housing reached out to community members to provide a briefing on this legislation.

I should say to committee members, but we all represent the community, so same thing.

Thank you for reaching out to the committee members.

Thank you to the Office of Housing for providing an advanced opportunity to learn about these proposals and answer questions for committee members.

And today, we'll have another opportunity to learn about the legislation in front of us.

We have Tracy Ratcliffe here to help answer any questions as well.

And following the presentation and discussion, we will have a vote on the two pieces of legislation.

Before I turn it over to Office of Housing, Tracy, did you have anything that you'd like to add?

I'm sure you've done a fine job of setting the context for the conversation, so no, I don't.

Okay.

Thank you, and I'll thank Erin House, Chief of Staff in my office, for her close work with you and for the detailed notes on this.

Let's go ahead and turn it over to Office of Housing for a walkthrough of the two pieces of legislation in front of us, Agenda Items 4 and 5. Welcome.

Good morning Council Member thank you very much Council Member Mosqueda.

I'm Andrea Akita Deputy Director for the Office of Housing and I'm here with Erica Malone our Home Ownership Division Manager and we are really pleased to be here today to share background on proposed legislation related to the Office of Housing's Home Ownership Program.

The City of Seattle is really proud to be able to invest in the development of permanently affordable for sale homes as a way to increase pathways that build generational wealth and prevent displacement.

The office is building on a strong track record of collaboration with agencies like Sound Transit and we're celebrating the success of our nonprofit development partners Homestead Community Land Trust, and Habitat for Humanity, and we're especially excited to be bringing on a new development partner, African Community Housing and Development.

And together we're building more homes throughout Seattle.

The legislation before you will result in 99 new permanently affordable homes, and this represents a significant increase in our home ownership portfolio.

These homes will be built in North Seattle, in Sydney Ridge, and in several South Seattle neighborhoods, Mount Baker, Columbia City, Othello, and Rainier Beach.

As you stated, Council Member, the developments are gonna provide a mix of housing types and sizes.

We're excited that so many of them will have multiple bedrooms suitable for families with children, and they'll all be affordable for households that earn up to 80% of area median income.

We have reached a major point in a process that started several years ago, thanks to previous council actions that have enabled the Office of Housing and its development partners to reach these important milestones.

And so with your support to transfer these properties to nonprofit developers, we'll be fulfilling the city's prior commitments to transform these properties into affordable homes.

I want to thank our office team, Joy Hunt and Erica Malone for their work and leadership in the space.

And I'm going to hand it over to Erica, who will provide more history and information on the proposed details of the legislation.

Thank you, Deputy Director Akita.

And good morning, everyone.

I'm Erica Malone, Housing, what am I, title, Homeownership Division Manager.

I'm going to share just a little bit more detail on the pieces of legislation in front of you today.

As was stated earlier, the two pieces address one piece of property located in Finney Ridge, where we're asking for authority for the Office of Housing to transfer that property to Homestead Community Land Trust for development of permanently affordable homes, and then seven sites in the Rainier Valley along the light rail corridor along MLK to three different organizational recipients.

Sorry, okay.

A little bit more background on the Finney property.

As Chair Mosqueda referenced earlier, this property was already declared excess by council action in the past.

Office of Housing went through a request for proposal process and awarded this property to Homestead Community Land Trust.

Since that time, We don't typically transfer property until such time as our development partners have all financing available and all the entitlements in hand.

So since that time, that's the work that Homestead has been doing.

They additionally acquired property adjacent to that site on Finney Ridge.

Next slide, please.

Which will accommodate 30 condominium homes, which is very exciting, 19 of which will be permanently affordable.

That's affordable to households at or below 80% of area median income and have ongoing restrictions that create affordability at all subsequent resales, allowing households to take with them a reasonable rate of return on their investment but not at the cost of pricing the next household out of that opportunity.

And in addition to the no-cost transfer, Office of Housing will be investing just over $2 million as well.

A variety of funding sources, including the Jumpstart Payroll Expense Tax.

The 19 affordable homes include five three-bedroom homes eight two-bedroom homes and six one-bedroom homes.

So we're really excited about the variety of sizes there.

So moving on to the next piece of legislation, the Rainier Valley Affordable Home Ownership Initiative.

Again, there is some history.

Many of you have seen this before when in May of 21, you voted to accept 10 properties from Sound Transit All of these sites are within the Office of Housing Jurisdiction.

We have, since that time, gone through a competitive process for seven of those sites.

We still have three sites to release via request for proposals.

We are intending to do that next spring.

The overall goal for the Rainier Valley Affordable Homeownership Initiative includes a variety of outcomes, not only the goal to create over 100 permanently affordable homes for folks who have been shut out of homeownership opportunities in the past, but also to build organizational capacity for community-based organizations to engage in the development and stewardship of these homes.

And you had heard earlier from Billen at ACHD, African Community and Housing Development, We're so thrilled with the partnership that they've established with Habitat for Humanity to be able to be awarded these sites and to enter into the development process.

This, again, is the result of years, as Mara D'Angelo said earlier from Sound Transit, years of collaboration and community engagement.

And we're just thrilled to be at this place in the process.

Next slide, please.

So again, this legislation, much like the Finney Ridge legislation, authorizes the Office of Housing Director to transfer these seven properties to the three recipient entities.

Again, this is Homestead Community Land Trust, Habitat for Humanity, Seattle, King, and Kittitas Counties, as well as the partnership that was referenced earlier between Habitat for Humanity and ACHD.

I did want to also make a point that the community preference policies will be used in all of these, for all of these projects and habitat, or excuse me, Homestead also has a significant partnership with Rainier Beach Action Coalition for their project that will be located in the Rainier Beach neighborhood, which we're really excited about that partnership as well.

Next slide, please.

So the Rainier Valley Affordable Homeownership Initiative will result in 80 permanently affordable homes with a range of family-sized units.

And the additional investment from Office of Housing to bring these projects to fruition is about $8.5 million.

Again, we won't transfer the property until Permits are in hand, financing is in hand, and our development partners are ready to go forward with development.

The next slide is just sort of a table of the various sites and the recipients and then the makeup of each of the projects.

And you'll see, again, over 60 of the homes have more than two bedrooms, and we're really excited to bring that diversity of housing sizes and family sized units to the Rainier Valley.

In summary, these are two bills in front of you.

We thank you for your past support to get to this point and hope that you'll move this legislation.

I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Wonderful.

Thank you so much.

Are there any questions that colleagues have about the two pieces of legislation and the transfer outlined in front of us?

Councilmember Nelson.

Oh, excuse me.

I do see a hand from Councilmember Herbold, but I saw you come off mute.

So I'll call on Councilmember Nelson first because I saw her come off mute.

Please go ahead, Councilmember Nelson.

Thanks.

I have a question about the Finney property.

According to the King County Assessor's website, it looks like Homestead Community Land Trust already owns the Finney property, or at least they're listed as the current taxpayer.

So was this property already transferred to them?

No, they acquired the adjacent property, and they actually, the two properties share the same address.

So it's a little bit confusing.

The Office of Housing has jurisdiction over the adjacent site to the site that they own.

Okay.

And so with the transfer, then they take over the tax burden as well?

Correct.

Okay.

And when was the adjacent property acquired by Homestead?

I'm not sure of the exact date.

It was after the award of the Office of Housing site was made.

And that was from this, we owned it before, is that correct?

Correct, yes.

And light?

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Do all these transfers have to go be legislatively approved?

This is what this legislation is.

Previous ones, that must have been years ago.

Oh, yes.

Apologies.

Tracy, go ahead.

No, the charter requires that any disposition of city property requires the city's council's approval by ordinance.

Okay, thank you.

Council Member Herbold.

Thanks so much.

I just wanted to talk a little bit also about the Finney property.

I understand that Homestead's plan includes ground floor commercial space with homes on top.

I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit more about those plans, what type of businesses sought, whether or not there's involvement in this effort on the ground floor of the Office of Economic Development, and whether or not this model, a no-cost transfer of city land offered free for a non-profit developer paired with a separately acquired parcel intended to include commercial space, is something that the Office of Housing contemplates doing more of, as I think folks know, there's a property in my district that I've been very interested in replicating a similar model.

I'm wondering if you could talk a little of that, and then I'll have another follow-up question.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

I can speak to the commercial space on Finney, which is that Habit, or excuse me, I keep mixing up all the H's.

Homestead has a requested a waiver for that commercial space to be live work.

So there will not be separate businesses on that ground floor space.

Got it.

Madam Chair, may I?

Yeah, please continue.

Thanks.

So I'm just looking at the difference of time between for the Finney property as compared to the Rainier Valley site.

The Finney property was declared surplus and transferred by the council back in 2019 and the Rainier Valley sites where the council approved transfer back in spring of 2022, and we already have RFP awards made.

I'm wondering if you could talk to the difference in the length of time it has taken to reach the step where an RFP has been, an RFP award has been made, and legislation brought to council between the different geographic areas, Finney and Rainier Valley.

I'm happy to take that question unless Tracy or Andrea.

Great question.

Yes, the timeline at Finney was elongated for two reasons.

One is that there's some environmental cleanup that needs to happen.

So we've been working with Department of Ecology on how to move forward on that, as well as at the time, design review was required for that property.

And that is no longer necessary.

thanks to the wisdom.

Thank you.

And so this is all my questions around timeline.

Myself, the opportunity to talk about the timeline as relates to a property in my district.

Just want to a little bit of background on this.

I'm supportive of these two bills.

Let me just be very clear.

But there is, as the Office of Housing well knows, a property in District 1 known as the Dumar Seattle City Light Substation that has a long and storied history.

Um, in our efforts, the community's efforts to, uh, surplus this property for affordable housing, um, way back in 2015, before I was a council member, um, there was a statement of legislative intent sponsored by, uh, then council members Harrell, Licata, and Rasmussen, requesting that DPD analyze and prepare legislation for a rezone of the property because the interest was in including the zoning capacity of the property.

So that was back in 2015. Also that year there was legislation declaring Dumas surplus property.

In 2019, there was community advocacy led by the Highland Park Action Council that resulted in the new zoning designation for Dumar, following up on the 2015 slide.

In October 2021, office of housing and enterprise staff met with myself and HPAC members to hear the community members' interest in affordable housing and ground floor commercial at Dumar.

In 2022, my office spent time talking to a lot of small business incubators and community development folks to get insight on how to create incentives for ground floor commercial.

I have been seeking, we actually, Enterprise did an analysis of the property and produced that the enterprise site analysis in 2020 led to a Office of Housing feasibility memo.

We've had community meetings with HPAC and potential developers interested in building affordable housing on site.

And they've, you know, we've talked about just about the different feasibility options with those specific affordable housing providers.

And I have for over the last year been trying to get information about the outcome, first the status and then the outcome of an appraisal that was done for this site.

So I understand that the city site and the Rainier sites are priorities.

I would like to understand how we go about prioritizing working on one opportunity over the other.

This has been long in the pipeline.

Seattle City Light has been very, very supportive and cooperative on holding back this property for disposition for purposes other than affordable housing because of their knowledge of the community's interest.

And so just, you know, taking the opportunity here now to, you know, uplift the timeline on the Dumar site as juxtaposed against the timeline for these other two developments that I'm very supportive of.

Thank you.

Any comments on that?

Any feedback from OH or central staff on that?

Okay.

Thank you, Councilmember Herbold, for watchdogging that so closely, and I appreciate being copied on some of those corresponding emails as well, and we'll continue to look at that with you and see what else we can do in that specific site.

But thank you for your support for these two pieces of legislation that you expressed.

Councilmember Peterson, please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda, and wanted to ask a question of either central staff or the Office of Housing.

Trying to compare the two different bills, so on the second bill, which has the various sites going to different groups, I just wanted to understand.

Typically, I wouldn't want to just give away public land permanently.

I would rather see a long-term 99-year lease, which most lenders view as ownership.

In this case, I realize it's different because it's going ultimately to homeowners.

So it's a two-step process here.

And I understand in the first piece of legislation, the land trust model and how that works.

But in the second piece of legislation, I'm not sure it's, could you explain, is that the exact same model or is it different?

Because, and who is owning, who will own the underlying Land, will it be the nonprofit, or is there just a covenant that runs with the land, or both?

Thank you.

I guess, yeah, either OH or central staff, or both.

Go ahead, Erica.

I'll give it a go to start.

Great question, and yes and yes.

The model that Habitat and ACHD use to create permanently affordable home ownership is the same as what Homestead Community Land Trust uses.

So they will maintain, as nonprofits will maintain ownership of the land, and then they lease using a 99-year renewable inheritable lease to, in the case of zero lot line townhomes or single family detached homes, directly to the homeowner.

In the case of condominiums, it will be to the condominium association.

Great.

And there will be a covenant on the land as well from the city.

Thank you, follow up?

So on the second piece of legislation, when I open up the term sheet and I go to section 4C, where it talks about a covenant preserving the units, that says for 50 years, and I just didn't know how that works when you mentioned the 99 years.

Yeah, correct.

So the city's covenant is for 50, but the nonprofit's commitment to ongoing affordability is essentially forever with a 99-year renewable, inheritable lease.

Terrific.

Thank you so much.

Good questions.

Any additional questions?

I am not seeing any.

That's funny.

Councilmember Nelson, my mouse was over your square and it looked like a hand, but then I realized it's the wrong color.

Okay.

I think we're good to go.

Any additional comments in closing from Tracy or Office of Housing?

Seeing none, okay, very exciting.

Thank you, colleagues, for considering this legislation and the follow-up work to be done to continue to expand this model to other parcels as well.

So thanks for all your work on this.

Office of Housing and Tracy, and thanks to Erin House in my office.

for continuing to work with you all on all things housing while she serves as Chief of Staff.

Madam Clerk, let's start with item number four.

I move the committee recommends passage of Council Bill 120659. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you so much.

It's been moved and seconded.

Any additional comments?

Hearing none, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the passage of Council Bill 120659?

Council Member Herbold.

Yes.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Madam Chair Mosqueda?

Aye.

Madam Chair, that is five in favor, none opposed.

Excellent, the motion carries and this legislation will be sent to the September 26th Seattle City Council meeting for a final vote with a recommendation that the full council do pass the policy.

Madam Clerk, we're going to move on to agenda item number 120660. I move the committee recommends passage of Council Bill 120660. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you very much.

It has been moved and seconded.

Any additional comments on this legislation?

Hearing none, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the passage of 120660?

Agenda, oh, Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Madam Chair Mosqueda?

Aye.

Madam Chair, that is five in favor, none opposed.

All right, thank you.

The motion carries, and the committee recommendation that the bill pass will be sent to the September 26th Seattle City Council full council for a final vote.

Congratulations, Office of Housing.

Thank you for getting this to us prior to the budget coming.

The same day the budget's coming, but we just got it under the wire, so thank you so much.

And with that, we're going to move on to our final item on the agenda.

This is for briefing and discussion.

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

Agenda item number six, staggered elections for briefing and discussion.

Thank you so much.

And we are joined by Lish Whitson, Council Central staff.

Lish is available to walk us through the updated legislation that has been included on our agenda for consideration today.

We are still working through some of the comments that were made in last committee meeting.

Again, we are having a briefing and discussion because we are still working this through the introduction and referral calendar process, and my hope is that we will have a full conversation about this with the intent to circle back to it prior to the end of the year.

Before Lish gets into the overview of the legislation that has been added to our agenda for today, I wanted to offer a few comments.

We started discussing this legislation with community members back in the spring of this year.

Thanks again to the coalition of folks that we've been talking to, a broad swath of stakeholders who are actively engaged in getting more voter participation and greater stability across our city.

in terms of both policy and representative democracy turnout.

We wanted to have an opportunity for the council to consider a resolution that the members of the public would have the chance to vote on next November.

And in part of our conversations last week, one of our colleagues asked why is this being brought up, that they hadn't seen anything that indicated that there was a need to change the policy.

And I want to again reiterate, that when we consider legislation and any updates to existing policy, whether it's codified via a vote of the people or a vote of a council that is signed into law by the executive, it is not intended to be dismissive of the original Policy that was crafted.

It's intended to enhance and update legislation.

That's what we do every cycle We constantly come back and identify ways to make existing statute better more accessible more stable And that's the intent of this legislation here today in regards to why this is bringing brought up and not seeing evidence to warrant the need for a change in the process I offer the following as examples of where members of the press have covered the high turnover rate on council as an indication that some possible change could help create greater stability for the city of Seattle.

If we reduce turnover in terms of the number of seats on council that are turning over, then it yields greater stability in terms of institutional memory and capacity so we can continue to provide excellent services to our residents.

Program continuity, investment continuity, and just having greater stability in our electoral process is always a good thing for democracy.

So thank you for asking the questions, Caldings, in the last meeting.

Thank you for your ideas that you generated.

And please consider the following headlines as I try to articulate the expressed need from folks in the community and those who are tracking the impact of high possible turnover rates in the city and the high number of seats that are open in one year.

When we have seven out of nine seats that are up for election in one year, it yields headlines like this.

February 26th, from the Seattle Times, the headline reads, the Seattle City Council turnover raises troubling questions from May 13th, from KNKX.

The headline reads, historic turnover possible this year in Seattle City Council elections.

For May 24th, from Axios, the headline reads, Seattle City Council races a free for all with four open seats.

May 24th, from Crosscut, the competing crisis driving Seattle City Council's election.

March 6th, from Washington Retail, the news publication headline reads, Seattle City Council faces massive turnover in this year's election.

May 9th, The King 5 article headline says, four empty seats will be filled.

More than 40 candidates filed to run for seven Seattle City Council district seats.

And January 30th, the first line of the Seattle Times article reads, Seattle City Council is due to experience a massive turnover.

Colleagues, the legislation in front of us is the second discussion on the concept of having a staggered elections opportunity for the voters to vote on next November.

It's designed to bring stability and reduce disruptive turnover on council.

I want to thank you for the productive discussion last week.

It has led to some suggested changes in the resolution.

that is included on today's agenda.

I really appreciate the feedback that was shared in committee.

I think the common ground that I am hoping to focus on is simply the opportunity to split the nine positions as evenly as possible across election cycles.

I have whittled this piece of resolution, this legislation down to just focusing on the staggered elections component.

The changes include removing any changes to the at-large positions, so positions eight and nine for the two at-large positions will remain in the same election cycle.

This allows for us to stagger the remaining seven and still result in a relatively even distribution of districts for both citywide and at-large positions.

This is allowing for us to ensure that we have elections for at-large positions that align with the mayor and city attorney, as council members commented on wanting to see preserved in the last discussion.

And the odd districts would have their elections two years later, leaving space to continue the conversation about moving to even-year elections at a different point when and if The state legislature authorizes the city to consider that.

That would be something that members of the council would, at some point in the future, potentially consider offering up to members of the voting population to consider at a future point.

But it does not include that in this legislation at this point, given the intent to really stay focused on staggered elections and the fact that the state legislation has yet to pass at the state level.

So the current version removes that permissive authority.

It wasn't a trigger bill by any means, but it was permissive authority for the council to consider even near the elections, given that is a conversation that is ongoing at the state level.

We've removed that per the discussion that we had with council members last week.

And the legislation that's attached to today's agenda is a resolution that more narrowly focuses on just the staggered elections component, Again aligning the two at-large positions with the mayor race as discussed last week as being an interest of council It still allows for us to have five seats in one year and four seats in another that was the entire intent of the legislation and I want to thank folks for your ongoing feedback and your continued Suggestions for how to accomplish the goal stable forward thinking and proactive That is the intent of us bringing this legislation in front of us Lish Whitson from Central Staff is with us.

And Lish, I appreciate your work on this given where we're at.

I was hoping that this could be passed before we head into budget so that there will be more than a year for those conversations to continue with members of the public as they considered a resolution.

And hopefully, we will still be able to pass something before the end of the year.

So there's near a full year for voters to consider the possible change in front of us.

Again, resolution has been updated to really just focus on the staggered elections component and incorporates feedback that we received in the committee last week.

So thanks for your quick work on that.

Lish, would you like to walk us through some of the changes in the attached resolution?

Oh, Lish, you're on mute.

There we go.

Let me share my screen.

One second.

So the proposed.

Resolution is slimmed down as the chair mentioned positions district council seats 2, 4, and 6 starting in the 2027 election would have a 2 year term.

And after 2029 or starting in 2029, they would be up for election in the same year that.

The two citywide council seats are up for election.

After 2029 there would be in 2029 and every four years afterwards there would be five council seats up for election.

Seats 2, 4 and 6 and 8 and 9. And then in for example 2031 there would be the 1, 3, 5 and 7 districts would be up for election and every four years after that.

And that is the extent of the charter amendment that this resolution would place on the ballot.

Liz, do you have an updated table that we looked at from last time that we might be able to display as well?

Sure.

Okay.

Well, as you were pulling that up, I want to say thank you.

I think I heard from three members of the committee last time that there was some interest in keeping the two at-large positions in the same election cycle.

That's easy to accomplish if we then stagger the other seats in alternating years that we had originally suggested.

So, easy to accomplish, and thank you for the feedback on that.

Great, thank you, Lish.

Yeah, maybe zoom in just a little bit more and then we can go through it.

Perfect.

So it's current system and the proposed system under the update resolution.

Great.

We'd have Q4 and 6 with one two-year term and adjusting their cycle.

And of course, given where we're at in the election cycle and the seven district seats up for a four-year term, there would be no impact to any of the district terms.

And then there's three seats that would experience a short gap transition period that then aligns us with the desired timeframe after that gap year or transition term.

Okay, so again, thank you for the feedback, colleagues from the last committee meeting that we had.

Council Member Nelson, please go ahead.

Thank you.

I appreciate you hearing my comments about moving the citywide seat to be mixed with the districts.

It seems like you made a change based on my comments, so I appreciate you trying.

The fundamental part of my reservation about this whole thing is that This was a citizens initiative, and it was put on the ballot in 2020, 2013 by Seattle districts now.

And I don't believe that we should be changing our election system, especially not 1 set by citizens initiative without a really good reason.

That's what I said last last meeting.

And the problem has not been demonstrated to me.

Like, what is the problem that we're trying to fix, and what is the evidence of that problem?

Haven't heard from any of my constituents about any complaints about the years that they vote.

There have been complaints about district system in general, but not sure what the problem is.

And with all due respect to the members of the press that have mentioned the massive turnover, I don't work for them.

I work for the constituents.

And so that is why I'm I keep trying to drill down on what are we doing here?

Because we are basically without consulting with the framers of the district elections system.

about trying to change it.

And I did read the letter from Eugene Wasserman into the record last time, but just for people that might be watching now, he says, Eugene Wasserman, I am writing to you as the former chair of the Seattle District's Now campaign, the people who wrote the charter amendment you seek to change.

We wrote the charter amendment and ran the campaign, which passed with 66% of the vote.

The current system of Seattle City Council members has been very successful.

A diverse group of City Council members elected.

The current system has been controversy-free.

When the redistricting committee held public meetings, there was no call to change when all the Council members were elected.

I do not remember you raising this as an issue when it would have been more appropriate.

And then he says some other things which I will not repeat.

The point is, though, that Yes, there is this idea of turnover and disruption, but that is what elections are for.

And I think that one of the things that the media is picking up on this cycle is that four incumbents are leaving their seats.

And so that is just by nature of the fact of change going to be changed.

because they could end up staying and winning reelection, and then there wouldn't be disruption.

So Congress is on the ballot every two years.

So my point is that I remain very concerned about what we're trying to do here, change a system set by Citizens Initiative by passing a resolution that's been discussed now twice without being referred, and then, you know, changing our charter if the voters approve.

Great.

Are there additional comments?

Council Member Herbold, please go ahead.

Thank you.

I just want to say for the record, Council Member Mosqueda, you have addressed the concerns that I have about this measure.

The Council has the authority to put items on the ballot, charter amendments on the ballot, as does proposers of the initiative.

This item was passed back in Boy, 10 years ago.

Back in 2013, it is not unreasonable for the council to consider improvements.

And again, it will be up to a vote of the people, like the original measure, to consider whether or not they agree with those changes.

So I believe this is fully, this question is fully within the authority of the council to ask the voters to consider.

Thank you.

Excellent.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Any additional comments?

I could jump in.

You don't have to.

Yeah?

Okay.

Okay.

Well, thank you.

Oh, excuse me, Councilwoman Lewis.

I see you now.

Please go ahead.

Thank you Madam Chair.

Appreciate the changes and alterations in this resolution that's been presented today and thank you Lish for for making that that clear in the materials that you shared.

It does answer some of the concerns and some of the things I've heard from stakeholders about the Legislation is presented last session, and I appreciate the narrowing of scope and and leaving off some of the other.

Policy matters that I still think are important, but maybe are better addressed through our intergovernment relations work in Olympia.

I have been contacted by a couple of other stakeholders who were involved in the original initiative and I myself was actually involved a little bit in the initiative 10 years ago.

Um, and and do want to make some space and allowance to hear them out fully and you can hear Vivian in the background there, but to hear them out fully on their, their considerations.

I think that I'll be able to ultimately get there.

I think there is wisdom and staggering these, these elections.

But for today, I just wanted to indicate, I want to politely abstain to give myself time to hear out people who who might have some additional feedback and.

And publicly, at this point, abstain on this vote and continue to work with the chair and colleagues as we deliberate on this whole council.

No problem.

Thanks so much, Council Member Lewis.

And just to orient us to where we're at, yes, it's the last meeting of the Finance and Housing Committee meeting, but we are just having a briefing today with the hopes that we are able to come back and discuss this prior to the end of 2023. So if there is the opportunity to have those discussions with members of the community over the next three months and for us to come back to this, that would be the ideal timeframe here.

And really appreciate your comments.

Thank you for letting us know that folks have reached out to you and other members of the committee We will scour our inbox as well to see if anybody has reached out directly for time besides the initial email that councilmember Nelson referenced last week as well, but look forward to hearing more because my my understanding is that The coalition that originally worked on the district elections, Seattle Districts Now, has not been active as a coalition since 2015, and if they are still active, very interested in hearing more from folks.

Council Member Nelson, I see your hand is up, and then I think I have some closing comments with the hopes for continuing the discussion in a few months.

I just wanted to say that I do appreciate that, yes, we can change things.

That is our power.

We can suggest that the voters consider other things.

I understand that.

Going forward, if this goes forward as actual legislation, I would like to know from the people that are still remaining in the framers of the Seattle districts now, if they did contemplate staggering the districts so that some would be on the ballot of the city-wides.

Because as I mentioned last time in my comments, when city-wides are all together, usually the questions that we get from citizen advocacy groups, reporters, et cetera, have to do with city-wide policy.

And so there is that issue that putting both district and city-wides on the ballot at the same time does change the nature of the discussion during that year.

And so if we are going to be changing through that to whoever is still in this conversation that also Council Member Lewis alluded to.

Thanks.

Any additional comments?

Okay.

Well, I will just again thank Lish for your work on this and the coalition of folks that we have been chatting with.

Andrew Villeneuve has done some advocacy around this.

concept at the state level of moving to even-year elections, and they had some great coverage of this legislation initially.

So, given that this had originally had the concept of moving to even-year elections, we continue to work with our state partners on the concept of greater community and civic engagement and even-year elections being a concept that supports that.

I look forward to hearing more from our OIR team.

As Councilmember Lewis noted, there's an opportunity to further that conversation with OIR.

Given that that is not, oh, excuse me, Councilmember Nelson, did you have something else?

You are on mute.

I recognize that moving our elections to even years is no longer part of the ballot title.

Just on the point of disruption, if all elections are on the ballot at the same time, that does increase potential turnover and disruption.

So that is another reason why keeping them odd years is beneficial if we are looking at turmoil.

Okay, well, I think that there is more conversation to have around that because I want to make sure that these discussions are rooted in data and conversations with folks about how to ensure stability for the city and Greater stability for the city is is also good for our democracy So I look forward to future conversations with folks about the pros and cons of that concept again for this piece of legislation That's in front of us right now for discussion a focus on staggered elections one that allows for four seats to be up in one year and five seats to be up in in another year and Just for the purposes of the City Council and City Hall, I think it's a really positive thing for the stability of delivery of services, institutional knowledge, and continuity for residents of the city.

Councilmember Nelson, this is not a debate, but I want to recognize your hand because I'm in closing comments here.

That just brought something to mind.

If you move four of the districts to when all four of the city-wides are on the ballot, now that makes eight.

So it's all a question of...

So I do...

Do we need to show the chart again?

We'll have to discuss that more.

That's...

What?

I think we need to show the chart one more time, if you don't mind, Lish, to show the staggered proposal that's in front of us.

And as you see, there are two at large positions that are up, eight and nine.

I think that there might be two eights listed there, but positions eight and nine.

And Lish, do you want to describe how there's four and five in different election cycles?

Yeah, so there would be, okay.

Do you want to do that for the public though as well, Lish?

Sure.

Starting in the 2029 election, there would be five council members up for election, and then two years later, in 2031, there would be four council members up for election.

Great.

Thank you for showing that again.

Any questions on that?

Okay.

And Council Member Nelson, do you have your hand up for additional comments?

No.

Okay.

Taking it down.

All right, great.

Well, I will conclude our meeting here with just some final comments as well.

My hope is that this does tee up a conversation for folks to have.

In the near future about the stability for council and if it's not possible to conclude this discussion In december with the existing council.

I hope this is good food for thought as we enter into 2024 again, this would not be anything that would go in front of the voters before november of 2024 So there's time to continue to massage this concept and look at various scenarios to do some analysis of greater stability in turn and reduced turnover and the ways in which we can accomplish that.

It turns out to be one of the ways that we can accomplish less turnover, greater stability, more institutional knowledge.

I think that that's good for our local democracy.

Again, colleagues, I want to thank the folks who worked on the original district elections in 2013. This has actually been very illuminating on the conversation that happened 10 years ago.

I'm more familiar with the initiative from 2015 that was regarding honest elections.

That coalition is still around, and part of the The stakeholders that I reached out to have a conversation about it have been supportive of moving in this direction, because the other letter was read into the record.

I, again, want to read some comments from Esteban Munoz Howard, who worked on the Honest Elections Initiative in 2015. I recognize, as we discussed last time, that is separate from district elections, but similarly The 2015 effort was intended to ensure that we had participation and civic engagement in our local elections.

This is all interconnected.

And as Estevan wrote to the full council, I write to encourage the council to allow for voters to choose whether to move to staggered district city council elections in accordance with the legislation introduced by Councilmember Mosqueda.

Such a reform would benefit the residents of Seattle in a variety of ways.

City council terms would be more consistent and workflow would be less impacted by the possibility of dramatic turnover in leadership.

Currently, council terms create the potential that certain elections could result in seven of nine council members cycling out at the same time.

Such a scenario would make it difficult to maintain any sort of consistency in the trajectory of our council.

Multiyear projects would be more likely to stall midway through implementation.

critical programs could be more likely to go unfunded, and council leadership could be more susceptible to short-term waves and public reaction to sensationalized stories.

What we need is a council that is stable, forward-thinking, and proactive.

This dynamic is far easier to maintain an environment in which we can prevent the possibility of losing a supermajority of council every four years.

In addition, staggering the terms would help increase voter attention and donor investments as each municipal election would include at least one opportunity for folks to see how, excuse me, at least an opportunity to engage in the cycle every year.

Staggering our district city council races is good for democracy.

I hope you will do right by your constituents and allow the people to decide.

On that last question, we will be deciding later on if we take this up as a committee and full council.

Thanks again to the folks who weighed in on drafting the legislation and the amended version in front of us.

Any additional questions?

Okay, Councilmembers, thanks for all your feedback.

Councilmember Lewis, look forward to hearing more about the conversations you have, and to the extent that we can continue the discussion going forward, colleagues, I'd be happy to.

There are no items on the agenda for the rest of the year.

If we come back as a final wave in December, colleagues, we will make sure to get those times on your schedule as soon as possible.

But at this point, we have wrapped our items for the year, and I want to thank you for your ongoing participation and the conversations that we've had.

Vice Chair Herbold, it's been an honor.

I'm going to turn it over to you.

I just wanted to say thank you.

Really appreciate your leadership and your collaborative approach to chairing this committee and would have prepared more remarks to express that appreciation with some specific examples had I anticipated that this was potentially our last Finance and Housing Committee meeting of the year.

and of my time on the council.

So again, thank you for all that you've done working with your colleagues and working with the public for a better Seattle.

Thank you.

Well, I appreciate that, Vice Chair, and thank you for being such a strong partner in the efforts that we've been able to accomplish through Finance and Housing and prior to that as well, and all of the work that we've done collectively on worker and labor rights as a hybrid between our committees this year.

So thank you so much.

I no longer have labor in my committee, but you have been a strong partner on those efforts over the years and it's been an honor to be able to work with you on those issues and so much more and we will get the chance to continue working.

Councilmember Herbold continues to serve as vice chair of the budget committee and the budget of the whole so we start that next week and again the mayor's proposed budget will be transmitted around 12 30 to the members of the public and then it will come to us in full council next week on Tuesday at 2 p.m.

and thus that will begin our budget deliberations.

Any additional comments?

Thumbs up from my colleagues here on the dais.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

And we'll see you all in the Budget Committee.

More to come on that next week.

Thanks again to Freddy de Cuevas from our office for clerking all of these meetings.

And to everyone from central staff who's been a huge partner with our office and the colleagues on this committee for crafting legislation and amendments, we really appreciate all of your work, and as well to security, to Seattle Channel, to IT, comms, the whole crew that makes this operation run.

The Finance and Housing Committee is out.

We'll catch you next time.

If that's in December, we'll let you know, community.

Bye-bye.