SPEAKER_03

The November 15th Select Committee, Budget Committee will come back to order.

It is 1240 p.m.

I'm Dan Strauss, Chair of the Select Committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Saka?

Council Member Wu?

Present.

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Council Member Kettle?

SPEAKER_20

Here.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Moore?

Present.

Council Member Morales?

Here.

Council Member Nelson?

Council Member Rivera?

Here.

Chair Strauss.

SPEAKER_03

I am present.

And can you call Council Member Hollingsworth one more time?

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Hollingsworth.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

SPEAKER_06

Present.

SPEAKER_03

I'll announce the other council members as they arrive.

We are on item SCL1A1.

Council Member Moore, would you like to move the underlying amendment and then we'll substitute it?

SPEAKER_13

The underlying, okay.

SPEAKER_03

withdraw a...

Yeah.

Okay.

SPEAKER_13

So I will not be moving.

Thank you, Chair.

I will not be moving version A that's printed on the agenda.

Instead, I will be moving my walk-on amendment that was voted onto the agenda this morning to be included.

So this was circulated by email at 914, and everyone now has a copy.

SPEAKER_03

And would you like to move that amendment then?

SPEAKER_13

Yes, thank you.

I would like to move council budget amendment SCL1B1.

SPEAKER_03

B1, is there a second?

It has been moved and seconded to recommend passage of SCL 1B1.

We have Eric McConaughey of our Seattle City Council Central staff.

Eric, would you like to brief us on the amendment, please?

SPEAKER_00

Sure, yeah.

This is, as you said, SCL 001B1.

This is a new option.

This substitutes for the option that had previously been presented at a high level.

The change here is that it provides those first changes Proposed and has now has changed has moved from 1 million dollars to five hundred thousand dollars So now this council budget action would impose a proviso on five hundred thousand dollars in the light fund from Seattle City Light to fund the survey condition assessment in preliminary estimates for replacement of aging underground power cables in the pinehurst area councilmember, I think I'll Thank you from there and for the record all council members are now present council member more sponsor of the amendment you are recognized.

SPEAKER_03

I

SPEAKER_13

Thank you.

And thank you, Eric, for that explanation and your work on this.

As Eric stated, the only difference in this version compared to the original version is that I'm provisoing less dollars so as not to jeopardize any other City Light plan projects.

The goal would be for this to be underspend.

The version A had a proviso of $1 million, and this version B has a proviso of $500,000 instead.

to commit to starting work on the underground cable replacement in the Pinehurst neighborhood.

Pinehurst has seen hundreds of power outages in the last few years, and this replacement's essential to ensure that the community has reliable access to the pet tower, particularly given under the proposed comp plan this would become an urban village.

As noted, this area does include much of the 130th Street Station.

And we obviously need increased capacity and reliability.

But I want to be clear that this money is not, this proviso would not move out of queue the work that's scheduled to be done in Magnolia or Queen Anne.

This is simply to begin the preliminary work that needs to be done right now.

Pinehurst, View Ridge, and Capitol Hill are anticipated to begin some work in 2027. This is just to get that preliminary work done so come 2027 they're able to move on.

Not my intent to.

interrupt in any way the very important work that is scheduled to be happening in Queen Anne and Magnolia, and also part of the reason that I did reduce it from one million to 500,000, so it would not affect any pre-programmed money.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Council Member Moore, Chair of the Budget Committee.

I will not be supporting this today.

I just have a few more concerns that haven't been alleviated.

I will be honest, I almost brought a proviso on City Light for ensuring that they do certain work in their dams, but I did not bring it because I need more information about that.

So select as the chair, I won't be supporting this today, but I absolutely see where you're coming from.

Colleagues, time for discussion.

Council Member Kettle, I see you have your hand.

SPEAKER_20

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

I just want to start by saying I recognize the challenges that Councilmember Moore is speaking to related to the Pinehurst area and to this very important topic that, as I mentioned yesterday, I don't think most of Seattle truly appreciates.

And I also recognize the change made with the amendment to the amendment.

My position remains the same.

One point I would add that, and I've had discussions with Ms. Lindell from City Light, is that this is a major issue, as mentioned, and this is like a perfect example for something to go to committee and to be worked through and to have it all out there.

really, really would do, it could benefit Pinehurst and the other areas that are needed, but also kind of highlight what is needed for this problem overall.

And oftentimes, as we've been going through this budget process, I've often thought that number of the items really should be going through committee process as opposed to budget process.

But for this one, because of my discussions with Ms. Lindell and some of the things that she's looking to do related to this problem, this strikes me as very strongly, you know, to be perfect for the committee process in the beginning of the year, new year, and to work through and to ensure that all of Seattle is set.

So with that, my points made earlier on this topic remain the same.

And I just wanted to add that based on my conversations with Ms. Lindell.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Council Member Kittle.

Colleagues, further discussion?

Council Member Wu.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

I have not been promoted to a panelist just yet, so I'm not able to raise my hand, but thank you for calling on me.

So as my role as chair of City Light, I know the amount of work and engagement Council Member Moore has put into the Pinehurst community.

There's a lot of trust we need to rebuild.

I believe under General Manager Lindell and Council Member Moore, that trust is slowly coming back.

I will be abstaining from this amendment as a citywide member and chair, but I do support Council Member Moore's advocacy for Pinehurst.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Council Member Wu.

Colleagues, further discussion.

Further discussion.

Last call on discussion.

Last call on discussion.

Final call on discussion.

Council Member Moore, as sponsor of the amendment, you have the last word.

SPEAKER_13

Thank you very much, Chair.

So I do share Council Member Kettle's concern about the broader issue about underground cable replacement.

It is something, it's an an impending significant issue that we have not yet addressed.

And I do agree that that is certainly an appropriate subject for the OSC City Light and Arts and Culture Committee.

And I'm looking forward to bringing, I mean, Director Lindell was the first person in her answers to questions for her confirmation to really highlight this as a significant challenge that we have not yet begun to grapple with.

So I commend her for bringing this to the committee's attention and we do need to pursue it.

That said, this is specific to Pinehurst and bringing it to committee is I think not necessarily a good use of the committee's time and also would note that this is simply to fund the survey condition assessment and preliminary estimates for the replacement of the underground power cables in the Pinehurst neighborhood.

So that as we begin these broader discussions about how we're going to deal with this, we can also begin the groundwork so that we can actually begin the work in 2027, 2028, 2029, whenever that happens.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

Will the clerk please call the roll on SCL 1B1.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Sacco.

SPEAKER_17

Abstain.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Wu?

SPEAKER_14

Abstain.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Abstain.

Council Member Kettle?

SPEAKER_12

No.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Moore?

Aye.

Council Member Morales?

SPEAKER_12

Abstain.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Nelson?

SPEAKER_12

No.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Rivera?

No.

Mayor Strauss?

No.

One in favor, four abstentions, and four opposed.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

SCL 1B1 does not pass and will not be attached to the council bill.

We're gonna move on to the next item.

Council Member Morales, you are sponsor of the item.

SPEAKER_12

I move SDCI 6A1.

SPEAKER_17

Second.

SPEAKER_12

Wait, is that right?

SDCI 5A1.

That's not right, I'm sorry.

Where am I?

I'm sorry, I lost my place.

SPEAKER_03

SDCI 5A1.

Is there a second on SDCI 5A1?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded.

We have with us Ketel Freeman, Seattle City Council Central staff.

SPEAKER_04

Take it away.

Thank you.

So SDCI 5A1 would increase appropriations to SDCI by $456,000 in 2025 and $456,000 in 2026 to restore tenant services funding.

It would also reduce OED by $456,000 in both 2025 and 2026 for downtown activation plan activities, intergovernmental coordination and support to the Metropolitan Improvement District.

I'll note here that the CBA has sort of a running total that's now no longer correct.

So the mayor's proposed budget would appropriate approximately $1.8 million for attendance services to SDCI.

2024 appropriations were about $2.5 million.

As it stands now, with passage of SDCI 002 as part of the consent package and passage of HSD 039, which moved $527,000 from SDCI to HSD, total appropriations to SDCI for tenant services at this moment without this amendment is $1,586,000.

With this amendment, total appropriations would be $2,042,000.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Mr. Freeman.

Council Member Morales is the sponsor of the amendment.

You are recognized.

SPEAKER_12

Thank you.

As Ketel mentioned, this budget would restore proposed appropriations for contracts and grants for tenant services organizations that provide education for landlords and tenants and other services.

And the intent was to restore to the 811. that was removed from STCI, the first bucket in the mayor's proposed budget.

I do wanna say, it seems through different conversations that we've had recently, there seems to be a perception that tenant services are, candidly about organizing tenants to cause trouble.

I don't think that is the intent of these organizations.

They really are working hard to help keep people housed, help stem evictions, help de-escalate disputes, help resolve habitability issues, help translate for tenants who don't speak English.

so I Appreciate having some of this restored in the chairs package this CBA is an attempt to try to fully restore and I ask for your support.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you Thank You councilmember Morales as budget chair my recommend I will not be supporting this amendment just simply based on the fund source this funding tenant services is incredibly important to me it was meaningful to support your request in the chair's package.

I did so because I wanted to support tenant services.

And unfortunately, I can't support this due to the funding source.

Colleagues, this is the time for discussion.

Council Member Wu, I see you have a hand.

SPEAKER_14

Well, I do believe that tenant services are really important.

I don't believe that this funding will help tenants cause trouble.

I don't think that's the case.

I know these services are really important and much needed.

My only problem is also the funding source, downtown activation plan, the MID.

They do a lot of public safety work and help attract people to live and work in these areas.

So I'm voting no because of the funding source.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

Colleagues, discussion.

Council Member Moore.

SPEAKER_13

Thank you, Chair.

As a co-sponsor, I did just want to speak on behalf of this.

Again, I recognize that many of the services that the tenant services provided are valuable, useful.

They are meant to help tenants remain housed, also to make sure that their habitability issues are addressed.

And so that's why we'll be supporting this.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

Council Member Rivera.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you, Chair.

I, too, support tenant services, but I have a concern about the funding sources.

I do support the downtown activation plan in the mid, and particularly because of all the issues that we are seeing downtown, and we've got to get our downtown back on track.

So for those reasons, I will not be supporting this.

But again, super support tenant services.

WON'T BE SUPPORTING THIS BILL FOR FUND SOURCE PURPOSES.

SPEAKER_17

THANK YOU.

COUNCILMEMBER SACHA.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

AND PLUS ONE, I AGREE WITH THE PRIORITY.

VERY WORTHY.

I JUST DISAGREE ON PULLING FROM ANOTHER STRATEGIC PRIORITY.

FUNDING ONE STRATEGIC PRIORITY offsetting funding to fund another strategic priority, but I appreciate the underlying intent, and thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

Colleagues, discussion.

Last call on discussion.

Last call on discussion.

Final call on discussion.

Councilmember Morales, as sponsor of the amendment, you are recognized to close us out.

SPEAKER_12

Thank you, Chair.

The only thing I'll say is throughout this process, we have heard over and over again the critical need for supporting people who are about to lose their homes.

And we have also been grappling with the consequences of people losing their homes, which is an increase in homelessness on our streets.

At the same time that we're adding tens of millions of dollars for other things, like the downtown activation plan, which quite frankly is not a priority, as much of a priority for me, when we're sort of having to make these trade-offs between supporting beautification versus supporting the need for keeping people housed.

So these are all choices for us to make.

My choice is to really do everything we can to try to address some of the other crises that we have.

And I ask for your support.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

Will the clerk please call the roll on SDCI 581?

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Saka?

No.

Council Member Wu?

No.

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Abstain.

Council Member Kettle?

SPEAKER_20

No.

No.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Moore?

Aye.

Council Member Morales?

SPEAKER_12

Yes.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Nelson?

SPEAKER_16

No.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Rivera?

No.

Chair Strauss?

SPEAKER_03

No.

SPEAKER_06

Two in favor, six opposed, one abstention.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, the motion does not pass and SDCI 5A1 will not be attached to the underlying bill.

We're gonna move on to the next item.

Council Member Moore, you are recognized to move your amendment.

SPEAKER_13

Thank you, Chair.

I move SDCI 006A.

SPEAKER_03

Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to recommend passage of SDCI 6A1.

We have one Mr. Ketel Freeman here with us.

Ketel, over to you.

SPEAKER_04

SDCI 006A would impose two provisos on the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections compliance budget summary level I'll just read the provisos into the record for the sake of clarity.

The first proviso would limit spending as follows.

Of the appropriations for tenant services, grants, and contracts in the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections' compliance budget summary level, all appropriations are solely for education of tenants and landlords on landlord-tenant law, staffing a live tenant hotline, referrals for and assistance with securing rental assistance, mediation, interpretation services, and eviction legal defense, and may be spent for no other purposes.

That's the first proviso.

The second proviso pertains to eviction legal defense, and it would impose a limitation on spending as follows.

The appropriations for tenant services, grants and contracts in the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections compliance budget summary level for eviction defense legal proceedings is limited to clients with incomes at or below 200% of the federal poverty level and may be used for no other purpose.

Income verification confirmation must be submitted quarterly to SDCI.

For a one person household this year, 200% of federal poverty level is about $30,000 a year.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Mr. Freeman.

Council Member Morris, sponsor of the amendment, you are recognized.

SPEAKER_13

Thank you very much, Chair.

So the first proviso is just to make clear what appropriate services tenant service dollars may be used for.

And those are, as outlined here, clearly services that are meant to help tenants answer questions about their rights, about problems that are happening, to get education, to connect with assistance, mediation, negotiation with landlords, interpretation services, and also legal representation through eviction defense.

The other piece of this is to bring the eligibility criteria for city dollars in line with the eligibility criteria that the state utilizes and is utilizing for its payment of dollars to the eviction defense providers.

That is the state standard of 200% indigent, sorry, the state indigent defense standard of 200% that are below federal poverty level, which is also the federal level.

So it's just to bring this in line with what the state dollars are already, eligibility requirements are for those dollars.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

As chair of the committee, I will be voting no today.

I need more data to understand that these are needed.

These two provisos are needed.

I have not, I'm not there yet.

So with that, we are moving into discussion.

Colleagues, discussion.

Colleagues, discussion.

Council Member, I saw Rivera and then Morales.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you, Chair.

I'm co-sponsoring this legislation.

I think this is a prudent thing.

And this is where, you know, sometimes we impose provisos.

In my opinion, this is one is necessary.

I know I voted for other provisos I didn't feel were.

In that case, it was because I knew the department would be doing the work anyway.

And this, I want to make sure that these funds are going for tenant services, grants, and contracts.

And this is one way that we can ensure that is happening out of their compliance budget.

And then also very much support including and aligning with the state on the poverty level.

So Thank You councilmember more for bringing this and I am in support.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you come from Rouse Thank you.

SPEAKER_12

My concern with this is Is requiring that clients be at 200% of the federal poverty poverty level You know, the federal minimum wage is 725 an hour in Seattle, it's 1997 So there is a real chance, and I fear will be a reality, that even full-time workers won't qualify for this.

And if they're experiencing a financial crisis, there's a real chance that they could be arbitrarily excluded because their minimum wage in Seattle is surpasses the federal wage.

So I think a Seattle-specific metric would be more appropriate for this.

We know that even households at 80% AMI right now are struggling to afford their housing because it is so expensive in Seattle.

So for those reasons, I will not be supporting this proviso.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Colleagues, discussion.

Council Member Kettle.

SPEAKER_20

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

Mr. Freeman, I was just curious.

I generally understand and support these provisos kind of like what I said last time.

I see this also as kind of like great committee to have the give and take and then have the recommendation of committee and so forth.

SO I'M GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE, BUT CAN YOU SPEAK TO KIND OF WHAT COUNCILMEMBER MORALES WAS SAYING?

IN TERMS OF THE SEATTLE ANGLE, OBVIOUSLY SEATTLE, COMPARED TO THE STATE AND THE FEDERAL, IS VERY DIFFERENT, AND PARTLY BECAUSE WE'RE THE ECONOMIC ENGINE, AND GOING BACK TO THE EARLIER POINT, IF WE DON'T HAVE A STRONG DOWNTOWN, WE DON'T HAVE A STRONG SEATTLE ECONOMY.

IF WE DON'T HAVE A STRONG SEATTLE ECONOMY, WE DON'T HAVE A STRONG WASHINGTON ECONOMY.

THEREFORE, WE LOOK AFTER DOWNTOWN.

Sorry, editorial comment.

But to that point, can you speak to the challenges of the mismatch between the city and the state due to the unique circumstance of Seattle?

Mr. Freeman, you're recognized.

SPEAKER_04

Thank you, Chair.

So, as Council Member Morales points out, the minimum wage in Seattle is higher than the federal minimum wage.

A person working full-time at a Seattle minimum wage would earn, a single person would earn just over $40,000 a year, which exceeds 200% of the federal poverty level.

Just for context here for you all, Seattle has enshrined a right to defense for eviction legal proceedings, and that defines indigent differently than how the state defines indigent.

It defines indigent as somebody who just can't pay at the time the eviction legal proceeding is going on.

The state has the 200% standard.

It also has a standard that folks qualify if they are also eligible and receiving support from a variety of different federal programs, including food stamps and things like that.

I can't list them all here, but that's in 59. I think 80, 160 is the state statute.

So that's just context for you all.

There's a somewhat different definition as between the state and the city when it comes to the meaning of indigent.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

We can come back to you also if you want.

SPEAKER_20

Well, I was curious, like, you know, if this was to pass and, you know, the details of that point.

My understanding, like this reset, this kind of look at tenant landlord, like an omnibus tenant landlord, and that could be something that this could also be looked at even with a proviso that this shows right here.

That could be readdressed if that was to be done in committee, an overall tenant landlord look.

SPEAKER_04

Mr. Freeman?

Yeah, there's a policy choice for the council as to whether or not to align our definition with state law.

Council Member Kelly, you still have the floor.

SPEAKER_20

Thank you, Mr. Freeman, and thank you, Chair Strauss.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Council President.

SPEAKER_16

When it's my understanding or just or this is perhaps mistaken that it is fairly recently that the state does offer tenant services or what.

And, you know, does that go to the county and then that's dispersed or how does that flow?

SPEAKER_04

I'm not exactly sure.

We have some kind of summary information.

The Housing Justice Project is the city's big contractor when it comes to eviction legal defense.

They have some reporting that's required, and we have the benefit of some of that reporting.

Not all of it.

The contract that they entered into is not...

Their most recent contract is not that old.

But the number of defendants, the number of folks that they're representing, I should say, under Seattle's right to counsel is about 149 people.

Under the state, for which they also receive funding not from the city of Seattle, is 308 clients.

So that's roughly a one to three proportion.

SPEAKER_16

What was that last one?

SPEAKER_04

A one to three proportion.

but I'm not sure what amount of funding they receive from the state of Washington.

SPEAKER_03

Council President, anything further?

SPEAKER_16

Yes, thank you for that invitation.

In general, I support being in alignment with the state and other neighboring agencies when it comes to how we interpret services that are eligible for state, county, and city funding.

That's why I was asking.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_03

And for a point of order, Ketel, can you repeat the last answer you provided?

Some council members didn't come through clearly.

You have a very melodic voice, but it needs to be into the microphone.

Sorry.

SPEAKER_99

Thank you.

SPEAKER_04

I don't know if my voice is really that melodic, but the Housing Justice Project is one of the city contractors for eviction legal defense, and they do actually most of it.

Catholic Community Services also has a contract with the city, but the bulk of eviction legal defense goes through the Housing Justice Project, which is, I think it used to be, but is now no longer part of the King County Bar Association.

So they reported on the number of clients that are supported by the city's right to counsel law, as opposed to those that are supported by the state right to counsel law, And one of the reporting to date, which is as of October, so it may not be the most recent reporting, was that 149 clients were supported through Seattle's right to counsel law, and 308 clients were supported through the state's right to counsel law.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Councilman McCullough, I see you have a hand.

And before we call on you again, colleagues, anyone who has not been answered?

Colleagues, any further discussion?

Colleagues, any further discussion?

Any further discussion?

Final call for further discussion?

Council Member Moore, sponsor of the amendment.

You have last word.

SPEAKER_13

Thank you.

So just to Council Member Kettle's concerns, this is a one-year proviso.

We could certainly revisit it if we determine that the amount needs to be more.

But I do think right now the way it operates is that People simply attest that they can't afford a lawyer.

So I do think it's best to set it at the state standard.

I recognize that that's different.

But the state as a primary offender also has the ability to raise their eligibility standards when dealing with the city as well.

So that's all I would say.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

Will the clerk please call the roll on SDCI 681?

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Taka?

SPEAKER_99

Aye.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Wu?

Yes.

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council Member Kettle?

SPEAKER_07

Aye.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Moore?

Aye.

Council Member Morales?

SPEAKER_07

No.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Chair Strauss?

SPEAKER_03

No.

SPEAKER_06

Seven in favor, two opposed.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

The motion carries and SDCI 6A1 will be attached to Council Bill 120905. Up next, we're moving into a new department.

Calvin Chow is already at the table.

That was fast.

Council Member Kettle is sponsor of the amendment.

Would you like to move your amendment, please?

SPEAKER_20

Thank you, Chair.

I move to amend Council Bill Resolution.

SPEAKER_03

Let me help you out.

I move to approve SDOT 101A1.

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to approve SDOT 101A1.

We have Calvin Chow, Seattle City Council Central staff with us to brief us on the amendment.

Calvin, over to you.

SPEAKER_19

Council members, SDOT 101A1 would eliminate references to unsecured funding in SDOT's cultural connector CIP project.

This project has been on the books for some time.

It was paused in 2018 due to rising cost estimates for the project.

The most recent cost estimate from last year was $410 million.

The proposed CIP identifies $410 million of unsecured funding, so not actual funding, but recognizing a cost estimate in 2030 of $410 million.

The proposal would remove that reference AND ANTICIPATES THAT THE EXECUTIVE WOULD WORK TO RESOLVE ANY OUTSTANDING GRANT OBLIGATIONS AND WORK TOWARDS ABANDONING ANY PREEXISTING APPROPRIATIONS TO REMOVE THIS PROJECT FROM THE CIP.

SPEAKER_03

THANK YOU, MR. CHAO.

COUNCIL MEMBER KETTLE, SPONSOR OF THE AMENDMENT, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

SPEAKER_20

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

I've noted on this already, but I do want to say again that the story on the First Avenue straight car is very long.

As noted before, started in July of 2014. Here we are at the end of 2024. Mr. Child noted in 2018, and as I noted in the third month of Mayor Durkan's administration of her first year, she bought this pause in place due to the concerns that she had related to the program.

and that she had to put the brakes on this project.

And as I noted the other day, now we're at the end of the third year of the Harrell administration, and it is still, as noted in the reporting from earlier this year, based on an SDOT quote, at this time, there is no change in the status of the project.

So truly, as I noted, this is the zombie project of all zombie projects.

And the cost has gone up from, as I noted, 177, 2018 to 252. End of last, basically this time last year, up to 410, which is no doubt higher.

And as I noted, by 2030, it's on for 2030. there's no doubt it would equal, this one project would equal one-third of the just past $1.55 billion transportation levy, which is incredible to me.

And as I noted, all the issues, the longer, heavier streetcars, the challenges with the maintenance facilities, the roads and bridges, litigation because of bike accidents, and now we have ST3, which is, you know, those pieces.

And again, not mentioned, and I say this again because it's important, We have to consider the geography and topography.

Our city is a hilly city.

Our city is not some standard city in Florida that's very flat.

This shows up in so many ways, and it shows up with the First Avenue streetcar as well.

I just want to note that, as in discussions, this never had a viable operating capital proposal.

It has an operations plan with a true operation cost, even though at the beginning it was noted that it would pay for itself.

And here's the biggest thing, the opportunity costs.

Like I said, we could have already had a great, unique bus service along First Avenue connecting Seattle Center and the stadiums.

you know, with Pioneer Square and, you know, the Pike Place Market.

But we don't because the Zombie Project has basically took that out.

Not to mention road improvements in Pioneer Square, which are important.

And we just did a bunch as related to the Alaskan Way Project.

And we had opportunities as work was being done into Pioneer Square and other parts along the way as we're trying to connect the waterfront better to downtown to do some of this work.

But it wasn't done.

The opportunity cost is there.

And so...

And the other point, too, that we have to remember, ST3 is real now.

Back in 2014, it was kind of like, OK, maybe some ideas.

I remember all these briefings I got when I was in the Queen Anne Community Council.

It was kind of, OK, this is maybe what's going to happen.

The maybes are over with ST3.

It is real.

Maybe it's related to rapid ride.

We're kind of like maybes back then, but they're real now.

We've had all these new rapid ride lines and currently being constructed.

So this has really changed the landscape, and we really should leverage this opportunity to look at our new public transit posture, the levy, and how streetcars can play into this.

But it has to be done in this kind of comprehensive way, understanding the new realities.

And as the...

As the great central staff memo from the 2nd of August of 2019 noted and concluded, one of the council considerations was council may want to redirect the proposed 9 million of the Mercer Mega Block property proceeds toward other transportation priorities and discontinue work on the Center City streetcar.

From that central staff memo from five plus years ago, I recommend that we do so.

So thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

As chair of the committee, I have not made a final decision yet.

I do have a question for the sponsor, which I'll provide you the floor.

When I've heard you discuss this proposal in the past, I've heard from you an indication that running a streetcar up 3rd Avenue would still be of interest to you.

Is that still the case today?

SPEAKER_20

Yes, actually, and that goes to the point.

Thank you for asking that question, because, you know, as looking at our posture and looking what opportunities may exist, you know, as I mentioned the other day, you know, Third Avenue, there's only one way to go, and that's up.

And so we should look at that as an option.

And by asking your question, and the fact that I still have the mic, you've also opportunity to, for me, I received a great letter from the from the Transit Riders Union.

And obviously, they're concerned about pieces of this.

But they concluded, you know, in an alternative, we strongly recommend that additional options for the First Hill streetcar be put alongside any proposal to study removal of existing or proposed streetcar routes.

For example, extending First Hill streetcar to the ferry terminal and Pike Place Market would still create a major connectivity boost.

That east-west boost.

And this is the kind of thing that we could do with a clear deck, taking that look and looking at our public transit posture, particularly in light of all the changes with ST3, rapid ride and everything else.

And so I really appreciate the Transit Riders Union letter that they sent to me and I thank them for doing so and the opportunity to raise it here in the context of the idea that we should look at options for the center city piece of this to include possibly 3rd Avenue.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Councilmember Kettle.

With that information that it is still on the table to put the train up Third Avenue, I will be supporting this motion today.

Councilmember Saka is chair of the committee overseeing this body of work.

You are recognized.

SPEAKER_17

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And I first off want to thank Councilmember Kettle for your leadership in bringing this forward.

I support this amendment.

I consider it a friendly one for the Transportation Committee.

FOR ANY NUMBER OF VALID REASONS ALREADY CALLED OUT AND ALSO BY REMOVING THIS PROJECT FROM THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT LIST, IT ALSO EFFECTIVELY acknowledges that a zombie exists, as Councilmember Kettle put it.

But it doesn't necessarily remove our flexibility on a going forward basis later to build up third, for example, potentially, as Budget Chair Strauss pointed out.

I guess from my perspective as chair of our Transportation Committee, the only viable path I see of this ever becoming a thing and being brought to life is robust and comprehensive public-private partnerships WITH INDUSTRY.

AND SO MAYBE NOT NECESSARILY WITH THE POTENTIAL OF WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE TRANSIT RIDERS UNION EXTENDING THE FIRST HILL LINE A LITTLE FURTHER TOWARDS THE WATERFRONT CONNECTING THE FAIRY.

BUT IN ANY EVENT, I SUPPORT THIS PROPOSAL.

AND I WANT TO THANK COUNCIL MEMBER KETTLE FOR BRINGING IT FORWARD.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

SPEAKER_13

Thank you.

As a co-sponsor, I wanted to thank Councilmember Kettle for calling the question and for your leadership in bringing this forward for us to make a final decision one way or the other.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Councilmember Moore.

And it strikes me that the timetable that Councilmember Kettle relayed to us is the same, if actually shorter timetable that the community in Lake City has been requesting a new community center.

If only.

Colleagues, any further discussion?

This is the discussion time.

Council Member Rivera.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you, Chair.

Excuse me.

I respect my colleagues' points and those of Council Member Saka and Council Member Moore.

I'll say I, as you all know, am a big proponent of public transit.

We need more public transportation options in this city, not less.

I think Seattle has a history of backing and forcing on our public transit options and not finishing projects that we start.

You know, I understand there's no current funding for this project, but there could be at a future date.

And I also understand that alternatives could be considered and I feel leaving this on the list would afford opportunity to have those kinds of conversations.

I think connecting the streetcars and finishing these connections are important.

And for these reasons, I will be voting no on this project.

But like I said, I very much appreciate my colleagues bringing this forward.

And thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

And I see Calvin would like to be recognized.

Calvin.

SPEAKER_19

Council members, I just wanted to add that this particular project, the cultural connector project, is a very specified project with engineering behind it for a first avenue connection up from the first hill streetcar to the South Lake Union streetcar.

It has a defined alignment.

identified utility impacts, structural work that would have to be done along that alignment.

It was submitted for potential FTA grants.

It is a project defined.

Looking at a Third Avenue alignment or another alignment would be a different project.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Cal.

I'll just tag on there a little bit and ask you a couple more questions.

And I brought this up when you presented this in Transportation Committee earlier this year regarding the utility work that still needs to be done under First Avenue, as well as the structural integrity.

Colleagues, you may or may not know that Trucks of a certain weight are not allowed to use the curb lane in Pioneer Square, and that is because the underground infrastructure is not strong enough to hold up some of these trucks.

Some of that work was intended to be done through this project, as well as water main replacement.

Cal, I assume that those are ratepayer funds that are tied up and they would not be impacted by this move.

Is that correct?

SPEAKER_19

That's correct.

The utility issues would remain.

If we were going to tear up the road to build a streetcar, an imperative to do it now to make sure that we don't have to come back later to fix it whether that means that the project the utility work would need to be done in the next five years or 10 years or whatever that schedule is i do not know that answer the 410 million dollar cost estimate identified 74 million of utility relocations that would be related to it and the utilities have to pay for relocating their their projects out of the way of a transportation project And it also identified 90 million of structural upgrades to bridges and area weights to handle the weight of the streetcars.

So if the streetcar vehicle is not the controlling vehicle weight, then perhaps it's not as high, but there may still need to be some structural work done.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Calvin.

And the same questions remain for Third Avenue, which is a cut-and-cover tunnel for the light rail, as I've also gone down this track trying to investigate this.

That's been one of the largest concerns.

Calvin, can you also remind me, I know that we had an FTA grant awarded to us a number of years ago, and the funding that is before us right now is to serve as a match funding.

It's my recollection, though I could be wrong, that that FTA grant expired and we don't have access to it.

Is that correct?

SPEAKER_19

My understanding is that we did receive the grant authorization, but never drew down the money.

I do not believe the money was made available through the federal budget process, and we never drew that money down.

There were other grants that were part of the project, especially in the planning and development phase, and there may be some There may be some impacts related to closing out those grant obligations, but I don't know what those are.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Calvin.

To set it another way, some of this money that has been set aside may be encumbered to pay our match to some of those earlier grants.

Is that correct?

Or something to that like?

SPEAKER_19

There was an assumption that there would be some federal match, but to be clear, all we have in the CIP is an identification of a cost estimate in 2030. There is not a capital spending plan or an operations plan to build this project yet.

It is essentially a placeholder.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

Colleagues, excuse me for breaking my own rules.

I just went into geek mode here to go down into my transportation geek side.

I see that I've got a number of hands.

I don't know if they're new or old.

Council Member Miller, is that a new hand?

Councilmember Rivera, is that a new hand?

Yes.

Councilmember Rivera, you are recognized.

SPEAKER_15

I just want to be on the record as supporting the First Avenue streetcar, so thank you, Calvin, for bringing that up.

I do think having it on the list also does compel us.

To me, it adds support for making sure we If there's an alternative considered, nevertheless, if this should move forward, I would love to see some kind of alternative really being put together rather than just conversation about it.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member Nelson.

SPEAKER_16

We discussed this project a little bit in the mid-year supplemental of 2023 because there was money that was put in there for a study.

Is this number here that's attached to this CBA, is that a product of that study?

Do you remember that was a cost analysis?

SPEAKER_19

I believe that was money to help support the most recent cost analysis that led to the $410 million cost estimate for the project.

So it was staffing to clean up the cost estimate so that there was a number for the mayor and the council's consideration.

SPEAKER_16

Thank you.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_19

Any further discussion?

SPEAKER_03

Any further discussion?

Council Member Rivera, is that a new hand?

SPEAKER_15

No, sorry.

SPEAKER_03

Any further discussion?

Final call on further discussion.

My last statement here is I still believe that the First Hill streetcar needs to be connected to the South Lake Union streetcar.

That doesn't change for me.

Council Member Kettle has sponsored the amendment.

You are recognized.

SPEAKER_20

Thank you.

And on that point, again, we need to look at this with eyes wide open and not be...

driven by the zombie project that is the First Avenue streetcar.

And I say First Avenue streetcar, because I want to close on this point, because I think all the points are very clear in terms of the costs, the opportunity costs about things that could have been done, like ahead of the World Cup, like the bus service and so forth.

All the issues that keep coming up, like the maintenance facility, all these things are very real.

But one thing that I just wanted to close on, and this is a fundamental flaw of the First Hill streetcar, and highlights again where SDOT didn't go through all the steps.

They did not account for the fact that First Avenue to the west slopes down to the sea.

That has major impacts in terms of the Pike Place Market, to the businesses, the entire community, due to the unique circumstances of the roads falling down to the sea.

If you're on Western Alaska, you can't take a left or right to get up to First Avenue.

It's very different if it was on 3rd Avenue in terms of some restrictions that may be because of the streetcar.

You don't have that option with First Avenue.

So this kind of goes back to the earlier discussion earlier this year about Pike Place.

And oh, by the way, I have, side note, I have had a discussion with the new Executive Director of the Pike Place PDA, and I already have a lunch on schedule with Director Spotts and the Pike Place PDA executive, and I had of getting the stakeholders together to talk about Pike Place, because it has the same issues that First Avenue Streetcar has.

And again, very unique, and it also highlights a shortfall in the SDOT planning process for this, which is part of the reason why this is a zombie project.

So thank you, and I really encourage my colleagues to support this.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

Will the clerk please call the roll on SDOT 101A1.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Saka?

Aye.

Council Member Wu?

Yes.

Council Member Hollingsworth?

SPEAKER_07

Yes.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Kettle?

SPEAKER_20

Aye.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Moore?

Aye.

Council Member Morales?

Abstain.

Abstain.

Council Member Nelson?

SPEAKER_11

Aye.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Rivera?

SPEAKER_11

No.

SPEAKER_06

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Seven in favor, one opposed, one abstention.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

S.101A1 passes and will be attached to Council Bill 120905. Moving on to the next item.

Council Member Saka, you are a sponsor of this item.

Would you like to move your item?

SPEAKER_17

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yes, and as I understand it, there's a two-part procedural process, and so I will move the first one.

I move to rescind S.012SB1.

Point of order.

SPEAKER_03

We'll move this item, and then we will take the next step.

SPEAKER_08

I'm sorry, I apologize.

We're actually on S.102SB1.

SPEAKER_03

That's what I said, right?

SPEAKER_08

He was about to rescind.

SPEAKER_03

Yes.

Council Member Saka, we're on South Lake Union Streetcar.

SPEAKER_17

Yeah, I had a superseding amendment from this morning.

SPEAKER_03

So you need to move your amendment, and then we will substitute it.

Okay, is that, yeah.

So I'm gonna do this.

I move SDOT, and I disagree with this amendment.

SDOT 102 SB1, is there a second?

Second.

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to recommend passage of SDOT 102 SB1.

Now I move to substitute SDOT 102 SB1 with Council Member Sacco, what is the number?

SPEAKER_17

Yeah, to substitute it with adding as follows.

Nope, point of order.

SPEAKER_03

We're gonna pause.

This is why we don't do walk-ons.

Can you please read me the number of his superseding amendment?

SPEAKER_19

Is S.102SB2. Okay.

SPEAKER_03

I move S.102SB2 to replace S.102SB1.

Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to supersede.

The substitute, the amendment to the amendment is now before us.

Council Member Saka, we're going to hear from central staff about the amendment and the differences between the two amendments.

And then Council Member Saka, as sponsor, I'll pass it to you.

SPEAKER_19

Council Members, this item requests that SDOT provide a plan for terminating South Lake Union streetcar service, for decommissioning the assets, and for exploring the alternatives of transit options in South Lake Union neighborhood.

The changes to the SLI really highlight three separate issues.

One is to allow for continued South Lake Union streetcar service during the FIFA World Cup.

Another issue is to ensure that there is coordination with Sound Transit's work in the neighborhood.

and to reflect their impact on South Lake Union streetcar assets to ensure that they're bearing a proportional share of costs, and also in the analysis of transit capacity to demonstrate the capacities to support return to work and pre-pandemic levels of service.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Calvin.

Council Member Saka is sponsoring the amendment.

You are recognized.

SPEAKER_17

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So this slide would request that SDOT examined both what a thoughtful retirement of the South Lake Union streetcar could look like, emphasis on could look like, and two, what a report on an effective transition to new investments in transit options that serve the South Lake Union neighborhood could look like.

And over the last couple days, this seems to have garnered a fair amount of local media attention, which is great.

This is an important conversation for us to have.

And two of the most insightful write-ups so far that I've seen about this proposal has been from the Seattle Bike Blog a couple days ago, from Tom Fucaloro.

My apologies, Tom, for butchering your last name.

And also...

Nick Desai from the Seattle Times.

And my amendments that I offered earlier this morning were actually—so I know it disrupts your process, Mr. Chair, and I understand, you know, the feelings that might be engendered because of that.

But I actually think it's better for the public when we iterate and improve our own amendments because my own friendly amendments that I offered to my own amendment were made in direct response to address certain community feedback and concerns and concerns and feedback from individual council member colleagues, concerns that I share.

And so, for example, and the ITERA version On the latest draft, it's basically the last sentence on each of the three paragraphs are the updates.

I heard a concern about we should not start this under any circumstance, like start implementing this under any circumstance until after FIFA World Cup.

100% agree.

100% agree.

That's why we offer clarification language to directly address that head on.

Second thing I heard is...

Well, Sound Transit is really one of the main drivers of forcing a decision like this on our end anyway.

And because of the decision that they made to expand Link Light Rail, which would therefore require a currently anticipated eight year protracted closure of the South Lake Union Streetcar.

Eight years, it's gonna be mothballed anyway.

And I heard concerns about, well, we want to make sure, as part of the transition, Sound Transit remains on the hook financially for their proportional share of those associated costs.

So lo and behold, added language to directly address that, which was going to happen anyway.

And the final concern that I heard, again, valid one, is that a number of employers in the area, namely Amazon, but not just Amazon, are expanding their return to office policies.

And we need to make sure that our transit service and capacity in the area is able to accommodate that.

Couldn't agree more.

Couldn't agree more.

That's why I added a some language to clarify that any forthcoming plan would need to accommodate the return to work policies for all the employers in the area.

So colleagues, I want to emphasize this is a direct one-to-one transit for transit investment.

It's not taking away transit.

It's using that same dollars, over four and a half million dollars in annual operating costs and expanding transit service for other proven transit options in the area that we know that riders are actually delighted to take.

There's a lot of overlapping service and redundancy in the South Lake Union area.

Colleagues, we have a really unique moment in time right now.

As Nick Deshaies pointed out in his article from earlier this week, front page of the printed version of the Seattle Times, This is an extraordinary moment of unity where both fiscal conservatives and progressive transit advocates agree.

We need to wind this down, or at least put us on a path.

That's what this would do.

Put us on a path to wind this down and reimagine the area, use those same transit investments to improve the area and expand service in parallel.

And oh, by the way, making sure we're able to accommodate the World Cup.

Just want to also level set and take a step back on history.

This project, when it was constructed, was, and as we've learned, was originally a tool for economic development in the South Lake Union area to help drive foot traffic, increase development, spur innovation.

in that area and development.

And today, it's clear that the South Lake Union streetcar has outlived its useful shelf life and now suffers from high operating and maintenance costs while having abysmally low ridership.

Let's dig into some of the details.

The South Lake Union streetcar has an annual operating budget of approximately $4.6 million.

but with daily ridership of only approximately 500 people per day.

The Southlake Union, that means an average cost per rider per year is approximately $9,200.

Compared to a successful...

First Hill Streetcar, the average cost per rider per year is approximately $2,700 compared to $9,200 for the Southlake Union Line.

It's not reasonable, nor as a policy goal or objective to expect for transit to ever turn a profit.

But some things clearly don't pass the straight face test.

And the lack of return on investment that we're seeing for this large expenditure, this is not monopoly money we're talking about here.

This is $4.5 million.

And two important things have happened since 2007. One is we've seen explosive growth and development in the South Lake Union area, which is terrific.

We've also seen metro expansion of multiple redundant service lines in the area, including Route 40, Rapid Ride C line, future J lines, and any number of other transit projects.

Again, given that the streetcar is set to at some point expire and shut down in the future for a protracted period of time, eight years plus is currently anticipated, I believe that this is an excellent opportunity to have our city begin thinking about what a new transit plan could look like for that neighborhood that is fully aligned and fully integrated with Sound Transit's Link light rail project.

Because as Tom Focolaro pointed out in the Seattle Bike Blog earlier this week, because of the anticipated Sound Transit expansion impacts and other factors, today we're essentially as a city in a thesis Tom says, quote, keeping the South Lake Union line alive is a classic case of Seattle indecision, end quote.

So as a city, we're very much in a, unfortunately, in a state of, it's a bit like the sunken place, if you will.

I think, colleagues, now it's time for us to snap out of it.

The streetcar, Tom argues, is a Progressive transit activist advocate Tom argues the Seattle Lake Union streetcar is the facade of a good transit system, but Metro's bus system is an actual good transit system.

It is.

That's why I would like to continue to expand upon it, reimagine the area to accommodate more bus traffic.

But again, there are multiple redundant lines of service in the area, which is generally a good thing.

but when compared against some of the other options and we learned the other day that especially given what we just adopted with respect to the first avenue streetcar line it completely guts the justification for continuing and ongoing funding and supporting this transit line in this area.

And again, I want to emphasize, this is a direct transit for transit investment.

And also, this is a sly, not a proviso.

So this calls for a report on how we could potentially do this.

Potentially.

So for clarity, this right here is, this is the actual proposal.

No, right.

Here it is.

Here's a proposal.

What this is, it's a legislative piece of paperwork that would require additional paperwork from the executive in the form of a report or studies, which in return would inevitably require more paperwork and further studies and a series of additional approvals including authorizing legislation, implementation policies and guidelines, budget authorization, et cetera, all in the form of more paperwork, cascading paperwork.

So on the one hand, this would allow us the flexibility to do a lot.

On the other hand, it's a piece of paper that doesn't bind us either way.

And I do want to emphasize that.

This proposal does not bind the city in any way.

nor does it remove our flexibility and freedom to operate on a going forward basis.

It only seeks to maximize our flexibility and preparedness and enhance our preparedness posture to quickly execute going forward.

Finally, colleagues, I'll say that I think principles of effective leadership require us to make bold decisions like this.

Shoot or shoot.

Players play.

And leaders lead.

I humbly ask and urge you to join me in leading a plan to require a thoughtful transition to reimagine and enhance transit service in the area.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Council Member Saka.

I see Calvin Chow, Central Staff Recognition.

SPEAKER_19

Thank you, Council Members.

I just wanted to highlight one element that's in this slide.

It does ask for a plan, and part of that plan is identifying the cost that would be necessary to actually mothball to decommission the South Indian Streetcar.

Those are unknown at this point, but as you can imagine, there are tracks in the road.

There is power lines in the area.

This will not be a free action.

So just to flag for you all that ASKING THIS WILL BE TO HIGHLIGHT WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO ACTUALLY DO IT IN THE FUTURE THROUGH FUTURE BUDGET ACTION.

THANK YOU, CALVIN.

SPEAKER_03

AS BUDGET CHAIR, I AM GOING TO BE RECOMMENDING A NO VOTE HERE FOR ALL OF THE REASONS THAT COUNCILMEMBER SACA JUST MADE BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL VALID AND THEY ARE ALL CORRECT AND IT IS ALL POLICY COMMITTEE WORK BECAUSE THE LEVEL OF ITERATION, BECAUSE THE LEVEL OF INPUT AND CONVERSATION, COUNCILMEMBER SACA, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THIS IS COMMITTEE WORK AND NOT A BUDGET ACTION.

Colleagues, further discussion?

Further discussion.

Council Member Rivera?

SPEAKER_15

Yes, thank you, Chair.

I just want to, again, respect my colleague, Council Member Sacca, for bringing this forward and all your thoughtful comments, as I said earlier.

And actually, I want to say that I spoke with both Council Member Sacca and Council Member Kettle separately.

And before leading up to this vote, and really appreciate the thoughtful engagement and conversation from both of you about both the last vote we took in this one.

I will say for the reasons I stated earlier, I'm not going to be voting for this.

I also want to say I received a lot of emails in support of keeping the South Lake Union streetcar, so I wanted to highlight that as well.

But again, very much appreciate the thoughtfulness that has gone into both of these proposals.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Council President.

SPEAKER_16

So I have to say that I was ambivalent on both of these votes on these two projects, and it came down to this for me.

A government's working documents have to reflect to the greatest extent possible the policy intentions of the policy makers of the time.

So that means that our budget should basically indicate to anybody who is going to research for whatever reason or just be curious what are Seattle's transportation plans over the next 15 years or 10 years, or what had they been, how have they changed.

And it seems so It just feels final to either put it, to put out a resolution, I mean, a budget document that indicates where we're going policy-wise in such a future date when we're not there yet.

I can see in a couple years.

I appreciate, Councilmember Saka, that you really did take my concerns into consideration about, well, what about the, you know, will we need the transit capacity during the World Cup?

And what about other contingencies?

And...

So I really do appreciate you trying to work with me on that.

And I would just say that when you hear the word inter-urban, what do you think about?

Well, it's not something that comes in the yellow can.

It's a rail line that went through Fremont toward downtown in one day and out west also.

But it's significant when we are putting things that when we are really seriously considering that we have to think about how it affects our other planning efforts.

And so I think that we should revisit the intention of this slide perhaps in the following year necessarily, or I would even consider doing something that would indicate a change of mind on this project.

Sooner than that, if I had more information about some of the pros and cons of leaving it on, of going toward a final decision, it just seems as though I don't have enough information right now to think about the implications of taking that step right now.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Council President.

Council Member Kell.

SPEAKER_20

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

One of the interesting things was reading reports.

I think a lot of people didn't understand that this is a sly statement of legislative intent and it was a plan.

I saw a lot of reports saying that the Southlake Union streetcar was gonna shut down in the fall of next year?

And I was like, no, it would not.

Clearly, the FIFA 2026 World Cup is going to be a major piece for our city.

And who knows, it could be paddles to the entire line.

But this is an opportunity to, as I was saying earlier, to step back, look at our public transit posture, and really do the deep dive.

And so I really appreciate COUNCILMEMBER SACA'S WORK ON THIS, AND I DO BELIEVE, LIKE SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES SAID, THAT, YOU KNOW, AS I WAS MENTIONING WITH THE FIRST HILL POINT, THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS COULD BE, AND AS I'VE BEEN SAYING BEFORE, A COMMITTEE ACTION, YOU KNOW, SO THIS COULD KICKSTART, AND I WOULD RECOMMEND SOME COMMITTEE ACTION AS IT RELATES TO like First Hill, and if there was to be some work on the possibility of Third Avenue related to a Center City line.

But what this drives is focus, and there's been a lack of focus as it relates to our streetcars.

So I appreciate Councilmember Saka putting this forward because of all the points that he made, and this will definitely provide some focus for the process and for the department.

So thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Councilmember Kettle.

Councilmember Wu.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you, I appreciate Council Member Saka for bringing this up.

I'll be honest, I'm really torn about this.

I need more information, I need more time.

Been getting emails and requests for meetings regarding this agenda item, or this budget item, and haven't had time to engage people.

And so I will be abstaining because I have lack of information and need more time to talk to constituents about their views on this.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Council Member Wu.

Colleagues, further discussion.

Colleagues, further discussion.

Colleagues, further discussion.

Final call on further discussion.

I will make a few last comments.

Council President, when you said, what do I think of when you hear the words interurban, I do think of the waiting for the interurban art structure in Fremont that has a former mayor's face on the dog.

uh because i didn't realize i won't say their name because they're no longer with us and it was a moment where the arts community in fremont was so angry at that mayor that that's why it happened in part because the fremont troll wasn't uh it was not a legally approved uh art piece uh and is still not a piece of art owned by the city of seattle there's still tension and it was the fremont trolls birthday last week.

But what else do I think about when I hear the words interurban?

It is the bike trail that used to be the rail line that goes north of the Alderwood Mall.

Yes, the interurban line goes farther north than Sound Transit does today.

What else do I think of?

I think of the big red building across the street from the sinking ship garage that used to be the Seattle Hotel.

That big red building that Tats Delicatessen is housed in was the headquarters of the interurban FUN FACTS WITH STRAUSS.

I APPRECIATE YOU CALLING THE QUESTION AND BRINGING THIS FORWARD.

I DO THINK THIS IS WORK TO BE DONE IN THE COMMITTEE.

THE DIFFERENCE FOR ME BETWEEN THIS AND THE LAST AMENDMENT WAS THAT THE TRACKS ARE ALREADY IN THE GROUND AS COMPARED TO TRACKS NOT YET LAID.

For me, with the South Lake Union streetcar, you've heard me say, or maybe you haven't, but I've said it on the record, that we either need to connect these two lines or the South Lake Union section does need to have a closure.

What is paramount for me at this moment is we are trying to reinvigorate activity downtown, and so reducing transit service gives me a lot of pause, which is why, as you said, there's need for additional iteration, and I think committee is the right place for that.

The last thing that I would want to see is tracks in the ground that aren't used and when a visitor comes and says what runs on those tracks and our answer is nothing.

I think that's what gives me the most amount of pause.

And colleagues, I've heard a number of folks, we've received the executive sessions regarding folks who have crashed on these tracks.

I will tell you it was about a decade and a half ago that I too was riding my bicycle and crashed on the South Lake Union Tracks it was an unreported document.

So that's why you'll also hear me talk about vision zero being an incomplete set of information because it's especially with the Deaths or the the heavily injured it's not looking back in time and it's not taking into consideration the unreported data With that council members talk I'll be supporting you as you continue this work moving forward whether this passes or not But I will be voting no today Thank you, colleagues.

Council Member Saka, as sponsor of the amendment, you have last word.

SPEAKER_17

Thank you, Chair.

So, colleagues, it's very clear where this is headed right now, directly, but I just want to thank each and every one of you for the partnership and your feedback and your collaboration and, you know, respectful disagreement on, and that's always going to be the case, from time to time, on, you know, the ultimate goal I guess, way forward.

But I do want to just say thank you all for your feedback.

And I want to thank Cal and our central staff experts for your hard work after going so hard in the paint now on budget-related stuff for the past couple months.

And here we are to the finish line.

And then...

me spamming you with more requests for clarity like to clarify and I don't I endeavor to as much as possible to respect your process Mr. Chair but I think in cases like this when there's so much council engagement and I and excitement about any number of policy topics.

I think it's a good thing, and I do think it's a good thing when we try our level best, whether we succeed or not, to incorporate the feedback and views of our colleagues.

And I think the public is better served by that as well.

But regardless, I do appreciate your feedback, and we'll keep trucking along.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SPEAKER_03

Keep the train on the tracks, if you will.

Colleagues, or clerk, will you please call the roll on S.102SB2.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Soppa.

SPEAKER_17

Aye.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Wu.

Abstain.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

SPEAKER_18

Check one, two.

I'm sorry, no.

SPEAKER_06

No, thank you, Council Member.

SPEAKER_18

Sorry, my vote is no.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Council Member Moore?

Aye.

Council Member Morales?

SPEAKER_12

No.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Nelson?

SPEAKER_99

No.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Rivera?

SPEAKER_99

No.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member, I'm sorry, Chair Strauss?

SPEAKER_03

I will vote yes on this amendment.

SPEAKER_06

Three in favor, five opposed, one abstention.

SPEAKER_03

And colleagues, I apologize.

I forgot to mention we were voting on the amendment to the amendment.

So the amendment to the amendment fails and now the underline.

So I will ask if somebody on the winning side of that vote wants to recall that vote because it's the amendment to the amendment and then we vote down the amendment if you don't want the underlying amendment to pass.

My apologies, I did not do a good job shepherding us through there.

SPEAKER_08

So at this point, we have version 102SB1 as published on the agenda before us.

SPEAKER_03

B1 published before us, correct.

SPEAKER_16

Are you asking for a request to revote if one did not realize that?

Yes.

Would you please revote if I did not realize that?

Thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Is that the correct procedure?

No, I just...

SPEAKER_08

Yeah, we haven't moved forward with the next item of business, so therefore there is an opportunity for us to reconsider that vote.

SPEAKER_03

It's kind of like in sports.

If we had started the next play, then we would have been in a lot of trouble, but since we took a pause right there.

Clerk, will you please recall the vote for the amendment to the amendment?

So we are calling the vote on the amendment B2 to the amendment B1.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Sotak.

SPEAKER_17

Aye.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Wu?

Yes.

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council Member Kettle?

SPEAKER_99

Aye.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Moore?

I'm sorry.

I'm going to abstain.

Council Member Morales?

SPEAKER_12

No.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Chair Strauss?

SPEAKER_03

Yes.

SPEAKER_06

Seven in favor, one opposed, one abstention.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

The motion passes and S.102SB1 has been replaced by S.102SB2.

So the underlying amendment is now, the amended amendment is now before us.

And now this is where, for the reasons that I stated previously, I will be voting no.

Any further discussion on the amended amendment?

SPEAKER_13

I'm sorry, Chair.

May I get some clarification?

What are we voting?

Which version are we voting on?

I think I messed up my vote.

SPEAKER_03

Council Member Moore, you are fine.

And again, Council Member Saka, all due respect, this is not my process, this is the public's process.

And through the public's process, it is also informing council members, our colleagues.

And this is the confusion that these last minute changes create.

This, what you have in your hands, was approved.

Okay.

So the amended amendment is now this.

SPEAKER_13

This is what we're voting on now.

SPEAKER_03

This is what we're voting on now.

SPEAKER_13

Thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

So, again, as chair of the Budget Committee, I am recommending a no vote because this should be committee work for all of the reasons just stated.

Council Member Saka, last word on the amendment.

SPEAKER_17

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And no, Mr. Chair, this is your process.

I urge your support.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Will the clerk please call the roll on S.102SB2?

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Saka?

SPEAKER_03

Aye.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Wu?

Abstain.

Council Member Hollingsworth?

SPEAKER_18

No.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Kettle?

SPEAKER_18

Aye.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Moore?

Aye.

Council Member Morales?

No.

Council Member Nelson?

SPEAKER_16

No.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Rivera?

No.

Chair Strauss?

SPEAKER_99

Yes.

SPEAKER_03

No.

Sorry, no.

SPEAKER_06

Three in favor, five opposed, one abstention.

SPEAKER_03

Can you read that report one more time?

SPEAKER_06

Yes.

Three in favor, five opposed, one abstention.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

The motion does not carry.

S.102SB2 is not attached to the underlying bill.

Council President Nelson, would you like to move your next item?

Council President Nelson has stepped out of the room.

We are going to move on to the next agenda item.

Council Member Saka, would you like to move your next item?

SPEAKER_17

Yes.

SPEAKER_03

Okay.

I'll go ahead.

I move SDOT 107B1.

Is there a second?

Second.

SDOT 107B1 has been moved and seconded.

Cal, would you like to brief us on the amendment before us?

SPEAKER_19

This item would proviso $1 million in Nestot for the transportation levy to fund transit security services.

In specifics, the proviso says of the transportation levy appropriations included in the 2025 budget for the Seattle Department of Transportation, $1 million is appropriated solely for transit security and transit police and may be used for no other purpose.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

Council Member Saka is sponsor of the amendment.

You are recognized.

SPEAKER_17

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And so what this is about is about providing a robust security posture and presence on our transit service across our city, ensuring a safe, reliable transit experience for all riders and transit operators and proud to have earned the support in this journey of stakeholder and workshopping this proposal of the transit union operators, ATU Local 587, if I recall correctly.

Because this benefits workers, their members, and riders.

And I've said it a few times before, worth emphasizing here, colleagues, Transit service is not at all, unfortunately, like the field of dreams.

If you build it, they will come.

It's a necessary condition.

Expanding, building, expanding transit service, increasing reliability and frequency is a necessary condition, but it is not a sufficient one.

We also need to, in parallel, create the conditions where people are safe and feel safe.

And feeling safe is important too.

Because if you want to look at the raw data, I can speak for King County Metro buses.

Overall incidents of crime, reported crime, are down, is my understanding.

And I personally take transit every day, and I encourage everyone to do the same.

It's great.

But we can't just throw a stat sheet at someone and say, people should somehow be comfortable and should feel a certain type of way based off of what the actual data says.

And we can say, oh, well, You know, the media oversensationalizes and, you know, all these things, this and that, may or may not be true.

Perception, in many cases, is reality, unfortunately.

And so this proposal allows us to effectively respond in the original, unmodified transit ambassador amendment that was included in the chair's balancing package.

I have a...

I guess flag that I have an amendment later after all this.

But we authorized $1 million for transit ambassadors.

And so what this would do is provide a more diverse set of options for transit security to specifically include contracted security and police if needed.

And so this would allow us to have the full spectrum of security response options and tools available to meet our many diverse needs in our transit.

So it's not enough to just say, oh, and throw a stat sheet at someone and say, this is how you should feel or would feel.

It's kind of disrespectful.

And I acknowledge the experiences of some people.

And I want everyone to be comfortable taking transit.

Because it's great.

It's great for them.

It's great for our communities.

It's great for our environment.

It's great for the strain on our entire transportation system and network.

But this helps complete the picture.

So colleagues, I ask for your support.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Council Member Saka.

Calvin, would you like to brief us on the amendment before us?

SPEAKER_19

I do not believe there's an amendment on this one.

SPEAKER_03

Sorry, where are we?

SPEAKER_19

This is a separate proviso.

SPEAKER_03

We're on 107B1, correct?

SPEAKER_19

Yes, correct.

SPEAKER_03

Sorry, we are getting late in the third day of all of this good, good fun.

Is there anything you'd like to share about this amendment?

SPEAKER_19

No, just I guess just for clarity, there is a separate item in the chair's balancing package that identified $1 million of the Seattle transit measure funding for transit ambassadors.

And I believe that the Council Member Saka has a proposed amendment to that that will be discussed later.

This is a separate proviso on $1 million of transportation levy fund for transit security.

SPEAKER_03

Yep, we'll come to the ambassadors later and Council Member Saka through our extensive conversations about all this, you know that I support you in this effort and that I think that this is a good use of the budget committee's time, energy and leverage.

So you've got full support.

Colleagues, discussion, Council President.

SPEAKER_16

I beg your pardon, Chair.

I took a moment to be human, and so I am sorry that I had to leave the room.

I request to hear my action when we're finished.

Fantastic.

SPEAKER_03

So in this case, it would be a point of information what happened while I was gone.

We will come back to your amendment once we are past at the end of the SDOT section.

Thank you, Council President.

Colleagues, Council Member Wu.

SPEAKER_14

I have a question.

with some of our transit system is covered by King County, I believe.

So how would these security measures work with King County Police or would it be under Seattle Police?

I know sometimes when there's issues at bus stops, different jurisdictions cover different areas.

So how would the security services work with King County or with Seattle Police Departments?

SPEAKER_03

I'm going to look at Calvin and Greg on this one.

Calvin, welcome.

SPEAKER_19

This would likely be pass-through funding that would have to require an interlocal agreement with King County and could fund transit services to augment what King County is already doing.

King County is responsible for the security on the vehicles.

I'm less clear about exactly how that relates when you're in the rider population.

Experience in the right-of-way.

I think I think transit I think there's overlapping responsibilities in some of the shelters and that type of issues, but I think the intent behind this is to Work with King County to get an interlocal agreement to fund additional transit security services on transit vehicles themselves Thank You councilman will you still have the floor?

SPEAKER_14

No further questions.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

Councilmember will customer Morales.

I

SPEAKER_12

Thank you.

I had a similar question, and I guess just a follow-up to your answer.

You mentioned that there would be potentially contracted staff.

Would the security staff be housed with the city, or who would be responsible for these folks?

SPEAKER_19

It would be the organization that has the jurisdiction, so it would be King County.

This would be providing funding for such services, but ultimately the responsibility for security on buses lives with King County.

SPEAKER_12

And okay, so what kind of enforcement measures would they be taking?

I'm just trying to get a sense of like, what would these people be doing?

Would they be ticketing people?

Would they be arresting people?

If there's particular behavior, like what degree of security are they providing?

SPEAKER_03

And, Calvin, just before you answer that, Council Member Morales, I'm going to just interject as also our representative on the Sound Transit Board.

I'll provide some perspective, the difference that I have experienced between Sound Transit buses and Metro buses, because I...

Well, anyhow, both systems.

So we're going to go into geek zone.

Sorry with me.

This is why this is maybe more committee work.

But sound transit buses are operated by Pierce County Transit, King County Metro, and Community Transit in Snohomish County, depending on which county the line runs in.

They are operated both functionally, the machinery, as well as the operators are from these three county entities.

The only difference is the vinyl wrap on the outside of the buses and the policies that are overseeing how they're used.

So what I have seen as a Sound Transit board member when I'm receiving feedback from customers is that on Sound Transit, if a rider is disruptive, they are...

they are exited off the bus.

It is not necessarily that they're arrested or that they're ticketed or that they're fined, but buses traveling between Seattle and Tacoma have stopped in Federal Way to have somebody exit the bus for not following the rules.

There is transit security that meets them there as compared to Metro where Metro operators ability is just to play the prerecorded message.

Or to call transit security and it's not always there.

Calvin, I'm going to turn it back to you to make sure what I said is correct with your understanding.

SPEAKER_19

Council member, to my knowledge, that's correct, but I have not been following the discussion of transit security as closely as you have as a board member.

I know this has come up as an issue with the regional transit group as well that supports the The jurisdictions that are served by King County Metro have another board that takes this up fairly regularly.

I think some of these policies are the responsibility of the governing jurisdiction, so this money is really talking about providing funding support.

It is not specific to their policies per se.

Council Member Morales, you still have the floor.

SPEAKER_12

Yeah, thank you.

I guess that raises the question for me, maybe the sponsor can answer this, about what kind of conversations have happened between, with King County Metro to understand what that in our local agreement might look like.

Council Member Sacco.

SPEAKER_17

What kind of conversations with King County Metro, what is it?

May I ask the, repeat the question?

SPEAKER_12

Yeah, so if the idea is that we have an interlocal agreement with King County Metro to provide more funding for security services, My question is, has the sponsor had conversations with them about what that might look like and what kind of contracting would happen or what kind of security services would be provided?

SPEAKER_17

Yeah.

So I have not had direct conversations with King County Metro at this early stage.

What this would do is would authorize SDOT to...

enter into a contract, essentially, and the delivery provider would be King County Metro, and they would execute through, confusingly, at least for the case of the security, like non-armed security, through a private contracted security, like Securitas or something.

And so this would be on top of, what's intended to be on top of, to supplement, if you will, not replace, the existing security presence and posture of the King County Metro system, because they have certain commitments and contractual obligations.

And so this would be on top of that.

So it would be the idea and the goal would be for the additional presence, at least from my perspective across the board, whether it's regardless of what person we're talking about, you know, there would be additional presence on the bus and at key routes, key stops as well.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Council Member Saka.

Council Member Morales, you still have the floor.

SPEAKER_12

I'm done.

Thank you, sir.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

Council Member Wu, you are recognized.

SPEAKER_14

I'm sorry, that was the old hand.

SPEAKER_03

Council Member Rivera, you are recognized, and then followed by Council Member Moore.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you, Chair.

As part of the levy spending plan, $9 million were identified over the course of the eight-year levy for, quote, investments and strategies that increase transit rider safety and security, including transit and public safety personnel services in coordination with King County Metro, Sound Transit, and other transit agencies.

So as we all know, the levy passed, and so this is provisoring a million of that and making sure it's going to be used for transit security services and transit police.

the ILA would move forward in either event because it's part of the levy.

I believe Cal, correct me if I'm wrong, that Metro, Sound Transit, I know Sound Transit for sure, provides this type of service.

This isn't us to take on by ourselves, but we have heard from constituents, and I know I have constituents in the D4 that are not riding buses and light rail because they feel like there are public safety concerns.

I'm a light rail rider, and I have seen those public safety concerns, and I myself have had to call Metro, the You can text, which is actually really a great way to do it, and report something.

And then they have ambassadors that come on.

Sometimes those ambassadors are not the appropriate folks.

They might not have the appropriate level of training to help someone who needs assistance and is creating, you know, might be having...

emergency of one form or another on the light rail system in any event, this is really meant to support what those agencies already do.

I've been on the record and I will say we are not trying to and I am not trying to supplant the responsibility of those agencies to provide safety on transit and you know yet we know there is need for more security so that our constituents are riding safely and really we're promoting taking these alternative modes of transportation because that is The ultimate goal here is to get more folks riding public transit in Seattle than getting in their cars.

So for those reasons, I co-sponsored this with Council Member Saka.

Appreciate him bringing it forward.

Thank you very much.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Council Member Rivera.

Council Member Moore.

SPEAKER_13

Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, I'm just trying to get clarity on this.

So the levy spending plan identified $9 million for investments and strategies to increase transit riders' safety, security, including transit and public safety personnel services in coordination with King County.

So why are we having to proviso $1 million of that money?

When that's already in the spending plan.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_19

Cal?

So, Council Members, the practical impact of this proviso, as you all have noticed, the levy does allow for spending on transit security and safety.

That is more expansive.

Beyond just services, that could be physical improvements.

It could be things like pedestrian safety lighting.

There may be other physical improvements that could go into this.

This proviso is restricting $1 million specifically for transit service.

SPEAKER_13

Thank you.

But, I mean, we would still be entering an agreement for transit services, right?

SPEAKER_19

That may be an outcome.

If this proviso did not go forward, that may be an outcome that could happen.

This proviso is putting a restriction on dollars to only be used for that.

SPEAKER_13

Well, investment and strategies that increase transit right are safety and security.

That's the first portion of that safety plan, including transit and public safety personnel services in coordination with King County Metros and transit and other transit agencies.

That seems pretty clear to me that this is about transit safety and security.

Anyway, thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

Colleagues, further discussion.

Council Member Saka, you will be last.

Don't worry, you've got last word as the sponsor.

Colleagues, final discussions, final discussions, final discussions.

All right, no more discussion.

Council Member Saka, you have last word.

SPEAKER_17

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And so from my perspective, A reason to do this is not too dissimilar from why we're going the ambassador slash potentially, prospectively behavioral health route, and the other is like, it would require that spending be spent on this.

If in the absence of council direction, if we stood silent on that $9 million from the levy, for example, As Cal noted, there is any number of security investment broadly defined that could be done.

Additional lighting, upgrades, any number of things, right?

With the ultimate goal of improving security.

And all those things matter.

We need a blended approach.

I support all those things.

But in the absence of council direction in this manner, we would 100% defer and yield to the executive to make the choice that they think is best.

So they could have any number of arrangements.

They could choose to, without our directional control and feedback, choose to utilize 100% of that $9 million for only transit, like safety lighting and things like that.

So this just provides a little extra rigor and clarity on council direction and intent and on what...

at least some, a proportion of those investments should be spent on.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

Will the clerk please call the roll on S.107B1?

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Sacco?

SPEAKER_99

Aye.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Wu?

SPEAKER_99

Yes.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council Member Kettle?

Aye.

Council Member Moore?

Aye.

Council Member Morales?

Abstent.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Chair Strauss?

SPEAKER_03

Yes.

SPEAKER_06

Chair Strauss, thank you.

Eight in favor, one abstention.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, S.107B1 passes and will be attached to Council Bill 120905. We are gonna move on to the next SDOT item regarding transit security and then come back to the first SDOT item.

So Council Member Saka, would you like to move your next item?

SPEAKER_17

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move S.107SA1.

Thank you, is there a second?

SPEAKER_15

Second.

SPEAKER_03

It moved and seconded.

I'm going to turn it over to central staff for a brief presentation and then Council Member Saka to sponsor the amendment.

SPEAKER_19

Council members, this item is a slide that requests that SDOT provide a report on implementing transit security improvements, services, and policy.

It is associated with the same topic that we just discussed.

A lot of the issues are jurisdictional boundaries between the relevant transit agencies, and so this is trying to identify where those decision-making bodies are housed, what our participation is on those bodies, what are the city's policies and recommendations to put them all in one place.

It also includes a request to develop a 2026 budget proposal for a leadership position to coordinate activities around transit security for council's consideration.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

Council Member Saka is sponsoring the amendment.

You are recognized, and I will just do a friendly facilitation time check.

We still have four more items here, the walk-ons, some end-of-day business, and there are only two hours of daylight left in the day, and we will be here until we're done.

Council Member Saka, you are recognized.

SPEAKER_17

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So this sly request that SDOT do a top-to-bottom review of...

It's transit security posture and policies end-to-end to better protect both riders and operators throughout our city.

Colleagues, we know Seattle is a world-class city, and it needs a system that reflects it.

And too often we hear reports of unsafe behavior and unlawful behavior on our transit system.

And this lie would help better protect our transit security and safety posture, again, build regional partnerships, create transparency, and ultimately, as the chair noted a moment ago, there's sometimes disparate systems and policies and implementations in place and this would help facilitate a regional approach so colleagues ask for your support thank you and also this one was uh supported by our transit union writers as well thank you thank you councilmember saka as chair of the budget committee i will be supporting this sly and colleagues we just had robust discussion about transit security so if your comments about the last one apply to this one

SPEAKER_03

We will recognize that and move on to the next item.

But I see Council Member Kettle has a hand.

SPEAKER_20

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

I didn't speak to the last one, so I'll take the opportunity to speak to this one and reflect on that my goal of turning every committee into a public safety committee is furthering along.

And I appreciate Council Member Saka's sly in the sense that we need to be putting pressure across all fronts as it relates to public safety.

And transit security is very important, and it's very key in terms of as Council Member Rivera was talking about, just the practical movement of people and to do so safely.

But it has the bigger picture challenges in terms of activation.

And by the way, it's not just activation of downtown, but activation in other parts of our city.

And so, again, we need to put pressure, we need to put on all fronts to really build momentum, more momentum on the momentum that we have done this year related to public safety.

So I just wanted to thank Council Member Saka for allowing his committee to have a public safety tinge to it.

So thank you very much.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

Further discussion.

Last call, further discussion.

Final call for further discussion.

Council Member Saka, you are recognized, but no one else has said anything.

SPEAKER_17

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to acknowledge and appreciate every last one of you for your engagement and conversation on this, and also acknowledge that Council President is a champion on this issue in particular, including the substance of what we talked about in the last item.

But I appreciate the collaboration, and I respectfully ask for your support.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

SPEAKER_17

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SPEAKER_03

Please call the roll on S.107A1.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Saka?

Aye.

Council Member Wu?

Yes.

Council Member Hollingsworth?

SPEAKER_99

Yes.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Kettle?

SPEAKER_07

Aye.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Moore?

Aye.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

S.107SA1 passes and will be attached to Council Bill 120905. We're going to move back to the first S.

item.

Council President, would you like to move your item?

I'll move it for you.

SPEAKER_16

I'm looking for the number, but you're so good at that.

SPEAKER_03

Move SDOT 104 SB1.

Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to adopt SDOT 104 SB1.

Cal, could you tell us about what we're about to vote on?

SPEAKER_19

Council members, this item is a sly requesting that SDOT provide a report on the performance measures and evaluation criteria used for consideration of bus-only lanes.

The report is requested to use the Route 40 and the Rapid Ride R projects as examples for how SDOT does its decision-making, and it requests that the specific evaluation criteria are enumerated and described.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

Council President and sponsor of the amendment, you are recognized.

SPEAKER_16

Thank you very much.

Just to repeat a little bit of what I said the other day, this slide asks SDOT to provide a report documenting the performance measures and evaluation criteria that SDOT uses when deciding when and where to put in bus-only lanes.

That's important not only because we're the oversight body and we need to know how departments are making decisions in the public sphere, but also because we need to know how to respond when our constituents raise their concerns.

And I also, when I was speaking to this before, did reference a letter that was sent by a coalition that has been asking questions since 2022 of ESCOT about...

some of the numbers that they have.

The organizations include, but are not limited to, the National Nordic Museum, the Ballard Alliance, the Fremont Chamber, and I am for sure going to be missing some of them, Pellington Properties, North Seattle Industrial Association.

These are organizations that span from Ballard down all the way to Westlake.

they have been struggling to get some information from SDOT.

Why is this important?

Because it's...

Let's be real.

If a council member wants to kill a project, you can kill a project by going into a CIP or doing something within one's capacity as a...

As a chairperson, I am simply trying to respond to a request for data that is up to date, and because there is some concern that perhaps the data that SDOT is using to plan not just this line, but potentially future bus-only lanes, it could be out of date and perhaps not based on local data.

And so this slice asks for existing transit ridership and projected transit ridership after the bus lanes are installed, expected travel time savings using non-aggregated local data, impact on general traffic capacity and congestion using local data, freight access and mobility considerations, and impacts to adjoining neighborhoods and small businesses.

This council has made a point of expressing a—of valuing the ability of the widest possible modes to use our limited public right-of-ways, and when we finish the the industrial lands legislation last year, I remember that there was a resolution put forward to, and I think that was sponsored by you, Chair Strauss, expressing the importance of maintaining to the greatest extent possible our valuable freight lines throughout the city.

And so this is one of those freight lines, not necessarily that was named in that resolution, but that the neighborhoods along the alignment are concerned about protecting to the greatest extent possible.

So this is simply a slide that asks, Estat, when you are considering putting in bus-only lanes that will operate 24-7, what kinds of improvements are you seeking to see on those corridors?

And then wanting to make sure that there is some evaluation after they are installed.

So that is what this slide is asking for.

Thank you very much for your support.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Council President.

As chair of the Budget Committee, I will be supporting this.

I support transit-only lanes 100%.

There is some concern with just in the few months of construction of the Route 40, SDOT not maintaining the promises that they have made.

regarding that construction, number one.

Number two is specifically on that route, the worry about peak hour versus non-peak hour.

Sorry to bleed into your district, Council Member Kettle, but along Westlake and under the Ballard Bridge at that pinch point and on Market Street and Leary.

Those are the three specific pinch points because we see that during non-peak hours, there's a lot of, ROOM ON THE ROADWAY.

DURING PEAK HOURS, IT'S ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR THOSE BUS LANES TO BE BUS ONLY.

AND IF THE SITUATIONS HAD NOT OCCURRED EARLIER THIS YEAR WITH SDOT NOT BEING ABLE TO MAINTAIN THE PROMISES THAT THEY HAD MADE, I WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT.

BUT THAT'S A NATURAL REACTION TO ACTIONS MADE.

With that, Councilmember Saka, I see you have your hand raised.

We are now in general discussion.

Now I'm going to try to move us quickly.

So, Councilmember Saka.

SPEAKER_17

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I just want to thank Council President for your leadership in bringing this to life and putting it forward.

As chair of our Transportation Committee, I consider it a friendly amendment, and I strongly support it, and colleagues would urge you to do the same.

I appreciate...

Council president how you call out as an exemplar the route 40 experience I'm aware of those concerns from those impacted small businesses and communities and neighborhood groups and I Appreciate how you brought their concerns and elevated them, you know and brought them to life's peace and I don't envy the job of anyone at SDOT.

They have a tough job.

I want to make that crystal clear.

They have a tough, tough job.

In many cases, they're almost in between a rock and a hard place.

doing their level best, working every day, the engineering teams and the planning teams and the community outreach and engagement teams and coordinating and trying and jamming on this iterative process and try and do their best to accommodate our many diverse needs and ultimately build a better transportation system for all.

And they're a very difficult job and they work hard.

And so, you know, not trying to...

point fingers or assign blame, because he who throws the first stone, or wait, what is it?

He who lives without sin casts the first stone.

But there are definitely learnings from every single engagement and every single project, and so we can always leverage unique insights and learnings from those experiences to make us better, because we are better together.

And I do strongly support The thoughtful expansion of bus-only lanes and transit-only lanes in areas where it makes the most sense throughout our city.

We need them.

And we'll need more of them over time.

We need to be thoughtful about it, and it shouldn't happen overnight.

And we should work our best to incorporate that community concerns and feedback to try and get to as close of a compromise solution as possible with the understanding we're not going to please everyone every time.

that's an impossible task.

So in any event, I think this is a great, great amendment.

I think it's a friendly one.

And colleagues, I also urge your support.

Thank you, Council President.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

And I'm going to, after Council Member Kettle, I'm calling for final comments.

So if you are thinking about talking, raise your hand now.

Council Member Kettle.

SPEAKER_20

Thank you, Chair Strauss, and thank you for that shout-out to D7 point of this.

I just wanted to say first that I definitely support bus-only lines that really assist the movement of the buses.

The last thing we need is buses stuck on some street throughout the city.

But those bus-only lanes should be, that should be what determines those bus-only lanes, not say, let's, well, this might hook a grant.

You know, that shouldn't be the driver.

The driver should be what makes it more efficient for that bus to move down the street.

And so this slide, it basically goes to that in terms of asking for the data sets.

You know, and one thing I wanted to add, too, since it is one of my main priorities as a council member, you know, after public safety, of course, is our port.

It is our maritime industrial lands.

It is the fishing and the maritime industries.

And we need to support them.

And this is a consideration with this.

And so we need to have those kinds of pieces fully factored in.

And so with all that said, I am a co-sponsor of this.

So I support this good governance move by Council President.

So thank you, Council President.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you, Chair.

As I stated earlier, I'm a strong proponent of public transportation, so very much appreciate the bus-only lanes.

I will be supporting this amendment because I don't view our asking for information in the form of slides about all the work that we do at the city as somehow being not in support of the things that we're doing.

To me, it is an accountability piece, a good governance piece, and it can also daylight some areas of improvement for those actions that we take and for those services that we provide.

So I wanted to say that.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

Council President, last word.

SPEAKER_16

I don't want to butcher the more articulate way everybody else has supported this, so thank you very much.

Thank you.

Will the clerk please call the roll on S.104SB1?

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Saka?

Aye.

Council Member Wu?

SPEAKER_10

Yes.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Hollingsworth?

SPEAKER_10

Yes.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Kettle?

SPEAKER_10

Aye.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Moore?

Aye.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Nine opposed.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

SB104SB1 will be attached, passes, and will be attached to Council Bill 120905. Moving on to our last two items that met the amendment deadline.

SPD, we have Council Member Moore and Council Member Saka.

Council Member Moore, you are recognized to move your amendment.

SPEAKER_13

Thank you, Chair.

I move SPD 109 SA 1.

SPEAKER_03

Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to recommend passage of SPD 109 SA 1. Mr. Doss is with us to brief us on the amendment.

SPEAKER_02

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee.

This is a statement of legislative intent that would require SPD to engage with a consultant to study childcare options for SPD employees AS RECOMMENDED BY CHIEF SURAR AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 30 BY 30 INITIATIVE.

THIS IS A STATEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE A REPORT.

IT IS SIMPLY STATING THE COUNCIL'S INTENT THAT SPD PURSUE THIS.

SO THERE IS NO DUE DATE ASSOCIATED.

IT'S BROUGHT TO YOU BY COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER SACA AND COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA CO-SPONSORING.

SPEAKER_03

THANK YOU, MR. DOSS.

COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE IS SPONSORING THE AMENDMENT.

SPEAKER_13

Thank you.

Well, my colleagues will all be pleased to know this is my last amendment.

So that said, we have consistent...

Hey, hey, hey, hey.

You're not supposed to be that excited.

So, we've consistently heard that childcare is one of the major reasons that women are held back in SPD.

And so, as we push to increase representation and diversity within SPD, this is a needed critical step to ensure that we are addressing those systemic barriers.

I want to express my GRATITUDE AND PLEASURE AT THE FACT THAT CHIEF RAUER IS TAKING THIS SO SERIOUSLY, AND ALSO AT THE ORGANIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE 30 BY 30 WORK GROUP IN SBD.

AND REALLY, THIS IS JUST A SHOUT OUT TO SAY, YAY, YOU'RE DOING THIS.

WE WANT TO BE PUBLIC IN OUR SUPPORT OF THIS EFFORT.

SO THANK YOU.

SPEAKER_03

THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER MOORE.

AS CHAIR OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE, I SUPPORT THIS.

I WOULD EVEN TAKE IT A STEP FURTHER IN SAYING WE SHOULD EXPLORE FOR ALL CITY EMPLOYEES, BUT I'M NOT BRINGING ANY AMENDMENTS Colleagues, discussion.

If you don't have any discussion, that's okay because we can get out of here while there's still daylight.

There's only daylight left for another hour and a half.

Council Member Saka.

SPEAKER_17

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm one of the 30 by 30 bros on this council that really tries to support and uplift the women who are leading the effort.

And there's a lot of like all of all of y'all on our council.

But so I got to say just I just thank you, Council Member Moore, for bringing this forward.

So terrific.

I appreciate you and your leadership and you as well, Councilmember Rivera.

Honored to co-sponsor this alongside you.

Terrific initiative.

Thank you.

And yes, plus one to all the comments from Councilmember Moore regarding the great work that the folks at SPD are already doing on this.

And this is intended to be friendly and help amplify and uplift that work.

So thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Councilmember Kettle.

SPEAKER_20

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

I just wanted to add, as chair of the Public Safety Committee, first, thank you, Councilmember Moore, for your leadership and engagement on this.

And I wanted to note, obviously, Chief Rohrer is interim Chief Rohrer.

And when the new chief is selected, A, I'm on the selection committee.

This is a part of that decision-making calculus.

A and B will be engaging with the new chief.

on this to ensure, as will the committee, to ensure that we continue to make progress on the 30 by 30 front.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Council Member Rivera.

SPEAKER_15

Yes, plus one to all my colleagues.

We really just want to provide support for the great work that Chief Rahr and many other women at the department are engaging in.

to bring the 30 by 30 report to fruition to actually accomplish what is set as goals in the 30 by 30 report.

So really just want to support.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

Further discussion.

Further discussion.

Final call on further discussion.

No further discussion.

Council Member Moore, you are recognized as the sponsor.

SPEAKER_13

Thank you very much.

I just want to say thank you to all my colleagues who have all been incredibly supportive of this effort, and that's it.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

Will the clerk please call the roll on SPD 109-SA1?

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Sacco?

Aye.

Council Member Wu?

SPEAKER_07

Yes.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Hollingsworth?

SPEAKER_07

Yes.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Kettle?

SPEAKER_07

Aye.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Moore?

Aye.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Nelson.

SPEAKER_99

Aye.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Rivera.

SPEAKER_15

Aye.

SPEAKER_06

Chair Strauss.

SPEAKER_03

Yes.

SPEAKER_06

Nine in favor, none opposed.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

SPD 109 SA1 is passed and is attached to Council Bill 120905. We're going to move on to the last item that is available for the public with due notice.

SPD and Council Member Saka, you are recognized.

SPEAKER_17

Thank you Mr. Chair.

I move SPD 111 SA 1.

SPEAKER_03

Is there a second?

SPEAKER_99

Second.

SPEAKER_03

It has been moved and seconded to approve SPD 111 SA 1. Mr. Doss would you like to tell us what's going on here?

SPEAKER_02

Yeah thanks.

So this is a statement of legislative intent that would require SPD to collaborate with vendors of sound enforcement technology so the makers of that technology to do a couple things.

The first, to describe how that technology works to combat illegal vehicle noise through the use of camera and microphone systems.

And then second, the policy considerations of using this technology, and this question would go more to SPD, how SPD would use it to enforce sound and in what neighborhoods they would deploy this technology.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

Council Member Saka has sponsored the amendment.

You are recognized.

SPEAKER_17

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This lie asks SPD to examine what deployment of automated noise enforcement technology could.

potentially look like in our city.

And I've heard firsthand and witnessed firsthand the many effects of noise pollution and excessive noise in our city, including in my district, in Elk High Harbor Avenue, but other neighborhoods as well, suffering from similar challenges.

And it can be traumatizing for people, too.

And we also know that some of these...

Rallies can lead to races and other problem behavior on our streets, which can in turn escalate into, and we've seen it many times, too many times, into worse public safety challenges, gun violence.

And so, in any event, this just asks us to look at what it could look like, deployment of this automated enforcement, sound enforcement technology could look like.

And so, colleagues, I ask for your support on this.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Council Member Saka.

Council Member Saka, you know that I have full support, you have my full support in addressing loud cars in West Seattle.

You've heard me tell the story of kayaking along Bainbridge Island at one to two o'clock in the morning.

I was doing a long haul race.

There were a lot of other people there.

That's not the point of the story.

The point of the story is that from Bainbridge at one to two o'clock in the morning, I could hear cars from West Seattle.

So you have no, I am fully in support of you in that arena.

Regarding this proposal, I have too many questions that are unanswered at this time, so I will be abstaining.

Colleagues, this is discussion, discussion, discussion.

Final call, last call on discussion.

Last call on discussion, last call on discussion.

Final call on discussion.

Council Member Sacco, last words.

SPEAKER_17

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yeah, no, I just humbly ask for your support, colleagues.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

Clerk, will you please call the roll on SPD 111 SA1?

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Saka?

SPEAKER_99

Aye.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Wu?

SPEAKER_07

Yes.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Hollingsworth?

SPEAKER_07

Yes.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Kettle?

SPEAKER_07

Aye.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Moore?

Aye.

Council Member Morales?

SPEAKER_08

Abstain.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Nelson?

SPEAKER_08

Aye.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Chair Strauss?

SPEAKER_03

Abstain.

SPEAKER_06

Seven in favor, two abstentions.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, the motion passes and SPD-111-SA1 is attached to Council Bill 120905. Now, colleagues, because we have gone out of process in a number of ways with the remaining amendments and because we are going to take a short recess, I'm gonna ask Seattle Channel to leave the cameras on and leave the microphones on because I'm also asking colleagues Please don't go anywhere.

We just have to figure out, we have to unsort the mess that's before us procedurally.

So we're gonna hang tight.

If there's no objection, we will be in recess until 2.53 p.m., which is in four minutes.

We're gonna leave the cameras on.

We're gonna leave the microphones on.

Please don't go anywhere unless you need to use the restroom.

We're just going to leave the mics on.

I'm just going to ask you the questions.

And I wanted to give you a moment.

Yeah, I had to take a break.

Yeah.

So I'm looking at the screen right now.

SPEAKER_08

Then I'm just going to bring us out of recess.

Okay.

Get out of here.

SPEAKER_17

Still four minutes?

SPEAKER_03

Yeah.

Can both of you come over here so that I can use my computer as well?

I'm looking at the script that you have for me.

SPEAKER_10

You're glad I don't staff a department that has an S?

No, it might not be your era.

I don't actually know.

We need to talk to Tammy.

I can't remember them all, excuse me.

SPEAKER_08

And this is the SPU, the SPR?

No, no.

SPEAKER_10

It's SDCI 7A, apparently.

One?

But some of the ones this morning were like.

SPEAKER_08

Well, that's what I have one.

That's for option 18. Yeah.

That was for item 18. Didn't we already consider that?

SPEAKER_10

No, that's a separate one.

No, no, no.

SPEAKER_08

This one right here?

SPEAKER_10

That's new.

Oh, this is new.

Yes, that's a new one.

Okay.

SPEAKER_01

It does look like it's glowing.

SPEAKER_10

That's new, yeah.

Okay.

So then, so we need the HSD.

Probably four minutes.

HSD should come before SDCI.

That one right below, HSD44A is next.

It's next, yes.

Then it's SDCI7, I don't know what, A something.

SPEAKER_03

Amelia, is that the script?

SPEAKER_08

This one right here?

SPEAKER_10

Yes.

SPEAKER_03

Hang on, I'm going to ask a question.

Is that the script, Amelia?

SPEAKER_08

No.

Can you ask the Morales office?

Do we have a version two?

SPEAKER_11

I have not seen it.

SPEAKER_04

There's a version two that she was going to offer that's to talk language about...

SPEAKER_03

Okay, I'm going to give you direction because I have to say what I need.

SPEAKER_08

Yes, yes, yes.

SPEAKER_03

Anything you're in the script, I can see it.

Yes.

If you can just highlight what needs to come before the committee.

SPEAKER_08

Correct.

Okay.

SPEAKER_03

Because there's like the substitutes, things that have already, and then I'm going to walk away from this.

SPEAKER_08

You're good.

SPEAKER_11

You're good.

Yep.

SPEAKER_03

You need anything?

SPEAKER_11

Lots of things.

HSD Next is definitely next.

SPEAKER_03

The bottom?

Mics are hot, heads up.

SPEAKER_11

Yes, that one's definitely next.

Yeah, I gave you, I sent you an email.

I didn't want to mess, like, yeah, anyway.

Can you please check?

Because I, there she is.

Can you, yeah.

SPEAKER_08

I'm going to send a good email.

SPEAKER_11

I did not see version two.

Nope.

SPEAKER_08

I know.

I know.

I didn't know.

Okay.

SPEAKER_10

We did not get a version two.

Which one?

The SBCI 7A.

SPEAKER_04

We have.

This was the one.

I think there was a concern about taking out language that had to do with rental assistance.

SPEAKER_03

We're going to rock and roll back on because I've got three, four, five, six.

We have a quorum at this time.

The Select Budget Committee meeting will come back to order.

It is 2.55 p.m.

I'm Dan Stroust, chair of the Select Committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Saka?

SPEAKER_99

Here.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Saka?

SPEAKER_07

Here.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Wu?

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Here.

Council Member Kettle?

SPEAKER_20

Here.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Moore.

Here.

Council Member Morales.

Here.

Council Member Nelson.

Council Member Rivera.

Present.

Chair Strauss.

Oh, thank you.

Chair Strauss.

Present.

Seven present.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

And Council Member Wu is now present.

Colleagues, we're going to go into the last four items of the that were not on the agenda.

We're gonna talk about these walk-ons.

We're gonna go through them one by one.

I'm gonna just talk about why walk-on amendments are not good, and it's not because of me or my process.

We are public servants.

managing a public process that, under my chairmanship, it has been my goal to increase transparency.

Budget amendments that are walk-ons do not increase transparency, and at times they decrease transparency.

And the way that this works, I see that there is an amendment here to use the same amount of money for a good program, the same amount of money that was pulled out of and voted no out of the chair's package.

Colleagues, the reason that we have amendment proposal deadlines is because if colleagues want to take something out of the chair's package and use it for a different purpose, that's totally fine.

But it needs to be on the agenda so that the public knows what is going to happen in committee when we have public hearings.

We had a public hearing earlier this week where I had pushed central staff and the clerks to publish the agenda for this week's work.

24 hours earlier than typical so that the public had time to digest what we were going to do this week and That they could be well prepared during the public hearing When I see an item Being funded for the same amount of money that was taken out of the chairs package That troubles me because When items are pulled out of the chair's package for an up or down vote, that function is to allow you to share your dissent, not as a means to subvert the amendment deadline.

And so when the agenda was published, if there had been an amendment to remove the workforce equity program to instead fund a different good program, then the public would know that the workforce equity team might not be funded.

But at the beginning of this week, the public did not know that that was a potentiality because there was no amendment and there was no amendment attached to the agenda.

The second reason that these are troubling is because of workflow.

Central staff has been working so hard since September 24th to be of service to us.

In the last few days, while we have been on the dais, central staff has been here presenting to us while at the same time getting ready for next week where we have to vote this mammoth props.

We have to double check this amount of work.

But central staff has not been able to double check this work in the last few days because they've been working on additional amendments and many more amendments that did not reach chambers.

So the public only has a very small, we have four amendments before us.

We've already voted on a number of amendments and I don't even want to share with the public how many potential amendments central staff has worked on that is not here at the body.

We are late.

Central staff will be working over the weekend when they should have been working during this week.

This is also not allowed them to work on the next steps of our budget process.

And so, Council President, I will be making the request with your permission to direct central staff to work on no further amendments between here and final passage out of this committee or final passage from city council with the caveat of fixing errors.

Do I have your permission?

SPEAKER_16

You are the chair.

I do not feel that it's my role to interfere in your process, but I do understand your sentiment.

SPEAKER_03

Colleagues?

I'm looking at everybody in the eye except for the vice chair who's not here.

No more amendments.

It undercuts good governance, it undercuts transparency, and it is not good management.

Let's go.

Council President, you have the first item.

SPEAKER_16

Colleagues, this is an opportunity for us- President, you are out of order.

SPEAKER_03

You need to move the item.

SPEAKER_16

I move to approve HSD 044A.

Is there a second?

Second.

SPEAKER_03

It has been moved and seconded.

It is on the screen and in the council chambers for the public's viewing.

Council President, I'm going to ask central staff to brief us on this amendment, and then I will have you speak to it as the sponsor.

SPEAKER_01

This is HSD004A.

It increases HSD by $450,000 for the purchase of a mobile medication unit and reduces CBO by $30,000 general fund for payroll expense tax evaluation.

So this council budget amendment would increase appropriations to HSD by $450,000.

in 2025 for the purchase of a mobile medication unit serving neighborhoods that are significantly impacted by substance abuse disorder, such as Third Avenue, around Pike Street, and Pine Street, and Little Saigon.

Council has identified Evergreen Treatment Services for this funding and requests the HSD director waive the requirements as allowed under city code to allow funding to go directly to that organization.

Costs here will include the purchase of the mobile unit, medication pumps, IT equipment, and installation of alarm and camera systems.

Of the funding for the CBA, 420,000 comes from general fund that became available during the council's deliberations on the balancing package.

And 30,000 comes from funding allocated in the 2025-2026 proposed budget for the payroll expense tax evaluation.

And this was money that became available after committee approved HSD 036B1 today.

That's it.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

Council President Nelson has sponsored the amendment.

You are recognized.

SPEAKER_16

Thank you.

So last year, the city of Seattle passed a piece of legislation that sought to conform to state law that made public use of illegal drugs a gross misdemeanor.

This year we have taken some other law enforcement actions, all the while stating our commitment to both law enforcement and providing services to people that need it.

And this is an opportunity to live up to the second half of our, I believe, our dual commitment and responsibility to really get at the – to respond to – The most devastating public health crisis that people have said ever or in a generation, et cetera, which is that of synthetic opioids.

And so I must credit DSA Director, President and CEO John Scholes with the kernel of this idea because he was talking to me about a conversation he was having with the director of Evergreen Treatment Services.

And the fact that they were seeking support for another mobile medication unit.

They have one in Belltown and it is, I was looking for the numbers here, but They have more demand than they can actually accommodate.

And so I spent a while looking for a funding source, frankly.

I even went so far as to consider taking money, proviso-ing the Seattle King County Public Health contract to find some resources for this.

I approached one of my colleagues.

to provide some money from their budget action.

But the point is that when this opportunity came up, I took advantage of the fact that we do have unappropriated dollars now.

And so what this budget action would allow is for Evergreen Treatment Services to purchase another treatment mobile treatment van with the expectation that they will, and it will be stipulated, provide services in the downtown core where we have seen the greatest concentration of not just crime related to drug use and drug dealing, but also overdoses over the past couple of years.

And also, we are seeing what is happening in Little Saigon, not necessarily as a result of, but in part, of the actions downtown.

It is going into other areas.

And so this is an opportunity to provide treatment in both of those neighborhoods.

as needed, and there will be agreement with Evergreen Treatment Services about how many hours the mobile van will serve in these different places, but I appreciate your consideration of additional treatment.

And this is an effort to remove a barrier.

It will allow for our diversion partners to to direct people to a resource that is very close to where they are intervening with law enforcement or interacting with law enforcement, and that is the best way to get people treatment the fastest.

So that is why this is before us, and I would...

appreciate you considering supporting this.

Thank you very much.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Council President.

As chair of the Budget Committee, I will be voting against this and all of these walk-ons for each for a different reason, and I will explain that now.

Council President, the letter that you have distributed twice in the last 24 hours to you regarding this is dated October 3rd, nearly a month before the amendment deadline.

I believe that this is an amazing and good use of these funds.

And had I been aware of this request, we would have included this in the chair's package.

I will be voting no today.

Council Member Wu, you are recognized.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

So I want to speak to how badly this mobile treatment center is needed, especially in Little Saigon, the CID communities.

Let me paint a picture for you.

I welcome anybody to drive by or walk by.

But we had our park opening a couple of months ago during the summer, Hoi Mai Park.

You go by there, there's people sitting there.

hunched over.

I've spoken to many of these people and people who are just trying to get away from their addictions, who feel dope sick and then really want to get away from their addiction but are not able to.

I think having this mobile treatment center will be really helpful in helping community members there really improve their treatment options.

It's a valuable, unique addition to the public health and safety and may relieve our first responders.

Station 10 goes to Charlton Jackson at least three times a day.

And a couple of weeks ago, there was a batch of bad drugs that was given out.

And there was several overdoses that were experienced and was very traumatic and stressful to the community.

As well as, you know, this idea, I've been hearing it in community.

People want it.

And when I first heard that this was an option, reached out to many community members who have been asking and talking about this for over two years, and they were really excited that this possibility might exist.

So I'm really thankful to the Council President for all her work on this, her steadfast resilience to finding the funds, and for seeing the big picture when it comes to public health and substance abuse to get us moving forward.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

Council Member Moore, you were recognized.

SPEAKER_13

Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, I had a couple of questions and a comment.

So is this to supplement what the mayor recently announced with the additional methadone medication vans?

SPEAKER_03

I'm going to go with Jennifer.

SPEAKER_01

I'm not familiar with that announcement.

I'm sorry.

SPEAKER_03

I can as budget chair can say that this would be on top of the $1.5 million that we have set for the area.

This is a good program.

and this amendment's late.

Back to you.

SPEAKER_13

Okay, thank you.

And so how does this fall into the crisis care levy money with, because King, there's money through the crisis care levy for King County to expand their mobile medication units.

SPEAKER_03

I'm gonna call on Jennifer again.

SPEAKER_01

My apologies, I am not, I'm covering for my colleague who's not here anymore who did cover public health, so I'm just not familiar enough with the crisis care levy to be able to answer that question.

My apologies.

SPEAKER_03

Council President Nelson has sponsored the amendment.

Would you like to respond?

SPEAKER_16

I am not aware of how this interacts with the planned funding for this kind, for medication for opioid use disorder.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

Council Member Moore, you still have the floor.

SPEAKER_13

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah.

So, I mean, obviously, very supportive of all of this additional effort.

I guess, though, that I, again, and this is where we You know, as districts, we do have to speak up for our districts.

And while I appreciate that this is a huge issue in downtown and Little Saigon, this is also a huge issue in Lake City.

We have 33rd Avenue, where people are actively shooting up across from a park regularly, and the police are not engaging on this issue.

We have people at Lake City Mini Park.

who are also you know actively using fentanyl like this is a serious issue in my district and so I guess while I will be supportive of this I would also ask that we continue to look at spreading these necessary resources across the city and beginning to look at where there are needs in the north end because we also have 90th and Nesbitt which has been a huge huge drug area so I We need to not forget our northern residents and neighbors in this.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_18

Thank you.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just had a quick question.

So regarding these services, they would be, and kind of to follow up on Council Member Moore's point, these services would be restricted to Third Avenue, Pike Pine, and Little Saigon.

Is that correct?

Or that's where their focus is, but could they be directed in other areas?

They could, yes.

Jennifer?

All right.

SPEAKER_01

As the CBA has written, it is a such as, so it's, I think, meant to be illustrative examples, not a strict limitation on what neighborhoods are served.

SPEAKER_03

Council Member Hollingsworth, you still have the floor.

SPEAKER_18

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That was my concern, was that what impacts Little Saigon also impacts other areas of the Central District on 23rd and Jackson, and then also Capitol Hill and just other places.

So I just wanted to double down on Councilmember Moore's comment.

But yeah, you clarified the question.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

We are in the discussion section.

I'm going to I don't see any new hands, so I'm making the first of three last calls.

Council President, you'll have last word anyway, so.

Last call on discussion.

Last call on discussion.

Final call on discussion.

I will make the Chair's comments at the end is, this is a good program, that the request has come at the wrong time, and Council President, had you included this, I would have included it in the Chair's package.

Over to you, final words.

SPEAKER_16

I wanted to respond to the statement about Aurora.

Yes, ETS does have a unit along Aurora Avenue and 137th as well.

I just wanted to let you know that that does exist up there.

The thing is, I do recognize that this is a late-coming request, Chair, and I also would like to just state that I did try to get funding for the Thunderbird Treatment Center that the Seattle Indian Health Board is building on Vashon, and for reasons that don't need to be gone into right now, that was not included in the Chair's balancing package.

So I do recognize that this is late, and I appreciate people's patience and willingness to consider this additional resource.

As I said the other day, the drug crisis is at the root of so many other problems that we are spending resources on and talking about in various committees throughout the year, as well as during budget season.

And so that is why I feel so strongly that providing an additional bit of support right now while we have this opportunity is a valid policy move on our part.

So thank you very much.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

Will the clerk please call the roll on HSD 44A?

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Saka?

Aye.

Council Member Wu?

Yes.

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council Member Kettle.

Council Member Moore.

Council Member Morales.

Council Member Nelson.

Council Member Rivera.

Chair Strauss.

SPEAKER_03

No.

SPEAKER_06

So eight in favor, one opposed.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

HSD 44A passes and will be attached to Council Bill 120905. Council Member Morales, you have the next item.

I move SDCI 7A.

Is there a second?

SPEAKER_17

Second.

SPEAKER_03

Moved and seconded to recommend passage of SDCI 781. I see we have a number of our friends at Council Central staff here with us.

I'll let you brief the amendment for us.

SPEAKER_04

KEETLE FREEMAN, COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF, STCI 7A WOULD INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS TO THE STALE DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONS BY $527,000 FOR GENERAL FUND IN BOTH 2025 AND 2026 TO RESTORE FUNDING FOR TENANT SERVICES AND MAKE A CORRESPONDING REDUCTION OF $527,000 OF GENERAL FUND IN BOTH 2025 AND 2026 TO SPD FOR THE REAL-TIME CRIME CENTER STAFFING.

I'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT KIND OF THE RUNNING TALLY OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR TENANT SERVICES AND THEN PROVIDE SOME DISCUSSION OF THE REDUCTIONS TO THE REAL-TIME CRIME CENTER FOR WHICH GREG DOSS IS JOINING US.

SO IN TERMS OF THE RUNNING TALLY FOR TENANT SERVICES, AS COUNCIL MEMBERS KNOW, THE MAYOR'S PROPOSED BUDGET APPROPRIATED APPROXIMATELY $1.8 MILLION FOR TENANT SERVICES.

THAT WAS INCREASED BY THE COUNCIL THROUGH THE CONSENT $2.1 million and then reduced by a transfer to HSD of $527,000.

So as it stands, the proposed appropriations for tenant services grants and contracts at SDCI is approximately $1.6 million.

Should this pass, the total appropriations would be $2.1 million.

The reductions to SBD would largely come from proposed salaries for staffing at the real-time crime center The real-time crime center would utilize technology that integrates dispatch, camera, officer location, 911 calls, and record management systems into a single view to provide situational awareness.

Reductions to the funding would require that SPD either hold some positions vacant or use savings from other budget areas to fill those positions.

We have some additional information from SPD about how they may how they could, what the reductions might mean in terms of operations at the real-time crime center.

This is from Angela Sochi at SPD.

So they would likely respond to the cuts by adjusting their hiring plan to onboard eight to nine FTEs at some point in 2025, other than the 12 that were planned.

And they may need to move money between years to maintain even funding for both, for all the positions at the real-time crime center And an upshot of the changed funding for staffing could be that the real-time crime center is not staffed on a 24-hour basis.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Mr. Freeman.

SPEAKER_04

This is sponsored by Council Member Morales.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Mr. Freeman.

I also see Mr. Doss.

SPEAKER_02

Thank you, Greg Doss.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to elaborate and add a little more texture to what Ketel was saying, the positions that would be funded in the real-time crime center over two years, there would be 21 positions that would be funded in the real-time crime center over the two years.

One way to think about this is how many positions could be sustained on an ongoing basis after the cuts that these next two CBAs make.

And in working with SPD, it was determined that there could be about 12 positions of those 21 that would be able to be sustained on an ongoing basis if both these cuts were enacted.

The one that you just heard about for about 500,000 and the next one for about a million.

If just this CBA that's under discussion is enacted, it would reduce it by roughly three employees.

bring it down from 21 to, oh, 18 or so if the first CBA is enacted.

If the second one is enacted, it would bring it down to like 12. Hopefully there's, and as Mr. Freeman said, the impact of this and why 21 FTEs at the crime center is because it allows for shift relief factors, it allows for 27 FTEs Week down, day long staffing and 24-7 and then also relief for vacation days, those kinds of things.

So reductions in staffing would likely lead to times that the real-time crime center wouldn't be staffed.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

Council Member Morales is sponsor of the amendment.

You are recognized.

SPEAKER_12

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to Ketel and Greg for helping get both of these ready.

So, colleagues, as I've been saying all week, we know that renters across the city are experiencing high need.

This is an attempt to restore some of the funding so that we can continue to provide the level of service that we have.

We know that renters have been asking us to Multiply several fold what we already do so I won't repeat all the same statistics again Just to say that we know as council president Nelson mentioned that what we're doing as a city is not enough We know that tenant services include eviction prevention particularly in other languages by for example via communitaria who provides it in Spanish, interim CDA that provides in Mandarin and Cantonese.

They host with legal clinics.

They provide assistance in situations that renters need support for, for example, deposit returns.

I think we are aware of the services that are needed.

Regarding the RTCC, if we took just a fraction of this budget, we could fully fund existing levels of tenant services.

And as a reminder, the current proposed budget appropriates $2 million in 25 and $3.7 million in 26 towards a real-time crime center for a total of almost $5 million.

The combined effect of both of these walk-on amendments would be to take $527,000 in 25 and $1.5 million, a little over that, in 26. That means that the RTCC would still have a million and a half dollars in 25 and 2.1 in 26 for the real-time crime center.

No position authority is being removed by either amendment, so SPD could choose to fund any combination of positions with the remainder, plus any other civilian position salary savings or other general fund appropriations in the chief of police position.

SPEAKER_03

BSL So I again want to thank central staff for assisting me and getting this done and I'm asking for your support Thank You councilman Morales as chair of the Budget Committee I will be voting no and recommending a no vote based on the funding source while I fully support the funding Where it would go.

So here we are again council member more.

I see you have a hand then council member kettle I

SPEAKER_13

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

As the co-sponsor of Restoring Money to Tenant Services, I clearly support restoring tenant services, but I'm going to be voting against this because this takes the $527,000 that was set aside for rental assistance.

IE eviction legal defense of rent arrears that we just previously voted to take from SDC I and put into HSD And that is basically a workaround against what we just voted on.

So I will be voting against this for that reason Thank you.

SPEAKER_20

Thank you.

That's where we go Thank You chair Strauss, you know The real-time crime center is extremely important to us as a city and I One of the themes of going through this budget process is the idea of budget actions versus committee actions.

Well, I'm here to say that the Public Safety Committee, at the beginning of the year, created its mission.

It created its vision, and it created its strategic framework plan.

The 11 public safety bills passed this year were developed with the framework in mind to accomplish our goal of creating a safer Seattle.

This includes our technology bills like ALPR, automatic license plate reader, CCTV, the closed circuit TV, and RTCC, the real-time crime center.

Technology is so important for us, even more important now, because of the massive loss of officers that we've experienced over the last number of years.

So the need for this technology is because of the massive loss of officers.

The big reason why we have a massive loss of officers is the previous council term of this council.

It is unconscionable to me that you create a situation and now you want to take out the fix for that situation.

That's not good governance.

That's not good governance.

By the way, the budget chair is upset, processes of the budget.

I recognize that 110%.

But you know, this point just drives me over the edge of this continuing theme of budget actions versus committee actions.

I don't know how many budget actions really should be committee actions.

And here's the ironic thing related to this one.

The committee has been doing its work.

So on the real-time crime center all the work that we've been doing by the way This committee work is done in collaboration with the executive with the mayor's office with SPD in some cases fire some cases care City Attorney's office We do all this work With the benefit of the central staff I might add as I look at mr. Doss and mr. And chair noble, you know, this is something that we have to look at and so My strong recommendation for my colleagues is to follow your vote as it came out of committee, 5-0, and as you voted on this in full council earlier this year.

Because our goal here is to create a safer Seattle.

If we don't, all these other things go by the wayside.

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

Further discussion.

Last call for further discussion.

Final call for further discussion.

Council Member Morales has sponsored the bill.

You are recognized.

SPEAKER_12

I have nothing further.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

Will the clerk please call the roll on SDCI 007A?

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Saka?

SPEAKER_99

Nay.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Wu?

No.

Council Member Hollingsworth?

No.

Council Member Kettle?

SPEAKER_20

No.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Moore?

No.

Council Member Morales?

SPEAKER_10

Yes.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Nelson?

No.

Council Member Rivera?

No.

Chair Strauss?

SPEAKER_99

No.

SPEAKER_06

One in favor, eight opposed.

SPEAKER_03

The motion does not pass and SDCI 7A will not be attached to the council bill.

Clerk, I see that the next item is a two-step process, so I'm gonna move on to the SPR item.

and then come back because if we are going to take up item 32, we'll have to take multiple steps because it's so far out of order.

Council Member Morales, you are recognized to move your amendment.

SPEAKER_12

I move SPR 105A.

SPEAKER_03

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to recommend passage of SPR 15A.

Karina, how are you?

SPEAKER_05

I'm doing fine, thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Great to see you.

Hopefully Tracy is on her way home already.

SPEAKER_05

Hope so.

SPEAKER_03

Hopefully.

Let's talk about this amendment.

SPEAKER_05

All right, this is budget amendment SPR 015A.

It is sponsored by council member Morales.

It is related to the last one that was just considered.

It would increase Seattle Parks and Recreation by one million general fund in 2026 and increase position authority for 7.35 full-time equivalent employees to restore environmental programming at Discovery Park and Carkeek Park.

There would be a corresponding reduction at the Seattle Police Department by $1 million general fund in 2026 for nine full-time equivalent employees that would staff a real-time crime center.

That would remove funding for the employees but would retain the position of authority.

In the 2025-2026 proposed budget, there would be an elimination of this environmental programming in 2026. In the interim, in 2025, Seattle Parks plans to hold a request for proposal process to find a public-private partnership to fund those activities at Discovery Park and at Carkeek Park that the third party would pay for.

If this environmental programming does not continue, it would result in closure of the Discovery Park Visitor Center and then no activities there as well and no activities at Carkeek Park.

Carkeek Park, the visitor center closed quite a while ago, about 10 years ago.

As far as the impact on Seattle Police Department, Greg talked about that a bit.

So this would remove funding for nine FTEs, but it sounds like the impact would be less than that.

So there'd be a total of 15 that could be hired out of the 21?

SPEAKER_02

Actually, that's right on.

Thank you.

The original estimates, and I apologize specifically to the sponsor for this, the original estimates done overnight.

We're done against the entirety of both cuts.

And so, yes, Corrine has got that right.

It'd be about 15.

SPEAKER_03

And that is all.

Thank you.

Council Member Morales has sponsored the bill.

You are recognized.

SPEAKER_12

Thank you, Chair.

Colleagues, again, we heard during public hearing that there are still many critical programs that our city conducts that will be seeing their end in this budget cycle, despite our attempts to preserve them and our city workers.

With this million dollars, we could restore all the FTEs in parks for their environmental education work at Discovery Park, Carkeek Park, and more, as well as all temporary labor and non-labor expenses.

While it's true none of these parks are in my district, I've heard the call from across the city about the importance of this work.

We, as a city, have been a leader in environmental stewardship, but these proposed cuts to environmental education, to our park naturalist positions, don't reflect that legacy of the city.

And eliminating these roles and programs would have lasting impacts, including reducing accessible public education about our natural environment, It would limit critical outdoor programming for young people and weaken our community's connection to its own parks.

So I want to thank you, Karina, and thank you again, Greg, for your work with my office, and I ask for my colleagues' support.

SPEAKER_03

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER MORALES.

AS CHAIR OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE AND THE COUNCIL DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE OF ONE OF THESE LOCATIONS, AS WELL AS BEFORE I WAS GERRYMANDERED, MY DISTRICT ABUTTED CARKEAK AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL LEARNING CENTER.

I FEEL SUCH LOVE FOR BOTH.

just to say, Council Member Morales, I appreciate you looking out for the North End.

I would have appreciated a little bit of outreach because as was conveyed by central staff, this funding is in existence for next year and it provides us the time to make the decisions for the following year.

And there are important decisions that need to be made.

If my goals are met, we're going to be able to have really good, robust programming there.

There are more complex questions to be answered than we have time for this afternoon.

And so if there was an imminent retirement of these services, we would have been taking a different approach, but we have time to make a smart decision over the course of the next year.

So I will be opposing this and with the understanding that we're coming back to this question.

Council Member Kettle.

SPEAKER_20

Thank you, Chair Strauss, and thank you for the point that you were just making.

Obviously, this is a very important topic.

Not too long ago, a stay-at-home dad who's been to that location with his young daughter in the park nearby.

I'm well aware of it, and to your point, it's important.

And going to the previous one, too, tenant services are important, and I understand...

My colleague, Council Member Moore is working that very hard.

With those two points made, the points that I made just previously are still germane.

We have to ensure that we have the safe base in our city so that we can all move forward successfully across all elements of government.

So thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you.

Council Member Rivera.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you, Chair.

I'm lucky enough to serve on the Parks Committee with Parks Chair Hollingsworth.

And I know that Seattle Parks and Rec has been working with private partners to provide this type of programming at the parks because we've seen funding being challenging.

And I very much support private-public partnerships Where we can to ensure that we can continue programming because it is important type of programming particularly for our young people so Wanted to note that that I know parks is engaged in those partnerships to ensure that these kinds of programs keep going Thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you last call for discussion last call for discussion final call for discussion council president

SPEAKER_16

I really want to thank you for bringing this forward, because I have been in the back of my mind thinking, gosh, how could we restore that, our insurance future, so much so that I did research how many what is the salary savings in SPD and could it possibly be used for this and was disabused of that idea.

But I do, I don't know what Chair Strauss meant when you said we can continue thinking about this or if this was going to end up in imminent termination of programs, but I do want to, for the record, register my support for these programs right now and interest in figuring out how, if not in this budget item, which I will be opposing, you know, figuring out something in the future.

So thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Amen, Council President.

Final call for comments.

Final call.

Final.

Council Member Morales is sponsoring the amendment.

You have last word.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_12

I have nothing further, Chair.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

Will the clerk please call the roll on SPR 15A?

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Saka?

SPEAKER_99

Nay.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Wu?

No.

Council Member Hollingsworth?

SPEAKER_20

No.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Kettle?

SPEAKER_20

No.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Moore?

No.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Nelson?

SPEAKER_16

No.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Rivera?

No.

Chair Strauss?

SPEAKER_03

No.

SPEAKER_06

One in favor, eight opposed.

SPEAKER_03

The motion does not pass and SPR 15A is not attached to the underlying bill.

We're gonna move on to S.8B.

Council Member Saka, this proposal is so far out of order that we have to take multiple steps backward to make the adjustment as well as we had a pretty deep conversation about this earlier this week.

And so this would have been the appropriate action to take yesterday morning.

And so I'm checking with you to see if you want to continue moving forward.

SPEAKER_17

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, absolutely.

SPEAKER_03

Okay.

The floor is yours to make your motions.

SPEAKER_17

All right.

I want to make sure I have the script right here.

I move to rescind S.008A1.

SPEAKER_08

Pause there.

SPEAKER_17

What's that?

SPEAKER_08

Pause there.

SPEAKER_17

Pause there, okay.

SPEAKER_08

Second.

Second.

That's the first step.

First, rescind.

SPEAKER_03

So it has been moved and seconded to rescind, and we will now take a vote.

Is that correct?

SPEAKER_08

Correct.

And you can do it by unanimous consent, or we can do a roll call vote.

SPEAKER_03

And is there discussion?

SPEAKER_08

You can have discussion.

SPEAKER_03

There's discussion.

Colleagues, I'm gonna take a moment to discuss this.

Council Member Saka and I have been in discussion about this amendment.

It's something that I support and I'm gonna share for the record the background on this because Council Member Saka is amending my amendment.

A year ago, in the last budget cycle, I pushed King County Metro to produce an ambassador's program on their buses.

Vice Chair, I heard you make mention that you've seen ambassadors on the buses.

I haven't.

SPEAKER_07

No, on light rail.

SPEAKER_03

Oh, on light rail, because Sound Transit is doing a better job than King County Metro.

That's correct.

And my amendment last year was to push King County Metro in the same direction as Sound Transit.

And so for a year, they had been instructed to create an ambassador's program.

At the beginning of this budget cycle, I requested an update from Metro regarding this, and they have not been able to provide me one.

Councilmember Saka, so my understanding at this time is that they have made no progress on the ambassador's program.

On Monday of this week, Councilmember Saka let me know that there is in fact a contract being put forward, but we have not been able to share the information to understand the receipts for what this contract would be, how much it would cost, or when it would be deployed.

And so the conversation that Council Member Salk and I had was very clearly, if Metro's only using $750,000 for this, then I don't mind spending more money on behavioral health.

if they are using the full million dollars for their contract, as was asked of them, then we need to add money to this proviso, which I'm also comfortable with.

But what I'm not comfortable with is simply just adding scope to a program that they have not demonstrated the receipts of producing in a year, as well as with the variable that is hanging out there, that there is a contract on the table potentially, but we don't know the amount of money.

So for those reasons, Council Member Saka, as I said on Monday, I am here to support the addition of the behavioral health.

If the proviso number is increased, But I'm not going to be able to support simply adding scope to a project that I've been pushing for a year to get off the ground, and I don't see results.

So the question before us is, should S.8A1, which was part of the consent calendar, be rescinded?

Will the clerk please call the roll?

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Sacco?

Aye.

Council Member Wu?

Yes.

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Abstain.

Council Member Kettle?

SPEAKER_20

Aye.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Moore?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Abstain.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Chair Strauss.

No.

Four in favor.

Excuse me.

Six in favor.

One opposed.

Two abstentions.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

The motion carries.

And S.8A1 is rescinded.

Council Member Sopkin, the floor is yours.

SPEAKER_17

Thank you, Chair.

I move to rescind S.008A1 as follows.

You are out of order.

SPEAKER_08

At this point, we are approving S.008B.

SPEAKER_17

Yeah, I don't know all the language, so I welcome.

SPEAKER_03

Just move S.008B.

You need to move your item, Council Member Saka.

Okay.

Just move this one.

I move S.008B.

SPEAKER_15

Second.

Second.

SPEAKER_03

It has been moved and seconded.

Council Member Saka, Calvin, would you like to brief us on the amendments?

SPEAKER_19

Councilmembers, S.008B1 is an alternate to S.008A1 that was in the package.

It simply adds the King County Behavioral Health Team as an eligible expense for the million-dollar proviso.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

Councilmember Saka is sponsor of the amendment.

You are recognized.

SPEAKER_17

Thank you, Chair.

So what this would do is would allow us to tell a more complete, holistic story of our security posture and practices on transit.

This is intended to be a friendly amendment that actually builds upon The amendment that was originally proposed and included in the original chair's balancing package, although I think I do note, I think all of our, if I recall correctly, all of our names were ascribed to this item as the author, the original amendment that authorized the ambassadors.

Regardless, this allows us to use the same funding source, in this case, the Seattle Transit Measure, to add and enhance our capability and expands it by authorizing King County Metro's new behavioral health team, which is a really cool new alternative response, essentially social workers, if you will.

I'm still learning more about the capabilities.

I think this program launched probably in the last year, year and a half.

IN THE INTERVENING TIME THAT THE CHAIR MENTIONED THAT HE WAS TRYING ON THE PRIOR COUNCIL TO AUTHORIZE EXPANSION OF TRANSIT AMBASSADORS.

SO SITUATIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE, LEAST OF WHICH IS A COMPLETELY NEW COMPOSITION OF A NEW COUNCIL.

PRIORITIES CHANGE OVER TIME AND THIS ALLOWS US SOME EXTRA FLEXIBILITY TO, AGAIN, DEPLOY SOCIAL WORKERS.

our transit system in Seattle at key stops to make sure we provide the appropriate human resource to address human needs and ultimately address our security and safety situation in transit so really cool new program and by the way we're gonna be taking up some more of the at least information learning more about the the full spectrum of options including some of the stuff that I hope we authorize as part of this budget transit security what policing looks like, ambassadors, and now this, the new behavioral health team, social workers.

We're going to be learning more about that in committee, at least from an informational perspective, in transportation committee next year.

But really cool program, awesome innovation, and I think it allows us to tell a more complete story.

compelling narrative about how we view and compassionately approach our various public safety challenges, including on our transit system.

So I ask for your support.

Thank you.

Further discussion?

SPEAKER_03

Council Member Rivera.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you, Chair.

So in essence, the old amendment was just ambassadors, and this one is ambassadors plus the behavioral health folks.

Correct?

Correct, yes.

Thank you.

Council President.

SPEAKER_16

Could you please describe what were the ambassadors supposed to do?

SPEAKER_19

The ambassador program is sort of a first contact of support, concierge support for riders accessing the transit system.

They have not been deployed yet.

As mentioned before, there are some examples of how Sound Transit has done that.

In a lot of ways, it's additional metro transit employees interacting with transit passengers and not necessarily, this is a bit of a contrast to the transit security questions that have been talked about at the committee as well.

So not as much from a security standpoint, but from a customer service connection standpoint.

SPEAKER_16

Thank you.

And they were to ride on the buses?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Well, I'm going to support this just because of some of the work that was done last year, finding that they put air filters on some of the lines of buses and found that drivers were exposed to fentanyl smoke and that they dusted for methamphetamine, et cetera.

And it does seem as though we're getting closer to addressing the problem that is I would say most urgent, and so if the behavioral health specialists that will be deployed can augment the work of the ambassadors or replace them on certain lines, I would certainly support that.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

Further discussion?

Further discussion?

Further discussion?

Last call for discussion.

Last call for discussion.

Final call for discussion.

Council Member Salk has sponsored the amendment.

You have the last word.

SPEAKER_17

Thank you, Chair.

Again, colleagues, this allows us to tell a more complete, compelling picture and craft a more compelling narrative of how we treat and approach compassionately and address the various challenges and opportunities that we have on our transit system.

Because social workers are important, and they matter, too.

And taking a page out of Councilmember Hollingsworth, I love her PIE framework.

Prevention, intervention, enforcement.

I think what we've done with the last amendment was kind of indexed fairly heavily on the intervention and enforcement side.

Now we're having an opportunity, again, to focus mostly on the prevention and the intervention side with this.

So with ambassadors, which are essentially wayfinders, friendly faces.

and then now social workers, so ask for your support.

Thank you.

Will the clerk please call the roll on S.8B?

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Saka?

Aye.

Council Member Wu?

Yes.

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Abstain.

Council Member Kettle?

SPEAKER_07

Aye.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Moore?

Aye.

Council Member Morales?

SPEAKER_12

Abstain.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Nelson?

SPEAKER_12

Aye.

SPEAKER_06

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Chair Strauss.

SPEAKER_03

Abstain.

SPEAKER_06

Six in favor, three abstentions.

SPEAKER_03

The motion passes and S.8B replaces S.8A.

Clerk checking, do we need to pass the underlying amendment at this time?

SPEAKER_08

At this point, we need to postpone the bill for the meeting on the 19th.

SPEAKER_03

All right, we're gonna step in before we postpone the bill.

I'm gonna check in with central staff to see if there's any additional information that we need to be aware of heading into the weekend.

It's my understanding that between here and next Tuesday, the central staff will be working to ensure accuracy on the budget and all items.

I think it was 160 items at this point.

And so between now and Tuesday, you'll be working on that.

On Tuesday, we've already passed out a number of bills through the consent calendar yesterday.

And so we will have a number of bills later today.

We've already passed the noon deadline today for jumpstart amendments.

So colleagues, if you missed that deadline, my apologies.

I was going to announce it, but we got in the middle of stuff.

And what else do we have to do?

SPEAKER_09

Yeah, that's about it.

There's just a note that on Tuesday, there are the property tax bills that we did not include just because we were kind of pushing those to closer to election certification date as possible.

So even though the transportation levy, we just weren't waiting on the results of the transportation levy.

So those two will be on.

There's a long property tax bill.

So those will be on the agenda for next Tuesday.

And those are just held for procedural reasons.

But otherwise, everything should be familiar as we discussed on the 13th, which feels like a really long time ago.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah, it does.

And so next week, we will have committee votes on Tuesday and then final action on Thursday.

I strongly advise that you A, create a nice long speech.

I am...

STATING IN THE POSITIVE, CREATE A NICE LONG SPEECH TO GIVE ABOUT ALL OF THE BUDGET THINGS THAT YOU'VE GOT, ALL OF THE PRIORITIES THAT YOU'VE GOTTEN IN THIS BUDGET, AND THEN HOLD THAT SPEECH UNTIL THURSDAY WHEN WE TAKE UP COUNCIL BILL 120905. IT IS ONE OF ABOUT, DEPENDING ON HOW WE RUN THE CONSENT CALENDAR, ONE OF 40 VOTES.

SO CREATE THE SPEECH, HOLD IT UNTIL THURSDAY.

TUESDAY WILL BE MOSTLY PROCEDURAL AS LONG AS WE DON'T HAVE ANY Interruptions or wrinkles.

It'll be a rather straightforward.

Meeting on Tuesday and so Council President earlier in this meeting, I had requested your permission as chair of the committee.

The only committee in session right now to provide direction to central staff to not work on any new amendments only to correct or refine previous amendments.

Do I have your permission?

Yes, fantastic colleagues.

I am directing central staff to not take up any new ideas.

SPEAKER_16

Council Member Hollingsworth has had her hand up.

SPEAKER_03

Council Member, and that would be a point of order, Council President?

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Mic drop.

SPEAKER_18

My apologies, I actually, that was inadvertent, but I do have a walk-on amendment, just playing.

I just thought that was a great joke to end.

I'm just playing.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

3.53 p.m., and the streetlights are about to come on.

If there's no objection, Council Bill 120905 will be postponed to the November 19th Select Budget Committee.

Hearing no objection, the bill is postponed until further consideration on November 19th.

Council Member Rivera, I see your hand.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you, chair.

I just want to take the opportunity to thank central staff and also our legislative assistance in our offices for all the late night hours this past week especially but throughout the budget process to get all of this put together.

Really appreciate all the hard work.

It is a lot of work and it was fast and furious.

There was not a lot of extra time or cushion.

It really was the train left the station, and it did not stop.

And it was a lot of work for everyone, but I very much appreciate central staff and our L.A.s for the support you've provided all of us during this time.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_03

Well said, Councilmember Rivera.

Council President.

SPEAKER_16

I do want to recognize that with a new council doing their first budget, I want to recognize, thank you, echoing Council Member Rivera, thank you very, very much.

What we have displayed in the past couple days is a very, very high degree of engagement, a higher degree of engagement than I have experienced since I've been elected, and that is at base a very positive thing.

It does end up with a lot of work on everybody's part because we are really looking at things deeply and thinking about our policy priorities going forward.

So in recognition of that, thank you very much.

And thank you, colleagues, for your engagement.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you.

Any further comments?

Seeing no further comments, we've reached the end of today's meeting agenda.

The next Select Budget Committee meeting is scheduled for November 19th at 9.30 a.m.

where the Select Budget Committee meeting will consider final votes on the proposed budget.

Verbal public comment will not be accepted on November 19th.

And members of the public may continue to submit written public comment at council.seattle.gov.

Is there any further business to come before the Select Budget Committee before we adjourn?

Hearing no further business, the Select Budget Committee is adjourned.