City Council 7/15/2025

Good afternoon.

The July 15th, 2025 meeting of the Seattle City Council will come to order.

It is 2.03 p.m.

I'm Sarah Nelson, Council President.

Will the clerk please call the roll.

Councilmember Kettle.

Here.

Councilmember Rink.

Present.

Councilmember Rivera.

Present.

Councilmember Saka.

Councilmember Solomon.

Here.

Councilmember Strauss.

Present.

Here.

Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Present.

Council President Nelson.

Present.

Seven present.

Thank you very much.

All right.

There are, and I must say, Councilmember Saka will be joining the meeting virtually momentarily.

Okay.

There are no presentations today, so colleagues at this time will open the public comment period, which is hybrid.

Public comment is limited to items on today's agenda, the introduction and referral calendar, and the council work program.

How many people have signed up today?

We have eight remote and seven in person.

Okay, we'll give everybody one minute, please.

Hey, the public comment period will be moderated in the following manner.

The public comment period is up to 20 minutes speakers will be called in the order in which they registered.

Speakers will alternate between sets of in person remote speak to the public comment period has ended.

Please begin speaking by stating your name and the item that you are addressing speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left of their time speakers might be muted if they do not in their comments within the allotted time to allow us to call the next speaker.

The public comment period is now open and we'll begin with the first speaker on the list.

So our first speaker is Paul and then following Paul, I believe it's Carolyn.

Can I be heard?

Okay.

I'm Paul Glumas and I'm active with the King County Republican party and I'm continuing my comments on the homeless industrial complex.

There are estimates that all funding streams for all housing services of every kind for the estimated 17,000 homeless in King County spend per capita over $100,000 per each individual.

With all of this, why do we have security guards in every store examining sales receipts?

Housing First only spreads and increases the shoplifting.

We must go for treatment first.

We're killing people.

We're letting them die in housing without treatment.

We are letting them die.

And this is not good.

This is happening all over the country.

This is happening here.

We must end that.

Carolyn?

And then following Carolyn will be William Jennings.

Carolyn Malone.

My issue is continuous police brutality.

Each time I protest Fifth and Cherry, I call the bunker.

There's instant retaliation, which has escalated by police against me in the form of health, damaging actions, and violence.

This person remains in my housing.

He's a police or affiliated with the police.

And because I don't want him in my senior affordable housing, he enlists this male to threaten me July 1st, was my birthday.

This male showed up with a knife at the bottom of the stairs and threatened to stab me if I took photos of him.

He spits on me at bus stops and all manner of crimes because of Seattle cops.

They are cowards.

They don't face this outspoken black woman, but they send thugs of equal nature.

We have William Jennings E.L.

and then St. Ratt.

Good afternoon, City Council.

My name is William L. Jennings E.L.

and I don't know if this were the place where this issue I'm bringing up is supposed to be said, but they told me I could bring it up right here, so I'm going to bring it up.

I've only got that much time, but it's my first time down here speaking.

Basically, I'm trying to keep my housing that I got.

And I've been laid off for a few months.

So my landlord on kind of the verge of eviction or trying to wait it out with me.

So I don't know if this is the place to bring this up at, but I'm bringing it up.

I don't know if this is the place I get some help at or Mr. Sokka, Mr. Solomon.

I guess Mrs. Alexis ain't here or whoever, but that's my issue.

Thank you.

Next we have St. Rhett and then Connor Nash.

While we are waiting for our next speaker, the sir who...

Can you all hear me okay?

All right.

Hello, council boys and girls.

Sounds like great news this week.

I am really happy to be here.

I'll bet you guys haven't seen a rap this happy since Michael Cohen cut a deal by flipping on Donald Trump.

Oh, man, folks, it's been a rough couple of weeks, though.

City kept coming out and painting over me.

And then people would bring me offerings and I wasn't even there.

I haven't seen people waste that much cheese since you guys gave $457 million to the police department.

Well, I just wanted to thank all the people who came out and helped get the paint off of me.

I don't know who all of them are, but shout out to the Seattle Redditors, TBZ, Undercover, and BlankBeat.

One of them said, I was able to get the paint off with some stripper.

Thank you.

With a policy change, I will literally be here all week.

Thank you.

It's hard to follow.

Yeah, I have no clue how I'm following up that great presentation here.

But I'm Connor Nash, and I'm gonna be talking about the nuisance law that you're all gonna be talking about today.

As many of you know, I live in the Little Saigon neighborhood, and my community has been under distress for many years.

And I've had two councils and two mayors that have done virtually nothing to actually solve the problems in my neighborhood.

And with this nuisance law that is getting debated on today, with that so vaguely taught, like written, that the businesses in my neighborhood can be punished for the problems that the city government has caused on here through their lack of action and lack of meaningful action that has happened in my neighborhood.

And the small businesses that I love and go to every day should not be punished for your all's inaction on actually solving the problems in my neighborhood.

And I would hope that it will be written or changed or not even put up to change to actually help the people and businesses in my neighborhood instead of punishing them for your all's inaction.

Connor Easton.

What up, City Council?

My name is Connor.

I came to comment on our Lord and Savior St. Rat in Calenderson Park.

I'm a resident of Calenderson, not Calenderson, Capitol Hill.

And it's really been amazing kind of watching the community grow around this mural.

It's a really nice mosaic.

I don't know if you guys have actually gone and visited, but it's very, very nice and well done.

And I understand finding the balance of it's not a legally sanctioned art piece.

However, I feel like there should be an example and situation where the council can override this and do a one-off Okay, yes, leave it up, because I think having art is always better than just having gray everything all over the place.

Unfortunately, about a half hour ago, it was covered up again by the Seattle Parks Department, and so it is covered in gray and white now.

No more art, unfortunately, but I really highly encourage you guys to do a one-off, hey, let's allow that, because it's really well done.

It's not just like a panamural.

It is a hand-crafted mosaic with the glass.

It's stunning.

And all the shrines that they have, people bring their flowers and cigarettes and everything else.

It's a community thing, and I really think you guys should keep it.

So thank you.

Our last registered in-person speaker is Matt Offenbacher.

Just one minute.

OK, hi, council members.

Maybe I choose this one.

My name is Matt Offenbacher, and I'm a resident of Capitol Hill and an artist, longtime artist in Seattle.

And I wanted to talk about graffiti with you today.

I love Seattle's graffiti.

And I think it's a beautiful, handmade, intricate, skillful, expressive art form and a source of renewed innovation and inspiration for our city.

And I know that the mayor and many of you are looking forward to seeing giant illuminated advertising on our streets.

That's an aesthetic choice as well, one that I think will be very ugly.

But I think disagreements about aesthetics is one sign of a vibrant, diverse city.

But the problem with this bill is when you try to use laws to criminalize certain forms of artistic expression, this is a move that feels directly taken from totalitarian government playbooks, spending millions to buff out unsanctioned paintings and, oh, I'm out of time, OK.

Basically, what I just wanted to say is that the monies and time spent on bills like this would be vastly better spent on creating the conditions in our city

We can now move on to remote speakers.

Okay.

Our first remote speaker will be Rose Legionnaires.

And callers, please press star six when you hear the prompt that you have been unmuted.

Go ahead, Rose.

Rose, you may need to press star six.

Oh.

Hi, sorry.

Hi, my name is Rose.

I'm here to speak about ICE once again, but what we are once again seeing is the city council is refusing to take any action on things that need to be happening.

I know you all are worried about graffiti happening, but why is there a bigger fine on graffiti than there is about animal cruelty in our city or on any of the ICE people who are trying to take our neighbors from us?

I live in the international district too.

You should be caring about the people that are coming and being taken from my neighborhoods because these are important people to us.

They're not just people that you can be written off as a member on a ledger to someone you don't have to worry about.

These are the people that we grow up and we go around with.

Why do you not care about the people that we are – around with and that we should be caring for you could be doing something about this this is not hard I know you're scared of Trump but if you are unwilling to do anything then why are you in power you have the abilities to do something you have the abilities to say this is not okay do something goddammit okay the next speaker is Katrina Stevens after Katrina will be Haley Willis

Hi there, my name is Katrina Stevens and I'm calling in specifically today in support of the amendment brought forth by Councilmember Strauss on the public nuisance issue.

It is so, so important that nonprofits are exempt from this because services need to be provided in high need areas where their target populations are already frequent to be effective.

These areas by nature are also the areas that have higher rates of quote-unquote nuisance behavior.

Punishing the organizations by finding them is ineffective because nonprofits have little control over people's behaviors.

It is counterproductive because it would take money away from providing services that are working towards long-term solutions in order to pay the fines.

And finally, it would disproportionately impact services that are intended for the most favorable, specifically permanent supportive housing, day centers, and programming for people with substance use issues, forcing these organizations to move, alter how they provide services, or limit their services.

At a time in this country where vaguely written laws are allowing for bad actors to abuse the legal system, it's so important that our legislation is written with transparency and specificity.

When there is not an exception explicitly written in for not...

Thank you.

Next speaker is Haley.

After Haley B, Arianna Riley.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Haley Willis.

I'm the policy manager of the Seattle King County Coalition on Homelessness, and I live in District 5. I want to share our significant concerns about the chronic nuisance properties ordinance.

Along with our member organizations, we urge you to take more time to convene stakeholders and refine this legislation, and we ask you to vote yes for Councilmember Strauss' proposed amendment D to mitigate the risk to nonprofit human services providers.

This proposal creates significant unintended risk for human services providers because they could face steep fines due to circumstances beyond their control.

These providers serve a wide range of Seattle residents and already navigate complex landscapes as they work to keep their people safe.

They cannot reasonably be expected to control the behaviors of people in public spaces nearby.

We urge you to delay the vote on this legislation to bring together stakeholders to refine the bill, including housing and human services providers.

We also urge you to support Councilmember Strauss's amendment D that would mitigate the risk to providers.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Ariana Reilly, followed by Alberto Alvarez.

Hi, good afternoon.

My name is Ariana Reilly, and I'm calling in to address DoorDash's latest press release.

I showed up here for months, and for months people called me a liar, saying that restaurant business was down 30 to 50 percent Restaurants were really struggling.

Well, meantime, I talked to restaurants daily, and most of them were, in fact, not experiencing such deep declines in business.

I also advised that people need to wait for the data.

Now that the facts are here, the data proves I was telling the truth all along.

In the press release from July 8th, DoorDash says that monthly revenue per store was down only 2% in 2024. 2% is a far cry from the 30 to 50% that was being claimed initially.

Given that drivers saw wages increase by much more than 2%, giving us more money to put into the local economy, we can then conclude that pay-up has been a resounding success with no ill impact on local businesses.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Alberto Alvarez, and then will be Dennis Sills.

Thank you.

Sarah Nelson, good luck on your court deposition.

Backroom dealings and money seems to have pre-selected Deborah Juarez for appointments to the open suit in district five.

Elders on fixed income cannot afford the Sarah Nelson sales tax.

Wealthy landlords like Rivera are eager to say they believe in the spirit of things that hungry families can pray for miracles each day.

These are the best ideas this council is putting forth.

Working people to pay more sales tax, families to rely on miracles, and Deborah Juarez back on this council.

The business council will vote yet again in their own personal interest and to ensure that working people pay the price.

Your name on that vote will show that you have defended the wealthy and that you deserve to be voted out.

Have a good day.

Next speaker is Dennis Sills.

After Dennis will be Kate Rubin.

Council President Nelson and council members, thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment on the new property proposal.

My name is Dennis Sills.

I work at Plymouth Housing, a permanent supportive housing provider for more than 1,300 formerly homeless adults in 16 apartment buildings in Seattle.

Like other businesses and organizations in the downtown core, especially those on Third Avenue, we support a thriving city that is accessible and safe for all.

Plymouth provides a diversity of supportive services to encourage residents to be respectful of others in the community.

We support the amendment offered by Councilmember Strauss to exempt nonprofit organizations from the proposal.

Mr. Smith and other landlords and human service providers do not have jurisdiction over what occurs in proximity of our property.

Mr. We support the spirit of the amendment to encourage the city to use other means to address such circumstances.

We also urge counsel to delay the vote on this proposal that we consider from the landlord perspective in our ability to include actions outside our properties.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Kate Rubin to be followed by David Haynes.

My name is Kate Rubin.

I'm the co-executive director of B Seattle and a resident of District 2. I'm urging you today to vote no on Council Bill 121-006.

The Susan's poverty proposal is flexible enough that it can be weaponized against shelters and service providers for unsheltered people.

It also creates serious risks for renters and for affordable housing providers.

We know that the affordable housing providers are struggling and instead of offering them support, it will actually put more pressure on on them um this kind of pressure leads to stricter rules for everyone living in those buildings most of whom haven't done anything wrong this could mean things like visitor restrictions behavior conditions that are unreasonable um and such such strict leases that violations will set people up for evictions this is treating them like naughty children instead of people living in in housing so if your goal is public safety this is not the answer It's going to lead to more displacement and punishment.

Please don't know.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker is David Haynes, followed by Joe Kunzler.

How many nuisance properties on Aurora Avenue have been completely torn down and rebuilt more robustly for emergency hotel housing, as opposed to District 5 attempting to ignore it, sweep it into a different district, exacerbating the problem, allowing the display of slum real estate and the decay and reminders of why district five has been backstabbed by city hall and their representatives refusing to redevelop proper without the not in my district agenda.

That said, how much money is going to be pocketed by not so successful businesses, business community of Seattle, excuse me, of West Seattle lining their pockets with an exorbitant sum of cash inflating the cost to be bought out by sound transit three.

I wonder how much donor money will kick back the city hall.

And more importantly, how much of that money is going to be shared with the workers before the business and the building owner gets bought out with an artificially inflated value that conveniently devalues the workers cheated out of a share by those who use and abuse workers sold out in America pitted against one another?

Is there any way to tie the maintenance base for ST1?

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Joe Kunzler.

Go ahead, Joe.

Hi, Joe Kunzler here.

A couple of thoughts.

Number one, as far as this nuisance ordinance, I fully support it.

I think it's a great ordinance.

I would also suggest maybe calling King County Metro or Seattle dot and seeing if there's abandoned vehicles that could be towed somewhere, made safe to put somewhere where graffiti artists can paint their art on it and everyone can choose whether to see that artwork or not.

That's just my suggestion because I'd like it if we all got along.

I'm also – I smiled when I saw that general person come in with the rat's costume.

That is America, and that's why we fight for public comment and free speech.

I don't necessarily agree with what that person said, but I defend their right to say it because that person was not being hateful or calling for the things that a certain Alex calls for, which is where I draw the line.

In conclusion, I hope Ron Lewis as well as Ann Davison are considered for the D5 seat.

Both of them would make great representatives.

I really think both of them have.

There are no additional registered remote speakers.

Thank you very much.

This ends the, we've reached the end of our list, I think, and this ends our public comment period.

If there's no objection, the introduction and referral calendar will be adopted.

Hearing none, the introduction and referral calendar is adopted.

And if there's no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing none, the agenda is adopted.

We'll now consider the proposed consent calendar.

The items on the proposed, on the consent calendar are the minutes of July 8th, 2025 and Council Bill 121027, payment of bills.

Are there any items council members would like to remove from today's consent calendar?

Hearing none, I move to adopt the consent calendar.

Is there a second?

Second.

It is moved and seconded to adopt the consent calendar.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the consent calendar.

Council Member Kettle?

Aye.

Council Member Rink?

Aye.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Council Member Salka?

Aye.

Council member Solomon?

Aye.

Council member Strauss?

Yes.

Council member Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council President Nelson?

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Thank you very much.

The consent calendar is adopted.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the minutes and legislation on the consent calendar on my behalf?

And I do want, I must say that Council Member Saka joined us a long time ago.

I think it was during the, well, it was during public comment, so let the record reflect that.

Will the clerk please read item one into the record?

The report of the Public Safety Committee agenda item one, Council Bill 121-006 relating to chronic nuisance properties, allowing under certain circumstances an off property nuisance activity to count toward determining that a property is chronic nuisance, increasing penalties, clarifying the city's remedies relating to chronic nuisance properties.

Committee recommends that will pass as amended.

Thank you.

Councilmember Kettle is chair of the committee.

You're recognized to provide the committee report.

Thank you, Council President.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bill.

The chronic nuisance property bill, you know, the first thing I want to say, this is not a standalone bill.

This bill is not, you know, by itself.

It's part of a broader strategy and a plan that we have here on Council, particularly through the Public Safety Committee.

to address the public safety challenges that we have.

We have basically 20 bills now and each of these are being butt in place and being worked to help create a safe base in our city.

This is our mission, this is our vision of creating this.

And this bill is really important because it does address, you know, a challenge that we've been facing again and again.

And unfortunately, The bill needed to be updated to basically fully address the public safety concerns that it's designed against.

And with that, it's been introduced.

I recognize there's different pieces to this, to include the civil liberties piece and the like, and there's definitely pieces with this that are in First, and I'd like to note, and this is working with the various entities that we worked in a collaborative way on this bill, is that this is designed to address consistent criminal behaviors.

And this is why the authority to declare property a chronic nuisance rests with the chief of police.

And the amendments that you'll see solidifies this piece regarding what it is designed to do.

SPD's use of the ordinance does not basically involve frontline officers.

I know there's concerns about that, but no.

This goes to precinct command captains and higher commanders who recognize what's happening in their area of responsibility and then push it up the chain of command to basically look to invoke the ordinance because of the challenge that this chronic nuisance property has been creating for the neighborhood, for the community.

It should be noted that each precinct, there's a precinct liaison attorney.

I used to see this with the West Precinct Advisory Council that I served on for many years that had a city attorney assigned to it, just like the other advisory committees for each of the precincts, as is the civil division of the city attorney's office.

And it should be noted, depending on the circumstances, other departments are engaged on this.

This could include SDCI, construction and inspection, finance, and the utilities, the various, you know, the, for public utilities.

The chief's declaration letter is reviewed and approved by the city attorney's office at the highest levels.

So there's double checks.

throughout this process.

There's pieces that go to this and the city council is involved in this from start to finish because of particularly as noted, each of us work public safety challenges that happen in our district or from a citywide perspective.

And it should be noted too, and this has not been brought up, that invoking the ordinance, which has been relatively low number of times since it's adopted in 2009, is that these letters that go to these properties are only served when the person or charge or the property owner is not cooperating with the city to abate the nuisance activities.

This is at the end of a process.

This is very similar in a way to what we've been doing with vacant building abatement where we, in that case, it's Seattle Fire Department working with the Seattle SDCI construction inspection and there's a review process that goes to this.

This bill, not exactly the same but very similar for the reasons and highlighting, this is the reason why I highlighted this, to show the parallels that exist between what we've done with vacant buildings and what we're looking to do with chronic nuisance properties.

I also note, I listened to public comments.

I'm well aware of the different pieces that go to this bill beyond what I just talked about, which is more on the civil liberty side.

And that is to recognize the nexus between public safety and public health.

I recognize the concerns.

This is the reason why public health is pillar five of the strategic framework plan that we have.

And it's there for two reasons.

And I believe that we can and will separately work the challenges that come from that side in terms of public health, given separately, given the unique aspects of public safety and public health, as noted in the committee meeting of being two sides of the same coin.

So I think it's important to engage this piece that I know there's some concerns about understanding unique aspects that relate to this.

And this is the reason why I think the chronic nuisance property ordinance with the amendments will well serve the community across the board and in keeping with our strategic framework plan.

So thank you Council President for the opportunity to address the bill, Council Bill 121006.

Thank you very much for very, um, thoroughly going over it.

Are there any comments on amendment?

We do have some amendments.

Oh, I have the, I have the first amendment.

Um, I always thought that was number two.

Yes.

I would like to move to amend council bill one, two, one zero zero six, um, with amendment a.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on amendment A.

Councilmember Kettle, you're recognized in order to address it.

Thank you.

This is a technical fix amendment.

This should have been adjusted based on what we've done in committee, but it wasn't.

And so basically this is a technical amendment to ensure that the numbers lined up with how we voted in committee.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any comments on amendment A?

All right, seeing no comments, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment A. Council Member Kettle?

Aye.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Council Member Sokka?

Aye.

Council Member Solomon?

Aye.

Council Member Strauss?

Aye.

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Yes.

And Council President Nelson?

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The motion carries and amendment a is adopted.

Are there any comments on the bill as amended?

Would you like to move?

Uh, I believe the next amendment is council member Saka.

Yes.

Thank you, madam council president.

I move to amend the council bill 1 2 1 0 0 6 as presented on amendment B.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment B. Councilmember Saka, you're recognized in order to address it.

Thank you, Madam Council President.

Actually, so Councilmember Public Safety Committee Chair Kettle and I were two in the box on this amendment.

So as I have some thoughts, but as co-author, in this case, I'll defer to the committee chair to make first comments.

Councilmember Kelley, you recognize to speak.

Yes, waiting for the recognition.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you, Councilmember Saka.

This goes to the point, as I mentioned in my discussion, about focusing the bill on criminal behavior, and that's the point that we're doing with this amendment.

It is important to note and recognize the challenges that are co-located with the criminal behavior.

And that was pointed to when I spoke, when I said about the precinct liaison attorney, the civil division at the city attorney's office, and sometimes other city departments are engaged, including SDCI finance and the public utilities.

I think it's important to, with this, and this amendment accomplishes that, to put that to the side, and as part of consideration, but to focus everything related to this bill on the criminal aspects of it.

And, uh, and that brings some clarity and unity of effort.

So, um, that's part of it.

Uh, and I defer to council member Saka as the sponsor, lead sponsor too, if he has anything further to say.

Thank you.

Council member Saka, anything further to say?

Yes, absolutely.

Thank you, Madam Council President.

Thank you, Councilmember Kettle for kicking this off, so to speak.

So, yeah, colleagues, this is an amendment that reflects a more balanced compromise approach that also directly responds to some community feedback related to some of the amendments that were passed out of the Public Safety Committee last week.

So the previous amendment which is now incorporated into the underlying legislation added certain civil violations to the list of chronic nuisance activities and and this amendment modifies that approach by making clear that really all we care about here in the city of seattle are those non criminal violations um or excuse me those criminal violations and then that those non-criminal violations would no longer count towards any spd declaration of a chronic nuisance uh and so uh anyways but when declaring a property a nuisance property these civil violations may be cited it's just they can't they have to meet the other criteria for those criminal violations including uh animal cruelty which is a criminal violation which was as part of the amended bill possession of stolen property as part of the amendment bill etc etc but those non uh criminal civil pieces, they can't in and of themselves push this over the threshold to meet that criteria because we recognize that certain things are principally policing and SPD matters, and certain things like those other aspects are not.

that's what the uh...

that the press of this bill in this or see me this amendment does give full recognition to that so uh...

our governing partners on the executive side must be judicious in how they enforce this law as they have in the past uh...

and so this just provides additional clarity to make sure that, you know, their appropriate legislative guardrails and controls to ensure it's operationalized in the best best manner.

So thank you again to Public Safety Committee Chair Kettle for his partnership.

And we are encouraging a yes vote on this.

Thank you.

Councilmember Salomon.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to for bringing this forward.

I have had the opportunity more than once to work on nuisance properties in my previous role in a number of different aspects.

My concern regarding this is adding the public health component under the purview of the police department.

And part of that is because having dealt with a number of different nuisances, I have actually seen our laws, our regulations being weaponized by one neighbor against another neighbor.

Not necessarily because of any criminal violations, but because neighbor A didn't like the way neighbor B lived.

They didn't like the fact that neighbor B had a junky yard and were trying to use police resources and other city resources to go after that particular neighbor because they just didn't get along.

So when I look at the public health aspect, I do realize that there's provisions within SDCI to already address this.

There's provisions with King County Environmental Health to already address this.

My concern is that adding the chief of police into the mix on what is actually a public health issue is not necessary.

So again, that's my take.

That's my feedback.

It's somebody who's got a whole lot of years under my belt dealing with neighborhood chronic nuisances, most of which have been health related.

Yeah, there have been some criminal stuff on those individual homes, but most of it's been environmental health and it's been addressed through mechanisms that already exist as opposed to going down the law enforcement route.

So thank you very much.

Council President.

Councilman Rivera has her hand up.

Okay.

Can I?

She had her hand up first.

Yes, Council President.

Okay.

I would like to speak to Council Member Solomons, but I could do so after Council Member Rivera.

That's okay with me, Council Member Petal.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Council President, Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Council Member Solomons.

I understand the points you're raising.

I've seen it firsthand myself.

And, you know, on the...

Part of this is the cofactors that exist.

And this is the reason why these are here because they do need to be raised in terms of to gain abatement because too often things do not happen.

And so this raises the profile.

But importantly, this amendment separates it to the side and it allows, it gives greater force to the remedy so then the other departments can take action.

to the point, though, is that the amendment is focused on the criminal behavior.

The chronic nuisance property will normally be invoked based on the criminal pieces.

But highlighting the public house, in this case it's, you know, for oftentimes it's public utilities and the like, is to raise the profile and acknowledge, which is so often true when we have these co-located issues.

And then, but this prop, this bill does not do that on that side.

It just allows for, you know, for the abatement to be actually taken care of.

But it's not gonna be, this will, this will not drive any, execution of this ordinance it's all based on the criminal piece but it does allow to two things one to raise the profile and two to help the other departments in effect in this terms of abatement to address those issues too because sadly these these chronic nuisance properties do have these co-located uh incidents so agreed so thank you thank you for the opportunity to speak to that council member rivera

I would draw my hand.

Thank you.

Are there any other comments?

I'll just say that I appreciate, I appreciate you bringing this forward as I did express some concerns reservations in committee simply because I was, I was wondering how city officers would, how well they would understand some of the county code and also their ability to really, it's just outside of their specialty.

And I wanted to keep it a little bit more focused or focused on the criminal behavior.

So I really appreciate you putting forward this compromise here.

It provides a clearer picture of the intention and the application.

I think that's really important.

It really does yeah, the application of, uh, of the bill in general, and also of the nature of public health nuisance and problems, but it, it still keeps the criminal, um, uh, nuisance activity front and center.

So thank you.

Thank you to, um, council members Kettle and Saka for, for putting this forward.

All right.

Are there any other comments?

Not seeing any.

Okay.

Well, the clerk, please call the roll on the adoption of amendment B.

Councilmember Cattle.

Aye.

Councilmember Rink.

Yes.

Councilmember Rivera.

Aye.

Councilmember Saka.

Aye.

Councilmember Solomon.

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss.

Aye.

Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The motion carries and Amendment B is adopted.

Are there any other comments on the bill as amended?

I move to amend council bill 12006 as presented in amendment C.

Second.

The motion, sorry.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on amendment C.

Council member Hollingsworth, you recognize in order to present it.

Thank you, council president.

This amendment colleagues make sure that the property can't be labeled a chronic nuisance based on only a police report.

The report has to actually show evidence that there is criminal activity actually happened.

The current ordinance raised concerns for me and we work closely with community groups such as the Community Police Commission because this could lead to properties being flagged based on any complaint or report, even if no crime has occurred.

So this amendment aims to prevent the arbitrary definition by requiring evidence of actual criminal activity.

And I would love you all.

I would love everyone's support on this.

Thank you.

Councilmember Kettle.

Thank you, Council President.

As chair of the Public Safety Committee, I support this amendment by Councilmember Hollingsworth.

It goes to kind of what we were just talking about, the focusing on the criminal piece, the criminal violations.

So thank you, Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Are there any other, I'm not seeing any other hands up, so will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of amendment C.

Council member Kettle?

Aye.

Council member Rink?

Yes.

Council member Rivera?

Aye.

Council member Saka?

Aye.

Council member Solomon?

Aye.

Council member Strauss?

Aye.

Council member Hollingsworth?

Aye.

Council President Nelson?

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, will the clerk please affix my, the motion carries and amendment C is adopted.

Are there any comments on the bill as amended?

Yes, council president.

Council member Strauss.

Thank you, council president.

I move to amend council bill 121006 as presented on amendment D.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to adopt, to amend the bill as presented on amendment D.

Council member Strauss, you're recognized to present it.

Thank you colleagues.

This amendment would exempt nonprofit social service providers from the new offsite activities described in this bill.

This is a common sense amendment that will ensure that this law is not used in the future to target and shut down nonprofits like food banks and domestic violence support.

Just to give an example, if someone is doing something illegal outside of a food bank, the city's response should not be to close the food bank.

There are other ways for the city to address the issues that don't result in a loss of social services.

To be clear, the chronic nuisance property ordinance has not been used to shut down nonprofit social service providers in the past.

Since being passed in 2009, it's been mostly used to address problematic nightclubs and motels and it has never been used to target social service providers.

I've spoken with the sponsor and I do not believe this to be the intent of the bill.

I believe that the intent of the bill is not to target services like food banks.

And this bill does give a large amount of discretion.

So while I do not believe that this mayor would use it to target nonprofit social service providers, we want to make sure that it is clear in the law.

And as we've seen, Let me just quickly say that this amendment would simply give nonprofit social service providers and the people on the front lines of addressing these issues, the assurances that this bill will not be used to target social service providers.

This current concern was brought to me by a food bank in my district that, and I've worked closely with the public safety chair, Chair Kettle when drafting this amendment.

I will say in the area around the food bank there are a lot of public safety issues that need to be addressed and we are working to address those and those are born on the city's responsibility.

We have to stop some of this very problematic and anti-social behavior that is functionally preying on the people that are just trying to access services and that is not the food bank's fault.

It is something that we as the city need to work to address.

And so that's part of why I'm bringing this.

So this was brought to me by the food bank in my district and I've worked with Chair Kettle on this.

And earlier today, each of us have received emails in support of this amendment I'll just briefly read from Kathleen Owens, who's on the Ballard Food Bank Board of Directors.

She says, quote, the Ballard Food Bank, like many other nonprofits, is a critical resource for so many, specifically over 10,000 households each month.

Working families come in to have a chance to keep their children fed and connect with other resources.

if this ordinance is not amended, finding organizations that work for community safety and health is counterproductive and could cause real damage.

Please take a broad view in understanding the implications of the ordinance, especially at a time when federal policies have only increased the need in local communities.

And so colleagues, to summarize, I don't believe that the intent of this bill is to target social service providers.

There is enough that I feel that this amendment to make the clarity more clear is important and I urge your support.

Thanks.

Councilmember Kettle.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

I do want to note clearly that as chair of the Public Safety Committee, I work with a lot of stakeholders.

I work with all elements of city government.

At no time was the intent to to look at service providers of any sort.

It is aligned to the use of the, since 2009 as it's been, and from my personal experience working from the Queen Anne Community Council perspective, the Hillside Motel was like a perfect example of that, similar to, as Councilmember Strauss said, motels, some of the nightclub businesses, and then some residences as well.

So that's why it didn't come up earlier, because that was never the intent of the various pieces of city government that was working.

This is related to those challenges that we face in public safety.

When it was brought up, I recognized the point, and as I noted in my earlier notes, comments about the nexus between public safety and public health, you know, clearly there's challenges there.

And that's the reason why it's pillar five of the plan.

But I think that we should be looking to address those challenges in a different manner.

And that's my recommendation for us as a council, is to look at it, sit down, with the public safety and public health aspects of this together to get a betterment of those challenges.

Because it does impact our neighborhoods.

It impacts our communities.

And it's something that does need to be addressed.

My point is that this bill was not designed for that.

This bill was designed as its traditional uses.

And because of those unique circumstances, oftentimes service providers are funded by city, county, state, federal money.

And then to have us do this, I think it really falls into a unique piece.

And with the idea that I will work with colleagues on bringing the public safety, public health piece together so we can get a solution separate from this bill, that is my commitment to you.

And with that said, I do support this amendment.

Thank you very much.

Looking for additional comments.

I'll go ahead and say that I too recognize that this, that it was likely not the intention of the police chief or the city attorney's office to ever choose to declare a nonprofit like a food bank or a housing facility, a chronic nuisance property.

I still, I don't support this amendment for the reason that when we pass When we pass laws, and this bill is an expansion of already existing power, but when we pass laws that do carry some heavy consequences like the shutting down of a nuisance property, they should be applied universally.

and just taking, applying it selectively as was the intention until this amendment appeared, I think it was yesterday.

It just seems as though it sends the wrong message that we are going to be treating different well properties, different kinds of properties differently.

And one of the problems that I heard from an actual small business owner when I was considering this was there were comments that sometimes what was going on in front of their business was spillover from a nonprofit and they just thought that the actual activity and this nuisance bill would be an opportunity to really bring not just the nonprofit, but the small business together to really think about what could be some solutions.

So, but in any way, Again, our laws should be applied as much as possible across the board.

And, um, I think that that was the intention of the, the, the original sponsors from the get go.

So those are my comments.

Are there any others?

Council member Rivera.

Thank you, council president.

Um, you know, it, it is not the intent and I agree, and it's not something that I would support to be bringing this law against, you know, our low income housing providers or food banks, et cetera, as delineated here.

However, however, I do think that this amendment unwittingly ties our hands if there's a non for profit provider that is providing some type of social service or what some would consider a social service is creating a public nuisance, but does not receive city funding.

And it really ties our hands then in that instance, because we don't have an ability to work with them as a service provider that we fund.

like the housing providers that we currently fund and the other service providers that we currently fund.

And I currently have a non-for-profit in the district that is a bad actor.

We does not receive city funding has refused to meet with me to discuss any way that they can be better neighbors in the community.

I have been reaching out to this organization for several months to try to work with them to find solutions, not to shut them down, but to find ways that they continue their that they can continue their activity while mitigating for public safety issues occurring outside of the building that have had a huge impact on residents that I've gotten reach out from, including children nearby.

Yet they're refusing to meet with me.

They will not return my calls.

They are not a housing provider.

I just want to make that very clear.

or a food bank for that matter.

However, they are being bad actors in the district and, you know, this is like the only, this is one of few things that we can do currently if we were to try, you know, if it gets there, which I'm not there yet, but it is, we are, to your point, or we are hampering the ability if there is a bad actor, not those listed by Council Member Strauss, your amendment, but that we have limited tools to be able to compel them to behave better in community.

So for those reasons, I'm not going to be voting for this amendment, but I do want to underscore that this has never, as you said, Councilmember Strauss, never been used against a non-for-profit provider like the housing providers we fund or the food banks, et cetera.

It's not my intent to ever use it against.

um, uh, one of those providers, um, but other providers that are not ones that we fund where we don't really have much of a mechanism for compelling them to behave better in community.

Thank you.

So, um, I, are there other comments?

Cause I just wanted to respond to what one thing you said.

We do have the audit report that was put forward by the city auditor that looked at the concentration of the overlap of crime and overdoses did look at the, it took a, it looked at a very limited, made a bunch of recommendations, but it did take as a case study a three block area on Third Avenue in Belltown.

and it did note that there were several, there were I think two, maybe just one, but a permanent housing provider that was there and noted that the greatest number of emergency call responses were coming from that facility for reasons that we know.

People that tend to live there are struggling with really a lot of times with addiction and lots of other issues.

So we already know that there is a high concentration of public safety responses there.

And as you said, as the sponsor said, there has never been an attempt to bring forward a nuisance property allegation or suit, et cetera.

So we know that that is not the intention.

And what you are saying, yet we are unwittingly perhaps creating a loophole for precisely the nonprofits over which we have no leverage to encourage that better neighborliness, let's just say.

And so that, I just wanted to kind of sum up what you're talking about.

Thank you, go ahead.

And that are causing harm in community because this is causing harm to the residents nearby.

Okay.

Are there any...

Is that a new hand?

Yes, I was just...

Thank you, Council President.

I just wanted to reiterate, I recognize the points made, and my commitment to everyone on this dais is to work with them in order to craft a different approach, given the uniqueness as noted previously, and that is my commitment.

I just wanted to say that before...

Councilmember Strauss had the last word on his amendment, but I see Councilmember Rink has also jumped in here, so thank you.

Councilmember Rink.

Thank you, Council President.

To chime in on this point, if it's not the intent to target nonprofit social service providers, then just asking why not support this amendment?

If we're not going to target food banks and domestic violence support, we should exempt them.

We shouldn't leave them in fear of being punished under this law.

It's important to note this bill gives not just this mayor, but any future mayor broad power.

And as we've seen with Trump, if you leave those power is unchecked out of faith, that they won't be exercised maliciously, bad things can happen.

So we may trust this mayor, we may trust this city attorney, but I'm thinking about the future on this matter and the potential for this to be misused in the future.

And so this amendment would gives an ounce of protection for nonprofit social service providers and what is certainly a challenging time for them right now as they're trying to serve and meet the needs of our neighbors.

Thank you.

Council member Rivera.

Thank you.

Um, I do want to say that this bill doesn't distinguish between the housing providers or nonprofit pro, uh, the providers of food banks, for instance, separate from, um, providers that we, uh, do not fund.

there isn't a separation.

This is pretty catch-all, and because of the catch-all, if it were more narrowly focused, I would support it.

If it just were the housing providers and the food banks, for instance, but this is an all-encompassing.

Those are just examples of, and so again, if there's a nonprofit we don't fund that is causing harm, it's just limiting, and it is a long-term, because it is a long-term law, I am looking at down the road unintended consequences.

So again, I wanted to clarify because as we, when we are having these conversations about things we should do or shouldn't do or how we should do these things, we need to attribute good intent to all of us as we dialogue with each other.

So I want to make it very clear Again, for the record, that I am not intending to, if I were going to use this against a housing provider, for instance, or food bank in my district, I would have already done so.

I've been here a year and a half.

That is not my intent.

I'm saying, again, that is not my intent by not voting for this particular amendment.

But I want to make it clear that I am dealing with a bad actor in my district.

that my constituents are coming to me for assistance with someone that we do not fund.

And so I just don't want to limit our ability to have a tool if in the future it will be helpful to use in an instance where we don't have any other recourse.

Thank you.

I'm not seeing any other comments.

Oh, did you have your, would you like to carry, would you like the last word?

Yes, please.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Thank you, colleagues.

Robust discussion.

I think it is really that clear that I don't think any of us intend to, desire to, or want to, or I guess I should speak for myself, I do not want to, intend to, or desire to shut down a food bank, a housing provider, or nonprofit with this nuisance law.

I, like a few of us on this dais, have used this nuisance law to work to condemn properties, to shut down bad actors, and that is the proper use of the nuisance law that was passed in 2009. an improper use would be to go after a nonprofit trying to serve the people who have the least amongst us while the city is absolutely responsible for the behaviors that are occurring on the streets of our city and in and around anywhere for that matter.

And it is our job to do that.

And that's something that I will continue to work on to address.

I urge your support of this amendment.

Thank you.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of amendment D.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Councilmember Rink.

Yes.

Councilmember Rivera.

No.

Councilmember Saka.

Aye.

Councilmember Solomon.

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss.

Yes.

Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Nay.

Six in favor, two opposed.

The motion carries an amendment D is adopted.

Are there any final comments on the bill as amended?

Council president.

I just wanted to ask thank you for every for the robust discussion and in the amendments and I just as we get to this point just ask for your support for this ordinance for all the reasons I stated in of itself but also as part of what we're doing more broadly.

So thank you.

There are other folks, so if you want a second bite at the last word, you're welcome to it, okay?

Sorry, I didn't see it pop up.

Councilmember Rink.

Thank you, Council President.

Colleagues, I will be voting no on the underlying bill today.

I understood the City Attorney's Office's intentions behind the original legislation to be a small widening of the legal aperture used to go after some businesses with the most extreme track records of public safety violations and violent crimes.

bill as amended in the public safety committee goes far beyond the city attorney's office in terms of financial penalties but also critically adding a bit of a kitchen sink of violations and otherwise non-criminal annoyances that could in the wrong hands be used by city government to shut down or put a lien on just about any business or home near the scene of a whole host of things that neither chief of police city attorney nor any other city of seattle employees should be spending our resources on So I feel like we've lost a bit of sight of what the legislation was originally trying to do.

And the bill as initially introduced, in my mind, had a clear intention, even if I didn't agree with the policy.

But the bill amended before us, in my opinion, is just trying to do too much.

And considering the fixes proposed via today's amendments, which I think are improvements, I think we could do better if we started more on square one.

um from square one but if if this is um what we are planning to legislate today then then i will uh be voting no yeah thank you councilmember sacca

Thank you, Madam Council President.

Colleagues just wanna, so I will obviously be supporting this legislation today.

I wanna thank Public Safety Committee Chair Kettle for co-sponsoring this piece of legislation with me.

This is an important bill for our city.

I wanna thank the Executive Mayor Harrell in his office for generating this.

And working together, I think we have crafted legislation that will help address challenges of chronic nuisance properties in our city.

And I view this important piece of legislation as really building upon the powers that, or the next step, if you will, in last year in that vacant building legislation where we granted the fire chief additional authority to take action against problem buildings that pose a fire hazard.

This is the next evolution of that.

And it's an additional tool in the toolkit.

While I disagree on policy from the characterization that was just made, agree with the point that Councilmember Rank made a moment ago in her comments that You know, this is intended to be durable.

I happen to like working with this mayor, and I think he's a great governing partner for West Seattle, South Park, Georgetown, Pioneer Square, and Soto, and District One.

But it's not about, and it would grant the executive additional authority, but it's not about this mayor, it's about, or this executive, it's intended to survive The legislation that we're crafting today is intended to survive and be durable and irrespective of who happens to occupy that office at the time.

And that's why I also think that we put appropriate and necessary guardrails, legislative guardrails in place to guard against some of the most problematic scenarios.

And all the amendments that were passed were really designed to address the underlying shared policy priority for this is that we're only focusing really on those care most about the criminal activity.

But this is another tool in the toolkit.

This is another figurative quiver or arrow in the quiver, if you will.

Uh, in any event, uh, proud to be able to support this legislation today and thank you.

All right.

Council member Rivera.

Thank you, council member Nelson.

I'm going to be supporting this legislation today because as council member Saka just said, this is another tool in our toolbox.

Um, we need more tools in our toolbox to be able to deal with some of these public safety issues that we're trying to deal with on behalf of our constituents across the city.

And I will say I wish that we didn't need laws of this nature, but we nevertheless have issues across the city that we need to manage for of a public safety variety and Um, as we stated earlier, we just need more tools in our toolbox.

So I want to thank the chair for bringing this forward and council member Saka for working with the chair as vice chair to bring this forward and I'll be supporting it.

Thank you.

I will be supporting this legislation.

Although I did, I did begin, um, having some of the same concerns that council member rank did just because, um, it is a lot of, um, it's a lot of power to put in the hands of, of the city when you're talking about, um, shutting down a, um, a business and define it, defining it in such a way.

It's always, there is often the possibility that, um, Well, perception always plays a role in, I would say, the exercise of our power and also in law enforcement more specifically.

But let me just read the kinds of nuisances we're talking about.

Some of the activities in criminal conduct that we're talking about that are very concentrated in certain areas of our city that...

These are the activities that we are seeking to find a way to stop.

Assault, fighting, menacing, reckless endangerment, et cetera, as defined in then provides in RCW.

Profiteering from prostitution as defined in RCW.

Let's see.

They're actually the list is quite long, but drug, there's drug related activity, et cetera.

And then there's also grave, um, a most serious offense, et cetera.

And so I, I do believe that this fits in with your, um, with your pillars and that you have been working a long time on this chair cattle.

So thank you very much for bringing this forward and I will be supportive.

Pardon?

Okay, will the clerk please call the roll on the legislation as amended.

Council member Kettle?

Aye.

Council member Rink?

No.

Council member Rivera?

Aye.

Council member Saka?

Aye.

Council member Solomon?

Aye.

Council member Strauss?

Aye.

Council member Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Seven in favor, one opposed.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

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

And will the clerk please read item two into the record?

Agenda item two, Council Bill 120995 relating to new civil cause of action against graffiti taggers for illegal graffiti on public and private property and requiring restitution.

The committee recommends the bill passes amended.

Okay, Councilmember Kettle is chair of the committee.

You're recognized to provide the committee report.

Thank you, Council President, and thank you, colleagues here on the City Council.

You know, this is an important bill, and it's been characterized different ways, but I do want to say this is not about demographics, though it is good to understand the background in terms of what we're dealing with with respect to the issue of the bill.

This is not about murals.

The murals are essentially commissioned art and beautiful and is noted in committee in Miami, but also back to Renaissance Italy.

This is about taggers.

Simply put, this is about taggers who damage public and private property.

This is about the taggers who bring blight to our community, to our neighborhoods, and then create the challenges that result from that.

Simply put.

And to go to what I said with respect to the previous bill, this bill, again, is not a standalone bill.

This bill is part of a broader strategy and plan to improve our public safety posture, and this bill will aid in that.

by again, addressing the issue that we have with taggers.

Thank you, council president.

And, and I urge your support.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Uh, let's see is, are there any comments?

Council member.

Yep.

Council member rank.

Thank you, Council President.

I move to amend Council Bill 120995 as presented on Amendment A. Second.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment A. Council Member Rink, you're recognized in order to address it.

Thank you.

Colleagues, as stated in the effects statement, this amendment would eliminate the requirement for a tagger to motion the court improve financial hardship before the court may convert some or all of the monetary penalty to community restitution.

Simply put, this amendment ensures that folks don't have to specifically ask for community service before the court can consider that option for some or all of their restitution.

I think we can all agree that community restitution is an important tool in the criminal legal system toolbox, and I hope you'll support this amendment.

Thank you.

Okay, I'm looking for comments.

Okay.

I am not seeing any questions or comments.

So will the clerk please, did you want to address it?

Go ahead.

I was going to say, you know, as a sponsor of this bill coming out of committee, I as chair, uh, support this amendment.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

Seeing no other, uh, questions or comments, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of amendment a council member Kettle?

Aye.

Council member Rink?

Yes.

Council member Rivera?

Aye.

Council member Saka?

Aye.

Council member Solomon?

Aye.

Council member Strauss?

Aye.

Council member Hollingsworth?

Aye.

Council President Nelson?

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

All right.

The motion carries and the amendment A passes.

Will the clerk, are there any comments on the amended, the legislation as amended by amendment A?

President?

Yes.

Please go ahead.

Thank you, Council President.

I move to amend Council Bill 120995 as presented on Amendment B. Second.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment B. Go ahead, Council Member Rink.

You're welcome to present it.

Thank you, Council President.

Colleagues, again, to reflect the effect statement, this amendment would have the following effects.

Affirmatively stated that graffiti taggers are liable to private property owners for cost owners incurred to obey graffiti damage that is subject to of an action under Seattle Municipal Code.

It confirms that private property owners may seek restitution for their own costs apart from the civil action by the city and requires that the city attorney's office endeavor to request that any judgment reflect restitution due to the city and private property owners for abatement costs they have incurred due to the illegal graffiti violations.

So this amendment clarifies that prolific tigers are still liable to private property owners, that the city bringing this civil action against prolific tigers doesn't preclude private property owners from separately seeking restitution, and that the city attorney should seek to have any restitution address abatement costs to both the city and affected property owners.

And my intention with this amendment is to ensure that private property owners whose buildings are included in any city civil action are aware of their rights and are considered in any award in the award of any restitution.

And I ask for your vote.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Let's see.

Looking for Councilmember Kettle.

Thank you, Council President.

As chair of the Public Safety Committee in this bill, I support this amendment.

Thank you.

All right, looking for other hands up.

I am not seeing any.

Okay, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment B?

Council Member Kettle?

Aye.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Council Member Sokka?

Aye.

Council Member Solomon?

Aye.

Council Member Strauss?

Aye.

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council President Nelson?

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Thank you very much.

Let's see.

Will the clerk, are there any other comments on the bill as amended?

Yes, I'm going to move to amend Council Bill 120995 as presented on Amendment C. Okay.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on amendment C.

Council member Hollingsworth, you'll recognize in order to address it.

Thank you, council president.

And I also want to acknowledge that I'm glad I had time to cool off because after the public commenter talked about hot rat summer being painted over, it really pissed me off.

Let me just say it.

And I was just really disappointed.

So here's my amendment, and I'll save my comments at the end of this to talk about the difference between murals and tagging and all those things.

So this amendment helps make sure that people who do graffiti illegally actually face the impact of what they've done, not just paying a fine, but by helping clean it up, giving them a stake in the community.

And so ideally, and I'll paint the picture for you all, what we're basically talking about.

There are a number, particularly churches that are in different areas of the city, whether it's a synagogue, could be a chapel, could be a black church, whatever, that constantly get tacked.

on their building.

And those are not people, they're not businesses, those are people that are volunteers that have to come and clean that up.

And if anyone's ever seen a 72-year-old black man go and clean up the graffiti that's on the side of their building and have to get on a ladder and scrub it off, and constantly, weekly, doing that, that's an act of vandalism.

So that's the type of stuff that I'm talking about.

And so it's hurtful to the community.

And I believe we're not trying to penalize people financially.

We're just trying to change behaviors.

And so that's what this amendment does.

It's gonna be promoting community restitution because that person that has done that tagging can go meet with the community folks.

that they have done this to and help them clean it up and talk to them and be like, hey, maybe I shouldn't tag this and I should go over here and do it.

So that's what we're trying to change is the behavior to that.

And so we can help foster accountability and hopefully stop the person tagging from doing that again on that type of property.

And colleagues, I would love your support on this amendment.

Thank you.

Council Member Kettle.

Thank you, council president is chair of the committee and sponsoring this bill.

I support council member Hollingsworth amendment for all the reasons that she noted.

Thank you.

All right, as do I, and thank you very much for you for your contributions during committee and also for this, this one.

Um, so go ahead and if there aren't any other comments with the clerk, please call the roll on the passage of amendment C.

Councilmember Kettle?

Aye.

Councilmember Rink?

Yes.

Councilmember Rivera?

Aye.

Councilmember Saka?

Aye.

Councilmember Solomon?

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss?

Aye.

Councilmember Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council President Nelson?

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

What?

Oh, okay.

Just a second.

The motion carries and amendment C is adopted.

Are there any other comments on the bill as amended?

Council president?

Yes.

Go ahead.

Council members Kettle.

Thank you.

I have moved to amend council bill 120995 with amendment D.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the legislation as presented on amendment D.

Colleagues, in a sense, this is a technical fix, in a sense, but it's also basically an oversight on my part to ensure that all the great work that's been done by Mr. Jackson and his team in terms of the abatement, but then also to chronicle and basically have that material available is really important.

And it's really important for an effective use of this legislation to have this retroactive for the three year noted in the amendment.

Again, this is the ability for us to move forward using all the work that has been done to chronicle all the work that the taggers, as noted, have done, and so then we can basically better put this legislation into force.

Thank you.

Looking to see, thank you very much for that.

Councilmember, okay, is that an old hand?

I'm just seeing your old hand.

Are there any other comments on this?

Councilmember Strauss.

Thank you, Council President.

I have not had enough time with this amendment.

I'm not trying to throw shade at anyone, just that I've not had enough time to digest.

So I won't be supporting this amendment today, but understand where it's coming from.

Thank you.

Councilmember Wink.

I would echo that.

Thank you, Council President.

I would echo that same sentiment as well, this one being a walk-on today.

I have not had enough time to fully process the ramifications, particularly for just retroactively what this means for these given cases.

So I will not be able to support this amendment today.

Thank you.

Did you want to say something more?

I forgot to ask for my colleague's support.

Thank you for the comments.

I recognize this, the points that were made, Council Member Strauss.

And again, I'll take ownership of this.

But again, it's really important in terms of getting this off on a strong start.

So I do ask for your support, recognizing the comments that were just made.

Thank you very much.

And I will take the liberty of just saying that it is difficult when you receive amendments at the last minute.

I'm fortunate to have had the opportunity to talk with central staff, the city attorney's office, and also you, Chair Kettle, Public Safety Chair Kettle as well, for both, a little bit for both of the amendments that were brought forward.

Well, the two, what I perceived as fairly significant amendments, this one and the one to the nuisance legislation.

So I feel comfortable going forward in supporting this.

All right, not seeing any other legislation, would the clerk please call the roll on the passage of amendment D.

Council member Kettle?

Aye.

Council member Rink?

No.

Council member Rivera?

Aye.

Council member Saka?

Aye.

Council member Solomon?

Aye.

Council member Strauss?

Nay.

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council President Nelson?

Aye.

Six in favor, two opposed.

Okay, the motion carries and Amendment D is adopted.

Are there any final comments on the bill as amended?

Okay.

I don't, uh, Councilmember Hollingsworth.

I don't know which one of you raised your hand first.

Councilmember Hollingsworth, go ahead, please.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, uh, Councilmember Strauss for, I'm sorry, Councilmember Kettle, my bad.

Um, You both look alike.

No, I'm just playing.

I'm just playing.

Thank you, Council Member Kettle for bringing this.

And then also your engagement behind the scenes and the type of work that you did with talking to a lot of stakeholders and talking to council members.

So really, really appreciate all the work that you did on this.

I also wanted to acknowledge also to the difference.

And I'm sorry, I just had to say it because very disappointed in, you know, the painting, and I know I have said this yesterday, on Monday, and I've elevated Hot Rat Summer and how much it means to the community, but it does, it means something.

And so to hear that it's been painted over, and I wanna confirm, not that I don't believe you, but I will confirm, because I don't wanna start tearing up City Hall and then it's not painted over, so.

But just the...

we gotta move with the times here in the city.

We gotta cut the bureaucracy.

We have to listen to people on the ground and community folks, and we have to continue to evolve as a government.

And so I'm supporting this legislation because we're talking about taggers, But I will continue to elevate the importance of the artwork that's in our community.

And we have to have, and I was told because I was going to bring some amendments, but I know this wasn't the vehicle for identifying certain public spaces that could be for our artists to continue their type of colorful display of community expression.

So...

I will be working on that as well with central staff because there's just, there are certain things that we have to celebrate in our community.

And I know that council member Kettle had talked about the Wynwood neighborhood in Miami, and that's what Capitol Hill needs to be and continue to be.

So I will continue to elevate that, but I also don't want us as colleagues and council members to sound tone deaf to, you know, we're voting on a graffiti bill and the mural on Capitol Hill gets painted over the same day.

That is just such a big disconnect.

And I'm incredibly disappointed, and that's how much that mural means to the community and means to me and the artwork and the people that put the time and energy to do that and how important it is.

So I just had to say that, colleagues, and I know So thank you all for this bill.

I really appreciate it.

I'm going to support it because this is particularly taggers, but we are not targeting the artists in our city that I want to continue to celebrate, especially on Capitol Hill.

Thank you.

Okay.

Council Member Rink.

Thank you, Council President.

It has been outlined in briefings on this topic that graffiti is illegal and there's a course of action to bring forward misdemeanor and felony charges related to it.

we have current tools to prosecute these cases.

And in a resource-constrained time like this, I am concerned about using our finite staff resources and time, both at the city attorney's office and SPD, to be tracking down and bringing forward additional legal action.

The executive and city attorney staff have indicated that they're currently unable to determine how much revenue might be collected from restitution orders or penalty fines.

And it seems to me like we, it seems to me that we likely will spend more in staff time than we will ever collect back.

So it is my opinion that the juice isn't worth the squeeze here.

And so for these reasons, I will be voting no today.

And on a final note, long live hot rot summer.

I would share any council member Hollingsworth dismay about that.

The mosaic being painted over and hoping we can find a solution there.

Thank you.

Council member Rivera.

Thank you, council president.

Thank you, chair kettle for bringing graffiti forward.

I've heard from a lot of constituents about graffiti.

across the district and across the city.

It really is a blight on a city and it's very, very different from murals.

I actually worked at the Office of Arts and Culture in Seattle and murals are very thoughtfully and carefully put together by some amazing artists.

They get paid to do the murals.

It really is a beautiful thing to have murals in a city.

And this is not what this legislation is obviously meant to target.

It is to target the tagging that has really become difficult.

Like I said, it's just blight across the city and also our small businesses are saddled with this and they've been saddled with the cost of cleaning graffiti on the sides of their buildings and on their windows in their storefronts, et cetera.

So I support, for those reasons, I support this legislation and want to make it very clear that tagging is not the same and graffiti is not the same thing as murals.

And Council Member Hollingsworth, I agree with your sentiment about the support for murals across the city.

And I know that when I was in the Office of Arts and Culture, Mayor Harrell, he really wanted to make Seattle a city of murals.

Murals are really expensive because you have to pay the artists to create the murals.

That is their craft, that's their work.

And then when they get tagged, because murals get tagged as well, that is not okay.

Folks work really hard on these murals.

It is their job.

And then they get tagged, and then you actually have to, because the artist has rights to that mural, it's theirs, then you have to rehire artists to be able to clean up their murals.

And it costs more money to have to rehire the artist to clean up their mural that they work so hard on.

And that's not okay either.

So just tagging on murals is a big problem as well.

And there was a couple of years ago, the MLK mural that got tagged and that was really just horrific.

And the city was able to get the artists and it was a combination of the artists was out of town.

One of the airlines donated to get the artists here to be able to redo that mural.

And thankfully that got done, but whoever tagged that mural, they created all this, it just had a huge impact on not just community, but across the city.

And so this is the kind of thing that we're trying to get at with this legislation.

And so for those reasons, I'm going to support this.

Thank you.

OK, I'm not seeing any other hands I have.

Unless that's Council Member Rink, is that an old hand?

Okay.

All right.

Well, I'll just add my two cents.

I have said before up here that tagging is one of the most common complaints I hear from my constituents across the city.

And I am not referring to what could be mistaken for art, which I agree is a public asset and we have to find ways of saving it and or providing opportunities for it to, you know, for its expression.

Ultimately, what I am talking about is none of the above.

What I am talking about is what small business owners are responsible for removing, you know, time over time over time.

And this is burdensome and expensive for small businesses that as chair of economic development is the constituency that I am directly responsible for representing, but I would say that this is coming from residents and visitors also.

And so I am, but tagging is an offense that is very difficult to enforce.

And so that is why I appreciate this legislation because it does provide another tool to hopefully deter future tagging, which is what we're trying to do, or at least I am most hopeful for.

So that is why I am in full support of this and why I asked to be a a co-sponsor.

The constant effort of addressing tagging to not just to businesses, but also to the city and to homeowners is a burden that can't be understated sometimes.

So I am all for doing what we can to mitigate the negative impacts and also deter this, um, tagging in the future.

So I am finished.

Would you like the last word?

Yes.

Thank you.

Council president.

I just wanted to thank all that were involved.

I want to thank city attorney Ann Davison for her support and, um, through herself and her team.

But I also want to support on the executive side.

I mentioned his name earlier, Mr. Jackson.

Basically, I want to support the team that is doing the abatement, the work that they do.

But it's not just the city staff that does this abatement.

I want to thank Uplift Northwest with Ms. Hall who leads Uplift Northwest and all the great work that she and her team do.

But even there, it's not just that, too.

Businesses do an incredible amount, incredible amount, and I've been working this on a regular, regular basis, and I know that.

I thank groups like Belltown Community Council, Belltown United, Mr. Graff, who through his company has an individual who supports abatement efforts.

I've forgotten his name, but this gentleman goes out and does abatement on basically a daily basis.

And it's them that I also want to talk.

But at the end of the day, in terms of giving thanks, And I don't know this gentleman, but I want to thank the gentleman who goes on the top of that black church.

For those who, you know, question this bill or say this, that, whatever, at the end of the day, that gentleman going up to a bait graffiti that's been tagged on a church, that tagger went up there and tagged a, in this case, a black church in our community.

And that gentleman, elderly gentleman, goes up and abates it himself.

This is what we need to be thinking about.

This is the rationale behind it.

This is what we're trying to do in addition to the points as you made, Council President, in terms of the impact on the community and neighborhoods to include the businesses.

And at the end of the day, I can't think of a better person to thank and to acknowledge than this person that I do not know, but the elderly gentleman who tends to his church.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you for colleagues, and I ask for your support.

Thank you, Chair Kettle, as well.

All right.

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

Council Member Kettle?

Aye.

Council Member Rink?

No.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Council Member Salko?

Aye.

Council member Solomon.

Aye.

Council member Strauss.

Aye.

Council member Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Seven in favor, one opposed.

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

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

And will the clerk please read item three into the record?

The report of the Transportation Committee, Agenda Item 3, Council Bill 121003, relating to Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, authorizing Director of the Seattle Department of Transportation to execute an amendment to the agreement between the City of Seattle and the Sound Transit, Sound Transit grant for grant of non-profit, non-exclusive use of a light rail transit way as related to the link light rail transit project to reflect these, the approved alignment, excuse me, and light rail transit facilities for the link light rail and transit project, including addition to the West CL link extension committee recommends that bill pass.

Council member Saka as chair of the committee, you're recognized to provide the committee report.

Thank you, Madam council president and colleagues.

I urge you to support this piece of legislation that pass unanimously out of committee.

Before we get there, I, do have a technical amendment that I'd like to offer pursuant to some of the comments last week.

So I move to amend Council Bill 121003 as presented on Amendment A. Second.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment A. Go ahead and address the amendment, please.

Thank you, Madam Council President again so colleagues again I spoke briefly about this technical amendment upcoming here it is now, but I spoke about it last week.

And this is a very specific highly technical amendment that serves as a correction to the map that was originally included.

in the executive transmitted legislation.

All it does is effectively swap out and substitute a one map for a new map, an updated map.

The original map that was included just showed basically just the West Seattle link extension project only and now the new map would include and show the entirety of the sound transit alignment through Seattle, across Seattle, so not just the West Seattle bits.

No other substantive, want to emphasize again, no other substantive changes are made as part of this amendment and to the underlying transit way agreement that passed unanimously out of the Transportation Committee.

And so for those, and I'm sure you all read the 62 pages or whatever of 65 pages of the amendment, but yeah, it's pretty straightforward, very technical.

I wanna thank SDOT for flagging this and then them and our central staff experts, Calvin Chow for working together on this technical amendment to ask for your support.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Are there any comments on amendment A?

Okay, I'm not seeing any.

Will the clerk please call the roll on Amendment A. Council Member Kettle?

Aye.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Council Member Sokka?

Aye.

Council Member Solomon?

Aye.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Yes.

And Council President Nelson?

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The motion carries and amendment A is adopted.

Are there any final comments on the bill as amended?

Okay, not seeing any.

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

Council member Kettle?

Aye.

Council member Rink?

Yes.

Council member Rivera?

Aye.

Council member Saka?

Aye.

Council member Solomon?

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss?

Yes.

Councilmember Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council President Nelson?

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

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

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

Okay, moving right along.

Will the clerk please read item four into the record?

Agenda item 4, Resolution 32172, Proving the Enlightenment, Station Locations, and Maintenance Base Locations for Sound Transit's Link Light Rail Lines in the City of Seattle, including the West Seattle Link Extension.

The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.

All right.

Councilmember Saka, as chair of the committee, you're recognized to provide the committee report.

Thank you, Madam Council President and colleagues, whereas the ordinance that was just passed essentially authorizes the executive to amend the transitway agreement to include the West Seattle extension route.

This is a companion or implementing resolution of sorts that authorizes the council or represents council's approval of the west seattle extension route for purposes of processing permits and so there are two related pieces of legislation ultimately designed to help out the broader and facilitate the broader projects uh...

also as with the previous ordinance passed unanimously through committee i ask for your support But same underlying issues and technical glitches occurred with this resolution.

So for those reasons, I'm going to now move and I hereby move to amend resolution 32172 as presented on amendment A.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the resolution as presented on amendment A.

Councilmember Saka, you're recognized in order to address it.

Thank you, Madam Council President, again.

And again, colleagues, this is a highly technical amendment, serves substantially similar purposes as the amendment that we just considered and approved in the ordinance.

And this amendment would just substitute a new exhibit map depicting the entirety of the sound transit link light rail alignment throughout Seattle.

So not just the West Seattle bits, which the original version that passed out of committee included.

So encouraging a yes vote on this very technical non-substantive amendment and the base bill as well.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Are there any comments or questions?

Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment A. Council Member Cattle.

Aye.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Councilmember Rivera.

Aye.

Councilmember Saka.

Aye.

Councilmember Solomon.

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss.

Aye.

Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

All right.

The resolution is adopted as amended and the chair will sign it.

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

And will the clerk please read item five into the record?

What?

Adam, Council President, point of order.

I think we just voted on the- Sorry, yep, I read the, as if we were finished.

Let me redo that.

What was the vote, please?

That was eight in favor, none opposed on the amendment.

Right, yeah.

Okay, the motion carries and amendment A is adopted.

And finally, we're now at that point where we'll ask for final comments on the resolution as amended.

I'm not hearing any.

Okay.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the amended resolution.

Apologies, everybody.

Council Member Kettle?

Aye.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Thank you.

Council Member Saka?

Aye.

Council Member Solomon?

Aye.

Council Member Strauss?

Aye.

Thank you.

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The resolution is adopted as amended and the chair will sign it.

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

Okay.

And will the clerk please read item five into the record?

They reported the parks public utilities And technology committee agenda item five council bill 121 008 amending the landscape conservation and infrastructure program funding plan for South Lake Union and downtown is adopted by ordinance 124. 286 committee recommends a bill pass.

Okay.

Council member Hollingsworth as the chair of the committee, you're recognized in order to address

Thank you, Council.

Yeah, thank you, Council President.

LCLIP refers to a funding plan that the Council is adopting to allow Seattle Parks and Recreation to implement projects to enhance and activate park spaces in South Lake Union and the greater downtown area in Councilmember Kettle's district.

A lot of work went into engaging with this community in an effort to complete the list of open space investments and council needs to allow the amending of this completed list.

The committee recommends this and I hope that you all support this today.

Thank you.

Okay.

Are there any comments?

All right.

Seeing none, thank you very much.

This is a good milestone for that project.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Not seeing any comments, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Council Member Kettle?

Aye.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Council Member Salka?

Aye.

Council Member Solomon?

Aye.

Council Member Strauss?

Aye.

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council President Nelson?

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

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

And will the clerk please read item six into the record?

Agenda item six council 121, sorry 121014 relating to Seattle Public Utilities authorizing direct sale of real property included in King County records as parcel 162206904904 portion of Lake Young's aqueduct rights of way in King County, Washington to Sherrill Development LLC.

The committee recommends the bill pass.

Councilmember Hollingsworth is chair of the committee.

You are recognized to provide the committee report.

Thank you, Council President.

Last week, the PPAC Committee recommended to authorize Seattle Public Utilities to sell a partial of land in Maple Valley.

This is just under 12,000 square feet, which is a quarter of an acre.

and its surplus to the city and to Seattle Public Utilities.

A public hearing was not needed as the transaction did not exceed $50,000.

The revenue from the selling of the surplus property goes back into the general fund account for the water funds line of business.

This property colleagues had been looking to be sold for a long time, I believe over 30 years, and I hope to have your support.

Thank you.

Thank you for that report.

Are there any questions or comments on the bill?

Okay, seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Council member Kettle?

Aye.

Council member Rink?

Yes.

Council member Rivera?

Aye.

Council member Saka?

Aye.

Council member Solomon?

Aye.

Council member Strauss?

Aye.

Council member Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

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

And also will the clerk please read item seven into the record.

Agenda item seven, council bill 121015 related to Seattle Public Utilities authorizing acceptance of an easement granted by the city of Seattle and record as King County document number 20-22-081-7000-0046 for the installation and operation of a strange facility on property commonly known as 14100 Westwood PL Northeast.

Committee recommends the bill pass.

Council member Hollingsworth, again, as chair of the committee, recognized to provide the committee report.

Thank you, council president.

I know you all are tired of me.

This is my last one.

This ordinance is regarding a drainage acquisition ordinance and to authorize the acceptance of a drainage easement by Seattle Public Utilities.

The properties in Lake City area, Westwood Place, where repeated flooding in the area has impacted the area, residents, and also the new infrastructure.

or the infrastructure as well.

This would help mitigate costs and risk and liability of the floodings.

No public hearing was required because the acquisition cost was around $20,000.

The community recommended this unanimously, and I hope to have your support today.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for that.

And I do want to note that there was robust conversation about not necessarily this particular bill because usually easements are fairly technical and non-controversial.

I do want to say that we did have good discussion on the prior two bills and you never have to apologize for having too much legislation at full council.

That's our job.

So, And SPU, please do not take our lack of comments for a lack of enthusiasm.

Okay, are there any comments from my colleagues?

Looking, seeing none.

Okay, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Council member Kettle?

Aye.

Council member Rink?

Yes.

Council member Rivera?

Aye.

Council member Saka?

Aye.

Council member Solomon?

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Aye.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

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

Okay, there were no items removed from the consent calendar and there's not a resolution for introduction and adoption today.

Is there any further business to come before council?

Looking, okay, I'm not seeing any hands raised.

Okay, let's see.

There is no further business.

We'll move into the executive session.

I am announcing as presiding officer that the city council will now convene into executive session, the purpose of which is to evaluate the qualifications of candidates for the appointment to elected office.

The council's executive session is an opportunity for the council to discuss confidential legal matters and with city attorneys as authorized by law.

Um, a legal monitor from the city attorney's office is always present to ensure that we stay within the proper lane in our discussion.

I expect that the time of the executive session to last, uh, until, um, 4 15, no 4 15. Okay.

And if the executive session is to be extended beyond that time, I will announce the executive.

Yeah.

I thought that it was longer as well.

515 amended from 415. If the executive session is to be extended beyond that time, 515, I will announce the extension and the expected duration.

And at the conclusion of the executive session, the city council meeting will automatically adjourn.

The city council will meet again on July 17th at 9 30 AM to discuss the applicants and select finalists to fill the vacant position for district five.

The council is now in executive session.

Council members, please log on to the executive session via zoom.