Seattle City Council Housing, Health, Energy, and Workers’ Rights Committee 3/21/19

Good morning.

Today is Thursday, March 21st, 2019. The Housing, Health, Energy, and Workers' Rights Committee will come to order.

My name is Teresa Mosqueda, chair of the committee.

We did hear from our vice chair, Deborah Juarez, that she is on her way battling traffic.

Somebody ought to do something about that.

We're working on it.

And we will probably be joined soon by council member Bagshaw.

Perfect timing.

Thank you.

Councilmember Juarez is on her way, so she let us know she's going to be a few minutes late.

Thank you for joining us today.

We're going to start with four items on the agenda.

There are mayoral appointments to the Domestic Workers Standards Board.

There are mayoral appointments to the Seattle City Light Review Panel.

There's going to be a short briefing on initiative 124. There's not going to be any policy action today, but we wanted to tee up sort of a baseline understanding of the initiative that had passed previously and sort of where we're at now.

And then there's going to be a resolution on the Skagit Environmental Endowment Commission.

And that's our full agenda for today.

We're going to get started with public comment, and as per usual, we have Alex Zimmerman with us.

Alex, welcome to the microphone.

You have two minutes, please.

And please keep your comments focused on today's agenda.

Thank you, ma'am.

All right.

Sieg Heil, my lovely, sweet Fuhrer.

Hi.

My name is Alex Zimmerman.

I want to speak about something that is, for me, absolutely interesting.

You appoint today two people.

for City Light Commission members, something like this.

Yes.

Appointment City Light Review Panel meeting.

So I come to this meeting many times before.

And for the last few months, I come in every meeting.

What has made me absolutely unique is exactly what I want to speak.

It's about confusion, what we have.

We have a two-point what is critical.

First, look right now.

Down is a meeting, 300 people, most people from City Light.

Each meeting costs us approximately $300,000.

That's my calculation.

Per year, this meeting costs us probably $10 million, only from one department.

And I talk about this for many times.

Ten years I come, and more than 2,000 times I talk, guys, we spend approximately, Berta Room costs us every year, 200 meetings, $10 million on the loss of salary.

It's very important.

It's number one.

Number two, I come to this panel meeting and I see every time Director Schmidt, it's a good, it's exactly what I told you.

You're supposed to be have every month meeting with every department and every director supposed to be sit and listen to the people.

Guys, I'm sorry, we pay you $200,000, $300,000, $350,000 salary for management.

Is this management, like all business, civilized businesses, what is not in Seattle government, can sit, can listen to people, to new idea?

So right now, I'll bring my two new idea.

Is this idea cost a million and million dollars?

So right now, I speak to everybody.

We need clean this Dory Chamber from this crook who don't have experience with businesses.

Thank you, Alex.

The next person to speak is Shiza Damish.

I'm really sorry if I mispronounced your name.

Thank you for joining us.

And that's all the folks that I have signed up after this.

If you are here to testify at public comment, please feel free to sign up.

Thank you for letting me do that PSA in Spanish.

No problem.

Very briefly.

I followed most of it.

Good morning, Chairman Mosqueda and Councilmember Bagshaw and any other councilmembers who are going to arrive imminently.

My name is Shiza Damji with the Hotel Nexus located in District 5 in the Northgate neighborhood, and I'm also a member of Mayor Durkin's Small Business Advisory Council, but this morning I'm testifying on behalf of the Seattle Hotel Association.

in connection with the proposed discussion or update of the Hotel Employees Health and Safety Initiative, which I understand that this committee will be considering going forward.

I just want to express that Seattle Hotels are very concerned and committed to the health and welfare of our employees.

including ensuring that each employee is safe in the workplace.

And specifically, we actively support providing panic buttons to our employees.

And that's just one important component to our commitment to employee safety, which also includes policies, procedures, and trainings.

And we are committed to preventing sexual harassment and assault in the workplace.

And as we would like to request that as the committee and the City Council discuss the Hotel Employees Health and Safety Initiative, we look forward to being at the table, especially to help address the unintended consequences in various provisions of the law in order to ensure that the outcomes further the intentions of the law and the best interests of the employees.

So we look forward to being part of the solution.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, Shiza.

Really nice to meet you.

And I look forward to seeing you at the next Small Business Advisory Committee meeting.

Yay, good.

Anybody else here to give public testimony?

Alguien mas quiere hablar en este momento?

Okay.

Well, that will close our public testimony for this morning.

Thank you very much for that.

At this point, we're going to move to the first item of business, and that will be the Domestic Worker Standard Board Appointments.

Erin House, welcome to clerking for us for the first time in the HER committee.

Excited to have you.

Could you please read into the items, into the agenda items one through four?

Agenda items one through four, appointments of Sylvia Gonzalez, Teresa Hillis, Elizabeth Hunter Keller, and Lanny Todd as members of the Domestic Workers Standards Board for a briefing and discussion.

Wonderful.

Could we please be joined at the table by Karina Bull and Janine Jan?

from Office of Labor Standards.

We'll also have Antonio Rufin, who will be doing interpretation for us for one of our appointees, if you could join us as well.

Si quieres estar con nosotros.

And we'd like to also invite up the appointees, Silvia Gonzalez, Teresa Hills, Elizabeth Hunter Keller, and Lonnie Todd.

Si están aquí para hablar de la tema de Domestic Workers Standard Board, por favor, están invitados a hablar con nosotros en la mesa.

And welcome Councilmember Juarez.

Very nice to see you.

You're great.

Thank you so much.

So thank you so much all for joining us.

It's great to see so many faces again as we're coming together to talk about the domestic workers standard boards and Thank you to all of you many of you were heavily involved in helping to craft the domestic workers standard board I'm sorry the domestic workers legislation, which included the standard board very excited to see the mayor send your names down for appointment and before we Go around if you guys could introduce yourself for the record.

That'd be great.

And let's start here with Lonnie.

I For the record, Lonnie Todd.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Elizabeth Hunter Keller.

Theresa Hillis.

Hi, I'm Karina Bull.

I'm the policy manager at the Office of Labor Standards.

Hi, I'm Jenny Jan from the Office of Labor Standards.

Hi, everybody.

My name is Silvia Gonzalez from Casa Latina, domestic worker.

I'm Antonio Rufin.

I'm interpreting for Sylvia and the council.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Bienvenidos.

Before we start, would you like to offer any words from the Office of Labor Standards?

Well, I'll begin short and then turn it over to Janae, who has been working extraordinarily hard on bringing this all together.

Simply, I'll say that we're very excited and we are officially launching the board and the public process within the next couple of weeks, and Janae can provide more detail on that.

Yeah, so we are very excited to have the last four members here before you.

We will be, if everything goes smoothly, we will have our first meeting on Monday.

If anything changes, of course, we'll reschedule.

Our rulemaking process for the Domestic Workers Ordinance will start the first week of April.

So we'll have the final schedule out hopefully within the next several business days.

So look out for the RSVP.

If you're interested in participating in that, please do contact us.

And back to the reason why we're here is to greet these wonderful folks.

And I'll hand it back to you.

Wonderful.

Well, thank you.

I think we'll go in the order that we had folks introduce themselves.

My old friend and good friend, Lonnie Todd, she's from District 2, Legislative and Public Policy Director at SEIU.

I've had the opportunity to work with her on a number of labor standard-related policies and healthcare policies over the years.

I'm excited about your name coming down.

I know that You have personal experiences with also needing childcare and needing to work full-time, and so looking forward to having that experience on the council, or on the board.

Would you like to talk a little bit about what is motivating you to want to participate in the Domestic Workers Standard Board?

Of course.

Thank you, Councilmember Skidden.

It's good to see you again, too.

Very excited.

I think the things that, yes, as a parent with a toddler dealing with childcare in the area, I also have a background in childcare policy.

before the previous position and in the current position spend a lot of time working on long-term care issues and in-home care.

And granted, the members I represent are in the Medicaid realm and have a certain different dynamic.

A lot of the issues that we're seeing there pertain to workers here in the in-home care world.

And some of the issues I'm very excited about working on on the board, other than the current mandate, is thinking about responses to discrimination and sexual harassment and how we can address some of those, as well as making sure that the job people signed up for is the job they're asked to do when they get there.

Thank you.

If it's OK with the committee members, I think we'll go around and then take questions.

Elizabeth Hunter Keller, thanks for joining us from District 6. I see here that you are also an employer of domestic workers as a housekeeper and a nanny.

You work at UW in the School of Nursing.

My passion, want to be a public health advocate full time.

That's why we do this job.

And wanting to ensure dignity and respect in the workplace are some of the things that we heard from your previous application Tell us a little bit more about what's interesting to you about serving on this board.

Well, actually, so I'm not working right now because I have an eight-week-old baby.

Congratulations.

And believe it or not, we were not meant to care for our youngest alone or at least with one other person.

And so that's why I feel very strongly about domestic workers.

I employ both a nanny and a housekeeper.

They're like family and the opportunity I see on this board is to provide better for them and to help other women understand, like me, that they are employers and that they have a responsibility to the people that they employ.

Things like portable benefits, making sure that they're only there to do the job and they're paid for whatever they're doing.

Lots of stories about domestic workers that end up doing a lot more than what they're paid for.

Plus, I think of these women like they're my family and I would want to take care of them as I would my own.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And Teresa Hills from District 2, I believe.

Thank you for your ongoing work with us to help dig into the policy details as we crafted this policy, especially from the employer perspective.

Member of Moms Rising, I understand.

Looking forward to hearing more about what you're interested in doing on this board.

Yeah, absolutely.

Thank you for having me.

I was a part of the stakeholders group that helped cross the ordinance last spring and was really thrilled to be a part of that and excited to potentially join as a member of the board.

I am a working mom of two children, so I have a five-and-a-half-year-old and a two-and-a-half-year-old at home.

And over the past almost six years, we've employed several part-time nannies and numerous babysitters.

We currently have an au pair living with us, Isabella, who's from Brazil.

And I also employ a part-time housekeeper who I met through Casa Latina, Maria Duarte.

And I really believe that people like Maria and our nannies deserve to have access to many benefits that they currently don't have access to, and especially freedom from harassment at work, access to a living wage, and access to benefits like sick leave and retirement.

And so that's what motivates me to be here.

I look forward to working alongside others to address the challenge of reaching over 30,000 households in Seattle and I do believe that many if not most of them care deeply about those who work in their homes and it's just a matter of sort of rolling this out and making sure that people are able to access the information they need to help out those that are working in their homes.

Thank you very much.

Silvia, bienvenidos, gracias por estar aquí con nosotros de nuevo.

Silvia, thank you so much for being here with us one more time.

Y gracias por su apoyo durante el año pasado.

Thank you so much for your help and assistance in last year, throughout the year, as we crafted the policy.

¿Por qué estás interesada en servir en esta posición?

Why are you interested in serving in this position?

Good question, thank you.

First of all, I have been working as a domestic worker since 2003. that decided to accompany me today.

Many are probably also victims out there.

I wish all the workers were like Liz, all the employers were like Liz or like many of those who are here, but no.

There is different out there.

At that time, she was a victim of wage theft, and she feels that a lot of her colleagues who are present here today, as well, probably have experienced wage theft.

Unfortunately, not all employers are as good as Liz and some of the other people who are here present.

She's looking forward to having the five main points of the Bill of Workers' Rights implemented, at least the four most important ones, and a number of other important points as well.

And the right to vote says that gardeners and cooks are also included in this.

And I would like a lot that part of my colleagues from Casa Latina, who are gardeners, are interested and are included more in this right to vote.

And she's looking forward to having other skills, like yard work or landscape workers, as well as cooks and other people who do similar work to also be covered by this kind of legislation or regulations.

I'm here on my behalf and especially theirs.

Muy bien, gracias.

Thank you so much.

Very, very good.

You guys are all very impressive.

I want to come and sit on this board with you as you talk through the policy details and implementation strategies, outreach, and education.

It's going to be really critical.

So one thing I just want to flag for folks, and I think this is something we should be really proud of.

When I was in D.C.

last week, I had the chance to meet with Congresswoman Jayapal, who is co-sponsoring the National Domestic Workers Bill of Rights.

And we met with the folks from the National Domestic Workers Alliance who had told us they're really taking our legislation and they are putting it into federal policy.

And they're going to do things that we weren't able to do, hopefully, related to unemployment insurance, healthcare, retirement, and some paid leave policies.

These are really items that I think at the state level we'd love to see, but if the federal level can do it, that's great.

And you guys are going to help us figure out if there is a city level solution as well.

So I'm just incredibly proud that this work has not only inspired other cities, but hopefully will be applied at our national level.

I do want to let folks know that we are not going to vote today.

What we would be doing instead is voting on March 25th, just because of the timing of the introduction and referral calendar.

but we want to make sure that all of your questions get answered here today so that as we go into Monday, we feel fully confident to express our support for the candidates and would open it up to our colleagues to ask questions.

I would like to start with some of those of you who are working on child care and what you see that the city can do to maybe help support financially families that are hiring domestic workers, the city and the state clearly.

My experience is now 12 years old in this field, but I had my dad who was living with us, we hired domestic help to come in and we paid I think even at that time, about $20 an hour.

We were fortunate because we were able to do that.

But I know a lot of other families, that's a giant stretch.

And in addition to the hourly pay we were paying, I think it was unemployment tax and to the Department of Labor for another requirement.

And it was pretty amazing how difficult it was, even for people that are two lawyers in the family to figure out, what is it you have to pay?

What is it you have to record?

Who do you pay and when?

So I'd like to hear a little bit more about your thinking in the child care arena.

And then as a global board, what can we do to simplify that so people actually have a checklist of what they're going to be required to pay?

And then are there ways that we can find some supplemental help?

I know.

Well, first of all, I would say that I'm not an expert in this at all.

I mean, which I think is part of the challenge that we're going to face is many people in the home don't even consider themselves employers who have somebody working, you know, 10 or 12 hours a week or housekeeper coming in two days a month.

But I agree with you.

My friends and colleagues and I are facing the challenge right now of trying to figure out how to afford child care in this current atmosphere.

And that's part of the reason that I have an au pair living with us right now.

We adore having her there.

But the biggest reason we chose it is because it was the most economical solution for us.

And also, it was made easy by an agency who spelled out every detail of how we go through the process of it.

And that could be an example for us of how we could utilize some of the ways that those more formal childcare arenas that have taken place on the federal level have rolled out something that's simple for people to participate in.

But I think it is certainly going to be a challenge for us and one that I'm excited to take on.

When you have 30,000 individual households who are all sort of doing something different, it does take a lot of work to bring together something that would be simple enough and easy enough for them to utilize and also compelling for people to want to participate in and voluntarily.

join on so that we can sort of have a wave.

But I think there's ways to do that.

There's a lot of online communities right now that people are very active in.

I don't know if the two of you are, yeah, participate in many of them.

But it's a way that people find childcare.

It's a way that people share that they're interested in participating in this system.

And I think there are ways to utilize some of that, too, to be able to roll this out effectively.

I don't know if you have anything.

I'm happy to speak at a more universal level that I think the care world, whether it's long-term care world or the child care world, have come from a certain amount of systematic discrimination based on the fact that it's women doing the work.

And that for the last 50 years, women have been willing to do the work regardless of pay because of the discriminatory nature of the system.

And so what we have is a system where you have the workers not being able to make due.

And you have the consumers not being able to pay for it.

And it's because we've treated what is potentially a government utility, i.e. school, as a private market entity and funded it accordingly.

And so I think that there's a lot we can do at the city level.

But I do think we have to recognize that the care world is a utility and something that goes along with a strong community and start investing in it at the state and federal levels adequately.

So, I'd love to talk to you more.

One of the things that Council Member Mesquite and I are working on, of course, is trying to get a child care facility here in City Hall.

So, we would love to have your expertise advising us on what you've learned, what you know, what requirements, and we know there's requirements are changing.

But I think, Lonnie, we have reached out to SEIU.

We're trying to schedule some time, and I hope you'll participate with us.

And that's the SEIU 925. I'm happy to be a liaison in that and make sure we get the right connections.

Good.

Thanks.

Thank you very much for those answers.

Council Member Juarez, any questions from you?

I just had more of a procedural question, Madam Chair.

So this is a nine-member board, and we have filled eight already.

We'll have four mayoral, four city council, and then the board itself will pick one.

Are they all women?

I was just writing that down, speaking of women doing the work.

Yeah, just tell me why.

I'm actually looking at you guys to see if you have a running list as well.

Yeah, there's one, one, Elijah is, yeah.

Elijah, that's right.

Oh, okay.

Yes.

I think it's a point well taken because as we talk about undoing institutional racism or sexism, we often also talk about how those who've been oppressed should not be the responsible ones for making the corrections and always speaking up.

We also talk about making sure that those who've been directly affected by policy or inaction should be at the table to create those policy solutions.

So I think you're raising a really important point.

We want to have those who have the most knowledge and the lived experience at the table, which I think is what you all represent.

And I also think that it's critical that we don't just assume that, you know, this is one additional thing that we can expect our friends to pick up because they've already also said they've got three or four full-time jobs.

in the work that you do on a daily basis.

Great point.

The other point I wanted to raise, I'm looking forward to working with you folks, is Council Member Bagshaw brought up one issue.

I'm more interested in the more, well, I'm interested in all the issues, but one thing I'm going to be looking forward to for your guidance is gonna be on the worker retention, worker safety, wage theft, and some of the questions that we raised when we were putting the committee together, that we are actually gonna be punting a lot of stuff to you folks, because we don't do what you do.

And so I understand the childcare piece, but I'm also really gonna drill down on the domestic workers and workers within hotels.

I'm really concerned about that and recent legislation and recent court hearings and current opinions.

And I really want this to be a collaborative effort where we work with industry and we work with you folks on how we address that.

So we actually pass legislation that withstands legal scrutiny and not only first and foremost protects our workers, but second of all, respects and promotes the business itself.

Because I'm interested in hearing all sides.

and having something that actually is good law, that's fair and equitable, has due process, and like I said, withstands not only legal scrutiny, but where we can be again, Seattle can be again, cutting edge and actually passing a law that's right.

And that's what I want to do.

It's a little bit tiring when we sometimes pass laws, but that's our job.

But when we get another opportunity, as we would say, another bite at the apple, I want to do it right.

So that's what I'm looking forward to.

I would also add that working together is important on that end because I know a lot of the housekeepers that work in our homes also work in hotels.

It's kind of like, you know, on the days that they're not at our homes, they're at hotels.

There's a big overlap there.

And you just mentioning that, again, just brings up...

That overlap, that's something I would not have thought of right away.

I was more focused on, you know, hotels.

But you're right.

They work in homes.

They work in senior centers.

They work in facilities that have children, group homes.

And so, you know, those are the kind of categories that we're going to be looking for your expertise in how we craft this new law that we hope to take another run at.

Thank you.

Sylvia?

Gracias por traer ese punto a la mesa.

Es muy importante para las trabajadoras del hogar, ya que OSHA, Occupational Health and Safe Administration, no tiene considerada a las trabajadoras del hogar dentro de sus protecciones.

La mayoría de sus enfoques son en el área de la construcción.

Entonces, como estamos fuera, no hay muchas protecciones para nosotros.

Y todos esos productos químicos, nos hacen tanto daño, tanto externo como interno de nuestro cuerpo.

Entonces, cómo encontrar una manera que esta agencia sea un poco más enfocada al área doméstica, al área de las trabajadoras del hogar, incluso a los jardineros que trabajan en los jardines con tantos pesticidas.

Es muy importante.

Yeah, so thank you for bringing this important question.

Sylvia is pointing out that OSHA at the federal level does not really cover domestic workers.

Their emphasis has been historically on construction work.

And domestic workers are routinely exposed to dangerous chemical products that have an impact, negative impact on health.

So she would like to see how this agency focuses more and more generally the legislation focuses more on domestic worker safety and that that should also extend to landscape workers who are equally exposed also to dangerous chemicals.

Excellent.

Any other questions from our colleagues?

Thank you so much.

Thanks for bringing that point up.

It'll tie in nicely to an item later on our agenda as well as we think specifically about industry standards for hotels.

I love that you brought up as well that the individuals we're talking about are also, you know, maybe supplementing income because we still have a lot to do to raise the wages in senior centers and hotels and things like that so that, you know, folks having a good living wage job.

We want the work at domestic work to be full-time work that's a good living wage as well.

And I think that your example of the au pair, that's definitely full-time work.

So thank you so much for your interest in serving on this committee, for your past work to make this bill possible.

And while we're not taking a formal vote today, your names are going to be on the agenda on Monday.

The 25th at 2 p.m., we'll take a final vote there.

And it sounds like you have a meeting coming up on Monday.

If you could also transmit to us, if we haven't yet seen it, the full list of when the committee meetings are coming up.

Maybe we'd like to come and, you know, check in with folks and say hello and just thank you again for your work.

So with that, mil gracias por su tiempo.

Gracias por su tiempo.

Thank you so much for your time.

And we will talk about you on Monday.

Thank you all.

So let's move into our second item of business.

Aaron, if you could read into the agenda items five and six, and we will get started with our Seattle City Light Review Panel.

Agenda items five and six, appointments of Mikkel Hansen and Chris Mefford as members of the City Light review panel for briefing and discussion.

Thank you so much.

Could we please be joined at the table by our friends from Seattle City Light, Leah Bricka, and anybody else coming up with you today?

Okay, welcome please.

Yes, Deborah Smith, we'd love to have you.

Thank you so much for joining us.

We understand that the two City Light, oh my goodness, check this out, Deborah.

You're going to need to wear one of these.

Go fighters.

Well done Seattle City Light.

Snow Fighters, excellent, thank you.

And I should note, it says Snow Fighters for our viewing audience at home.

Seattle City Light, thanks to your incredible team for all the work you did, especially in the Seattle Freeze to keep the lights on and turn the lights back on for folks.

And Council Member Bagshaw's committee, unselected committee that she's chairing on Friday, we're gonna have a report back as well on the response during the storm, zeh, plural, because they lasted for more than two weeks.

And you know want to just highlight that it's not just the folks who are doing the navigation work But it was also your incredible team that was out there.

So thank you for bringing these hats And it was interesting I know you all got the outage report because councilmember Bagshaw responded on that and I think we had some conversation about it but anyway, if you read that you saw that it was kind of extraordinary the number of minutes that were excluded in calculating the outage information because of the storm so very And that it happened over a number of days.

So it wasn't just a one and done deal.

It was three days, I think.

So anyway, very interesting.

Thank you for that.

Why don't we, oh, go ahead.

You don't want hat hair?

I know, right?

I gotta.

Hat hair.

Why don't we have you guys introduce yourself for the record and then we'll go ahead and get started.

Lee Barreca, City Light.

Deborah Smith, Seattle City Light.

Excellent.

And so today we are moving forward on two long-awaited appointments, and I know you're waiting for one more from us.

We want to make sure that our volunteers at the City Light Review Board get a chance, sorry, Review Panel, get a chance to have a full team.

And today we're talking about Mikel.

Michael Hanson.

Michael Hanson.

And Chris Mefford.

And Chris Mefford, both from District 6. And since they are not able to make it today, we do, we usually like to have our first time appointees be present.

However, given that these positions have been vacant for a while and you guys highly recommended them, it'd be great to hear a little bit more from your perspective on their qualifications.

And we will take your word as their word as if they were here and look forward to hearing more about their activities.

Both candidates regret that they were unable to attend.

They weren't, they had pre-planned business trips.

So, but I do have, they each submitted a letter of interest to participate on the panel.

And I have little excerpts from those letters that I can share with you.

And those have been shared with your staff.

Okay.

Chris Mefford is a nominee for position one, which is the economist position.

Chris is an independent partner in economic development to cities, counties, governments, and businesses.

As a consultant, he serves all clients with economic and fiscal impact analyses, facilitation, and strategic planning leadership for communities and economic development.

Over the course of his nearly 25-year career in Seattle, he has worked with elected officials and leaders to some of the region's most transformative businesses.

He strives to provide an objective, transparent, and balanced viewpoint that services the region's economic, social, and environmental needs and interests.

He's committed to bringing the same critical and supportive considerations to support decision making for Seattle City Light and the region's energy resources.

Chris.

Thank you.

Michael Hansen is a nominee for position five, which is our commercial customer representative.

Mike is the Chief Operating Officer for SABI Corporation, which is a longtime Puget Sound family-owned and operated business with a long history of community engagement.

SABI has a wide range of businesses in the Seattle City Light Service Territory, including the development and operation of data centers, medical office spaces, warehouses, and general office space.

In his role, Mike manages more than 4 million square feet of commercial and data center properties.

Primarily, those properties are primarily in our franchise city, territory of Tukwila.

Over his past 15 plus years, Mike has been actively involved with City Light with our management and has participated in numerous strategic planning and rate design sessions.

Mike is looking forward to using his background and interest in City Light to be a productive, engaged participant in fulfilling the review panel's mission.

Excellent.

Thank you.

And if both of these individuals are confirmed on Monday, the 25th of March, will they be able to join the review panel right away?

Yes, they're invited to our next meeting, which is the 26th.

Perfect.

Okay, great.

Questions?

I have only one comment.

I don't know Mr. Hanson, but I have worked with Chris Mefford for many years, and he is an excellent candidate.

I'm delighted that he's willing to do this.

His involvement has been with Puget Sound Regional Council for years, and I'm most impressed that he's willing to do this, so.

Great.

Excellent.

And I don't know Chris, but I know Mike, and he's a great guy.

And so I think they'll both be, from what I understand, I think they'll both be great contributors to the group.

Yeah, excellent.

Any other questions?

Okay.

The last thing I want to say is thank you.

I understand that the review panel has done intense work over the last year, six months to eight months especially, but it does sound like you guys are on track to submit the April 1st report, which is in just about 10 days, so thank you for that.

Any other comments on the work that's coming up next for the review panel once that piece is completed?

I would say that we're already overlapping.

For instance, we did have a meeting some of us met yesterday.

We're working on a pilot project.

We're working with the energy project to look at a potential pilot for the limited income, underserved population.

And so we're already really working on the next piece, which is the strategic initiative around rate design and what kinds of pilots we could experiment with between now and then.

And so I think partnering with folks in the community who've had a lot of success and they've looked at models that are already in place with Avista and others, we're looking at a percentage of income program, so a PIP.

Anyway, I think it's exciting and we're going to be putting together a group for that piece that will include stakeholders and community members so that we can make sure we design something that's really responsive to that community.

So, yeah, I would just say we're already moving ahead on the next piece and so we're excited to get the policy piece in place so that we can go full steam ahead.

Excellent well one more time.

Thank you to your team and then also to the review panel members Thanks to the mr. Hanson and mr. Medford for serving on this panel and We will be following up with one more additional appointment for you to complete the review panel again We're not going to take a vote formally today But you can rest assured that these names will be on the agenda for Monday March 25th at 2 p.m.

For the full council's consideration Thank you for all your work.

Yes

Yes, thank you for the hat.

Did everybody get one?

Everybody who was working in the snow?

Lovely.

We actually had some appreciation events.

We had appreciation events yesterday and the day before for our crews.

One at the South Service Center and one at the North Service Center.

And so they got hats.

Nice.

So it was really nice.

And burritos.

They were delicious.

What else did you want?

Thank you so much.

Aaron, why don't you go ahead and read in item number seven into the agenda, and thank you so much, Dan, for joining us at the table.

Dan Elder has...

Dan Eder.

I don't know why I was putting an L in there.

Dan Eder has provided us with a memo as well for the committee staff, for the committee members, if you haven't yet had a chance to look at it, and for the viewing audience, we're putting it on the screen for you as well.

Aaron, why don't you go ahead and read in item number seven, please.

And agenda item seven, background and status of initiative 124 related to protections of hotel workers for briefing and discussion.

Thank you again, Mr. Reader, for joining us.

We know that Council Member Juarez teed up the conversation on this.

There's a lot of interest in this discussion.

Many of us are well aware, but I just want to reiterate for the viewing public that in 2016 the Seattle voters overwhelmingly passed initiative 124 by 77%.

This extended on-the-job protections for hotel workers, but it isn't exactly widely known that the protections included that were included in initiative 124 are not currently in effect due to legal challenges.

This leaves a really vulnerable population that, you know, similar to the population we talked about this morning, out without these protections for right now.

So I'm really interested in engaging with this full council and specifically through this committee.

A number of our colleagues, for example, council member We have a lot of people who are interested in this topic who may be joining us for future discussions.

We are interested in making sure that we have a cooperative conversation, engagement with the mayor's office, with councilmember colleagues, with the folks that you heard from the hotel industry, and with hotel workers to evaluate what it will that 124 had envisioned.

And I think this approach is consistent with the clear intent of Seattle's voters.

The first step is for the committee to have a baseline understanding of what initiative 124 includes, what the current status is of the pending legal challenges, and we've really appreciated working with Dan in the past Thank you for providing us with this comprehensive memo to walk us through the initiative.

And in upcoming meetings, I just want to flag for our council colleagues, we expect to dive into deeper discussions about policy details and potentially what the city could do, can do, and will do with partnership with folks in the community to address the current situation.

So today, again, is just a baseline understanding.

We'll probably repeat some of these baseline understandings going forward for our council colleagues who couldn't be here with us today, but seemed like a great opportunity to sort of level the playing field and set the stage for what's to come.

Go ahead, Mr. Eder.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda, Council Members.

As the Chair mentioned, Initiative 124 provided protections for Seattle's hotel workers.

I'm going to spend a few minutes walking through a central staff memo that is attached to your agenda.

The memo describes the current status of the initiative, and it also summarizes the initiative's key provisions.

So first, in terms of current status, at a high summary level, the initiative was approved, as the chair mentioned, by Seattle voters on November 6th, 2016, but it is currently not in effect.

The city attorney's office is defending the initiative in both state and the federal court system.

At the state level, an association of hotel owners challenged the validity of the initiative on multiple grounds.

King County Superior Court initially sided with the city, but subsequently the Court of Appeals agreed with hotel owners that the initiative violated the requirement that a valid initiative may only address one subject.

The city has filed a petition for review that is currently pending at the State Supreme Court, but in the meantime the law is not in effect.

At the federal level, there's a separate federal district court challenge that is currently on hold pending a decision at the state supreme court about whether to review the case, and if so, what the ruling will be.

If the Supreme Court doesn't take up the case or takes up the case and determines sides with the Court of Appeals ruling, then the initiative is effectively invalidated and there's no need for the federal court case to proceed.

Can I ask a question, Dan?

And this may be something you want to just punt back to the law department.

I know that we're all very aware of multiple subjects in an initiative, so what did the appeals court find was a problem?

Because I thought it was one subject, domestic workers, and I'm sorry, the hotel workers.

making sure that they were protected?

Where do the multiple subjects lie?

I'm not really in the best position to give you the summary of the lawsuit specifics, but any initiative is necessarily going to have more than literally one section that it deals with.

There's definitions and there's enforcement of the main provisions.

Then there are the substantive parts, and the Court of Appeals made a decision that the substantive parts exceeded the scope of the single subject rule.

I can't tell you chapter and verse about why they came to that conclusion, but it is the subject of a pending petition for a Supreme Court review, and we hope that that decision will be overturned.

I was going to add that Councilmember Baxhaw had an opportunity to read the Court of Appeals decision and the city's brief to the Washington State Supreme Court.

So you're right, it is much more sophisticated.

I learned more than I need to know about the one subject rule, log rolling and writing.

But it did take apart all seven parts and I think some of the most troublesome part was probably part one.

on the hotel guest registry and due process issues.

But all that aside, I did have a chance to read the city attorney's brief to the Washington State Supreme Court.

And of course, they are going to be appealing this.

But the reason why I'm saying all this is not because I want to show that I'm smart, but.

You are smart.

You do read the cases.

It's mainly because, and I have this for you Council Member, and I think I already gave you this.

And the only reason why I put that together is because I really am interested, just like Council Member Muscata and Council Member Gonzalez, is that this issue has been now in three different courtrooms since 2016. So it's been reviewed.

It got passed.

It went to the State Superior Court.

It went to Court of Appeals.

It went to Washington State Supreme Court.

Then it went back to the Court of Appeals.

And so when you look at the two opinions, this is just my opinion.

I think that there's a way that we can really craft a phenomenal law that addresses the deficiencies that were called out in the Court of Appeals.

that addresses and highlights some of the great arguments that the city made.

And that's why I think it's more than just illustrative.

It's the law.

And it's good when you read a court's case.

I think the Court of Appeals case is only like 20 pages or something.

But my point is, They're very systematic in taking apart all sections, but also talking about why all seven parts don't necessarily work together.

Now, whether I agree with that, that's a different issue.

But the city's brief is very straightforward as well and addresses those issues.

So there is a way for us to remedy the single subject rule.

I think there is a way to discuss the other six parts and work with our domestic workers and the people that were at the table here today and with the chairwoman, and also to have our industry folks at the table.

Having the hotel people there to explain to us how they can have a safe button, how they can work with chemicals, how the industry actually works on the floor with the 5,000 square feet.

All of those issues we can solve if we just sit around the table and work through them.

So that's what I'm hoping we can do.

Thank you so much, Council Member Juarez.

And thank you for your research as well and the memo that you provided.

I know that, Dan, you have about a 10-minute window here.

So I'm going to ask that you go ahead and walk us through your memo.

And I also want to flag for the committee, we have talked to the legal team in the law department who are happy to come meet with us and I think we'll be scheduling something for our committee as our Council as a whole soon, but thank you for that and go ahead and walk us through the details here.

Okay, great.

Welcome Councilmember Herbold.

So, I'm going to briefly address the main parts of the agenda, sorry, of the legislation initiative.

All of the provisions of the initiative apply to workers in hotels with more than 60 guest rooms.

There are some provisions that apply only to so-called large hotels, and those are defined as hotels that have 100 or more than 100 guest rooms.

So, part one protects hotel employees from being attacked while working alone in guest rooms.

As Councilmember mentioned, one of the provisions has to do with panic buttons, so safe buttons.

Hotels are required to provide each worker who enters a guest room unaccompanied with a so-called panic button allowing the employee to alert other staff when they need immediate aid.

Hotels are also required to post signs in guest rooms alerting guests that employees are equipped with these panic buttons.

This part also includes a provision that I describe as a list of accused guests.

Hotels are required to maintain a list of all guests who have been accused of any act of violence against an employee of the hotel within a five-year period.

Hotels must ban guests from the hotel for three years from the date of any allegation of assault, sexual assault, or sexual harassment that is accompanied either by a sworn statement or corroborating evidence.

During the fourth and fifth years after the initial allegation, hotels are no longer required to ban a guest who remains on the list, but hotels are required to alert employees who are assigned to work alone in such a guest's room.

There are some circumstances in which a guest may be accused of an act of violence, but not be immediately required to check out of the hotel.

In such a circumstance, the hotel must either, I'm sorry, the hotel must reassign the employee who made the accusation to work on another floor, or if there isn't another floor in the hotel, in another area, for the duration of the accused guest's stay.

And the last provision in this part is paid time off.

In the event that a hotel worker reports an act of violence, the hotel must pay that employee at the employee's regular rate of pay for the time spent filing a police report and consulting with a counselor of the employee's choosing.

The second part protects workers from on-the-job injuries.

The initiative requires hotels to use reasonable safety practices and to control chemical hazards.

The initiative also limits how large hotels, again, these are hotels with more than 100 guest rooms, how these large hotels can assign housekeeping work.

Specifically, no housekeeper can be required to clean more than 5,000 square feet during a single eight-hour shift.

Large hotels must pay time and a half for the entire shift in the event that a hotel, sorry, a housekeeper voluntarily accepts an assignment of more than 5,000 square feet during a single shift.

Part three is intended to improve access to affordable healthcare.

I have a question.

I know we had some people in the hotel industry today.

What I am interested in is, is it possible and from an economic standpoint as well to assign two workers per room?

know that two people can make a bed way faster than one person can make a bed.

And the same thing is true if you split up the work.

We work really hard for our firefighters, as an example, to make sure that they have multiple people.

doing whatever they need to do to respond.

I would really like to see some sort of an economic analysis about why you couldn't and shouldn't have two people going into a room, particularly if there's someone there.

I have not seen studies on this.

I would really be interested in it.

Yeah, I know that that's something that was explored during the rulemaking.

So the Office of Labor Standards issued rules that went into effect in July 1, I believe, of 2018. Those rules are also on hold pending the outcome of the litigation.

But I know that that was one of the things that they grappled with and that the hotel owners have also explored and sought clarification on what happens if there are more than one house cleaner assigned to a room, how does the 5,000 square feet rule apply?

Does it get split between the two?

Is there no discretion where each person also is assumed to be working on 5,000 square feet even with assistance?

Well, for those who have done this work, I'll be interested to get more.

I mean, it just strikes me as something that seems like a simple fix.

And I'm sure that there's economic reasons why not.

But, you know, I really question that.

Okay, again, Part 3 is about access to affordable health care.

This applies only to the large hotel employers.

Large hotel employers are required to provide additional compensation to low-wage workers, which is defined in the initiative as those living in households with incomes below 400 percent of the federal poverty line.

There's a formula for determining the amount of the additional compensation that's described in the memo, but I'd summarize it by saying that it's intended to ensure that low-wage workers can afford a gold-level health plan.

Large hotel employers are not required to provide such additional compensation in the event that they directly provide a qualifying employer-sponsored health plan.

And if folks have questions about gold, silver, platinum, and bronze, I can help answer those too.

Too much information about that in my head.

Part four protects the jobs of workers when hotel ownership changes hands.

The initiative provides that a new hotel owner must offer jobs to the existing workers at the hotel before replacing them with new staff unless the new owner either employs overall fewer workers or discharges one or more existing employees for cause.

The last section that I'll address is enforcement.

The initiative provides hotel employees with a private right of action to bring suit against their employer in the event that they allege that there has been action that is not in keeping with the initiative provisions.

This is unlike or something that is unlike other city labor laws, for instance, minimum wage, secure scheduling, and others.

The city does not have a direct role in enforcing most of the protections of Initiative 124. The Office of Labor Standards can investigate and enforce allegations of wage theft under separate municipal law, but the city cannot directly enforce instances when a hotel does not live up to other requirements of Initiative 124. As an example, if a hotel did not provide required panic buttons, that would be something which the city has the ability to investigate, but not to enforce or take action to rectify.

Can I ask you a quick question?

We're still on five.

I thought that the city or the state already addressed that hotels cannot ask workers about their citizenship or immigration status.

I thought we dealt with that with Motel 6 or Hotel 8 or whatever they're called when they were doing that.

I thought we addressed it on the state level.

I am not aware of that, but I'd be happy to follow up on that.

Let's follow up on that.

Because, you know, there's seven parts here, and some of them you can wheedle down, and some of them you cannot.

But some of this stuff is solid, and we can find it in state law.

I think the issue on the single issue rule is where it got hung up in the hotel registry.

But some of these, standing alone, are good law.

It's the combination of all seven that hurt us.

I'm not going to say I told you so, but I did say so, but I'm just going to leave it at that.

So did you, but I'm just going to leave it at that.

Parts five, I'm sorry, parts six and seven are, I would say, a series of technical provisions that have definitions and some miscellaneous provisions like severability.

And I'm not going to walk through the details unless there are any questions on those.

May I?

Yes, please.

Thank you.

Questions about the enforcement and the rulemaking that the Office of Labor Standards has done.

The rulemaking that they've done thus far, is it only related to their ability to investigate wage theft under this ordinance?

Or is it, have they made rules about other parts of the ordinance?

And if they've made rules about the other parts of the ordinance, I have a little difficulty understanding the the legal framework for that, because it's my understanding the rules are about a department's administration and enforcement of a law, and if they're not administering or enforcing it, I'm not quite sure why they would need to make rules about it.

Well, Janae Johns from the Office of Labor Standards is in the audience, and if she is willing to come up and answer that question, she can answer it directly.

I think generally the rulemaking is intended to provide some clarification of what the city understands to be how to apply the law.

And it is a little bit unusual that we are not in an enforcement role for this particular law.

But I still think the rulemaking is intended to, again, clarify how how to apply the broad strokes of the law.

I think what we'll do as well for the full council's benefit is we'll print out the ordinance, I'm sorry, the initiative, we'll print out all the rules that have been created so far.

We'll include the memo from Dan Eater and we'll begin a little binder for the entire committee.

Council, I should say.

Yeah, absolutely.

Welcome again.

So only one piece of clarifying information is the initiative itself granted us rulemaking for the entirety of the ordinance.

so not just those that we could enforce under wage theft.

Understood.

What is the purpose of rulemaking about parts of the ordinance that you're neither administering nor enforcing?

I just have a...

idea of what rulemaking is about, and so I'm having a hard time understanding what the function of those rules would be in that instance.

Sure.

And typically, what Dan mentioned before is it provides clarity, of course, on how the agency will interpret the law.

It also provides courts some guidance, although they do not have to take it, around other provisions of the ordinance as well.

And to the extent that we are granted investigatory authority, we would clarify that as well, even though we weren't allowed enforcement, so.

Okay, thank you.

That's very helpful.

I see Dan taking notes, so thank you for following up with us on those pieces.

Let me ask you a quick question.

When the courts were going through this and taking apart all seven parts, And we kind of touched on this, like one of the fixes is in part six, it states that the ordinance didn't define sexual assault or sexual harassment.

I mean, that's an easy fix, right?

So that would put us back with having the definition.

I don't know why it wasn't put in there, but I'm guessing you can just, I don't know if you have a legal standard that you would pull from the Seattle Municipal Code, what that definition would be.

I'm guessing, maybe not, well, I shouldn't say that, I don't know, but my point is that to me seems like an easy fix.

Even though Dan, thank you Dan for bringing up the sections, but like on section seven that is labeled miscellaneous, it does have the severability clause, but it also talks about that employees and protects employees that they can't waive the issue about In fact, an employer can't make an employee waive the issue about maintaining hotels, maintaining a list of accused guests, that that's not waivable.

That, to me, makes sense.

That stands as so.

And this is a little bit of my frustration, but it would happen the first time is I've just I just felt like we didn't have the industry folks here to kind of guide us and answer some of these some of the just like some of the questions that Councilmember Baxhaw just raised.

Just basic meat and potato questions, you know.

How does an industry clean a room?

How big is 5,000 feet?

Do two people go in?

Do one people go in?

Just basic stuff.

Because as I was reading this and then reading the brief that the city filed to the Washington State Supreme Court, some of it is the text itself about the law.

But just putting that aside, just real world, how does it work in the industry?

And how do we tailor a law like we did with scheduling?

Remember when we did the, what was it called?

Secure scheduling.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Secure scheduling.

You know, it was helpful for me when I met with Subway and Target and Ross and Starbucks, as well as as well as the people that were, what the law was intended for.

I didn't feel that the first time around that we had those type of discussions, that we actually, I mean, that's for me.

I don't know, I can't speak for everybody else.

I was always concerned about that registry.

I think that there should be something, but the way that that got drafted, I knew that that was gonna get struck down.

I had real concerns about anyone maintaining a registry in which somebody doesn't know they're on a list for five years with no due process, no standard of criminality.

And I'm not saying that someone's guilty or innocent, but I had a real issue with that.

Because that's something you could actually pull out and the city attorney's office could work on to have a special classification for workers in a hotel that can be a misdemeanor.

I mean, those are some, I mean, I just think that there are a lot of issues that we could have done better and this is why we get another opportunity to do it.

So I'm looking forward to working with you folks on those issues.

So in part of our packet, we will also include the city's legal brief as well.

Just want to reiterate, we are going to have a chance to go into the policy details and talk about each one of these elements a little bit more.

And as we've done with domestic workers standard or domestic workers bill of rights, for example, we'll be bringing in various voices.

I did, thank you very much.

And we can also include that for folks as well in the little packet we're going to create.

Did you have any specific comments in response to any of the rulemaking process or anything like that that you needed to add?

Okay.

What do you think is, what are the next steps?

What do you see, Council Member Mosqueda?

I just want to clarify, it's my understanding that the legal decisions that have been made thus far are not about the The content, it's about the multiple subjects in the title.

Is that correct?

That's exactly right.

OK.

I think it's important to, whereas you might be right about what might eventually be happening in court in the future, the courts have not taken a position on any of the elements They're focused very much on the multiple subjects in the title thus far.

Let's have a clarification.

That's true, but what they do talk about, which is important, is how certain subjects don't complement each other and how they don't further the intent of the law.

if they're not all working together, that they're disconnected.

And it doesn't mean I agree or don't agree, but when it talks about this rational unity, how all seven of these parts are supposed to work together, so in that sense, they do touch upon the text, the substance of the law.

My opinion has been, no, they did not say that there were due process issues with the registry.

They bring that up, but it's clear from reading it, just as a seasoned lawyer, that's what they're getting at.

That's my opinion.

And I think that's, I've been a lawyer for 33 years, I have a little bit of sense of what's going on here, and as a former judge and trial lawyer.

So, and I'm just trying to offer that experience and wisdom that I don't want to get caught up in, well, they didn't go to each seven issues and say all of these were bad and go right into the substance, but it's pretty clear, and certainly the way the city responded in their brief, that They did, they are talking about them together in a way of that they are not in this rational unity piece.

It isn't as sterile as, oh, you violated the single subject rule and that's all they stuck to because it was 28. If that were the case, they could have written an opinion in three pages instead of 28.

So what you'll see from us, what you'll see from us is a full outline of the next meetings that we have scheduled to talk about this topic.

We will include that full outline in a memo as a cover sheet to the materials that we're going to provide for folks.

Dan, your memo will be at the top of that stack because we really appreciate the overview you've provided today.

Again, we're going to get a chance to get briefed by the legal team so that we can ask some of these specific questions.

And at our next meeting on April 4th, we will have a chance to hear from some of the folks in the industry, I should say who are working in the industry, and then we'll also have more stakeholders at the table on the May 13th date.

and more in discussion on June 3rd.

So you can expect basically, like we did last year, for this to be a reoccurring theme so that we don't rush any conversations, that we really have a chance to understand both the legal analysis after talking to the legal team, and then have more conversation around policy.

Today, again, was intended to be a very high level, just to do some level setting.

Super.

And there was one individual from the Nexus Host Hotel in your district that was here.

I hope that we can have some of the hotel managers as well to talk to us so we can ask some very direct questions of them.

I think that'll, this is the point I think you were going at, Council Member Juarez, we need to have everybody at the table so we can begin to look at solutions and not just make assumptions about what's going to work.

Yeah.

I also want to acknowledge and thank the executive.

The mayor's office is very interested in working with us on this.

So I think it will be a joint effort between council and the mayor.

And just like we have with every opportunity, multiple chances for folks to weigh in and provide feedback.

I'm looking forward to working with you to schedule the legal briefing.

Madam Chair, may I make a point?

If you don't mind.

Go ahead.

Oh, yeah.

Dan, I was going to ask you, when you come back to us with more information, like when I asked about when Motel 6 or whoever was asking people's immigration status and we responded, can you, when you go through that, we can talk offline a little bit more, but when you go through those seven parts and addressing what Councilmember Herbold brought was a good point, And some of it is nuanced in those opinions.

Those other six parts where you can say, we have done this before and it's been fine, or we've done this other places and we've been good, that kind of thing, not real detailed, but do you know what I'm saying?

So we have some kind of guidelines about where we have some room to say, okay, we're solid on this one, but how do we build on it that doesn't violate state law?

That would be real helpful.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Excellent.

Thank you both very much.

Thank you, Dan, for your memo.

And again, thanks for joining us, Councilmember Herbold.

We'll get that information out to folks, work with the executives well on timing, and make sure that people have the full overview of when we hope to bring this discussion forward.

Thanks for bringing it up.

Yeah, absolutely.

Thank you.

And thanks, Councilmember Juarez, for your memo as well.

So we do have one more item on our agenda, and thanks to our friends from Seattle City Light for sticking with us here.

We are going to hear from Deborah Smith, Kate Ingle, and Eric McConaughey, if you guys will join us at the table, and Aaron, if you could read into the record item number eight.

Agenda item 8, resolution 31872, a resolution approving the proposed budget framework of the Skagit Environmental Endowment Commission for its fiscal years 2019 through 2023 for briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Welcome back.

Thank you so much.

Let's go ahead and have you introduce yourself for the record, and then we'll get started.

Good morning.

I'm Eric McConaghy.

I'm the council central staff.

And I'm Kate Engel.

I'm the Science Policy Manager with Seattle City Light, and also the US Secretary for the Skagit Environmental Endowment Commission.

Great.

And I'm Deborah Smith with Seattle City Light.

The leader.

So we have a possible resolution for the committee's consideration today.

Eric, do you want to get us kicked off here with an overview?

Or did you prefer Seattle City Light have some introductory comments?

I, of course, would prefer that City Light have introductory comments because they're the experts and they live and breathe this.

So I think I will just go ahead and do that.

Okay, that sounds good.

So, Kate or Deborah, if you guys have any opening comments, why don't we do that before we get into the memo and the presentation?

Sure, I'm really just here for moral support and to advance the slides.

So I know that Kate will do an excellent job.

OK, excellent.

Kate.

Good morning.

So as I mentioned to you, I have two hats on when I sit at this table today.

I am the science policy manager at Seattle City Light.

I've been with Seattle City Light about three and a half years now.

And I've been the US Secretary for the Skagit Environmental Endowment Commission for about six months.

And it's a very interesting story behind the commission.

We'll get into a little bit of that today to give you some sense of context.

So as a U.S.

Secretary, I might point out to you that my main role is to provide administrative support to the commission in doing their business.

So my role is not to develop budgets or approve budgets, things like that, mine is to help support the work of the commission.

So today I'm pleased to present this budget framework to you that's been the hard work of the commission and the framework is the allocation of their budget that they approved for the next five years, just about three months ago.

Before we launch into the presentation, Eric, did you want to mention anything in your memo that you provided for us on March 18th?

Yeah, I mean, the memorandum, I tried to do my best to give some history to how we come to be here today.

Five years ago, the council did approve a similar measure for the budget, and at the time, acknowledged that the budget would be coming from SEEC.

I may say that because I've heard City Light folks call the Skagit Environmental Endowment Commission SEEC.

Is that appropriate?

Yes, it is.

Okay, great.

And in my rundown through that memorandum, I noted that this budget is consistent with budgets that have come to Council before and consistent with the mission.

So those are probably the highlights.

It's a really fascinating topic.

It goes back really deep into the history for City Light.

It goes back to but with the City Light's work on creating the High Ross Dam on the Skagit River, controversy that involved, pardon me, controversy that involved whether or not that dam should be taller and what would they mean to the lands that would be upstream of that dam.

Activists in 1970, in a very famous incident, paddled the river, brought a lot of attention to it.

I noted that date because that's the year that I was born, so there you go.

And so at any rate, so this is just by way of sort of touching on a few of the highlights in the memorandum to say that the history is deep.

The commission's been doing this work for quite a while.

The initial endowment by British Columbia and the city of Seattle to the budget for SEEK happened in the early 80s.

It's been well managed since then.

And most of the budget that you see here that is being used over the next five years comes out of the sort of proceeds from that endowment with a small supplement each year from City Light as well as from BC Hydro.

You were born in 84?

No, no, I was born in 1970.

Oh, okay, I didn't see that 70 on here.

I was like, what?

I'll take the 84, but no, I was 70. You're not that young.

Yeah.

Yeah, my sister and I, I've got a twin.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for sharing that, Eric.

All right, great.

We can go through the presentation.

Thank you, Eric, for that overview as well.

So following up on what Eric said, I'm going to be presenting a little bit of historical context for this, which goes back to the construction of the Ross Dam back in 1937, how that leads into the High Ross Treaty and Agreement, a description of how that ties to the commission, and to the Environmental Endowment Fund for which this budget framework that you're going to be looking at today is tied.

So, next slide.

So just to give you a bit of context on the landscape, the area that we're talking about is up on the B.C.

Washington state border.

This area here falls under kind of the purview or responsibility of the Skagit Environmental Endowment Commission to ensure the environmental integrity of this area.

What you see up there is this, I don't have a pointer, but...

Okay, you see Diablo, and right above Diablo, you see Orange Line there.

Right about there is where the Ross Dam currently sits, and above that is Ross Lake, which heading further on up into Canada is the main stem Upper Skagit River.

It's surrounded by parkland currently, and down on the U.S. side, it's also surrounded by a lot of parkland protected areas.

Something that I might point out about this area, the upper Skagit up in B.C.

there is one of the prime areas for the federally threatened bull trout to spawn.

It's got the highest density of rainbow trout and bull trout spawning up there concentrated in the entire watershed.

And regionally, it has the highest densities of bull trout spawning in British Columbia, Oregon, and Washington.

And that's part of what makes this area very special and protected.

There are also grizzly bears in here that are protected, as well as northern spotted owls and so on.

I think that's it for that map.

Okay, so historical context.

So as I mentioned, this ties way back to the construction of the Ross Dam.

It began construction in 1937 and in 1940 it was completed and the height of the dam was at 1380 feet above sea level.

The way the dam was designed, you can see on these pictures on the left here, there's some old pictures to give you a sense of how old this is, but also you can see on the bottom left there's these brackets and latticework going up the side of the dam here.

I'm no dam construction expert, but what I can say about this is it was designed from the beginning to be stepped up in height over time.

So in 1949, the dam was raised up to 16, 15 feet above sea level.

And note that this was above the elevation of the river on the BC side.

So there was some flooding of the Skagit River up into BC by about a half a mile.

On the right there, that's just to give a sense of the perimeter of Ross Reservoir.

It's drawn down there, but you can see kind of the footprint of it.

I wonder why we didn't get the dates on that one.

They're not on there?

That's the looks like the there was a version yeah there was an update to the the slide deck so I think that maybe was part of it.

Let me hold on to that slide so I can write in the dates.

I can give you my copy if you'd like to follow along.

I have a hard copy here.

I'm sorry about that council member.

Wait 19th City Light is Oh, it's different.

Yes, would you like this copy?

Yeah, it is different.

Oh, yeah, it is completely different.

Welcome to have this copy.

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

I'm sorry.

Our apologies for that.

That's all right.

Let me put this over here.

We'll make a note as well.

If we get updated slides, we'll ping folks so that they have the email in their inbox or PowerPoint.

So then in 1970, City Light applied to raise the dam once again, but this time to 1,725 feet above sea level.

This would have flooded an additional 5,000 acres into British Columbia.

And it raised a lot of alarm among particularly British Columbia government.

and environmental groups in Canada.

And tribes, yes.

And so after years of controversy, we can flip to the next slide.

In 1984, I'm skipping over a lot of interesting history there to get to the point that in 1984, the High Ross Treaty between the U.S. and Canada came to be.

And the agreement between Seattle City Light, between the city of Seattle and the BC government that's tied to that settled the controversy.

As part of the agreement, there was an establishment of the Skagit Environmental Endowment Fund and the commission to administer this fund.

And the purposes of this was to ensure the environmental integrity primarily of that area that I showed you in the map previously.

So the Skagit Environmental Endowment Commission, as I mentioned, it administers the endowment fund.

It's an international commission that consists of eight commissioners that are appointed by the mayor of Seattle and eight by the premier of British Columbia.

Each commissioner serves a four-year term, and they're on a staggered basis.

And I wanted you to know...

Mm-hmm.

Madam Chair, so the eight commissioners appointed by the mayor of Seattle, who are the eight by the city of Seattle?

Let's see.

We've got Jim Davis.

Well, how about this?

Why don't you just give me the names offline?

Are there any tribal folk on that one?

Pardon me?

Are there any tribal people on that one?

No.

This has been under discussion with the commission as a side point, I might mention, in the last meeting that I was at.

It's a priority.

Can we get a list of the eight commissioners and what their terms are?

Yes.

Thank you.

Just by way of sort of footnote to that, on the central staff memo, there's a link to the SEEC web page, and there's some bios for each of the commissioners that are present there.

Oh, you put that in your memo?

Not their bios, but just the link.

It's in the footnote.

Footnote about a footnote.

I'm really scoring points with you today, Council Member, I can tell.

I think maybe I'll just turn this mic off.

No, it's fine.

Eric, what year were they all born?

I'm not telling you.

Which districts do they live in?

Yeah, what district do they live in?

Well, the reason why I ask is because I'm going to get asked.

So I would just like to know.

And also, it's really been important to you.

And tribes have been involved in this, but not recognized.

So I think that it's something that we all can be mindful of and move toward.

Tribes, we get tired of suing the city and the county and the state and everybody else and their brother.

So sometimes I just like to know who makes the decisions.

So anyway.

Brought out here for us.

Thank you, Council.

Thank you, Chairwoman.

So another point that I might bring up about the commission that is that it does not manage land directly, but it works through cooperating agencies, government land management agencies on both sides of the border.

Next slide.

So the endowment fund, it's got several main purposes that are listed here.

It's all oriented around conservation and protection of the of that area that I mentioned in the upper Skagit, as well as education and supporting recreational purposes.

It's to conserve and protect wilderness and wildlife habitat, enhance recreational opportunities, acquire mineral and timber rights consistent with the conservation and recreational purposes, conduct studies of need and feasibility, and to plan for and construct hiking trails, footbridges, interpretive displays, et cetera.

Okay.

So the commission organized the budget into four main program-specific areas, and historically it's been organized this way.

There's watershed projects that fall into watershed integrity, education, recreation, and ecosystem science.

And then they have cross-program goals that aren't tied to a specific project.

But our interests of the commission to try to integrate indigenous engagement in all projects that they're working on and to work towards getting more diversity and addressing climate change as well, which is recently added.

So next.

And here are a list of the partners, what they call partners, that the Commission works with.

The partners are basically the organizations that the Commission provides funding to.

And you see a list of them there.

There's a combination of U.S. partners and Canada partners, primarily with the government and with nonprofit organizations that they work with.

So before you, you have the five-year budget allocation that the commission developed over a laborious strategic planning process this year.

I might mention that the commission meets several times a year to administer this fund by reviewing project proposals, monitoring contracts, and addressing environmental issues in the upper Skagit.

Another point is that this fund is managed separately from the city budget.

It's not the city budget.

The commission's budget framework was approved, but even though it's not the city budget, the budget needs to be approved by the province of British Columbia as well as the Seattle City Council.

As such, the budget framework has been presented to city council each time it's been revised in the past.

It used to occur annually for council until 2014, and then it was extended to a five-year process to kind of decrease the labor intensity of doing it every year.

So this is the second time we're seeking approval for the budget framework for a five-year budget.

Madam Chair, may I ask a question?

Sure.

So you have them all listed where the money goes.

So you have a little over a million for education.

What does that mean?

What does that look like, education?

Education funding is typically, and this again is historically how they've done it, that I've been getting familiarized with in my role.

But there's funding that goes to like the Student Conservation Association, North Cascades Institute, and the like to support their programs.

They also support development of interpretive displays, things like that.

I think we talked about this last year when you were here, about how this ties in with climate change and the efforts that we're trying to make statewide.

Can you dive into that a little bit?

One of its cross-program goals that I mentioned is to address climate change.

So they've been doing some water quality monitoring, water quality including temperature monitoring in the reservoirs.

They've also been paying attention to the sedimentation that's going into the area from surrounding areas.

I think those are probably the two primary things I can think of off the top of my head that they currently fund that address that.

Let's see, where was I?

OK.

Any other key points here?

So this distribution of funds, I might point out, closely matches the percentage distribution that they've had in the past.

They tend to do their business in a way that kind of follows a pattern of what they've done in the past that they modify each year.

And it's worked for them.

But the commission also maintains the flexibility to adjust the distribution of these funds throughout the life of the strategic plan.

So the dollar amounts you see there by the end of the process will likely shift around at the end of five years how it's been spent based on perhaps lack of performance by a project partner, their ability to come up with matching funds, or government shutdown and the like that could interfere with their ability to execute the work.

Also, there's opportunity funds available in here for items that the commission hadn't anticipated that meet the commission's needs that they want to have an opportunity to go after.

The Watershed Integrity Contingency Fund of a million dollars at the end there is particularly notable.

That's a large contingency they set aside for big items like mineral rights acquisition opportunities, for example.

If they get the opportunity to do that, they have money set aside to do that.

So on the last one, how often, I'm guessing if we're looking at voting to reestablish this five-year budget framework approval or to approve it, what in the past has the watershed integrity contingency and has it been used?

I haven't, I can't answer that question off the top of my head, whether they've actually used that watershed contingency fund.

Having been recently picked up this role with the commission, I can't speak to that, but I can find out.

Okay, so this is just my concern, besides not knowing where educational and some of it goes, but I just don't want to rubber stamp something where you're just rolling over a million dollars every five years, and I don't know where it's going, and we have to prove this.

I don't have a lot of information because we have to prove this through council, especially in light of what Council Member Bagshaw just raised with issues that we get addressed about climate change and all the bills that are pending in Olympia and the stuff that we're trying to deal with with the budget.

I just heard an interesting term this morning on NPR about water poverty.

So those are the kind of things I'm thinking about.

So when I see you, this list, I mean, that's fine, but it doesn't tell me It doesn't tell me where everything's going.

And when we look at budgets and when we allocate and we approve, usually we have something that tells us where it's going.

Every time I see a contingency fund, I always ask, well, when's the last time you used it?

And so is it always a million dollars or do you just roll it over?

It would be helpful to know that information.

I'm not trying to put you on the spot.

I'm just trying to say as a person who has to vote on this, a little bit more information would be helpful.

How they spend the money, I might point out.

So the commission is responsible for allocating the budget.

and that they ensure that the budget is an international commission, so they gather together at least quarterly to develop plans for how they're going to spend the money.

So the money is allocated in this general way at the beginning of the strategic planning process, but then they receive proposals and work with partners to use these funds in the manner that's laid out here to support the work of the commission.

So you won't get specific projects at this date that tied to these amounts of money.

I think what Councilmember Juarez is asking, and I think we could probably get this, and, you know, I think, who had your role before?

Because you've only been in this.

Scott Powell.

Yeah, so there's a change, which, you know, Kate's only been in this role for six months.

So, but I do think we could probably go back and say, if those allocations are consistent with what's been in the past, did the million dollars or thereabout from the last five-year cycle, how were those monies used?

I think that's really what you're asking.

Yeah, thank you.

And thank you, I was going to say Chairwoman Smith, only because even if it's just a pie chart, even if it's just a pie chart, I mean, I just, I don't know how, that's just helpful.

And, you know, knowing who the board members are, knowing who's making the decisions, and then how that aligns with how we are handling environmental and these watershed issues at this table.

I think the outcomes are what you're looking for, too, in the last five years.

Yeah, I don't know, because it doesn't tell me.

It just says, we need $4 million, and we want you to approve it, and this is what we've been doing.

I have no back story or narrative in which to say, oh, you spent this money on education, and here's a pie chart where 40% went to climate change.

I mean, I don't know.

So that's my point.

So do you think we could get or put together a pie chart from the five years ago?

I mean, it may not be fully complete, that kind of shows, okay, based on the amount of the 2014 budget, how have those funds been spent roughly?

Yes, we can.

There should have been an annual report that I'm not sure who ends up receiving the annual report.

Did council receive that annual report that describes what the budget was spent on the past year?

Well, I'll tell you right now, we won't read the annual report.

But I will look at a pie chart.

So we'll get you a pie chart together with a list of the mayor appointees from the U.S. side to the sea.

And was there a third item?

I think the pie chart will kind of talk about outcomes because if it's in these same kind of buckets, then those unallocated funds should show in some more descriptive way.

Yeah, I think where Councilmember Juarez is going is right, is we really want to love the history, that's great, but if we're spending this money, what's getting improved?

And also we don't, there's seven projects or seven funding projects, but I don't know if there used to be six or eight or ten or what it used to be or if this is an expansion or did you add more?

I don't know any of that.

Isn't it seven?

These are program areas that they've had historically.

And if they're program areas that they've had historically, maybe there's some other issues that we would like to see addressed or a new, as you said, bucket or something instead of, oh, we've been using these seven subjects for the last 18 years.

confirm also so the amount of money that we're talking about here these are not city dollars that's correct okay but but we do have jurisdiction of over approving a budget yeah the treaty provided that BC and the City Council would would review and approve these budgets Okay.

And I think Council Member Juarez's point is well taken.

I would also like to see the annual report, even though we might not read the full thing.

The pie chart I think would be a nice comparison to the item that you have on number five.

So we can do kind of a apples to apples.

And then we're coming, my staff's coming right now with the appointee list.

So we should be able to see that.

Just a question on timing for you.

If we don't take action today, is there time, if we had two more weeks to take a look at this, if we put this on the agenda for vote on April 4th, our next committee meeting, how would that timing work out for?

The end of the fiscal year for the commission is the end of this month.

So we need approval by the end of the month for the partners to begin the work that they need to start with their fiscal year on April 1st.

So you know what might be helpful for Kate to just share some information about how this budget is funded by the partners under the treaty.

Can you do that?

Yes.

So under the treaty, this isn't a decision that we make every year.

This is something that was established in 1984. The US side, CLC-like, contributes money into the endowment fund.

This past year, it's about $130,000, I believe.

And there's a formula associated with that that I would need someone to come up here and explain.

We just walked through it.

And the BC side also contributes to the fund.

There's about $11 million in the fund, between $10 and $11 million in this fund.

It's kept in a bank in Canada.

And the principal is not tapped into for expenditures towards supporting the work of the commission.

It comes off of the interest gained.

The fund has done very well.

It's been managed well by the bank.

I think we're at about 6% interest rate right now on that fund.

So this is all interest from that endowment fund that was established in 1984 and that BC and Seattle contributes to, as I described, each year.

This is just hypothetical.

I'm not trying to scare you.

What if we voted no?

We haven't seen that happen since the time this started, so I can't explain about the details of what the implications would be to the commission's work if Seattle stepped out and said no, they would not approve the budget allocation that the commission had decided upon?

You know, I don't know, and I think probably what we need to take a look at is some of the questions you've asked may be covered in the agreement itself, in the treaty.

So, you know, in terms of the discretion that the approving bodies have over how funds are distributed or used, as well as kind of what happens if the budget isn't approved by March 31. I'm guessing that those are probably the items that are covered in the treaty.

So I think, Eric, we probably need to go back and take a look at that, and we can also provide that information.

Because I'm just not sure.

So the funding that we're actually, from a City Light perspective, which you already approved via the City Light budget process, was this $135,000.

So it's not, and well, you would have approved a two-year budget, so you would have approved the two-year version of that.

So it's not a significant amount of funds.

So this is, it is not, I don't believe it's intended by any means to be a rubber stamping exercise but it's not a funding decision that you're making today because the funding happens separately and it's by this existing long-standing agreement.

So why do you need our approval then?

It's part of the treaty process.

We were talking about it on the way over here and I was sharing that when I worked at EWAB there was a weird thing like that that had to do with Trojan nuclear plant and every year the council had to approve a budget and yet there were no fiscal impacts for the utility and it was always a, you know, it was somehow, you know, a relic.

But I think it's worth digging into and understanding what, you know, what is the authority that we have to help direct funds, particularly as things change.

I'm guessing that and I'm just making this up, but I'm guessing that the authority is in the appointment of the eight people, not in the particular.

So those eight folks that are appointed by the mayor, and I assume come through this body.

I don't know if there's a confirmation.

Okay, so the eight people that are appointed by the mayor are setting the funding priorities for the SEEC.

together with their BC counterparts.

And so that would be my assumption.

Can I have two follow-up questions?

So, and I can't remember the title, but it's kind of the same, we had the same issue come up.

And I want to say it's the Clean Air Commission something something that the mayor sits on or has an appointee that makes decisions when we are looking at the natural gas plant in Tacoma on the Tide Flats.

and that came up about, well, who's on the commission?

Well, who represents the city of Seattle?

Well, who's making the decisions about putting the plant there?

Who's on the board that makes these decisions?

Where do we get that money?

Who decides that?

So we found all that stuff out, and I think I'm kind of going down the same rabbit hole here.

But the other issue is, I'm guessing there are other cities and municipalities that are parties and signatories to this treaty in which they would have to be seeking the same municipal approval, no?

I don't believe so.

The thing that's really interesting about this treaty is that it's pinned on this idea of the High Ross Dam not going higher.

So I think way back when in the negotiating, the city of Seattle, City Light said, well, we need this power.

If we don't raise the dam, how are we going to get there?

Forgive me for, I don't mean to sound flip about any of this.

I'm sure this was a ton of work, right?

And so the idea was that, OK, well, BC Hydro can provide that power.

We'll have it at a very, sort of, appropriate in a rate that will be consistent through time.

And then a percentage of that power that City Light will purchase from BC Hydro, that percentage in no more than a certain amount per year will be, some of that will be set aside.

That's that $130,000 we talked about.

There's a little bit of money that's supplemented each year.

So I think the thing that sticks this whole thing together are the sort of parties that are involved, which is BC Hydro, which is a crown corporation that is answerable to British Columbia, and the City of Seattle, because City Light's a part of the City of Seattle.

So those are the parties that are approving this budget, because they've got a stake in this thing.

And then I think the commission is set up, just to finish this thought, and please correct me if I'm being too general, The commission and the fund was set up to say, well, this was all about the environment, right?

You didn't raise the dam to preserve the environment.

So we ought to have some say in that budget, and we ought to have some say in appointing those folks.

Okay.

Thank you.

I might point out that the treaty is between the U.S. and Canada.

It was signed by the President of the United States.

The agreement is tied to the treaty.

It is a piece of the treaty, and it is signed by the City of Seattle and the Premier of British Columbia.

Well, let me just stop you there.

I get that.

Not other cities.

Right.

Okay.

Got that.

And I know what a treaty is, being a Native American and representing tribes for 30 years.

I get that.

What I'm getting then is I guess I'm feeling like, why are we bothering if it doesn't matter?

if they're going to do it anyway.

I don't know what a deadline is for, because they're going to do it anyway.

But it's required by the treaty that the budget framework be approved by the BC government and by the Seattle City Council.

Right.

And what I'm saying back is that there are no consequences.

I don't care what the treaty says.

There are no consequences if we don't.

That's my point.

Right?

Nothing's going to happen.

The treaty is silent, well, the agreement's silent on that piece if someone doesn't approve what happens, so that's why I can't answer that question.

I think the most appropriate thing for me here to do is just take responsibility for not having anticipated that question, Council Member, and so let me dig into that, I'll work with City Light, and we will find a way to answer that question.

My guess is that it hasn't happened yet, and probably the response of the commission, if this Council said, we don't have enough information, we don't like it, or whatever, is that they would have to roll up their sleeves and take another crack at it.

I think, practically speaking, I don't think they would forge ahead, but because it hasn't happened, we don't have history there.

So we could look at the agreement itself and see what it says.

Can they do anything?

Is this really, is this, did the treaty and the agreement build in kind of just a formal step or is there something more meaningful there?

And we can also answer some of the other questions that you brought up.

And for everybody here, I am sorry that I didn't anticipate those things to help propel this conversation forward.

It's okay.

I just want to underscore, I think Council Member Juarez's points are really well taken.

You know, for example, we know that it's part of our process here as the committee that has oversight over Seattle City Light to look at your strategic plan and your spending plan for five years.

But we also know that we have the opportunity to ask questions, add things to that, you know, provide our input and ideally direction if there's something that we see that looks I think it would be helpful to have a better understanding of what responsibilities this body does have in the

It was five years ago.

But we don't have an annual briefing on this?

No.

Okay.

You are to be receiving an annual report every year from the Commission that are produced by the Commission.

And I'm hearing that ongoing way you probably would like to have a briefing on that on that report But we can type that up later.

Okay, that sounds good.

I do want to provide for the committee the At least the photos that were provided on the link that you provided and I can I guess where we're we're gonna see a glaring gap in the terms of in the type of representation that we would desire to see on such a forward.

I do think, first of all, we should note that there appears to be at least one commissioner that is vacant on the U.S.

side.

On both sides.

And well, I was going to say two.

Oh, this one just has a missing picture.

So one missing on the Canadian side as well.

I think to Council Member Juarez's point, what we don't see is specifically Native American representation.

We don't see communities of color well represented.

It looks like at least on the Canadian side.

We see at least a few more Women actually equal balance between women and men gender balance But I think that this is something that now that it's been on put on our radar we're gonna definitely want to know more about the expiration of the terms the requirements for these positions and Potentially, I would suggest working with the mayor's office on this final appointment spot

Yeah, I want to be on there.

I would love for you to be on there.

We don't even know where they're from.

So, what does the committee desire here?

I understand that your fiscal year ends on 4-1.

However, I'm wondering if there's a huge difference between a 4-1 and a 4-4.

date to dive into the next year's activities.

If there isn't a three-day crisis that is created by us waiting, I'm wondering what the committee desires in terms of...

Well, here's what I'm thinking.

I want the answers to all these questions, but I think that even when we have those answers to the questions, we're going to move forward with this.

And maybe what we could do just to make sure that Seattle City Light can move forward with this, that we can move the resolution forward, but with the understanding that we're going to want to report back Eric, you're involved in that.

Would that make sense?

Because rather than bringing this up and going through all the elements again next time, it's a resolution.

We're not, it's not an ordinance.

We're not, as you said, we're not budgeting additional funds that I would just suggest that we move forward with this today.

And we got a lot of questions that we've made clear and we'll come back.

I agree.

Is that all right with you?

I'm comfortable with that if my committee colleagues are, and I'm sure that that would make your life easier in the next 10 days here as well.

I want to violate international law.

I was actually thinking about the Columbia River Treaty that we've been trying to reopen with Canada on the power side.

I'm like, oh no, not another one.

Anyway.

We appreciate your indulgence and your response to our questions and look forward to getting more information from you.

I think we'll be following up with the executive as well about the final appointment and then the expiring terms, but any additional information you have would be great.

With your approval then, I move the committee recommends passage of resolution 31872 on the 2019-2023 budget for the Skagit Environmental Endowment Commission, selling an easement to Snohomish County.

Is that, that is not part of this?

Just 20, 2023, 2019 through 2023. 2023. Second.

Yeah, a Skagit Environmental Council endowment.

I don't think we want to sell any sidewalks to Skagit to Selma County.

Let me let me just say that again for the record so that there's not any confusion I move the committee recommends passage of resolution three one eight seven two on the 2019 2023 budget for the Skagit Environmental Endowment Commission period Are there any further comments?

Those in favor of recommending passage of 31872, vote aye.

Aye.

No opposed?

Passes unanimously.

Thank you so much.

We're going to move this motion forward to the full council on March 25th at 2 p.m.

Appreciate all your answers to your questions.

Thank you.

Any last comments for the good of the order?

I got one.

What's up?

Okay, just want to flag for folks our amazing Seattle Channel viewing audience.

Today we have the housing development anti-displacement strategies discussion.

I like to call this MHA now what?

So MHA passed.

We're celebrating this week still.

It passed on Monday.

Here we are on Thursday.

We're not skipping a beat.

We're saying that was the tip of the iceberg.

Now what do we do?

We want more community-oriented development.

We want more child care centers and senior centers and community cultural centers.

And we want open spaces.

And we also want this to be done through the community lens.

That's been really critical for the equitable development initiative efforts.

We want to braid the funding from EDI with the Office of Housing Funding so we can create more mixed-use centers.

And we also want to make sure that we're creating affordable housing and not displacing folks.

So it's a larger conversation about the right ingredients, I keep saying, the right ingredients to the cake that we're trying to bake here.

MHA was just one of those.

Tenant protections is just one.

Ensuring that people have a place to go back to if development is occurring is just one element.

We're going to also be talking about community-oriented development and getting additional funding to the hands of organizations who are really focused on creating affordable housing.

and housing those who might be at risk of displacement, not only in this conversation, but in the future conversations through the A and F plan coming up this year and our disposition implementation strategies to building off last year's efforts.

So it's a lunch and learn.

I will have bagels and cream cheese and coffee.

I know that sounds like a breakfast lunch and learn, but let's consider it brunch and learn.

We will have our next meeting on April 4th as I mentioned.

We will again have folks talking again about the initiative 124. This is today.

This is today at noon, yes.

So in 40 minutes if folks can come.

And I'm sorry, the next meeting will be on April 4th and we will again talk about 124. By that time, we should have a little binder for you all about what the expected timeline is and for our council colleagues as well.

Thanks again to Councilmember Herbold for joining us and Councilmember Gonzalez for her interest in this and working with our office on timelines and next steps.

So we expect to have a full committee.

Yes.

Without that, committee is adjourned.

Thank you so much, Erin House, for chairing us.

Thank you, everybody.

Bye-bye.