Select Budget Committee Session I 73120

and the Select Budget Committee will come to order.

I'm Teresa Mosqueda, Chair of the Select Budget Committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Morales?

Here.

Peterson?

Here.

Sawant?

Here.

Strauss?

Present.

Gonzales?

Here.

Juarez?

Here.

Lewis?

Present.

Chair Mosqueda?

Here.

Eight present.

I'm sorry, Lisa's here too.

Nine present.

Wonderful.

We have our full council present.

Thank you all council members for joining the Select Budget Committee, July 31st, 2020. We do have a full agenda today.

As usual, we have session one in the morning, session two in the afternoon.

We'll begin at 2 p.m.

We have one public comment this morning at the top of the hour.

Given that we have about over three hours of public comment on Wednesday, we're going to aim for about 20 minutes of public comment today, recognizing that there's opportunity for public comment on Monday morning again at 10 a.m., Monday afternoon at 2 p.m.

at full council, Wednesday morning at 10 a.m.

Council, I'm sorry, Wednesday morning at 11 a.m.

My apologies for that.

Next Wednesday we will start at 11 a.m.

Is that correct, Council Member Peterson?

You have a meeting that morning?

Great, okay.

So there's those three opportunities again to testify after today and then we will again have another meeting on Monday on August 10th.

With that, just wanted to give folks a heads up.

We do have a lot of folks signed up to testify, as we did last week.

We're going to do 45 seconds to try to get as many folks in as possible.

Council colleagues, today, this morning, we will be voting on amendments that do not affect the Seattle Police Department.

And this afternoon, we will be discussing proposed amendments that relate to the Seattle Police Department.

We do have a total of 23 non-SPD-related amendments that each tie to the three bills that we've discussed over the last few meetings.

To manage our time effectively, we will go through the 20-minute public comment period and then ask central staff to go through a consent package of amendments, meaning if there are five council members or more who have signed onto an amendment, we are putting those all together in a consent package for your consideration.

and you will have the opportunity to pull out certain amendments.

If you'd like to have more discussion on those amendments and would not like it as part of the consent package, or would just like to feature it in some way, you're welcome to pull that out.

But this was an effort for us to be concise and efficient in our discussions.

And then those amendments that do not have five or more council members signed on, we'll discuss those individually as well.

So that is our agenda for today.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

At this time, we're gonna go into remote public comment period.

I'm gonna ask that everyone be patient as we continue to learn and operate this new system in real time and navigate through our growing pains as we're all experiencing COVID together and want to protect the public's health while also making sure that there is robust time for public comment.

Again, the public comment period today starts at 10 a.m.

Folks had a chance to sign up at 8 a.m.

and we appreciate you doing so.

We will give folks a chance to speak for 45 seconds and I'll call folks in the order in which they have signed up with preference to those who are calling in within the City of Seattle and go back to those who are not in the City of Seattle if time permits.

We are going to ask you to say your name when you hear that you have been unmuted and that's your chance to go ahead and speak.

When you finish speaking, please do hang up and go ahead and listen in on the listen in line or the website options that are provided or on TV on Seattle Channel.

You're going to hear a 10-second timer when your time is about to run up.

That still means you have the time to finish up your comments and get your last thought in.

If you don't get a chance to say your full comments, which I know that many of you have much more to say, some have already spoke before, which we welcome you to come back.

That's great.

But do send your comments in to us at council at seattle.gov, and we will make sure to receive those.

So going forward, we will have public comment through 1030 this morning and the first three speakers.

The public comment is now open.

The first three speakers that I see present are Zachary Gardner, Hannah LeBlanc, and Jonah Bitten.

Zachary, good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Zachary Gardner.

I'm a resident of Belltown District 7. Council Member Lewis is my council member.

I'm calling in full support of defunding SPD by at least 50% in 2020 and 2021, as well as moving forward and reinvesting that money in black and brown communities, specifically education, healthcare, and community centers.

Today, I have spoke before, but today I'm going to speak a little bit more basically because I was out there protesting on Saturday.

An officer shot me with a rubber bullet directly at my abdomen from less than 10 feet away.

simply because I said I thought they were being a little bit too violent towards everybody else.

I believe that is proof enough that they have no accountability and they need to be defunded.

Thank you very much and have a great day.

Thank you.

An excellent example of a 45-second powerful testimony.

Thank you.

Hannah LeBlanc, welcome.

Hi, my name is Hannah.

Thank you, Zachary, for sharing that.

That's horrible.

I'm a resident of Queen Anne.

I'm calling to voice my support as well for defunding FTD and reallocating those funds towards Black and Brown communities.

Additionally I'm calling today to demand that we protect renters that we support Nickel Hill in every way possible and that we're ending the homeless suite.

This city has so much money and we need to tax Amazon and use that money to support publicly owned housing to support COVID relief and a Seattle Green New Deal.

Just like my council representative Andrew Lewis I grew up here.

So I've watched South Lake Union transform into Amazon land.

I've watched ordinary people be priced out.

And the people experiencing homelessness are not to blame, yet through the policies of the city, they've been continually criminalized.

We know these issues are intertwined, and that for Seattle to be progressive, we need to act.

Thank you, Hannah.

Jono, good morning.

Hello, this is Joanna from District 7. I'm calling to express support for defunding the police by at least 50% and reallocating those funds to Black communities, like the other speaker said, including Black education, public health, and housing.

We need all $85 million to be invested in Black communities, not the measly $3 million King County Equity now proposed.

If you don't support defunding by 50%, you support police brutality against your constituents, as the first speaker experienced himself.

Alex Peterson and Deborah Juarez, I'm looking at you.

Choose the right side of history.

Support the everyday march demands and recall Jenny Durkin.

Jenny Durkin collaborated with Trump's administration to get crowd control weapon ban overturned.

We're not safe in a city with her as mayor.

Putting injustice to our city.

Good morning, Peter.

You may be on mute if you want to start over.

Thank you.

Hi, this is Peter Shelito.

I live in Seattle District 4 in occupied Duwamish land.

To address the root causes of crime and violence, we must utilize scientifically proven strategies that do not involve the police.

For Seattle to remain a desirable place to live and work for more than just white people, we must be anti-racist and align our funding priorities with our community priorities today.

Thank you to the council members who have committed to defund the Seattle police by 50%.

Such a pledge is an act of courage.

Our residents and community organizations are here to support you as we make this transition together.

I myself look forward to contributing to this process through participatory budgeting.

Participatory budgeting is explicitly designed to restore equity and justice to our city while providing for public health and safety.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you.

Catherine, good morning.

Hi, Catherine.

Hi, my name is Catherine Dawson.

I'm a resident of District 3. I'm proud to support police departments by at least 50% in black and brown communities.

People have a knee-jerk reaction of fear when we talk about defunding police.

However, many of these people already live in a world without policing.

In particular, people who are white and affluent are not targeted by police and often have access to high-quality community resources.

That's how I grew up.

Instead of the criminal punishment system, I had access to education, employment, housing, addiction support, mental health, and medical services.

Yet because of our life's cumbersome history, those resources are denied to most.

We need to defund the police to expand development and education and social services, particularly for our Black and Black communities.

The police do not keep us safe.

Please vote to defund SPD and meet the demands of D-Crim Seattle, King County SPD now and every day March 15th.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Tee.

Good morning, ACAB, Black Lives Matter.

Hello, my name is T.

Syack, and I'm a resident of District 3. I am calling in support of defunding SPD by at least 50% every year until they are abolished entirely.

We, the people, demand these funds be reinvested in communities.

Police reform is simply not possible.

What do we reform to?

SPD is operating as it was intended to, to control, abuse, and terrorize black and brown communities.

The police do not protect us.

The police do not deter crime.

In addition to defunding the police, I urge city council members to demand that Mayor Dirkens stop the immoral and violent sleeps of our neighbors dwelling outside.

I've been listening to public comments for weeks and our demands are clear.

Please reinvest in community-based solutions to health and safety by voting to eliminate and transfer SPD functions and reduce SPD's budget by 94 million immediately.

Thank you and fuck the police.

I yield my time.

The next three speakers are Jamie Patek, Derek Belgrade, and Kate Rubin.

Jamie, good morning.

Good morning, my name is Jamie Potosic.

I'm a resident of District 6 and a member of the Sunrise Movement calling in solidarity with the demands of decriminalized Seattle and the People's Budget Movement to urge you to defund the SPD by at least 50% immediately and to reallocate those funds specifically in communities of color.

I think it's a symptom of a deeply broken system that we spend far more money on a police force that violates their own mandate to use increasingly violent and militarized tactics against people exercising their First Amendment rights.

than we spend on programs and initiatives that would actually contribute to the health, security, education, and well-being of our communities.

I urge you to have the compassion and the creativity to imagine the kind of city we could build together if we redirected such a bloated policing budget to communities of color that are still struggling from centuries of oppression and white supremacy.

I'm excited to see y'all set an example of what justice and equity actually looks like for other cities.

Good morning, my name is Derek Delgarde.

I'm the Deputy Director for the Chief Seattle Club.

I also serve on several boards, one of which being Skitch, whose behalf I'm speaking on today.

I'm asking you to defund the NAV team and reallocate those sources to non-profit organizations that are better suited.

I often speak about the mistrust my native community has with all government systems.

It's government systems and structures that have led to the horrible racial disparities we see today.

Simply sending out city employees with bottled water and a few hygiene supplies It doesn't wash away the feelings of mistrust nor does it erase the centuries of oppression and brutalization our communities have been through.

If you really want to see improvement with this issue, you must empower the systems that are truly mission-driven and community-led and not ones that are protected through the city government and the departments within.

Thank you.

Kate, good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Kate Rubin.

I'm the executive director of B Seattle and a resident of District 2. I'm calling in support of defunding the Seattle Police Department by at least 50 percent and dismantling other forces of oppression in our city namely the navigation team.

According to a study by the Seattle Women's Commission in 2019 a majority of individuals experiencing homelessness in Seattle King County identified as people of color.

Black and Indigenous people experience homelessness at a vastly disproportionate rate compared to the racial demographics of the general population.

The NAB team has a long history of harassing and criminalizing people experiencing homelessness.

In order to genuinely help our houseless neighbors this work needs to be shifted to already trusted organizations with existing relationships.

We need to stop the sleeps and focus on finding solutions for long-term housing.

Protecting our most vulnerable neighbors neighbors is vital to moving towards a more equitable Seattle.

Thank you very much.

The next three speakers are Aaron Mandel, Riley Ingram-Sole, and Sarah Bender.

Aaron, good morning.

Hey, Aaron, go ahead.

Oh, thank you.

My name is Aaron Mandel.

I'm a lifelong District 6 resident, and I'm calling in in support of defunding the police by at least fifty percent this session i'd also like to say uh...

stop the sweeps and dismantle the navigation team uh...

first i'd just like to amplify all the amazing work that king county equity now decriminalize seattle done uh...

not only over the past two months and it's uprising but years and years of work that they've put in i'd just want to thank all the organizers who put so much work into that And I want to say, yeah, again, defund the police.

And I'd like to say directly to council members, Juarez and Paterson, that your grandchildren and children will be super disappointed when you show up on the wrong side of history, vote to defund the police by at least 50%.

Okay, Riley.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Riley.

I'm a resident in district one.

I'm a black social worker who knows from both personal and professional experience that law enforcement is not what truly keeps communities safe and healthy.

Community-based and community-led organizations like Community Passageways are what do that.

I support the demands of King County Equity Now and the Seattle Everyday March.

Defund SPD by at least 50 percent and reinvest that money into community organizations that are doing the work to make Seattle a better place for all of us.

Thank you and I yield my time.

Thank you very much.

Sarah.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Sarah.

I want our elected officials to address institutional racism across all systems.

However, prematurely pledging to cut our police budget by 50% without a plan, without sufficient capacity today to transfer their duties to community groups is irresponsible.

We need to make time to make sure programs we reallocate money to are effective and measure the results so that we can actually achieve the positive outcomes we all want.

Let's do this the right way the first time by getting a detailed plan from our mayor soliciting a wide range of community feedback, debating respectfully during city council fall budget processes and phasing in a thoughtful detailed plan that truly increases safety and community wellness.

We need police response times to be faster rather than slower.

Our officers need support not to be villainized.

Thank you members Juarez and Peterson.

I also wanna thank council members for their calls, texts and emails yesterday, encouraging me to call in today.

I apologize, I don't have her script.

Thank you.

The next three people will be Katie Wilson, Aaron Ettinger, and Kelsey McGrath.

Katie, good morning.

Good morning.

This is Katie Wilson here representing the Transit Riders Union.

We urge you to support Council Member Morales' amendment to defund the navigation team.

It's time for a new start on the city's approach to unsheltered homelessness.

The status quo isn't working.

Forcing people to move and throwing away their possessions without real offers of housing and services doesn't work.

The navigation team has caused great harm by continuing sweeps during the pandemic, directly counter to CDC guidelines.

Eliminating the navigation team will allow you to redirect over $8 million to skilled outreach by trusted community organizations, health services, shelter, and homes.

Please act on this today.

I'm also here to speak in support of Nicholsville-Northlake.

Please support Councilmember Sawant's proviso to prohibit the use of city funds to sweep this tiny house community.

Nicholsville-Northlake is keeping people sheltered and safe during this pandemic.

They need to...

Thank you very much, Katie.

Erin, good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Erin, and I'm a resident of District 6. I'm attending today's City Council budget hearing in support of defunding the Seattle Police Department by 50% and reinvesting in community-led solutions.

SPD's bloated budget of $405 million is funding a broken system, and we need to reallocate these funds to our communities who have been hurt and ignored by the system.

I urge council members, especially Council Member Pedersen and Juarez, to support decriminalized Seattle and King County Equities Now's four-point plan for community reinvestment, to replace current 911 operations with a civilian-controlled system, to scale up community-led solutions, invest in housing for all, in addition to funding a Green New Deal Oversight Board.

Please speak for the people who elected you and defund SBD Now and reinvest in community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Kelsey.

Hi, I'm Kelsey McGrath of District 3 and I'm a teacher.

I call on the City Council to vote to defund SPD by 50% this year and next year and reallocate those funds to community-based solutions to health and safety.

In solidarity with Nicholsville, stop the sweeps and eliminate the navigation team.

When one in five arrests in Seattle are of houseless folks, when one in two sex workers report being physically or sexually assaulted by SPD, when folks are murdered while running away or calling for help, It cannot be more clear that policing will not get us to liberation.

It would be asking police to stop doing what they're designed to do, protect property and maintain white supremacy.

This is our opportunity to chart a true path to collective liberation through transformative justice, which asks, how can we respond to violence in ways that not only address the current incidents of violence, but also help to transform the conditions that allowed for it to happen?

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next three are Abby London, Nathaniel Thomas, Ingrid Archibald.

Abby, good morning.

Hi, my name's Abby London.

My ask is to hold off on the budget adjustments to the police department and do the following first.

Test out this theory on a section of town.

Councilors, citizens can vote on which section.

Have a data analyst look at our crime data and give us a report on what effect 50% decrease in budget would have on crime.

I'd like to hear the following questions and concerns addressed.

With a 90% increase in cyber tips about exploited children due to COVID, as well as the rise in domestic violence, is this the right time to be decreasing the budget?

Do we even need as many officers if we kept violent criminals with double-digit convictions behind bars?

Why is no one mentioning that the department is undertaxed for a city of our size?

Are council members who vote for this willing to pledge to deny security for themselves at taxpayer expense?

Thank you very much, Abby.

Nathaniel, welcome.

My name is Nathaniel Thomas, and I'm calling in solidarity with the Everyday March and EDM organizers and calling for the defunding of SPD 50%, $85 million in reallocating the funds to Black communities.

Seven of you have already promised to meet that demand, and you must keep your promise.

How much do Black lives actually matter to you?

Now is the time where you'll answer that question to the people of the city and the entire world, and they will remember your answer.

are black lives worth eighty five million dollars are black communities worth eighty five million dollars are countless future generations of black children with eighty five million dollars the people made the demand of fifty percent and you have promised to keep that which is eighty five million dollars the map is simple if you choose not to defund fpd by eighty five million dollars at least you are choosing a dollar amount you are saying what black lives matter the four points in the three million dollars do not meet the demands you can't put a dollar amount of black lives you can't

Ingrid, good morning.

Good morning, Councillors.

My name is Ingrid Archibald and I live in District 6. I'm calling to say that we must defund SBD by at least 50% and invest in communities of colour.

SBD with the support of Chief Best and Mayor Durkin have been brutalizing and terrorizing protesters for the last two months.

And even worse and more despicable, they have been systematically doing so to communities of colour since the inception of police in our country.

We must finally authentically listen to the Black and Indigenous-led organizing and communities and make policy decisions that directly work to make up for centuries of systematic oppression and white supremacy.

I want to remind us all that we are on stolen land of the Duwamish people and the very existence of this council and the fact that you have decision-making powers is an act of.

Do you still have time?

Oh sorry.

The least that we can do right now is re-envision policing justice and how we use our city's funds to ensure that we are starting to actively dismantle oppression.

And I really look forward to you all voting to defund SPV by 50 percent this coming Monday.

Thank you.

Melina DeRoso DeRoso Jacob Schirmer and Ashley Thorpe.

Melinda.

Hi.

Hi.

I'm Melina from District 2. I'm a teacher calling in support of decriminalize Seattle's plan to defund SPD by 50 percent and reinvest in communities of color.

I could spend time recounting the violence police have shown over the past weeks months or years but the problem is so much deeper than just violence which is why I support defunding and abolishing the police.

As a teacher I can tell you that punitive justice does not work in a classroom.

Teenagers do not become engaged learners because they are afraid of the principal or detention.

Just like people do not become engaged members of society because they are afraid of police or prison.

Kids are engaged when they are seen, valued, and have a sense of purpose.

When they have the materials and resources and support that they need.

Teachers and schools over the last few years have made significant change towards restorative justice.

It is high time that public safety follows our lead.

Chief on the police.

Thank you very much.

Jacob, good morning.

Hi, thank you.

My name is Jacob Scheer.

I'm a resident of D4.

I'm calling on Alex Peterson to stand on the right side of history and support the demands put forward by King County Equity Now and decriminalize Seattle to immediately defund the Seattle Police Department by 50%.

SPD is a rogue, racist, and disgraceful organization, and the fact that it has any budget, let alone one exceeding $400 million, is an outrage.

SPD stole the lives of John T. Williams, Sean Pure, Charlene Alliles, and Shay Taylor.

They sweep homeless encampments, brutally displacing our houseless neighbors and destroying their homes.

And over the past several months, I have both witnessed and experienced firsthand the brutal violence SPD has directed towards peaceful protesters.

The use of tear gas, mace, and stun grenades, as well as the targeting of activists and media.

SPD is an active threat to the health and safety of our communities, and we must defund them immediately in the 2020 budget.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Ashley, good morning.

Just checking, Ashley, can you hear me?

Okay I'm going to go I'm going to now it's the next screen and we'll come back.

Oh hi Ashley.

I can hear you now.

Oh great.

Hi I'm Ashley.

I'm from District 7 and I want to thank council members the WAMP's office for their calls, texts, and emails yesterday encouraging me to call in.

I don't have a script available so I'll have to speak for myself.

I'd like to encourage the council to slow down on the push to defund SPD.

I agree that SPD needs restructuring and more funding needs to be put towards Black and Brown communities but rushing to commit to a plan or to commit to a number before thorough research has been done is reckless and will ultimately harm those who need assistance the most.

I encourage you to take the time that these huge steps deserve to get as much information as possible from as many resources as possible, including the SPD and related agencies.

Please, let's get this right the first time.

I yield my time.

Thank you.

And the next three speakers are Greta Trishman Sarah Starman and Lauren Hans-Butler.

Greta good morning.

Good morning.

My name's Greta Trisman and I'm a resident of District 3 in Seattle.

I'm speaking on behalf of Never Again Seattle which is a network of Jews fighting for immigrant justice rooted in the lessons of Jewish tradition and history and fighting against fascism.

We want to support King Equity King County Equity Now and decriminalize Seattle's demands to defund SPD by at least 50 percent.

invest in Black and Brown communities, and release all protesters without charges.

As Jews, we know that no one in our communities is safe when we live under state-sanctioned violence that targets specific groups of people.

Thank you for supporting the demands of Black and Indigenous organizers, and please continue to look to their leadership in the goal of abolishing the police and the prison-industrial complex.

Thank you.

I yield my time.

Thank you.

Sarah, good morning.

My name is Sarah Starman, and I'm a resident of District 6 I'm also calling in full support of defending the police by at least 50% and reallocating that money to communities of color and critical social services.

I feel that by spending hundreds of millions of dollars on the police, we're putting our money towards violence, discrimination, surveillance, and incarceration.

And I don't believe that that reflects our values as a community.

We need to reallocate our funds to things like social services, education, affordable housing, these things that actually reflect our values.

values like public health and safety, equality, the dignity of all people, and, for goodness sakes, the right to live without fear of being victimized and brutalized for being Black or Indigenous.

It's time to break an oppressive status quo that's lasted for centuries and start to create real change.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Lauren, good morning.

Hi, my name is Lauren Hansi-Butler.

I'm a resident of District 3. I'm a health care worker at Harborview and a social worker in the field of HIV.

My experiences responding to COVID on the front lines was unlike anything I've done before.

I found myself amidst a large hospital system with a new mandate to change nearly every aspect of how we are used to delivering our services.

Overnight, nothing about my work felt familiar, but we plunged into the task anyway because we uphold a shared value that every person in our community deserves to be protected.

We literally reimagined healthcare, and we didn't do that with promises and planning committees.

The life and death stakes were undeniably in front of our faces.

We just had to act.

This is your moment to act.

I urge you to meet this moment by voting to defund the Seattle police and reinvest in the money, that money in black communities.

Thank you very much.

And the last three speakers this morning will be Carrie Rearson, Matthew Lang and Sophia And with that, we will ask folks to either send in their comments or to sign up again for public comment again at 10 a.m.

on Monday.

Lines open at 8 a.m.

Carrie, good morning.

Carrie Ryerson, District 5. I stand with the Every Day March and their call to defund SPD by 50% at least and reinvest that money in black communities.

That number is already a compromise.

This movement is only asking for a tiny fraction of what black people in Seattle are truly owed and is unconscionable to give them any less.

SPD makes me feel unsafe.

They are a violent, racist, reactionary force that is terrorizing the city.

Peterson and Juarez, you must act now.

I'm tired of delays and excuses.

None of this is new.

There are entire bodies of work on this subject written by black people.

As a civil servant who claims Black Lives Matter, you should already have been actively working towards this historic moment so you could be prepared when it arrived.

Black people have waited long enough.

If you believe Black Lives Matter, your vote to defund SPD is needed to prove it.

So prove it.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Matthew.

Hi there, my name is Matthew Lang and I'm here as the lead organizer of the Transit Riders Union.

I'm here to speak on making sure that City Council follows the decriminalized Seattle and King County Equity Now demands of defunding SPD by 50%.

And then after that, and while you're doing it, making community connections to make policy with, not for community, for black and indigenous people of color.

especially focusing in on mutual aid networks that are already doing the work and have been doing the work every day, not just since the protests started, but every day because their communities are in crisis and have been always.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

And our last speaker today is Sophia.

Thank you.

My name is Sophia Hoffacher.

I work at Puget Sound SAGE and I live in District 2. We urge the council to approve an immediate 50% cut to SPD's budget with a plan to reinvest those funds in real community safety strategies.

Stage fully supports decriminalizing Seattle's demand to replace current 911 operations with a civilian-controlled system, scale up existing community-led solutions, fund a community-created roadmap to life without policing, and invest in housing for all.

Now is the time to imagine a city without a violent police force that doesn't actually protect our communities, and we can do it while investing in the things that actually keep us safe, like ensuring that everyone is housed, and can get the help that they need in a crisis without fear.

BIPOC leaders already have the skills to lead the city towards the future, but we can only realize it if we immediately defund SPD and reallocate the money towards community-led solutions.

Our communities cannot wait until next year or the year after.

City Council must defund SPD in this budget cycle.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And thanks to everybody who called in today.

Again, as a reminder, public comment on Monday.

We'll have the lines open at 8 a.m.

to sign up for public comment.

Public comment will start after our council briefing, so the committee meeting will start, I'm sorry, the select budget committee will start immediately after our council briefing on Monday morning.

I want to encourage folks to send their comments to council at Seattle.gov, and thanks again for your public comment today.

We've had public comment at every meeting so far, including an extended public comment and a public hearing two weeks ago.

I apologize that we weren't able to get to everyone today.

Really appreciate you calling in.

With that, public comment is closed for this morning.

And for today's meeting, we're going to go ahead and begin with our items of business.

Could the clerk please read in item number one into the record?

Agenda item one, Council Bill 119825 relating to the city's response to the 2020 COVID-19 crisis.

which adopted the 2020 budget, changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various times of the budget, imposing a proviso and ratifying confirming certain prior acts, I'll invite you for a vote at the City Council for briefing, discussion, and possible amendments.

Excellent.

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, as a reminder today, we will be voting this morning on amendments that do not affect the Seattle Police Department.

And this afternoon, we will begin discussing proposed amendments related to SPD.

We do have 23 non-SPD related amendments.

These are amendments that we've discussed over the last three Select Budget Committee meetings.

So thank you, colleagues and central staff, for your work on those 23 amendments.

These are amendments to three different bills.

So we'll go through each one of the bills.

Item number one has already been read into the record.

And to manage our time effectively, We have asked central staff to put together all of the amendments that have at least five co-sponsors into a consent package.

Again, as I mentioned at the beginning, if you have any item that you would like to speak to or you believe needs to be pulled out of that consent package to offer additional discussion or clarification, you are welcome to do so and we will ask folks to notify us and I will also indicate if anybody emails me that they'd like to pull that out We will, of course, pull that out for our discussion.

We will then go through the individual amendments listed on the agenda and any other amendment that has been pulled out of the consent package.

We're going to start with amendments to Council Bill 119825, which is the 2020 budget revisioning ordinance.

That's what's already been read into the record.

And then we will do Council Bill 119824, which is the Coronavirus Relief Fund ordinance.

And then finally, Council Bill 119818, which is the second quarter supplemental ordinance.

With that, we already have Council Bill 119825 read into the record, which again is the 2020 budget revisions ordinance.

And with that, I will go ahead and turn it over to Director Erstad to maybe describe any high level orientation that we have here or walk us through the proposed package in front of us.

And Ali, if you are standing in for Director Irsa, that's great as well.

We are happy to have you on the line.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

Good morning, council members.

This is Ali Panucci from your central staff.

Today we will be using the summary tables included in the agenda packet for amendments by bill to guide the discussion.

And you can see the first table present currently posted to the screen.

If you would like to see more details on any specific amendment, please let us know and Patty will move to that item in the packet.

And as council, excuse me, as Chair Mosqueda described, as we are moving through the amendments, if you want to pull one from the consent package, you will just need to let her know, and then that will be taken up at the end of the discussion for that bill.

So with that, I think we are ready to move into the discussion of the first amendment, unless you have additional comments, Chair Mosqueda.

No, that sounds great.

And for our council colleagues who have indicated that there's amendments that they would like to pull out as we get to those amendments, I'll call on you to go ahead and pull those out.

Or you can raise your hand and let me know if you'd like to pull those out.

Okay.

Thank you, Ali.

And again, sorry, I was supposed to turn it directly over to you.

So thank you for being queued up and ready to go.

I really appreciate the work that you and all of the central staff have put together.

And quick shout out at the top of the meeting today, thanks to Patty and Amelia, who I know worked on this robust package of materials in front of you into the wee hours.

last night so that it was easy to comprehend and plow through today.

Thank you.

So the first amendment to Council Bill 119825 is Amendment A sponsored by Chair Mosqueda that includes the proposed administrative reductions.

This amendment codifies the administrative spending reductions in the mayor's proposed rebalancing measures.

and provides a baseline against which the council can make adjustments to those proposed spending reductions, and upon which the council can evaluate further balancing measures between now and the end of the year.

Okay, thank you very much, Allie.

Council colleagues, Director Irsa had walked through Amendment A in detail at our last meeting and provided a comprehensive memo as well.

I would like to move to adopt Amendment A as presented on the agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you so much.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any additional comments or questions given the presentation that we had from Director Arasid last week?

Okay, I'm seeing none.

Oh, Council Member Sawant, please go ahead.

So do you want general comments as we're getting ready to vote?

Is that correct?

on the amendment.

Sorry, just noticed that I was on you.

Yes, thank you.

Um, if you have general comments to Amendment A, please go ahead.

Thank you.

As central staff and central staff director Kirsten Anistad has explained, this budget amendment, amendment A, is in a sense a technical amendment because it simply puts into the city council's budget legislation the cuts that Mayor Durkin had announced that she intends to do administratively.

However, this means that in voting on this amendment, council members are deciding whether or not to support the mayor's proposed austerity and I do not support austerity.

When this budget committee was voting on the Amazon tax just a few weeks ago, my office had proposed increasing the size of the Amazon tax to eliminate the need for austerity and to eliminate cuts to the important social programs and our public infrastructure.

Unfortunately, the majority of the council did not agree with that, and the budget cuts that we are voting on right now are one small consequence of that, but we will have other consequences because there will be more cuts down the pike.

Council members might argue that this is largely a technical amendment because these are the cuts that the mayor has said she would do with or without a council vote, and the decision about our amendment to increase the Amazon tax has already been made.

However, the reality is that if the majority of council agreed with me that the Amazon tax should be increased to eliminate the need for austerity, then we would vote down this current austerity measure and would instead pass a new bill to increase the Amazon tax, which can be done.

I do want to acknowledge that there are parts of this package of budget amendments that I support.

For example, the $16 million that Mayor Durkan promised to defund from the police budget is reflected here.

My council office submitted to central staff a separate budget amendment to memorialize that $16 million defund.

So if the majority of the council agreed to vote down this package of austerity, we could still vote to defund the SPD later when we vote on SPD amendments.

So I support defunding the SPD, absolutely, and alongside the People's Budget Movement, the Everyday March.

other community organizers.

I'm fighting for an $85 million defunding this year in 2020. But I definitely, as a rank and file member of the teachers union, do not support budget cuts in important social programs and community infrastructure.

So I will be voting no on the mayor's austerity package.

Thank you.

Are there any additional comments?

Okay, I want to just offer some clarification.

I do not agree with that analysis.

I have been very staunchly opposed to austerity budgets, and that is why I was the prime sponsor of progressive revenue for the payroll tax for Jumpstart, building off of the movement and momentum that Amazon tax folks have constantly been demanding in the streets as well.

We passed $214 million a year, allocating $86 million a year over the next two years, pulling from the emergency reserve funds that will be paid back by progressive revenue.

We did this in a way to sort of show that there's never been such an emergency.

The headlines constantly day after day say that this is the worst economic crisis we have seen in generations ever.

And I think it's important for us to constantly be pushing back on austerity budgeting.

That is precisely what I think this council is poised to do, not just in the next week here, but this fall as well, as we think about 2021, 2022 budgeting.

As someone who's constantly not only fought against austerity budgeting and fought for progressive revenue, I just want to offer my take on Amendment A, which is we are actually trying to provide greater clarification on what the mayor had sent down, so it is perfectly clear where she had either proposed to take reductions or transfers, just so that we have a base understanding of where we are going to then be adding back or enhancing the services that we would like to see protected in this really terrible economic downturn.

That does not take away from the important investments that we've made through our own 2020 that we were able to do that.

We were able to do that through the COVID relief fund, again, backfilled or funded by jumpstart.

The effect statement really talked about clarifying the reuse of funds, making sure that we're being explicitly clear about the general purpose funds, and making sure that we are accurately showing the rebalancing package as I believe that there was some discrepancy or maybe some the need for greater transparency here, and this is really just our effort to be as transparent with the public as possible on the initial proposal that she sent down so that we can build on that.

Appreciate that there's shared interest in fighting back on austerity budgeting.

If there's no additional comments, please, Madam Clerk, please call the roll on Amendment A. Morales.

Aye.

Peterson.

Aye.

Sawant.

No.

Strauss.

Aye.

Yes.

Gonzales.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

Juarez.

Aye.

Lewis.

Yes.

Chair Mosqueda.

Yes.

Eight in favor, one opposed.

Thank you very much.

Let's move on to the next amendment.

Ali, is that you as well?

Yes.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

The next item is consideration of the consent package for Council Bill 119825 that includes seven amendments that were discussed at committee meetings on July 22nd, 23rd, or the 29th, and have at least four co-sponsors in addition to the prime sponsor.

I will now briefly describe each of the amendments included in the consent package, and then I'll turn it back to you, Chair Mosqueda, to see if any of your colleagues would like to remove any of the items from the package.

The amendments in the consent package include Amendment 1 to Council Bill 119825 sponsored by Council Member Morales and to want to add $65,000 to arts for the AIDS Memorial Pathway Project using salary savings from vacancies in the Department of Finance and Administrative Services.

Amendment 3, sponsored by Councilmember Morales, would impose a proviso on the jail contracts for the city, restricting spending of any monies on the City of Seattle and King County jail contracts until the parties agree to renegotiate that contract.

Amendment 5, sponsored by Councilmembers Herbold and Morales, imposes a proviso on the Department of Human Services appropriations for the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion to require that the service provider commits in writing to accept clients without prior approval from law enforcement personnel.

Amendment seven, sponsored by council member Sawant, imposes a proviso to prohibit removing the North Lake Tiny Home Village.

I'll just note here that the proviso was revised since the last discussion to remove the requirement that the removal could occur if there's agreement provided in writing from a variety of the, excuse me, from a majority of the residents of the tiny home village.

While the proviso was updated, the effect statement inadvertently still includes that language.

So I just wanted to note that for the record.

Also included in the consent package, Amendment 8, sponsored by Councilmember Herbold, that adds $25,000 to the city attorney's office to conduct a racial equity toolkit on pre-filing diversion and cuts $25,000 from the Department of Finance and Administrative Services for jail contract services.

Amendment 12, sponsored by Councilmember Strauss, would oppose a proviso on $15,000 in the Office of Planning and Community Development's budget to ensure that work is completed to translate information regarding building and permitting accessory dwelling units.

And finally, Amendment 15, sponsored by Council Member Morales, cuts $30,000 from the Department of Neighborhoods budget and $10,000 from the Department of Finance and Administrative Services budget to restore funding for the Soto Trail Capital Improvement Project.

I'll note here that the materials distributed last night in the summary table noted this as Amendment 16, but in the amendment sheet itself on page eight of the consent package, it is correctly labeled Amendment 15.

Thank you for that clarification.

Yeah.

And those are the amendments that are included in the consent package for Council Bill 119825.

Okay, so just to clarify, because the folks who might be looking at their agenda at home, summary package for first item on the agenda today, Council Bill 119825, consent package includes amendments 135, 7, 8, 12, and 15, correct?

Okay, great.

Council members, Council Member Peterson, did you have an amendment that you'd like to pull out?

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda, and thanks to central staff for putting together a consent schedule to make the meeting more efficient since we already discussed these and people signed on publicly as co-sponsors.

I wanted to, for further discussion, wanted to pull out Amendment 7, which is regarding Northlake Tiny Home Village.

It's in District 4. and it's on Seattle City Light property, and just wanted to have more of a discussion and better understand it.

I appreciate that it's been modified a little bit.

That's helpful, but want to still pull it for further discussion.

Thank you very much, Council Member Peterson.

Is there any additional amendments that folks would like to pull from the consent package here?

Council Member Lewis, did you have your hand up?

Oh, no, sorry.

Council Member Morales, please go ahead.

Thank you.

I do want to withdraw Amendment 3, the Jail Services Proviso.

As my colleagues know, things are moving really fast around here.

And we just got noticed that the County Executive's Office has initiated the renegotiation process that we're calling for with this proviso.

So we will be tracking that, of course.

But for now, the conditions of this proviso have already been met.

Okay.

Council President Gonzalez.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda, and thank you, Councilmember Morales.

I will be sharing some correspondence that I received this morning from the Seattle City Budget Office from Director Ben Noble related to amendment number three.

It sounds like Councilmember Morales got the same communication, but I think that it is promising news that the King County Executive's Office reached out to the mayor's office to quote, initiate conversations and negotiations about how our current contract can be adapted to our mutual goals of significantly reducing detention and enhancing investments in the types of community-based investments that preempt the need to rely on the criminal legal system to address problems that are more attributable to insufficient health and housing supports than they are to crime.

So I think this is a good development, but I also, I think that figuring out what the accountability mechanism there could be in the future will be an important thing for us to discuss.

I appreciate that perhaps we don't need the proviso anymore, but we'll be looking forward to hearing a little bit more from the executive and in combination with Council Member Morales, how we can make sure that we monitor that work to ensure that this comes to fruition in due haste.

Well, that is great news.

Thank you, Council Member Morales and Council President Gonzalez.

Any additional comments about pulling items out of this first consent package for Council Bill 119825?

Okay, seeing none, that means our consent package includes amendments 15812 and 15, correct?

15. Okay, I'm changing that on my notes here.

All right, Council Colleagues, thank you for that.

We will have Amendment 7 for consideration later, and Allie, will you prompt me for when we need to get to that?

Yes, Chair Mosqueda.

Thank you very much.

All right, at this point, we would entertain any additional comments on any of the items that are in the consent package.

If you would like to say anything, you are welcome to speak to a number of these pieces or one that you'd like to highlight, and if not, we'll go ahead and entertain a vote.

I am not seeing any hands.

I know that folks said quite a bit about these amendments in the last three meetings.

So I want to thank you for bringing these forward and I will be supporting these as well.

Allie, with that, is there anything else from you before we go into a vote on the consent package?

No, Chair Mosqueda, I don't have anything to add.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I move the committee recommend adoption of the consent package as amended.

Is it okay to just do a verbal amendment?

Or let me just double check with the clerk.

Do I need to make a formal motion to withdraw amendment seven or three?

This is Amelia Sanchez.

You stated that it was as amended and we just restated which items were removed from the consent package.

So as amended is sufficient.

Great.

We're off to a good start this morning.

Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Any additional comments?

Okay.

Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll of the adoption of the consent package as amended.

Morales.

Yes.

Peterson.

Aye.

Sawant.

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Gonzalez.

Aye.

Herbold.

Yes.

Juarez.

Aye.

Lewis.

Yes.

Chair Mosqueda?

Yes.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

The consent package as amended is adopted.

Madam Clerk, quick question for you again.

Did I accurately say that Amendment 1 was adopted, or do I need to state that for the record as well?

Amendment A, I'm sorry.

It was not stated, but we did have a I should say we had eight in favor with one opposed.

OK, with eight in favor and one opposed just for the record, the motion did carry on Amendment A as as adopted and we will now continue.

Just wanted to make sure that that was clear for the record.

We're going to go ahead and go into individual amendments now.

And if I'm not mistaken, we have amendments 267. 9, 10, 11, and 14 as part of our individual amendments for consideration on Council Bill 119825. With that, I'll turn it back over to Allie.

Thank you for walking us through the first item here, which I believe is Amendment 2.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

And just so it is clear, Amendment 7 that was pulled from the consent package will be taken up after we discuss Amendment 14. It will be just a, I don't want to confuse anyone with the out of order numbering, but.

I appreciate that because I was wondering, we will have amendment seven after 14 then.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So the next item, amendment two to council bill 119825 sponsored by council members salon would cap annual salaries for all non-represented executive and management city staff at $150,000.

Thank you, Ali.

Council Member Sawant, please take it away.

Thank you.

As we discussed in the Budget Committee Wednesday, this is an amendment that my office and the People's Budget Campaign has proposed every year during budget deliberations.

It will cap the salaries of City of Seattle executives at no more than $150,000 a year, which despite the cost of living in this city, is a good salary that people can live comfortably on and far more than workers make.

And as many members of the public already know, I take home only the average worker's wage, which is $40,000, and after taxes, donate the rest to a solidarity fund for social movements and for union strike funds.

Some may argue that if the city does not pay its executives, hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, then the city will not be able to attract the best talent.

However, in reality, the best kind of leadership comes from people.

who are not, we're not asking that anybody take a vow of poverty.

We want all the city employees to be paid decently and to be able to have a decent standard of living.

But the best city leadership that we have observed comes from people who are motivated to serve the public, not motivated by personal enrichment.

And I believe other council members agreed with that point based on their own experience at the Venn State Committee.

And particularly at this time when Mayor Durkan is freezing hiring of essential workers and threatening layoffs, especially the hiring freezes in essential departments is affecting marginalized communities the most.

I don't believe that there's an excuse for continuing to dedicate resources to bloated salaries among city executives.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Any additional comments on this?

Okay, seeing none.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

I appreciate you bringing this forward.

Overall, I love the idea of a CEO pay ratio.

That's something that I've looked at before in some ways.

I think that this is along that vein and we have I know a lot of folks who are struggling to make ends meet, even at $150,000 a year, if that's the sole salary, or even if it's coupled with another salary in the city, given the cost of living is very expensive.

We recently pegged higher income earners to $150,000 in our Jump Start legislation for corporations, because we believe if they are paying that amount, we hope that they can contribute back into our local economy, and really incredibly proud of the work that we've done together on that issue, Council Member Sawant.

So I am going to be voting no on this.

I think there's a lot of questions that are still unanswered.

What are our HR obligations?

What's the impact on collective bargaining and the unions that we have within the city?

And I think that there's just a few more questions that really need to be analyzed about recruitment, retention, and the impact on our current city employees.

Okay, seeing no additional comments, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on amendment number two?

Chair Mosqueda?

Yes, I'm sorry.

Please go ahead, council member.

I'm sorry.

That's okay.

I just want to echo your comments and express my support in principle for this amendment.

I think especially in past conversations that the city council has had with other, with executives who are being recruited to the city, This is a real challenge for, particularly for folks in my district, whose, you know, household incomes.

in some communities don't exceed $22,000 a year.

So in principle, I really agree with our need to investigate this.

My only uncertainty at this point is what Council Member Mosqueda raised, which is some of the bargaining and other constraints that we might have, which I will be candid, I do not fully understand yet.

I'm not going to do that.

I'm not going to do that.

I'm not going to do that.

Well, yes, but also to clarify, based on the comments that were just made, the amendment does not include union-represented employees because it's executive.

So this whole thing of, well, we need to look into HR and union bargaining-related questions, that doesn't even enter into this.

That's not relevant to this amendment.

And also, this is not a new proposal.

This is the same proposal I've made for years.

Council Member Swant.

Any additional comments.

Okay.

Madam Clerk will you please call the record.

Morales.

No.

Paterson.

No.

Sawant.

Yes.

Strauss.

No.

Gonzales.

No.

Herbold.

No.

Juarez.

No.

Lewis.

No.

Sharon Mosqueda.

No.

One in favor, eight opposed.

Okay, thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

The amendment is not adopted.

Let's see, Allie, let's move on to the next item here, amendment number six.

Thank you.

Amendment 6 to Council Bill 119825 sponsored by Council Member Herbold cuts $120,000 from the Legislative Department and adds that to the Human Services Department's budget to expand the Stay Connected pilot program.

Council Member Herbold, please take it away.

Thank you so much.

I want to thank folks who co-sponsored this first time around.

I believe that was Council Members Morales and Sawant and Straus.

This amendment would add one-time funds to the Human Services Department's aging and disability services to contract with the University of Washington School of Medicine to extend their current existing Stay Connected pilot.

The Stay Connected pilot serves four senior centers that are neighborhood-based in West Seattle, Pike Place Market, Greenwood, North Seattle, and also is A participating organization is GenPride, who are also participating in a Stay Connected pilot program as well.

The pilot involves phone and video conferencing sessions with clients to provide help resolving urgent problems, to assess for stress, anxiety, loneliness, and depression, and to provide resources, including self-management tools for stress and anxiety.

I have mentioned throughout the budget process, as well as during the jumpstart discussions, my concern that we should be doing more to recognize the special needs of seniors during this crisis.

They experience significant impacts to their mental health stemming from isolation imposed by the coronavirus.

And this pilot builds on an established evidence-based set of services for this kind of approach and adapts it to provide remote outreach during the COVID era when seniors are experiencing increased levels of social.

isolation.

And again, many centers are doing regular remote welfare check-ins with the people that they serve.

And the Stay Connected pilot goes beyond welfare check-ins, and it provides the folks who are doing that work training so that they can not only do the check-ins but also identify seniors who are at increased risk of depression or already experiencing mild depression and identifying seniors who are experiencing more serious symptoms of depression or mental health disorder.

the additional funding would expand the pilot to assess and serve a larger number of seniors while providing training and ongoing support to the senior centers.

And again, gets really critical mental health services to seniors who need them.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Council colleagues, are there any comments or questions?

Ali, did I see your hand?

Did you have clarification?

Chair Mosqueda, I just wanted to clarify, and excuse me if I missed it, but you may, I think, want to move the amendment prior to having the discussion.

My mistake.

Council colleagues, I'll ask for the prime sponsors to go ahead and move it each time.

Thank you for the reminder on that.

Council Member Hurdle, would you like to move this amendment?

Thank you.

I'd like to move Amendment 6 to fund the Stay Connected pilot program.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded, and already described by the sponsor.

Any additional comments?

Madam Chair, can I just give a quick clarification?

Thank you.

So this is Council Herbold.

I have two different numbers.

I have two different charts here.

Is this the Stay Connected, the programs for senior isolation?

Yes, it is.

Okay, so I have that on Patty's sheet as under agenda item two is amendment number four, and then I have it on the amendment packet under council bill ending in 825 is amendment number six, but they're the same.

Because if that's the case, as you were saying, I also co-sponsored that as well.

I just wanted to make sure we were clear on the record that I supported councilmember Horvath's amendment.

Council, 119825. Okay, I just had a quick question, and maybe this is for the sponsor or for Allie.

Can you clarify again, is this a reduction in the LEED dollars?

No.

Please go ahead.

Council, Chair Mosqueda, and please chime in Council Member Herbold, but this is money that was appropriated for the Legislative Department to work with LEED to do a evaluation study.

There's also funding on the executive side to do a study, and it was determined that this money is not needed at this time, so it's being redirected.

Yeah.

That's right.

And I think Council Member Herbold, you clarified last time that LEAD had also indicated to you that they support this.

Is that correct?

Yeah.

They were actually texting me while I was proposing the amendment, saying that they're glad to see that these funds would be repurposed to this.

Okay.

Well, that answers the question and concern that I had, so I will also be supporting this.

Any additional comments?

Okay, seeing none.

Council Clerk, will you please call the record on amendment number six?

Morales?

Aye.

Hatterson?

Aye.

Salonka?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Gonzalez?

Aye.

Herbold?

Yes.

Juarez?

Aye.

Lewis?

Aye.

Chair Mosqueda?

Aye.

Nine in favor and opposed.

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

The motion carries and Amendment Number Six is adopted.

Moving on, Amendment Number Nine.

Thank you, Allie.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

And before I describe Amendment Nine, I just wanted to clarify for Council Member Juarez There are actually two amendments related to supporting seniors for consideration today.

One is amendment six to Council Bill 119-825 that the committee just voted on.

The other is amendment four to Council Bill 119-824 that will be discussed later in the agenda.

So I just wanted to clarify that there are actually two separate amendments, but they're amending different bills.

Oh, I see it now, Allie.

Thank you.

I was looking at agenda item number two And you're right, got it now.

Okay, thank you.

No problem.

Thank you.

Okay, so moving to Amendment 9 to Council Bill 119825 sponsored by Council Member Sawant.

This would impose a proviso on the City Attorney's Office to prohibit spending any funds to prosecute individuals for actions taken during the Justice for George Floyd protests.

Council Member Sawant, please go ahead.

Thank you.

The whole criminal justice system, as we know, has been and continues to be used to attack the protesters on the streets, the movement, and to attempt to intimidate people into giving up their free speech right to protest.

Police violence, tear gas, flash banks, mass arrests, including of journalists, federal troops grabbing people off the streets into unmarked vans, absurd charges that everyone who has ever been at a protest knows are textbook imaginary crimes used to arrest peaceful protesters like pointing a laser pointer, assault on a police officer, and false charges of assault on a police officer, pedestrian interference, refusing to disperse.

and prosecutions.

For protesters facing prosecution, some are being prosecuted by the city and some by other jurisdictions like the county.

And as I mentioned before, these prosecutions have had the have the effect of intimidating regular working class people who would like to join the protest but cannot afford to be caught up in the criminal justice system.

And that is the of carrying out these prosecutions to intimidate people from coming out to protest.

This budget proviso is one of a pair of budget provisos that my office is proposing to say that the Seattle Police Department and the city attorney's office should be prohibited from using any city funds to cooperate in any way beyond what is strictly required by law with any of these investigations or prosecutions.

Later today, when we get to the discussion of budget amendments related to the Seattle Police Department, we will discuss the related proviso on the SPD, which in many ways is the most important part of the proviso, because even when the county is the prosecutor, their prosecution would still depend on the testimony and evidence provided by the SPD.

This budget amendment is the portion that places a proviso on the city attorney's office.

As council discussed, the city attorney's office has already taken many positive steps to reduce the prosecutions they are directly involved with, which is a good thing.

And I absolutely want to acknowledge that.

However, the council also discussed on Wednesday the ongoing investigation into protesters.

Many council members stated opposition to the city attorney's office attempting to force local news channels to turn over their video footage of protests to prosecutors, which is an example of how the power and resources of the criminal justice system are turned against the protest movement in general.

This proviso would prohibit the city attorney from using any city of Seattle funds to support the prosecution of protesters.

I have heard opposition to this budget amendment with the claim that it unfairly prevents the law from being equally applied, but the reality is that it's absolutely, but the reality is absolutely backwards.

The reality is far more attention and city resources have been used to arrest and prosecute protesters compared to non-protest related situations, I mean by far.

This proviso simply starts to rebalance the totally unbalanced legal assault on protesters.

It also is not unprecedented.

As Washington State got closer to legalizing cannabis, the Seattle Police Department was instructed to stop arresting people for breaking cannabis-related laws because City Attorney was, you know, was refusing to prosecute.

those charges, which was a good thing.

I urge council members to vote in favor of this proviso on the activities of the city attorney, but most importantly, I would urge council members to also support the accompanying proviso on the police department later this afternoon.

I also add, you know, for the arguments that the city council may not have the authority to tell the police department or city attorney what not to investigate because of the division of power.

Our response to that is that the council has the power of the purse to say what activities should be funded.

Also, if the city attorney or the mayor's office do not believe the city council has the authority to constrain their budget in this way, then they should take the issue to court and make the case in front of the public why it is so essential for them to continue to use city of Seattle resources, public resources to repress protesters.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

And in order to have the amendment in front of us officially, I still think I missed a step.

Would you like to move the amendment?

I move amendment 9 to Council Bill 119825. And I will second it.

And it has been described by the sponsor.

Are there any additional comments or questions?

It's been moved and seconded.

Council Member Lewis.

Thank you, madam chair and first I have a few questions that I want to clarify with the sponsor and potentially with central staff as well.

And it's on the, the wording of actions actions taken during the George George Floyd, George Floyd protest.

You know, I absolutely agree with the sponsor that we have seen a colossal amount of evidence of potential arrests based on, you know, pedestrian interference or failure to disperse or obstruction or other things that are clearly a violation of people's rights to assemble and to engage in their First Amendment rights.

I do want to get an opinion from central staff right now, given an event that happened earlier this week in my district where a neighbor of mine was hit on the head with a blunt object.

It's unclear at this point what that object was, but seriously enough that he had to go to the hospital.

It's not, you know, I don't want to cast aspersions on who hit him because no suspect has been identified yet.

It seems pretty clear that he was hit and did suffer a head wound that resulted in bleeding.

Assault is not a protected First Amendment activity.

The thing that happened to my neighbor is completely unacceptable.

It happened during a demonstration.

I don't know if it was a protester or a demonstrator that was doing it, and I don't know if it was politically motivated in any way.

But I would want to first just clarify if actions taken is broad enough to include things that aren't First Amendment related activities, but some kind of physical harm to a person that happened during a demonstration.

And I would just want to make sure that the proviso is not that broad, because I think that there certainly needs to be accountability when a community member is horribly assaulted like that.

And I just want to make sure that we aren't extending, that this proviso wouldn't cover an activity like that.

So that's the first question I want to pose to the sponsor and to central staff, just to make sure.

Thank you so much for clarification on the definition.

Allie, I see you're off mute.

Would you like to answer that?

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

I'm going to ask my colleague, Asha, to take that question as she has been staffing this specific amendment.

Good morning, Council Members.

Asha Venkatraman, Council Central staff.

I believe we'd have to get a interpretation from the City Attorney's Office about that particular set of facts.

But my understanding is that the proviso is relatively broad and may cover that circumstance.

And so I'd recommend that if we want further analysis, that we should get back to the City Attorney's Office and have them give us an opinion on that.

Madam Chair, if I may?

Please go ahead, Council Member Juarez.

Yes, I'm inclined to agree with Council Member Lewis while reading this.

And I understand the intent, certainly the spirit and the passion, but I too believe that it's overbroad.

We've had other instances of people on every side, And how we parse out justice from the legislative branch to me is, I don't believe we can do that, quite frankly.

And I think legal should tell how we can take this with this intent and actually make it more detailed, that it can be upheld, and that we can actually effectuate and apply it justly.

So for that reason, I would not be supporting amendment nine.

of councilmember Suwant, protester, prosecution, proviso.

Thank you.

Thank you, councilmember Juarez, councilmember Suwant, and then council president Gonzalez.

Sorry, I would...

So first of all, of course, neither intentionally nor inevitably, the intention of this proviso would be to prevent arrests or prosecution for the kind of instances that Council Member Lewis mentioned.

Obviously, we want to make sure that there is real public safety.

So if that kind of assault happens, absolutely that the perpetrator should be held accountable.

But I wanted to explain why The amendment is worded in this way, the provisor is worded in this way, and then also I would, I'll just go ahead and say I'm happy to accept modifications to the language if council members have other wording.

But here's why it's worded this way because We have seen countless examples, and this is not just in Seattle, this is just, you know, this is happening in cities across the country, that the legal system, because it is set up to repress protesters, always finds non-First Amendment related sort of made up reasons to prosecute completely reasonable and peaceful protesters.

This has happened to many people.

It is not something that's just a fringe set of incidents.

This happens all the time.

And so, you know, the The the example that I gave earlier the assault on police officer that was an example of not an actual assault on police officer, but these are charges that on paper look that are that are not related to First Amendment rights, but these are made up charges and so it's difficult for us to see how.

uh, without keeping a certain broadness of language, uh, it is, it is possible to protect the first amendment rights of protesters, of media, of legal observers.

And, you know, all these examples we have seen chock full in the police department's response in the recent days, including this past Saturday.

I mean, just brutal injuries on people and so on and so forth and arrests on people.

So, um, I mean, I would say that, you know, obviously this is supposed to, this is based on a reasonable understanding of what the city attorney should do, because I am not about to, and I really doubt any other council member is about to object to the city attorney prosecuting an actual incident like was mentioned as an example.

The intent of this amendment is to make sure that injustice is not happening against protesters.

Thank you, council member Swatt.

Council President Gonzalez.

Thank you so much, Chair Mosqueda.

So I also read the language of the proviso very broadly to cover any and all actions that are committed during this period of time.

without any distinction between prosecutions related to the exercise of First Amendment and negative behavior that might have occurred during the protest but unrelated to the protest.

And so have concerns about the broadness of the language for actions.

taken while participating in the Justice for George Floyd protests.

Secondly, I just wanna get an understanding of what, there appears to be a temporal connection here in this language.

So in addition to the broadness of the language related to prosecution of individuals for actions, any actions, there's also an additional layer of actions that are quote, taken while participating in justice for George Floyd protests.

And it goes on to list types of evidence, close quote.

So I guess I'm, I don't see how the proviso is defining that period of time.

And I think there's difference of opinion about whether that's still happening or whether there's sort of a concrete period of that the sponsor has in mind in terms of the date certain of when the Justice for George Floyd protests were occurring.

Thank you, Council President.

Please go ahead, Council Member Swann, a response.

Maybe I should wait if other Council Members also want to speak.

OK, did you want to offer clarification on that question or should we have you answer?

At the end, is that what you're suggesting?

Let me go ahead and let me go ahead and respond to that.

I mean, in terms of the defining why that period was defined, again, as I said, for all these questions, my offer still stands that if council members are in general agreement that something needs to be done about what has happened along these lines, but you're uncomfortable about a specific language, I'm happy to take that into consideration, but, and I'll come back to that in a second, but just on this question of the definition of the period, clearly that stands because there was a colossal number of arrests, and I'm quoting Council Member Lewis, who just said, which I agree with, it just, the number of unfair and unjust arrests just skyrocketed during this period, and this has been, all the demands related to the rights of protesters who were arrested is a central focus of the community on the streets that is fighting in the defund and the justice for George Floyd movement.

And that's the spirit behind this amendment.

And as I said, I'd be happy to accept modifications for this language.

And if council members would support this proviso with amended language, my office would be willing to hold the vote until I believe Wednesday, I'm not sure.

I guess it's Wednesday.

Regardless, I will hold to the next committee to work with council members on revised language.

But I also would say, I believe I made this offer also when it was discussed this past Wednesday.

So I'm willing to hold it, but I would like to know if council members are serious about supporting it with amended language.

Okay, thank you for putting that out there.

Council Member Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And I appreciate Council Member Swann making her intent clear behind the language.

And I really appreciate Council Member Swann's intent of what should and should not be covered.

And I agree with the scope that she has put out there and thank her for clarifying that.

I mean, I think based on the comments of central staff, I think there would probably need to be some new language and I further appreciate councilmember Sawant's invitation to work on new language to make sure the intent of the sponsor is accurately reflected.

I am personally not interested in engaging in a project like that.

It's just that I haven't personally had a problem with how the city attorney is exercising his discretion.

I mean, as I discussed last week, out of about 90 referrals, the city attorney's office is only prosecuting one individual, and that one individual actually brandished weapons at demonstrators.

So I think that You know, even though there are charter issues and other issues that have been flagged, if we did have a city attorney that was filing on like all 90 of those cases and was pursuing trumped up prosecutions for like obstruction and pedestrian interference, I would totally be willing to try to find workarounds to develop more prescriptive language to tie the hands of that city attorney if they were out of line.

I just think that from what I have seen, the city attorney has been very careful in using his discretion to make sure he is respecting the First Amendment rights of the demonstrators.

And I mean, I just think in respecting his role under the charter and in just respecting his professional diligence and using his discretion well, I just don't see a need for the proviso.

And I don't think that the city attorney.

I think having more specific language would be additive since it doesn't seem that the city attorney at this time is bringing prosecutions that would punish first amendment activities.

based on that, I am planning to vote against this today.

about the temporal nature of this.

And the danger is you, the legislative branch, quite frankly, through this amendment would be trying to create affirmative defense in court on the judicial branch, the city attorney, and I agree with Council Member Lewis.

I mean, I don't always agree with the city attorney on some of the issues, but I do agree and understand the discretion that's been exercised.

A good example, and I want to thank Council Member Lewis for bringing up an example.

So does this mean, and all of you know this, so I'm not hiding anything.

So does this mean that people that come to people's homes and deface and destroy property, personal property, private property, harass potential hate crimes in the name of George Floyd protests wouldn't be prosecuted?

And I put that out there and again, I can imagine the backlash now.

But my point is, when we, in the legislative branch, reach out to another area of the branch, i.e., the judicial branch, we don't, this isn't really quite our job.

I know, Counselor Sawant, you believe that if we have control of the purse, that we can control the policy, but, and some of the behavior.

But this goes directly to creating an affirmative defense in a court of law, which we don't do.

and our charter doesn't, that isn't what we do on the legislative side.

We can influence that.

We can look at that budget.

We're certainly gonna move towards funding the police department, reallocating resources.

And as I shared again, it's how we get there with the plan.

So again, it isn't that the intent and the spirit that I believe probably all of us agree with, it's just how we implement that and how we do that legally.

Fourth Amendment rights, Fifth Amendment rights, and Sixth Amendment rights.

And that is not in the legislative sphere.

That's in the judicial branch.

And so I cannot support this as written.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Council Member Juarez.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

I just want to turn to, if I can get back to it, I want to turn to the city attorney's statement about this issue.

He writes, in the middle of June, he writes, after two weeks of anguished demonstrations over the murder of George Floyd and the killing of other unarmed black men by police, it's plain to me that peaceful protesters should not be prosecuted.

despite having been arrested during events that have sometimes devolved into violent and destructive confrontations with Seattle police and supporting law enforcement agencies.

If you are marching in the streets peacefully, speaking your voice and out after the now-council curfew, I have no interest in charging you with a crime.

Other misdemeanor reports have crossed my desk, and then he goes on to say that for those other misdemeanor reports, regardless of age, those folks are going to be diverted to choose 180. This is a program that this council is supporting.

We have been working with the city attorney for 18 to 24-year-olds, expanding to folks that this program exists currently for 18 to 24-year-olds.

This council supports expanding it to folks who are over 24. Before council took its action, the city attorney worked with Sean Good, the executive director of that those folks will be given the opportunity to be diverted regardless of age.

He goes on to say, Sean has graciously offered to accept any person we refer regardless of age who was arrested in a recent protest.

And again, this is for the misdemeanors.

After engaging with Sean's team to work through their experience, they'll be connected to an organization that will help them advance the cause they were passionately protesting for.

After they engage, I will toss their criminal referral in the figurative wastebasket.

No criminal charge, no criminal record, no jail.

My attorneys will take a close look at each police report, including body, camera, video, to identify appropriate referral candidates.

And we'll look at cases already filed for potential referral.

No one is currently in jail for events stemming from recent demonstrations at the misdemeanor level.

The more serious felony level results have been referred to the King County Prosecutor's Office, including third degree assaults on police officers, looting and burglary, hate crimes, and some rather alarming firearms-based incidents.

So I just want to say that this is how I expect our city prosecutor to handle these kinds of cases, dismissing cases where people were erroneously charged because of their political activity and evidence that they have engaged peacefully, diversion for misdemeanors, and the appropriate referral to the King County Prosecutor's Office to make that same set of decisions on felony level incidents.

If we had a different city attorney, and we have disagreed with the city attorney on things in the past, but as it relates to the decision making around how to pursue these charges, I feel like not only am I aligned with the decision-making that the city attorney has made, but that I and I think many of us on the council have already written letters or signed statements expressing that he would take the actions that he has committed to taking.

And by putting the statement out publicly, it allows us, I think, to continue to hold the city attorney accountable for decision making in the future.

So I am not going to be supporting this action.

Again, if we had a different civil, sorry, city prosecutor, I might be a little bit more willing to tip my toe over into the side of overstepping our charter roles, but I don't think that's the case here.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

And to wrap us up, we're going to call the question, Council Member Swann.

Final comments, please.

Thank you.

In response to the comments that have come up, I just quickly want to reiterate that the most important proviso in my view is the one that's similar one that is related to the Seattle Police Department that is coming up later this afternoon whose evidence is used to support county prosecutions and here is where the and the county prosecutor has made no such statement about not charging protesters.

I hope council members will vote yes on this one, but regardless, I believe that that upcoming amendment is extremely important.

And I would also note just in closing that the city attorney's office is still doing things like subpoenaing the video of news media.

And I'll also reiterate that dropping the charges of protesters is one of the core demands of the movement.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member Swan, I will be supporting your later proviso this afternoon and just wanted to let you know that.

All right Madam Clerk let us call the roll on this amendment please.

Morales.

No.

Morales.

No.

Peterson.

No.

Solan.

Yes.

Strouse.

No.

Gonzales.

No.

Herbold?

No.

Juarez?

Or Juarez, you may be on mute.

I'll come back.

Lewis?

No.

Apparently, am I back?

You are back, Council Member Juarez.

I know I'm going to catch it for not, you know, I'm just going to say this so everyone can understand.

When you call in from a phone, the mute button on your phone doesn't always work because you've got to hit star six and it literally becomes an algebra test for me to go back and forth.

Yeah, I know.

I'm old.

I get it.

Yeah.

No.

Okay.

You're a no vote on the amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair Mosqueda.

I'm a no.

One in favor.

Eight opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion fails and amendment number nine is not adopted.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

that about 72,000 from salary savings in the Department of Finance and Administrative Services.

I'll note that this version differs from what was discussed last week by adding a proviso to ensure that these funds can only be spent as intended.

Okay, thank you very much.

Council colleagues, I would like to do this officially.

Council Member Morales, before you begin your comments, would you like to move your amendment?

I move amendment 10.

amendment 10 has been moved to the agenda.

Is there a second?

I will second it.

Awesome.

It's been moved and seconded.

Council Member Morales, would you like to describe your amendment, please?

Sure.

Thank you.

So as Allie mentioned, we have made a change to the amendment here.

The change reflects our conversation last week and the subsequent conversations that we've had with OCR.

I'm looking for a little more assurance to the department to that funding will be retained for the remainder of this year.

So, I don't know, Ali or can speak to the recommendations from the report.

But I do want to express that, you know, during these times, especially, we need to make sure that this department is able to respond to the disproportionate experiences of the recession and the pandemic, particularly on our black and brown communities, so that we make sure that their civil rights are protected and that justice is met.

My staff heard concerns about what the mayor might propose for the 2021 budget, but our office wants to stand firm and ensure that funding for these positions will remain this year and next.

That is what we are moving now.

Thank you, Council Member Riles.

I see Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

I also want to speak in support of this amendment, and particularly as it relates to concerns that I and others have expressed in the past about caseload levels for the investigators.

Allowing for this mediation program to move forward, it allows SOCR to determine, along with the complainant, because things don't go to mediation without a complainant's agreement, which things should be moved from the full investigation track to the mediation track.

And so in doing so, because currently there's only a full investigation track, in doing so, it allows for the number of cases that individual investigators have their caseloads to get to get smaller by offering this other opportunity for resolution.

And I think also, as Council Member Morales mentioned, as it relates specifically to the recommendations that the council asked for and funded as it relates to the Office of Civil Rights and our exploration about seeking more independence for the Office of Civil Rights.

I think it's important for us to be clear on what we're doing and what we're recommending.

the standard to meet to find that discrimination has occurred as high, and it results sometimes in very unsatisfactory resolution and outcomes for community members who are looking for I think it is important for us to have a conversation about what we can do for recognition, closure, discussion about treatment that has been unsatisfactory and unfair but might not have reached the evidentiary standard necessary to prove discrimination.

Seeing none, I will just signal my support for this and I'll be voting yes as well.

Council colleagues, let's go ahead and move forward.

Council Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Morales?

Yes.

Peterson?

Yes.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Gonzales?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Warras?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Chair Mosqueda?

Yes.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion carries and Amendment 10 is adopted.

Thank you very much.

Let's move on to Amendment 11 from Council Member Morales and Sawant on Office of Labor Standards.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

I will now describe Amendment 11 and then unless I hear a signal from the chair, I will also describe the alternate version that was distributed this morning to just present how they are similar or different.

I'm sorry, I'll interrupt you.

One thing that I think would be helpful if we could queue this up for future amendments that we do on an individual basis, to have the full list of co-sponsors, because I know that there was additional co-sponsors that got added in addition to the prime sponsors.

So as we think about the individual amendments that we'll be discussing later this morning, that would be helpful.

I think that speaks to Council Member Juarez's question earlier, too, as well.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

So Amendment 11, sponsored by Council Members Morales and Sawant, with co-sponsors Council President Gonzalez, Council Member Mosqueda, and Council Member Strauss, would add $75,000 to the Office of Labor Standards and cut $75,000 from FAS and imposes a proviso to restrict spending of $194,000 to fill three vacant senior investigator positions and one vacant policy analysis.

This version of amendment 11 differs from the previous version discussed at the committee meetings last week by adding a proviso on a portion of, on the $75,000 that would be cut from FAS and added to the office of labor standards and on a portion of the existing OLS budget to fill those positions.

The substitute version of this amendment, amendment 11A that was distributed this morning has the same sponsors, but would solely impose a proviso to restrict OLS's spending of $194,000 in their existing budget to fill these positions.

The reason for this substitute version is that since the previous discussion, we understand that the salary savings assumed in the mayor's rebalancing measures were for the first half of the year.

So there should be funds remaining in OLS's budget to fill these positions.

And the proviso would ensure that those dollars are only used for that purpose.

Thank you very much.

So it has been moved and seconded and described, or it has not been described.

Remind me where we're at.

Council Member Sawant.

Thank you.

Is this the appropriate moment to move, to substitute, and then I can talk about it?

One second.

Let me just confirm with the clerk that I have appropriately put it in front of us.

Amelia, have we appropriately moved amendment number 11 in front of us?

to move amendment 11 to council

I move to amend, I move to substitute amendment 11A for amendment 11.

Is there a second?

I see heads nodding.

Council Member Morales, did you want a second?

Okay.

It's been moved and seconded to substitute amendment A for amendment 11. Council Member Swat, would you like to speak to your substitute?

Thank you.

And thank you to the co-sponsors to the original version of this amendment.

As I've raised throughout this year, the hiring freeze and austerity in the Office of Labor Standards is totally unacceptable.

I'm sorry, there is a vehicle outside my house, I think a garbage or recycling vehicle, so it's noisy.

workers facing wage theft or violation of their paid safe and sick time are sometimes waiting over a year to have the city even start looking into their cases.

If the mayor's hiring freeze and austerity in the office of labor standards is allowed to continue, that will mean that workers will continue to have the theft of their wages unremitied.

This budget amendment the funding for the investigator positions that are currently frozen.

Amendment 11 was the amendment that we discussed on Wednesday.

Alongside Councilmember Morales we co-sponsored this amendment to fund filling these OLS positions.

Since then, however, as Ali indicated, council center staff has learned that the hiring fees in the office of labor standards was technically only budgeted for six months, not the full year.

So OLS should have the funds.

for these positions now.

However, they have not restarted the hiring process to fill them that was halted when the hiring freeze went into effect.

So Amendment 11A, the substitute amendment, would place a proviso on the Office of Labor Standards funds allocated to fill these positions to say that those funds can only be used to fill those positions.

Unlike in the original version of this amendment, does not transfer any funds from FAS because Congressional, I mean, not Congressional, Central Budgeting Office has said that the, necessary funds are currently in the OLS budget.

And just to quickly read out the text of the proviso of the appropriation in the 2020 budget for the Office of Labor Standards, and notwithstanding powers provided to the mayor, the $194,000 is appropriated solely to fill up to I would just note quickly that no budget amendment or proviso in my experience can force mayor Durkin to spend the funds.

If the mayor hopes not to fund these and while the council is only voting on the 2020 budget right now and not 2021, by passing this proviso, we will also be sending a clear statement that the council prioritizes ending the hiring freeze in OLS and intends to fund these positions in 2021 and in the future.

Hopefully, that will be sufficient assurance for OLS to hire investigators to fill these positions.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much.

Additional comments on Amendment A?

Appreciate working with your office on the substitute here and happy to be a co-sponsor with you.

Seeing no additional comments, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on Amendment Number 11A.

Morales.

Yes.

Peterson.

Aye.

Swann.

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Gonzales.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

Juarez.

Aye.

Lewis?

Yes.

Chair Mosqueda?

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion carries and Substitute A to Amendment 11 is adopted.

All right, let's move on to Amendment 14, sponsored by Council Member Lewis.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

Amendment 14 would add $1.7 million to HSD for non-congregate shelter cutting $1.7 million from the Department of Finance and Administrative Services for potential jail services savings.

Council members, I apologize for the interruption.

Yes, please go ahead.

Before we move on to the next amendment, we still have Amendment 11A as amended before us.

So if we could just ask for one more roll call vote on Amendment 11A.

I appreciate that.

Sorry, Council Colleagues.

Again, the last vote was on voting to adopt the Substitute A to Amendment 11. So now we need to vote on Amendment 11 as adopted.

Correct, Amelia?

Correct.

All right, guys.

Let's do this again.

Additional comments or questions?

Seeing none, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on Amendment 11 as adopted?

Morales?

Yes.

Peterson.

Aye.

Sawant.

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Gonzales.

Aye.

Herbold.

Yes.

Morez.

Aye.

Lewis.

Aye.

Schramm-Mosqueda.

Aye.

Nine in favor, nine opposed.

I move amendment 14. I will second it.

I think it is absolutely appropriate to be taking this jail waiver money, and I would ask for clarification at the conclusion of my comments if central staff could confirm that the waiver has been extended.

I believe I saw this morning somewhere that we actually had gotten confirmation that these savings will be realized.

I just want to say that, you know, having previously worked in the municipal court, having previously seen The folks that cycle through the municipal court for low-level misdemeanor offenses, which is the jurisdiction of the city of Seattle, it is an enormously wasteful system where the core needs of people are not met.

They come back over and over and over again for committing low-level shoplifting offenses, get back in the jail, get back out on the street, repeat the cycle over and over again.

And I think that there is something very appropriate in taking these savings we're realizing due to COVID de-intensification and putting it into a resource that will actually help solve the underlying needs of a lot of the folks who are living in unsanctioned encampments, who have behavioral mental health and co-occurring conditions that are getting wrapped up into our criminal legal system.

and being able to get them into some kind of de-intensified shelter space, meet their core underlying needs, and let them just live in dignity as community members.

And I know that there's concerns that have been expressed about whether this line item is going to be spent or invested by the executive if we approve it.

You know, I share those concerns with my colleagues and will definitely to get these resources out the door, but we know that this is a critical investment at this time in the city.

Our first state of emergency this year, in a year that has been defined by states of emergency, was our ongoing struggle and challenge to get our neighbors who are experiencing homelessness a dignified place to live.

throughout our deliberations in this balancing session with all of the other challenges that have come up, that's not something that I know any of us have lost sight of.

I think this is another step to meet the really big need and make sure that we have the adequate resources to make sure that not only are we getting people off the street, but they're in de-intensified non-congregate settings where they're not at increased risk for contracting COVID.

we are in a situation where we need to do more.

And with that, I would just encourage that we adopt this amendment and make more progress toward our ongoing response to make sure that we are increasing shelter options for people experiencing homelessness.

I'm going to turn it over to councilmember Herbold.

I was the person who shared the news from chief of staff for county executive Dow Constantine that the waiver has been extended for now.

executive is going to spend this funds.

But my broader set of concerns is in recognition of the need, recognition of the appropriateness of using this particular fund source of jail services savings for this population of people who many folks are experiencing cycling in and out of jail because of living in poverty.

But my concern has been that we voted for the 2020 spending plan, 10 million for this purpose.

Council Member Mosqueda had another amendment that I believe is included in the balancing package, the consent package, for upwards of another million for this purpose, and this adds another 1.7 million.

So it's, I think, nearly $13 million to spend in four and a half months for something that's very worthy.

Again, I'm less concerned that the executive won't spend it.

I'm more concerned that there isn't a way to spend this number of dollars in the next four and a half months I've expressed these concerns at the last committee meeting.

I've not heard anything further from the sponsor.

I've reached out to the city budget office to find out whether or not there is some plan to spend these dollars that I'm aware of.

I reached out to our friends at DESC to ask that same question.

I asked that question of the director of the Seattle King County Coalition on Homelessness.

So, again, I understand the concept of earmarking dollars for a purpose that the council feels very strongly about as a way to incentivize the mayor's office to use those dollars.

I think earmarking nearly $13 million for a purpose that it may not be possible to deplete all those dollars.

Given the way our budget works, those dollars, if not spent this year on things that are urgent needs that can be spent this year, will just go back into the mayor's sort of budget, her purview for proposing a budget for 2021, which will then prohibit the council from expressing its preference for how to spend these dollars.

Thank you, Councilmember Herbold.

I would, Councilmember Lewis, do you mind if I make a comment just as I will happily call on you to respond to those comments as well.

Asha or Ali for clarification as well.

I believe that there's still flexibility built into our options within non-congregate shelter settings.

I think that you're right, that there's a big concern that among the $10 million that was allocated from the Jump Start COVID relief package for 2020, that none of those dollars have yet been slated to get out the door from the executive.

I think that there's a big I'm concerned about that just generally with the 86 million that we allocated that folks need those dollars and part of that is non-congregate shelter settings.

I am continuing to be supportive of this amendment really as an effort to make sure that we're putting every effort forward as a council to be in good partnership with the King County Council and Executive.

Again, as a reminder, we know that they are providing non-congregate settings and they are doing that mostly for isolation and quarantine.

So my continued interest in advocating for as many dollars as possible to non-congregate settings of all kinds means that we continue to put that funding forward to show that value, to show the intent and the push towards getting folks into those settings.

And I would feel potentially different if we hadn't continued to hear from frontline providers that the second they get those dollars, they can put people into non-congregate settings.

For me, it's really about making sure that every tool is available and continuing to request, push, and advocate for the executive to get these dollars out the door because we have the crisis, not only of COVID this summer, but it's potential worsening this fall.

And on top of that, the compounding nature of the flu and people's underlying health conditions.

So I think that there's going to continue to be even more of a need for these dollars, even though we have a short timeframe in 2020. That's my short answer.

Council Colleagues, any additional comments?

Council Member Lewis.

Right, and also just to say too, I am very sensitive to the issues that Council Member Herbold raised.

I think I think part of the response in drafting the proviso was to make it as broad as possible in terms of the types of investments that could be applied for.

And this is partially to be responsive.

As colleagues remember, there was some dispute over earmarking a fairly large amount of the previous 10 million for deintensification, specifically into tiny house villages.

The wording of this proviso is broader.

So while tiny house villages would be able to apply for this fund, so could enhanced shelter placement, so could hotel rooms for, you know, providers like CoLead that are doing a lot of hoteling type of interventions or DESC.

I think that there is certainly from my conversations with providers on the ongoing need for money to support deintensification, I have no doubt that there is going to be demand and application from a considerable number of providers in 2020 to get these resources.

I think that the service providers certainly could use an

Thank you.

I just want to be as clear as I can be.

I'm not disputing that there is a need for funds for non-congregate shelter and that if funds were made available for 2020, that there would be applications from our provider community.

I'm asking have we received any indication that our provider community could spend $13 million in the next four and a half months if those dollars were all made available?

And Council Chair Mosqueda, I can just say this.

I mean, I I mean, the short answer to that is yes, because I haven't spoken to, you know, to every provider in King County.

But, you know, from my conversations with with a series of different, you know, with folks from, you know, from Lehigh and from other providers, they're certainly, they have any number of projects that they could apply for this funding and spend in 2020 that would result in people actually getting into non-congregate shelter.

Great.

Thank you very much, Council Member Lewis.

Seeing no additional comments, I'm going to go ahead and ask the clerk Council Member Earl, did you have one more thing?

No, okay.

I'm gonna go ahead and ask the clerk to please call the roll on amendment number 14.

Morales.

Yes.

Peterson.

Aye.

Sawant.

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Gonzalez.

Yes.

Herbold.

Yes.

Juarez.

Yes.

I'll turn it over to Alice for an overview.

from the consent package.

For the record, I'll just restate that Amendment 3 to Council Bill 119825 that was originally in the consent package was withdrawn for consideration.

So the remaining item is Amendment 7 to Council Bill 119825, sponsored by Council Member Sawant, that would impose a proviso to prohibit removing the North Lake Tiny Home Village.

And as I noted previously, the proviso was updated to remove the language about the requirement that removal could only occur if there is an agreement provided in writing from a majority of the residents of the tiny home village.

That is still included in the effect statement.

It was inadvertently left in, but the proviso no longer includes that language.

Thank you very much, Allie.

Amendment number seven, sponsored by Council Member Sawant and co-sponsored by Herbold, Morales, Mosqueda, and Strauss.

I will turn it over to Council Member Sawant.

Thank you.

Do I need to move it first?

Please do.

I move Amendment 7 to Council Bill 119825. Thank you.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Council Member Swent, would you like to speak to this?

Thank you.

This budget amendment, as I said before, would impose a proviso to say that no funds may be used to remove the North Lake tiny house village who are under threat of being swept by the mayor's office for perhaps the fourth time this year.

After massive public support for the tiny house village and despite the dangers and absurdity of eliminating a tiny house village during the COVID and homelessness emergencies, Mayor Durkin continues to only give them extensions of a couple of months at a time.

for those of us who are housed, imagine spending years being told that you would be evicted in a month or two every few months.

Their latest eviction date was August 1st, and we feel this is totally unacceptable.

After we proposed this budget amendment, Jason Johnson, the mayor's unconfirmed acting director of the Human Services Department, sent a letter saying that the North Lake Tiny House Village will not be swept on August 1st, but they are not authorized to stay at that location, so he does not want to be prohibited from sweeping them in the last few months of the year, which is absurd.

This budget amendment would prohibit any funds being used to remove the village.

Sorry, this was reflecting the old language.

I'll stop there.

given clarifications on that so I won't repeat her points.

This tiny house village is part of Nicholsville which means that the residents themselves democratically decide on the policies and organizing of the village and democratic self-management is one of the things that have made the tiny house villages so successful because but that's not the only model and we have supported other models as well and tiny house villages as a whole have been quite successful and successful like virtually like very few other strategies.

And we have tiny house villages today in part because of Nicholsville activists who have spent years, at least going back to 2007, fighting for the rights of encampments, at first that were nothing more than tents, and now with tiny houses, hygiene, and other services.

The encampments, of course, as some of us know, were initially named after former Mayor Nichols, not as an honor, but instead to draw attention to his administration's failure to follow through with campaign promises to address homelessness.

And I would say, of course, that regardless of the role that the residents and supporters of Nicholsville have played, which I think is a laudable role, regardless, it would still be foolish and cruel to evict the village in the middle of a triple emergency of COVID, unaffordable housing and homelessness.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Council Member Sawant.

For discussion, Council Member Peterson, please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

And just wanted to pull this so we can have a little bit more discussion.

This particular village is in District 4. It's on Seattle City Light property.

I appreciate everybody's interest in this particular village.

The Wallingford neighborhood has welcomed this village warmly for the last two years and more.

And our you know, happy that they're there and happy that they can stay.

I know that there is a process now where a new location is trying to be found, and I just wanted to understand the language a little bit more and what the effect would be.

Thank you for clearing up Central Staff that there's some language that was changed and the effect statement's not relevant.

That helps a lot.

Do we know how many residents are currently residing there?

≫ Thank you.

I'm going to ask my colleague to weigh in if we have that information at hand.

≫ I don't know the current number of residents that are there.

I don't have it at hand.

or remove residents, just want to make sure that if we do find a new location and they're relocated off the Seattle City Light property where they've been for the last two plus years, whether this would prohibit us using resources to relocate it to a new location that's secured for them.

I guess that's for central staff.

Yes, Councilmember that the the way this was drafted was to prohibit the removal or relocation of any residents or tiny homes so there would we would not know fun to be able to be expended for that purpose and for the remainder of the year.

I don't believe that's correct.

Relocating a tiny home village is not what we would call accepting someone into a housing program.

Typically, if you were to, for example, receive rapid rehousing, that might include assistance to move into your apartment like a security deposit, something along those lines.

So I don't believe that would affect that.

Okay.

Good, so if the individuals want to relocate and there's housing and resources available, this bill will not prohibit us from using city resources to help those individuals that want to relocate.

Wanting to relocate into permanent housing or other program.

I think that I might need to be more precise in my language.

If we were looking at a situation where someone was accepted into a affordable housing program or something along those lines, they would have the volition to do that.

I can't speak to how in every situation you might have a person being assisted in that role, but this proviso is prohibiting us from relocating the village itself and the residents to another location.

So I do not believe that what you're looking at would prohibit allowing people to move into housing.

Okay, good.

So if a new location, it's my understanding that a new location is actively being sought.

And so I didn't know, Council Member Swann, the answer may be no, but I just wanted to ask if there could be language saying, you know, unless a new location or until a new location is secured or something that would still enable, if a new location is found in September or October, to move the tiny home village to that new location?

Is that accurate?

Yes.

So can I just quickly respond?

I'll come to that point in a second.

Just in answer to the earlier questions, I'm not up on the updated number of residents there, but I believe there are 14 tiny houses there.

14. Yeah, just just one second.

That sounds right.

And we, I mean, it's on City Light property, yes, but it has been for two years, at least as far as I know.

And, you know, at first City paid City Light rent and maybe that's still going on.

I don't know.

I would say that this is my frank opinion based on what has happened with the mayor and the human services department under Jason Johnson and this has been the experience that any idea that somehow this has been a problem for anyone is in my view is a red herring argument based on everything all evidence that we have North Lake has continued without, the North Lake Tiny House Village has continued without a problem for a year, actually, since the Human Services Department started demanding that they leave.

Nicholsville has proposed other vacant unused city sites that they could move to.

So Nicholsville themselves have done that, but the mayor's office, the Human Services Department under the mayor's office has rejected all of them.

I appreciate Jeff, clarifying that the intent is not to prevent any resident from being moved into permanent housing because obviously that's not the intent.

The intent is to keep our neighbors who don't have housing and are unable to find housing because of the housing affordability crisis should have access to a tiny house village should they desire it.

That's the whole purpose of this proviso and especially not wanting to dismantle the tiny house village during a pandemic, given that the Centers for Disease Control have clearly stated that actions of that kind would actually endanger those homeless neighbors themselves and also exacerbate the public health crisis.

So it's just absurd that the mayor would be wanting to do this.

The intention of the clause was to be thorough.

If the human services department came to North Lake tiny house village and said they would extend a new permit to the village at a specified new location, And if they were willing to move the village there, I have no doubt that Nicholsville residents would agree because it's not so much about that particular location, but not having an insecurity of having the threat of eviction over their heads every two months.

That's the point.

And there have been times when that has been the request of North Lake Tiny House Village.

However, the whole scenario to me seems very unlikely in the final months of this year.

And if that did happen, the council could bring legislation to lift the proviso for that purpose.

So, you know, the CAO had said that we had to remove the clause that said unless the camp forced to move.

So we removed that.

So if council members want to amend this, I'm okay with that.

But I also think the intent is, hopefully I've clarified the intent.

Okay, great.

Council Member Juarez, and then I think I'm going to try to see if there's additional questions and wrap us up so we can conclude this packet.

Council Member Juarez, please go ahead.

Thank you.

I agree with council members to want, and I think the difference here is in the language, and I think the intent is reflected, but I always don't like to use the word, but nuance.

I think that the big difference here is removing is suggesting it's involuntary, and relocating is voluntary.

The common sense would tell us that if there is a place for people to transition, then voluntarily they would move.

So we know now, under this whole new universe, under COVID, that we're moving away from the former conventional wisdom of the Bob, Barb, Poppy report and everything else that we had to unwind and unlearn and now look at the world differently and support non-congregate shelter, support sheltering in place, support more tiny house villages, because we know that these are the people that are being hit the hardest not just economically, obviously, but the health issue.

So I will be supporting this, and I don't think there's a need to wordsmith it or change it.

I think the intent is pretty clear.

If there is, that's fine, but I think what council member Sawant put together and the intent about not involuntarily removing people, and it's clear that obviously if you're relocating, it would be premised on the fact that they have a better place to go and it's voluntary.

And this will unfold as time moves on.

And as you all know, we are responding to COVID and this is one way to respond to that.

So thank you.

Okay, thank you very much Council Member Juarez.

Council Member Peterson, please.

Yeah, I want to thank Council Member Sawant for clarifying that if there is a new location found we would be open to, if we had to legislate an amendment, we could do that at that time.

I just didn't want to, I didn't want this language to shut the door on the ability to find a new location.

So thank you for clarifying that.

Excellent.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson for your questions.

Thank you very much.

Council Member Sawant for bringing this forward and Council Member Juarez for your comments as well.

I'm not seeing any additional comments with that.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on amendment number seven?

Morales.

Yes.

Peterson.

Aye.

Swant.

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Gonzales.

Aye.

Herbold.

Yes.

Juarez.

Aye.

Lewis.

Yes.

Shamoskera.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Excellent.

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

Amendment number seven is adopted.

Council colleagues, that means that we have an amended version of Council Bill 119825 in front of us.

Madam Clerk, I just want to double check.

I would like to confirm, are we voting on the amended version of the Council Bill in front of us today?

This is Amelia.

No, the plan is not to vote on the bill today.

There will be several other further amendments to this bill.

We are just focusing on the non-SPD related amendments.

Thank you for the clarification for me and for the public.

So in front of us, we have amended version Council Bill 119825. Thank you very much both for the consent calendar and for the individual amendment discussion and debate and for your votes for the council viewing public.

have a revised version of this that will be now in front of us in upcoming meetings, and then we will incorporate additional SPD-related issues before we take a final vote on the amended version.

With that, we have two other items in this first section for today.

We have about 40 minutes left.

I am going to put a hard stop at 1 p.m.

We have heard a special request that we have significant time for I would ask folks to take a break and for our staff to get queued up for the other presentation.

So with that, I would ask for folks to be brief in their comments as we look at package number two and three.

Madam Clerk, will you please read into the record item number two?

Agenda item two, Council Bill 119824 relating to the city's response to the 2020 COVID-19 crisis.

I think for the record, I will

It's been moved and seconded that we consider Council Bill 119824. There are a handful of amendments, including consent agenda that is relatively small, but I will turn it over to Allie to walk us through the consent agenda here for Council Bill 119824. Thank you.

The next item is consideration of the consent package for the two amendments proposed to Council Bill 119824, amendments one and amendments four to that bill.

The two amendments combined use the total savings identified from the funding for the Hotel for Essential Workers in the Department of Finance and Administrative Services and are not in conflict.

Amendment one, originally sponsored by Council Member Muscata, joined by Council Member Juarez, Morales, Sawant, and Strauss, would use about $1 million from those savings to increase funding in the Human Services Department for the city's portion of costs for non-congregate shelter and imposes a proviso on those funds.

Amendment 4, which was originally sponsored by Councilmember, excuse me, Councilmember Herbold, and is joined by Councilmember Gonzalez, Councilmember Juarez, Lewis, Peterson, and Strauss, would add $100,000 to HSD's budget to develop programs to address social isolation in seniors and imposes a proviso on those funds.

Thank you very much.

Are there any council members who would like to remove an item from the consent agenda in front of us here?

Seeing no individuals requesting removal, are there any council members who would like to speak to items in this consent package?

Seeing no council members, council colleagues, are there any additional comments on the consent package in front of us before a vote?

Seeing no additional comments, council clerk, will you please call the roll on adoption of the consent package to Council Bill 119824. Morales?

Yes.

Peterson?

Aye.

Sawant?

Aye.

Strauss?

Yes.

Gonzales?

Aye.

Herbold?

Herbold?

Juarez?

Aye.

Lewis?

Yes.

Chair Mosqueda?

Aye.

And could you call Council Member Herbold one more time?

Herbold?

Yes.

Thank you.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

The motion carries and the consent package is adopted.

Let's go ahead and move on to other items that are individual amendments to this bill.

Chair Mosqueda, those are the only two amendments proposed to Council Bill 119824, so we can move on to Council Bill 119818.

Wonderful.

Well, congratulations all.

That was very efficient.

Madam Clerk, could you please read into the record item number three?

Agenda item three, Council Bill 119118, amending Ordinance 26000, which adopted the 2020 budget, including the I move that the city Council approve the 2020-2025 capital improvement program, changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and for various funds in the budget, adding new CIP projects and revising projects allocated for certain projects in the 2020-2025 CIP, abrogating positions, modifying positions, and ratifying concerns in Iraq, all by the City Council for

to consider Council Bill 119118. Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded, and we now have Council Bill 119118 in front of us.

There is a consent package.

I will turn it over to Allie to walk us through the consent package in front of us.

Thank you.

The consent package for Council Bill 119118 includes two amendments that were discussed at previous committee meetings.

Amendment 1, originally sponsored by Councilmember Herbold, joined by Council President Gonzalez, Councilmembers Juarez, Mosqueda, and Peterson, would add a new West Seattle High Bridge CIP project.

And the consent package also includes Amendment 5, sponsored originally by Councilmember Strauss, joined by Councilmembers Herbold, Juarez, Lewis, Morales, Mosqueda, Sawant, and Peterson would add $400,000 of transportation, excuse me, from the transportation fund to the Fortson Square redesign implementation capital improvement project.

Thank you very much, Ali.

Council colleagues, now is the time if you have any concerns with the consent package in front of us.

Again, relatively short, includes amendment number one and amendment number five.

Please let me know if you'd like to pull any amendments out.

Okay.

Council members who would like to speak to any of the pieces in the consent package, don't want to miss a thing.

Okay.

Thanks again for the robust discussion on these amendments in our last few meetings.

Is there any additional comments or questions on the consent package?

Seeing none, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the consideration of consent package to Council Bill 119818. Morales?

Yes.

Peterson?

Aye.

Sawant.

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Gonzales.

Aye.

Herbold.

Yes.

Juarez.

Yes.

Lewis.

Yes.

Chair Mosqueda.

Yes.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion carries and the consent package is adopted.

We will now consider amendments listed on the agenda for individual votes, starting with amendment number two.

I'll turn it back over to Allie.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Amendment two to Council Bill 119818 sponsored by Council Member Peterson and joined by Council Members Herbold, Juarez, and Strauss would use fund balance in the transportation fund to restore about $1.5 million of funding for new sidewalks on Sandpoint Way Northeast between Northeast 70th and Northeast 77th Street for intersection reconfiguration at Sandpoint Way Northeast and Northeast 74th Street.

and for crossing improvements at Sandpoint Way and Northeast 77th Street and Sandpoint Way.

Thank you very much.

So amendment number two, sponsored by Council Member Peterson, co-sponsored by Herbold, Juarez, and Strauss.

Council Member Peterson, would you like to speak to this amendment?

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

We did address this a couple of times.

I'll just bring everybody a reminder here.

Thank you for the co-sponsors.

And this amendment would reject the mayor's proposal to pause vital work on the sorely needed sidewalks, crosswalks, and other pedestrian improvements to safely connect 1,000 low-income residents of Magnuson Park to surrounding communities along Sandpoint Way Northeast.

These sidewalks and crosswalks are needed now to meet the goals of three city government initiatives, Vision Zero, our Pedestrian Master Plan, and our Safe Routes to School Program, helping to safely connect dozens of children to Sandpoint Way Elementary School.

It will also help connect scores of cyclists biking from Burke-Gilman Trail to Magnuson Park.

Funds to unpause this project will be found in the unreserved fund balance within SDOT's transportation fund.

This has been a community-driven project for years and community was very upset when they learned that it would be paused.

So this takes into account that community input to unpause it.

So I hope that we can support this today.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Council colleagues, I think we need to officially move the amendment.

Council Member Peterson, would you like to officially move amendment two?

I would like to move amendment two to amend CB 119818.

Thank you.

And it's been moved and seconded.

Thank you.

And it's been described by the prime sponsor.

Any additional comments?

Okay.

Seeing none, I will just say, Council Member Peterson, you answered my question, the concern I had about how this applies a racial equity lens to the various projects across the city.

Appreciate you clarifying that.

especially for the folks who we want to make sure have not just a place to live in Sandpoint but that is a walkable livable place.

Appreciate that.

We'll be supporting enthusiastically.

Madam Clerk I see no additional comments.

Will you please call the roll on Amendment 2.

Morales.

Yes.

Paterson.

Aye.

Swant.

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Gonzalez.

Aye.

Herbold.

Yes.

Warras.

Aye.

Lewis.

Yes.

Chair Mosqueda.

Yes.

Nine in favor and none opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion carries and amendment number two is adopted.

Moving right along.

Amendment number three, Allie.

Thank you.

Amendment number three, sponsored by Council Member Morales and joined by Council Members Peterson and Sawant would add $250,000 to the beach restoration program capital improvement project for shoreline improvements at bear shiva park and cuts $250,000 from salary savings in the department of finance and administrative services.

thank you very much.

this is amendment number three sponsored by council member morales, co-sponsored by council member peterson and sawant.

council member morales, would you like to move amendment three?

i move amendment three to council bill 119818. I'll second it.

It's been moved and seconded.

Council Member Morales, please go ahead and speak to this.

Sure.

Well, so we had a lot of conversation about this last week, so I will be brief.

But this amendment provides funding for the Beersheba Park shoreline restoration project.

The community has done a significant amount of work for several years on this project, and we want to make sure that we are addressing inequity in park improvements across the city.

So this funding would allow the community to complete the first part of their park improvement project by supporting the redevelopment of the beach shoreline and putting the beach back in Rainier Beach.

And I urge my colleagues to join me.

Very clever.

Thank you.

We have a I see no additional comments or questions so let's go ahead and call the roll on amendment number three.

Yes.

Strauss, yes.

Gonzales, I. Herbold, yes.

Juarez.

I. Lewis.

Yes.

Chair Mosqueda, I. Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion carries and Amendment number three is adopted.

Thank you very much.

Let's move on to Amendment number four.

Thank you.

Amendment four to Council Bill 119818 sponsored by Council Member Herbold and joined by Council Member Juarez and Lewis would cut $100,000 in HSD's budget for a community health engagement location, or also referred to as the CHEL, and would add that money to finance general to consolidate all of the funding that the council has added in previous budgets for the CHEL into one location.

Thank you very much.

Councilmember Herbold, would you like to move amendment number four?

Yes, please.

I move amendment number four.

It's been moved.

I will second it.

Council colleagues, amendment number four sponsored by Councilmember Herbold and co-sponsored by Juarez and Lewis is in front of us.

Councilmember Herbold, would you like to describe it?

Sure.

Just briefly adding to Allie Panucci's comments.

I think this was a potentially a and accounting error.

I don't see any evidence that the executive intentionally reduced the amount of funding provided by the city council by $100,000.

appreciate the ongoing commitment to this project.

This inquiry about the funding has allowed us to begin to inquire about the status of the project as well.

And I'm looking forward to having both the Human Services Department together with the Department of Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Department of Health was going to form a community planning group to provide more operational details, location criteria, and a proposed timeline for siting the two CHELs, one in Seattle and one outside of Seattle.

No decisions have been made about locations.

And what I'm hearing now is that we may be moving away from a need to site these two CHELs, but we may instead be looking at contract-based decisions to fund organizations who are already doing work with this particular population and ensuring that they are using effective strategies to address heroin and opioid addiction.

including the same strategies that we have contemplated for the CHEL, including safe injection practices.

So there'll be more to be said about that in the upcoming weeks.

Thank you.

Excellent.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

Are there any additional comments or questions, colleagues?

Okay.

Thank you very much, Council Member Herbold.

I will also be supporting this amendment and appreciate your ongoing work to make sure that we apply a public health lens and you've led with public health in your comments to the earlier questions that we were asking.

So thank you for starting there.

Council Clerk, could you please go ahead and call the record on, sorry, call the roll on amendment number four.

Morales?

Yes.

Katerson?

Aye.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Gonzales.

Aye.

Herbold.

Yes.

Juarez.

Aye.

Lewis.

Yes.

Chair Mosqueda.

Yes.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion carries and amendment number four is adopted.

Moving right along.

We're going to make it on time, folks.

We got two more amendments.

Amendment number six.

Thank you, Allie.

Thank you.

Amendment six to Council Bill 119818 sponsored by Council Member Strauss and joined by Council Member Lewis would add $400,000 from the transportation fund for the Market to Mohai CIP project.

Thank you very much.

Council Member Strauss, Amendment No. 6, co-sponsored by Council Member Lewis.

Would you like to move Amendment No. 6, Council Member Strauss?

Yes, thank you, Chair.

I move Amendment 6 to Council Bill 119818.

Great.

I will second it.

It's been moved and seconded.

Council Member Strauss, would you like to speak to this amendment?

Yes, and thank you for your co sponsorship again this would restore the $400,000 mark pedestrian from the project, the funds currently in s.unreserved balance mark no high.

As I said earlier this week is make these dollars would make improvements along the pedestrian corridor we can waterfront.

Belltown, South Lake Union, Mohai.

I was transparent earlier this week and again right now in terms of an equity lens of all of the amendments I brought this week.

This one does score the lowest of all the proposals I brought.

That said, with the massive population growth in the area, the great great pedestrian infrastructure is needed at the first last mile connection between these new population centers and the transit that serves the neighborhood.

This is a project that I've worked on previously, and this funding that we're speaking about today is the last set of funding to make the entire project go.

And Market to Mill High has mostly been funded by private contributions and local grants.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Councilmember Strauss.

Councilmember Lewis, did you have something to add?

Yes, please, go ahead.

I just wanted to state that, you know, pedestrian improvements, especially those envisioned by market demo high are important for realizing our plans of vision zero and making sure that we have attractive, well supported and.

comprehensive pedestrian connections all over the city.

I would add, you know, it's hard to think about it right now in the midst of just a crushing economic downturn that has essentially, you know, shut off most tourism to the city, shut off cruise ships coming to the city.

But, you know, there is going to be a time When we are going to have a return of tourism to the city of Seattle, there will be a big new centerpiece of a waterfront park.

This is an essential connection, and I think a big part of our economic recovery as a city, where we are going to want to be in a position where Mohai, one of the cultural gems of the city, in South Lake Union is connected to Pike Place Market, one of our most valuable civic institutions and tourist destinations, and the new Waterfront Park.

And that people are getting between those not by driving or not by renting cars, But they're getting there by taking advantage of bike and pedestrian opportunities that are created by this Market to Mohai Investment.

I think it's important not to lose sight of that.

We are going to come out on the other side of COVID.

We are going to have an economic recovery and that is going to be driven by people coming to the beautiful city of Seattle and enjoying the amenities in this corridor.

And the more that we can do to make that downtown a special experience, the better it is going to be for our recovery.

So, fully support this.

I really appreciate Council Member Straus' institutional knowledge on this from his previous role working for Council Member Bagshaw, and I look forward to voting for this today.

Thank you very much.

Council Colleagues, additional comments or questions on this?

Council President, please go ahead.

Just really quickly, I wanted to also signal my support for this.

I think there's been years of work by stakeholders in the community on advancing this project, and it is pretty far down the path.

And I think pulling back at this point would just be really unfortunate and I think would have the effect of potentially canceling out the effort as a whole.

And so I do think that there is the danger of setting precedent here of just completely negating the hard work that has been done in this space to finally create this link.

I'll also say that my understanding of this project is that there are investments here that acknowledge the history of this connection, including the cultural history of indigenous peoples in this area and other industries, and then other industries that existed in this area before we see the shape that this neighborhood has taken Currently, and then lastly, I'll say that there are some major public safety improvements here.

There are the pedestrian improvements, which is part of the public safety aspects, but there are.

Other major public safety elements to this project, including additional lighting and.

and visibility of the area to increase the feeling of safety for people who walk through.

And I know that Council Member Lewis talked about how this could play into and promote the city's long-term strategy around economic recovery from COVID-19, but I also think it's important for us to state on the record, as I'm sure Councilmember Lewis and Strauss are familiar with, that this is also an area where there's a lot more residents living currently and in a period of COVID where people are teleworking and looking for additional public space to continue to get outside in a safe way.

I think this is a long-term strategy for those efforts as well.

So I appreciate Councilmember Strauss bringing this forward and look forward to supporting it.

Thank you, Chair.

OK, thank you very much, Council President.

Any additional comments?

Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Council President, for those helpful words in centering how this project works.

As you said, this is the last step, and this is the last bit of funding needed.

And I'd also like to call out John Pearson, who is our local rocket scientist, actual rocket scientist, who has put all of this work together and brought so many people across Seattle together to see this walkway created.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Council Member Strauss, for those comments.

I also will be supporting this.

I think it's still a missed opportunity that decades ago we did not have the chance for our own Central Park-like area in that region, doing everything we can to make a more walkable, livable, City for everyone is helpful.

And as we expand a park-like setting along the waterfront, we know more people from across the city, not just downtown, will be accessing this area and everywhere it connects to.

So looking forward to supporting this.

All right, Council Clerk, could you please call the roll on amendment number six?

Morales?

Yes.

Gaterson?

Aye.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strouts?

Yes.

Gonzalez?