Meeting JSON
Layered meeting payload combining source, parsed, summary, and hindsight references.
Meeting JSON
JSON
x178373
generated inline viewer output
Seattle City Council
JSON view
{
"city": "seattle",
"canonicalVideoId": "x178373",
"source": {
"meeting": {
"fileName": "x178373.json",
"path": "data/cities/seattle/source/meetings/x178373.json",
"sourceStem": "x178373",
"variantCount": 1,
"variantFiles": [
"x178373.json"
],
"metadata": {
"videoId": "x178373",
"title": "Governance, Accountability and Economic Development Committee 7/24/2025",
"date": "2025-07-24",
"duration": 0,
"committee": "Governance & Economic Development",
"videoUrl": "https://www.seattlechannel.org/explore-videos?videoid=x178373",
"subtitleUrl": "https://www.seattlechannel.org/documents/seattlechannel/closedcaption/2025/gov_072425_2752529.srt",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://www.seattlechannel.org/images//images/seattlechannel/videos/2025/gov_072425_2752529web.jpg",
"rawData": {
"mediaUrl": "https://video.seattle.gov/media/council/gov_072425_2752529.mp4"
},
"transcriptSource": "official-subtitles"
}
},
"transcript": {
"fileName": "2025-07-24_governance-and-economic-development_x178373.srt",
"path": "data/cities/seattle/source/transcripts/2025-07-24_governance-and-economic-development_x178373.srt",
"sourceStem": "2025-07-24_governance-and-economic-development_x178373",
"size": 181797,
"variantCount": 1,
"variantFiles": [
"2025-07-24_governance-and-economic-development_x178373.srt"
],
"rawHash": "733d990b880ed472c68b740791e114e5b5d746eea7259b6ac18e04bbe3b601cb",
"textHash": "dd172113a2ff4c2413faf4c305c37239f40aa10ab41ff536e01872af60b14007",
"entryCount": 2600,
"wordCount": 13117,
"speakerCount": 9,
"speakers": [
"CHAIR NELSON",
"COUNCIL PRESIDENT",
"COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH",
"COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE",
"COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA",
"COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON",
"DIRECTOR NOBLE",
"FOUR PRESENT",
"GO AHEAD"
],
"urls": {
"srt": "/seattle/api/source/transcript/x178373.srt",
"text": "/seattle/api/source/transcript/x178373.txt"
}
}
},
"parsed": {
"persistedAt": "2026-04-14T03:49:53.113Z",
"canonicalVideoId": "x178373",
"meeting": {
"title": "Governance, Accountability and Economic Development Committee 7/24/2025",
"date": "2025-07-24",
"committee": "Governance & Economic Development",
"videoUrl": "https://www.seattlechannel.org/explore-videos?videoid=x178373",
"sourceVideoId": "x178373",
"sourceFileName": "x178373.json",
"metadataVariantCount": 1,
"metadataVariantIds": [
"x178373"
]
},
"transcript": {
"sourceFileName": "2025-07-24_governance-and-economic-development_x178373.srt",
"sourcePath": "/Users/thedjpetersen/code/seacc/data/cities/seattle/source/transcripts/2025-07-24_governance-and-economic-development_x178373.srt",
"variantCount": 1,
"variantFiles": [
"2025-07-24_governance-and-economic-development_x178373.srt"
],
"entryCount": 2600,
"wordCount": 13117,
"speakerCount": 9,
"speakers": [
"CHAIR NELSON",
"COUNCIL PRESIDENT",
"COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH",
"COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE",
"COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA",
"COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON",
"DIRECTOR NOBLE",
"FOUR PRESENT",
"GO AHEAD"
],
"hash": "dd172113a2ff4c2413faf4c305c37239f40aa10ab41ff536e01872af60b14007"
},
"tags": [
"city:seattle",
"org:seattle-city-council",
"meeting:x178373",
"committee:governance-and-economic-development",
"year:2025",
"month:2025-07",
"date:2025-07-24"
],
"text": "THE COMMITTEE. WILL THE CLERK\nPLEASE CALL THE ROLL.\nCOUNCILMEMBER RIVERA: COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?\nOH, I'LL NOTE COUNCILMEMBER\nRIVERA WILL BE JOINING US HERE\nSHORTLY.\nCOUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON: COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON?\nHERE.\nCOUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH: COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH?\nHERE.\nCOUNCILMEMBER KETTLE: COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?\nHERE.\nCHAIR NELSON: CHAIR NELSON?\nPRESENT.\nFOUR PRESENT: FOUR PRESENT.\nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO FIRST\nI WANT TO PUT THIS ON THE\nRECORD, AND I PUT OUT A\nSTATEMENT EARLIER TODAY. I --\nNEVERMIND. WELL, I MIGHT AS WELL\nGO AHEAD. I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE\nTHE FRUSTRATION, MY EXCUSED\nABSENCE, CONTRIBUTED TO THE LACK\nOF QUORUM YESTERDAY IN THE\nCOMMITTEE MEETING, AND APOLOGIZE\nTO THE PEOPLE WHO TOOK THE TIME\nTO SHOW UP FOR THE COMMITTEE\nVOTE ON THEIR APPOINTMENT TO A\nRANGE OF BOARDS AND COMMISSION\nINCLUDING THE RENTER'S\nCOMMISSION. I'M GRATEFUL FOR\nTHEIR WILLINGNESS TO SERVE OUR\nCITY, AND DELAYS IN THE\nAPPOINTMENT PROCESS SERVES NO\nONE WELL. TO MAINTAIN THE\nSCHEDULE FOR THE FINAL COUNCIL\nACTION THAT WOULD HAVE OCCURRED,\nHAD COMMITTEE VOTES BEEN TAKEN.\nTHE APPOINTMENTS WILL BE\nINCLUDED FOR FINAL CONSIDERATION\nON NEXT TUESDAY'S CITY COUNCIL\nMEETING AGENDA. THE SAME IS TRUE\nFOR THE LEGISLATION REGARDING\nFEDERAL GRANT FUNDS FOR HOUSING\nAND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\nPROGRAMS TO MEET THE FEDERAL\nDEADLINE OF AUGUST 16. JUST\nWANTED TO GET THAT PUBLIC\nINFORMATION ITEM OUT THERE. ALL\nRIGHT. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.\nIF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, THE\nAGENDA WILL BE ADOPTED. HEARING\nNO OBJECTION, THE AGENDA IS\nADOPTED. CLERK, HOW MANY PEOPLE\nARE SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT\nTODAY?\nCHAIR NELSON, WE HAVE SEVEN\nIN-PERSON PUBLIC COMMENTERS, AND\nWE HAVE -- FIVE REMOTE.\nALL RIGHT. LET'S GO AHEAD\nAND START WITH THE IN PERSON,\nPLEASE. WE'LL DO ALL SEVEN, AND\nPEOPLE CAN HAVE TWO MINUTES, AND\nTHEN WE'LL HAVE THE REMOTE\nSPEAKERS, PLEASE.\nI'LL CALL ON SPEAKERS IN\nORDER THEY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK,\nSTARTING WITH IN-PERSON\nCOMMENTERS. SPEAKERS WILL HAVE\nTWO MINUTES. WHEN YOU HEAR THE\nCHIME, YOU'LL HAVE ABOUT 10\nSECONDS LEFT. IF YOU EXCEED THAT\nTIME, YOUR MICROPHONE MAY BE CUT\nOFF, SO WE CAN MOVE ONTO THE\nNEXT SPEAKER. PRESS STAR SIX TO\nUNMUTE YOURSELF. WITH THAT, THE\nFIRST SPEAKER FOR THE IN-PERSON\nPUBLIC COMMENT IS ALEX\nZIMMERMAN.\nYEAH, I'M READY. MY DIRTY\nNAZI, YOU FACETIOUS PIG. MY\nNAME, ALEX ZIMMERMAN. I WANT TO\nSPEAK WHAT IS ABSOLUTELY\nCRITICAL, WHAT'S HAPPENING\nRIGHT NOW. FRUSTRATION IS\nGROWING BIGGER AND BIGGER AND\nBIGGER. WE CANNOT ACCEPT THIS\nFOR 30 YEARS. GO BIGGER AND\nBIGGER FOR ANOTHER 30 YEARS.\nI'LL GIVE YOU A CLASSIC\nEXAMPLE. [ INAUDIBLE ] HOW IS IT\nTHIS POSSIBLE? FOR THE LAST 40\nYEARS, SHE NEVER HAD ONE Q&A. I\nDON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY'RE\nDOING THIS. TO ME, IT'S LOOKING\nLIKE A TYPICAL -- PRINCIPLE.\nIT'S A NIGHTMARE. I DON'T\nUNDERSTAND WHY THERE'S 700,000\nIDIOTS ELECTED HERE. DO THEY\nLIKE -- [ INAUDIBLE ] WHEN I\nCOME HERE. IT'S A NICE,\nBEAUTIFUL CITY. WHAT DO I MAKE\nOF IT RIGHT NOW? TOTAL\nFRUSTRATION. IT'S NOT ABOUT\nFRUSTRATION BECAUSE FRUSTRATION\nIS BETTER THAN DEMOCRACY. YEAH,\nABSOLUTELY. [ LAUGHTER ] MAKES\nMIDDLE CLASS LIFE MISERABLE.\nTHIS IS A PROBLEM, WHAT WE HAVE.\nSO RIGHT NOW I SPEAK TO\nEVERYBODY WHO WILL LISTEN TO ME.\nYOU KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS? STAND\nUP, GUYS. WE NEED A NEW REGIME.\nIT'S EXACTLY WHY I'M DOING\nTHIS EVERY DAY. YEAH. I SUPPORT\nTRUMP. VIVA TRUMP, BECAUSE\nTHERE'S ONLY ONE CHANCE TO MAKE\nAMERICA BACK TO THE\nCONSTITUTION., STAND UP,\nAMERICA.\nNEXT, WE'LL HAVE JEFF.\nFOLLOWING THAT, WE'LL HAVE\nBRANDY OSBORNE. MY APOLOGIES IN\nADVANCE, IF I MISPRONOUNCED YOUR\nFIRST AND LAST NAMES. THANK YOU.\nHELLO. I'M HERE TODAY TO\nTALK ABOUT TEMPORARY HOUSING\nI'M IN RIGHT NOW. I SPENT A LOT\nOF TIME IN OTHER SHELTERS AROUND\nTHE COUNTY. A LOT OF TIME, WHICH\nISN'T A GOOD THING. I'VE SEEN\nALL THE GOODS, THE BADS, THE\nUGLIES. I HAVE NOTHING, BUT VERY\nGOOD THINGS TO SAY. I'VE BEEN\nHERE BEFORE AND SPOKE TO YOU\nFOLKS WITH BASICALLY DUCT TAPE\nOVER MY MOUTH. SAYING THINGS TO\nYOU I WAS SUPPOSE TO SAY. NOW I\nCAN COME UP FREELY AND ACTUALLY\nTALK FREELY, WHICH I REALLY\nAPPRECIATE FROM THEM. THEY HAVE\nMADE MY LIFE A WHOLE LOT BETTER\nSINCE I WAS LIVING IN YOUR\nJUNGLE FOR FIVE YEARS. MY LIFE\nIS EXTREMELY BETTER SINCE I'VE\nBEEN LIVING THERE. I'VE BEEN\nABLE TO -- I HAVE BLOOD CLOTS IN\nMY LEGS, AND I'VE BEEN ABLE TO\nMAKE ALL MY DOCTOR'S\nAPPOINTMENTS. GETTING ALL MY\nSTUFF I NEED TO DO, SOCIAL\nSECURITY AND STUFF LIKE THAT.\nTHESE GUYS HELP ME OUT WITH ALL\nTHAT STUFF, WHICH HAS BEEN\nGREAT. LIVING IN A TENT, I WOULD\nNEVER BE ABLE TO GET THAT STUFF\nDONE EVERY DAY. WHERE I LIVE,\nTHE BUILDING I LIVE IN, THE\nPEOPLE THAT WORK THERE RUN --\nTHE RULES ARE KEPT -- THEY'RE\nRUN VERY GOOD. IT'S BEEN AN\nIMPROVEMENT IN MY LIFE. THANK\nYOU FOR LISTENING TO ME.\nTHANK YOU.\nTHANK YOU. NEXT, WE'LL HAVE\nBRANDY OSBORNE. FOLLOWING\nBRANDY, WE'LL HAVE CHRISTOPHER\nARCHIBALD. THANK YOU.\nHELLO, FOLKS. GOOD AFTERNOON.\nMY NAME IS BRANDY. I'M A\nCURRENT PARTICIPANT IN THE LEED\nPROGRAM, AND I'M HERE TODAY IN\nREGARDS TO THE NEWLY PROPOSED\nSALES TAX. IF THIS TAX IS\nPASSED, I URGE YOU TO CONSIDER\nALLOCATING A SIGNIFICANT PORTION\nOF THE FUNDS TO SUPPORT AND\nSTABILIZE THE WORK OF THE LEED\nPROGRAM, AND ALLOWING THEM TO\nCONTINUE TO PROVIDE SERVICES IN\nSUPPORT TO THOSE OF US IN NEED.\nWITH ASSISTANCE OF THEIR\nPROGRAM, I'VE BEEN ABLE TO\nESTABLISH VERY MUCH NEEDED\nMEDICAL CARE, PRIMARY CARE\nPHYSICIANS, OBTAINING IMPORTANT\nDOCUMENTS LIKE BIRTH\nCERTIFICATES AND I.D.s, AND JUST\nPROVIDING MANY THINGS FOR ME TO\nBE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO MAKE A\nPATH THROUGH THIS LIFE. MOST\nIMPORTANTLY THOUGH BECAUSE OF\nTHE PROGRAM, I'M FINALLY\nENDORSED INSIDE WITH STABLE\nSUPPORTIVE HOUSING, WORKING ON\nGETTING PERMIT HOUSING. AFTER 15\nLONG LONELY YEARS OF BEING\nHOMELESS, SLEEPING OUTSIDE,\nWONDERING WHERE MY NEXT HOT\nSHOWER WILL BE OR HOW I CAN WASH\nMY LAUNDRY. FINALLY, AFTER 15\nYEARS OF ATTEMPTING TO MAINTAIN\nANY SELF-WORTH, STRUGGLING TO\nSURVIVE AND STRUGGLING TO EXIST,\nI'M INDOORS. I NO LONGER HAVE\nANY OF THESE WORRIES BECAUSE OF\nTHE LEED PROGRAM. WE CANNOT\nAFFORD TO LET WHAT'S WORKING\nFALL APART. WE NEED TO STABILIZE\nTHE PROGRAM AND CONTINUE TO FILL\nIN THE GAPS THAT REMAIN. BECAUSE\nOF ITS IMPORTANCE, BECAUSE IT IS\nIMPORTANT THIS LEVEL OF SUPPORT\nPROVIDED, BE PROVIDED TO PEOPLE\nWHO ARE CONTINUOUSLY WORKING TO\nBETTER THEIR LIVES. THANK YOU.\nTHANK YOU. NEXT, WE'LL HAVE\nCHRISTOPHER. FOLLOWING\nCHRISTOPHER, WE'LL HAVE CHLOE\nGALE. COME ON DOWN. THANK YOU.\nTHANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBERS.\nMY NAME IS CHRISTOPHER, AND I'M\nA SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER IN THE\nSOUTHWEST PRECINCT OF SEATTLE.\nI'M HERE BECAUSE OF THE SAFETY\nSALES TAX. IF THIS SALES TAX IS\nPASSED, I URGE YOU TO ENSURE A\nSIGNIFICANT PORTION IS USED TO\nSUPPORT AND STABILIZE THE WORK\nOF THE PROGRAM IN SEATTLE. WE\nENGAGE PARTICIPANTS ON UNMET\nNEEDS USING AN EVIDENCE BASED\nCASE MANAGEMENT APPROACH. WE DO\nNOT DO THIS ALONE. WE COORDINATE\nWITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER\nCRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM PARTNERS\nTO ENSURE OUR WORK CONTRIBUTES\nTO IMPROVEMENTS IN PUBLIC\nSAFETY, WHILE REDUCING THE\nOVERALL COST OF THE CRIMINAL\nLEGAL SYSTEM. IN 2019, A\nUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON STUDY\nSHOWED PARTICIPANTS HAD 1.4\nFEWER AVERAGE YEARLY JAIL\nBOOKINGS. SPENT 41 FEWER DAYS IN\nJAIL PER YEAR. HAD 88% LOWER\nODDS OF PRISON INCARCERATION.\nSHOWED A REDUCTION IN LEGAL COST\nOF $2,100 COMPARED TO AN ALMOST\n$6,000 INCREASE FOR COMPARISON\nPARTICIPANTS. AN INDEPENDENT\nANALYSIS, BY THE ARNOLD\nFOUNDATION, SHOWED PARTICIPANTS\nARE 58% LESS LIKELY TO BE\nARRESTED FOR ANY CRIME IN ANY\nJURISDICTION COMPARED TO A\nCONTROL GROUP. RECOVERY IS NOT\nONE-SIZE FITS ALL. AS A PERSON\nIN LONG-TERM RECOVERY FROM\nSUBSTANCE ABUSE DISORDER, I KNOW\nI'M ALIVE BECAUSE OF THE\nAPPROACH THAT MODELS CORE VALUES\nOF BUILDING CONNECTION FOSTERING\nMUTUALITY, AND MOVING TOWARDS\nGOALS COLLABORATIVELY. LEED\nPLAYS A CRITICAL ROLE IN\nSEATTLE. WE CANNOT AFFORD TO LET\nWHAT'S WORKING FALL APART. WE\nHAVE TO STABILIZE THE PROGRAM,\nWHILE ADDING NEW COMPONENTS TO\nREMEDY UNADDRESSED GAPS IN THE\nSYSTEM. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME\nAND FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. COME\nON DOWN, THANK YOU.\nHI, GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL\nPRESIDENT NELSON AND OTHER\nMEMBERS. AS THE VP OF POLICY\nNOW, BUT A LONG-TERM OUTREACH\nWORKER. WE WORK WITH PDA, THE\nSEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE\nKING COUNTY PROSECUTORS TO\nDESIGN THE LEAD PROGRAM OVER A\nDECADE AGO, AND WE HAVE\nCONTINUED TO ADAPT AND IMPROVE\nIT TO RESPOND TO STREET\nDISORDER, HOMELESSNESS, AND\nADDICTION IN SEATTLE. I'M HERE\nTO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED PUBLIC\nSAFETY TAX AND URGE YOU TO\nDEDICATE A SIGNIFICANT\nPROPORTION TO STABILIZE THE LEAD\nPROGRAM AT OTHER PROVEN FRONT\nDOOR RECOVERY PROGRAMS. OUR TEAM\nMEETS LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THE\nFIELD, AND THEN PROVIDES THE\nCONTINUED STREET ENGAGEMENT,\nLEGAL SYSTEM NAVIGATION, THE\nONGOING CASE MANAGEMENT, AND\nHOUSING PLACEMENT NECESSARY TO\nMOVE PEOPLE WITH COMPLEX NEEDS\nAND POWERFUL ADDICTIONS OFF THE\nSTREET. OUR PERSISTENCE WORK IS\nOFTEN WHAT ALLOWS PUBLIC SAFETY\nOFFICERS TO BE AVAILABLE TO\nRESPOND RAPIDLY TO VIOLENT\nCRIME. TODAY, SOME OF US HAVE\nSEEN THE HEADLINES FROM THE\nFEDERAL GOVERNMENT ABOUT THE NEW\nEXECUTIVE ORDER, WHICH WILL\nABANDON SUPPORT FOR SOME OF OUR\nLOW BARRIER FRONT DOOR RECOVERY\nPATHWAY PROGRAMS. WITHOUT\nPERSISTENT, RELATIONAL, OUTREACH\nWORKERS AND CASE MANAGERS ON OUR\nSTREETS, OUR EMERGENCY SYSTEMS\nWILL BECOME OVERWHELMED. PLEASE\nFUND PROGRAMS LIKE OURS WITH A\nPROVEN TRACK RECORD TO MOVE\nPEOPLE INTO RECOVERY CARE. THANK\nYOU.\nTHANK YOU. NEXT WE'LL HAVE\nSIMONE. THE LAST IN-PERSON\nPUBLIC COMMENTER WILL BE JOHN.\nCOME ON DOWN. THANK YOU.\nHELLO, OKAY. IS THAT GOOD?\nGOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL\nPRESIDENT NELSON AND\nCOUNCILMEMBERS. MY NAME IS\nSIMONE, AND I'M THE SENIOR LEAD\nPROJECT MANAGER FOR THE WEST\nPRECINCT AND THIRD AVENUE\nPROJECT. I'M HERE TODAY BECAUSE\nOF THE PROPOSED PUBLIC SAFETY\nSALES TAX. IF IT THIS SALES TAX\nIS PASSED, I URGE YOU TO ENSURE\nA SIGNIFICANT PORTION IS USED TO\nSUPPORT AND STABILIZE THE WORK\nOF THE LEAD PROGRAM. REAL PUBLIC\nSAFETY MEANS HAVING THE RIGHT\nTOOLS TO RESPOND TO PEOPLE WITH\nCOMPLEX BEHAVIORAL HEALTH NEEDS,\nESPECIALLY IN OUR PUBLIC PLACES.\nTHIS REQUIRES HUMANE,\nCONSISTENT, AND EFFECTIVE\nRESPONSES. IF THIS TAX PASSES,\nIT'S CRUCIAL THE FUNDING\nSUPPORTS PROGRAMS THAT ARE\nALREADY DELIVERING RESULTS. LIKE\nCO-LEAD, FOR EXAMPLE. OVER 95%\nOF PARTICIPANTS ACCEPT SERVICES.\n70% TRANSITION TO PERMANENT\nHOUSING. 100% OF ELIGIBLE\nPARTICIPANTS ARE ENROLLED IN\nMEDICAID. MEDICAID IS THE\nBACKBONE OF THIS WORK. WITHOUT\nIT, PEOPLE LOSE ACCESS TO\nCRITICAL SUPPORTS LIKE MENTAL\nHEALTH, SUBSTANCE ABUSE\nTREATMENT, PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE,\nAND EVEN HOUSING. MANY HOUSING\nAND STABILIZATION SERVICES RELY\nON MEDICAID FUNDED CARE\nCOORDINATION TO KEEP PEOPLE\nHOUSED. LEAD CASE MANAGERS DO\nMORE THAN CONNECT PEOPLE TO\nSERVICES. THEY HELP PARTICIPANTS\nWHO ARE MEDICAID ELIGIBLE AND\nUNABLE TO WORK THROUGH THE\nMEDICAID ENROLLMENT PROCESS. A\n2016 EVALUATION BY THE\nUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON'S HARM\nREDUCTION AND RESOURCE TREATMENT\nCENTER FOUND THAT 18 MONTHS\nAFTER ENROLLING IN LEAD,\nPARTICIPANTS WERE 89% MORE\nLIKELY TO OBTAIN PERMANENT\nHOUSING. 46% MORE LIKELY TO BE\nON THE EMPLOYMENT CONTINUUM, AND\n33% MORE LIKELY TO HAVE INCOME\nOR BENEFITS. THIS IS COMPARED TO\nA MONTH BEFORE THEY JOINED THE\nLEAD PROGRAM. WE CANNOT AFFORD\nTO LET WHAT'S WORKING FALL\nAPART. WE HAVE TO STABILIZE THE\nLEAD PROGRAM AND ADD NEW PIECES\nTO ADDRESS THE GAPS THAT REMAIN.\nTHANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.\nTHANK YOU. AND THE LAST\nIN-PERSON PUBLIC COMMENTER WILL\nBE JOHN. COME ON DOWN.\nGOOD AFTERNOON, CITY COUNCIL\nMEMBERS, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT.\nMY NAME IS JOHNNY. I'M A\nPARTICIPANT SUPPORT SPECIALIST\nSUPERVISOR WITH PDA. AND I ALSO\nAM STRONGLY RECOMMENDING IF THIS\nBILL IS PASSED THAT WE DO\nALLOCATE FUNDING TO THIS\nPROGRAM. WE HEARD MY COLLEAGUES\nAND SOME OF OUR PARTICIPANTS\nTALK ABOUT SOME OF THE EVIDENCE\nON HOW TAKING A HOLISTIC\nAPPROACH IS A CATALYST TO\nSUPPORTING PEOPLE, TO NAVIGATE\nTHEIR WAY OUT OF THESE SYSTEMS.\nFIRST OF ALL, I ALSO WANT TO\nTHANK YOU TO YOUR COMMITMENT FOR\nPUBLIC SAFETY. EVIDENCE SHOWS\nTHAT TAKING A HOLISTIC APPROACH\nIN SUPPORTING PEOPLE TO FIND OUT\nHOW THEY CAN GET BETTER HELPS\nTHEM TO GET OUT OF THESE\nSYSTEMS. I AM EVIDENCE OF THIS\nFRAMEWORK WORKING. IN 2014, I\nWAS AN ELITE CLIENT, AND I HAVE\nSINCE BEEN ABLE TO BE STABLELY\nEMPLOYED FOR THE LAST SEVEN\nYEARS. RECENTLY CELEBRATED 7.5\nYEARS OF UNINTERRUPTED SOBRIETY,\nAND HAVE BEEN WORKING MY DREAM\nJOB AT PDA FOR THE LAST FOUR\nYEARS. I ALSO WANT TO THANK\nCOUNCIL PRESIDENT SARA NELSON\nFOR INITIATING THE OPPORTUNITY\nFOR PARTICIPANTS TO BE ABLE TO\nACCESS TREATMENT THAT'S REALLY\nQUALITY, AND NOT JUST A ONE-SIZE\nFITS ALL, BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN\nABLE TO SEE PEOPLE UTILIZE THESE\nRESOURCES AND GET BETTER, GET\nHEALTHIER. WHAT DOES THAT LOOK\nLIKE? THAT LOOKS LIKE RECIDIVISM\nGOING DOWN, PUBLIC SAFETY\nINCREASING, PUBLIC HEALTH\nINCREASING. WITHOUT ACCESS TO\nTHESE RESOURCES, PEOPLE, OUR\nBROTHERS, OUR SISTERS, OUR\nCOMMUNITY MEMBERS, SOME OF OUR\nMOST VULNERABLE COMMUNITY\nMEMBERS, ARE GOING TO DIE ALONE\nIN THESE STREETS. AND I KNOW\nWE'RE ALL EXIT HADED TO\nCOMMITTED TO INCREASING PUBLIC\nSAFETY. I KNOW THE KEY TO THAT\nIS MONEY. WE'RE HUMBLY ASKING\nYOU TO PLEASE SUPPORT THIS WORK\nTHAT WE DO. THANK YOU.\nTHANK YOU AND\nCONGRATULATIONS. NOW, WE'LL GO\nTO THE REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENTERS.\nJUST A REMINDER, I'LL CALL ON\nTHE SPEAKER IN THE ORDER THEY\nSIGNED UP VIRTUALLY. SPEAKER\nWILL HAVE TWO MINUTES. WHEN YOU\nHEAR THE CHIME, YOU'LL HAVE TEN\nSECONDS LEFT. IF YOU EXCEED THAT\nTIME, YOUR MICROPHONE MAY BE CUT\nOFF, SO WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE\nNEXT SPEAKER. AS A REMINDER,\nPLEASE PRESS STAR SIX TO UNMUTE\nYOURSELF. FIRST PERSON WE'LL\nHAVE IS DANIEL GODFREY. PLEASE\nPRESS STAR SIX TO UNMUTE\nYOURSELF, DANIEL.\nGOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL\nPRESIDENT NELSON AND COMMITTEE\nMEMBERS. MY NAME IS DAN GODFREY.\nI WORK ADD EVERGREEN TREATMENT\nSERVICES AS AN ELITE SUPERVISOR.\nI'M SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THE\nPROPOSED PUBLIC SAFETY TAX AND\nIMPLORING YOU TO DESIGNATE A\nSIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THIS\nREVENUE TO MAINTAINING THE LEAD\nPROGRAM. MY SOCIAL SERVICES\nCAREER IN SEATTLE BEGAN IN 2021.\nI WORKED AS A RAPID REHOUSING\nCASE MANAGER IN ONE OF THE\nHOTELS LEASED BY THE CITY TO\nHOUSE THE UNHOUSED DURING COVID.\nAS WE WORK TO REHOUSE ACUTELY\nVULNERABLE INDIVIDUALS IN THE\nMARKET RATE, HOUSING BECAME\nEVIDENT. PRIVATE MARKET HOUSING\nWAS NOT GOING TO SERVE THEM. IN\nTHAT SAME TIME, I BECAME AWARE\nOF A SMALL SUBSET OF CLIENTS WHO\nWERE RECEIVING COMPREHENSIVE\nCARE AND ACCESS TO MORE\nAPPROPRIATE HOUSING. THEY WERE\nALL WORKING WITH LEAD. AFTER SIX\nMONTHS, OUR STATS MADE IT CLEAR\nWE COULD NOT EXECUTE THE\nREQUIREMENTS OF OUR CONTRACT,\nAND MY ORIGINAL EMPLOYER ELECTED\nTO RETURN MOST OF THAT FUNDING\nAND DISBURSE OUR TEAM TO OTHER\nSITES. I TOOK THAT OPPORTUNITY\nTO APPLY FOR WORK AS A LEAD CASE\nMANAGER, AND I STILL SEE CLIENTS\nFROM THAT HOTEL ON THE STREETS\nEVERY DAY. NOW, FOUR YEARS\nLATER, THE LEAD PROGRAM\nCONTINUES TO PROVIDE THE\nEXCEPTIONAL WRAP-AROUND CARE\nTHAT I WITNESSED IN 2021. I SEE\nNEW AND DIFFERENT PROGRAMS COME\nAND GO, OUTREACH CONTRACTS\nCHANGE HANDS, NEW SUBSTANCES HIT\nTHE STREET, BUT LEAD IS MORE\nCRITICAL THAN EVER. OUR\nCOLLABORATION WITH LAW\nENFORCEMENT, DYNAMIC STREET\nOUTREACH WORK, AND CLINICAL\nINFRASTRUCTURE FILL A GAP IN OUR\nCITY SERVICES THAT SAVES LIVES\nAND ALLOWS PUBLIC SAFETY\nOFFICERS TO RESPOND WHERE THEY\nARE NEEDED. IN MY EXPERIENCE\nCOLLABORATING WITH OUR SOCIAL\nSERVICES, LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND\nEMS, THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE\nPROGRAM TO SERVE OUR\nEXCEPTIONALLY VULNERABLE\nCLIENTS. PLEASE MAINTAIN FUNDING\nFOR PROGRAMS LIKE LEAD, SO THEY\nCAN CONTINUE TO SERVE OUR\nCOMMUNITY BOTH ON AND OFF THE\nSTREET. THANK YOU.\nTHANK YOU, DANIEL. NEXT,\nWE'LL HAVE BRIDGET LOPEZ.\nBRIDGET, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX\nTO UNMUTE YOURSELF. THANK YOU.\nGOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL\nPRESIDENT NELSON AND COMMITTEE\nMEMBERS. MY NAME IS BRIDGET\nLOPEZ. I'M THE SUPERVISOR WITH\nEVERGREEN TREATMENT SERVICES,\nWHO HAVE BEEN A PRIMARY PROVIDER\nFOR THE LEAD PROGRAM. I'M HERE\nTO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED PUBLIC\nSAFETY SALES TAX, AND ENCOURAGE\nYOU TO DONATE A SIGNIFICANT\nPORTION TO STABILIZE THE LEAD\nPROGRAM. I'D LIKE TO TAKE A\nMOMENT TO HIGHLIGHT ONE OF THE\nCORNERSTONE THAT CAME IN YOUR\nPACKET, WHICH I BELIEVE MAKES\nOUR WORK UNIQUELY SUITED TO\nADDRESS PUBLIC SAFETY AS OUR\nLEGAL SYSTEM WORKS. AS AN\nEXAMPLE, I'LL SHARE A CLIENT\nSTORY THAT IS ALL TOO COMMON IN\nOUR LINE OF WORK. TAKE SUSAN.\nSUSAN ENROLLED IN THE LEAD\nPROGRAM WITH A NUMBER OF LOW\nLEVEL WARRANT, FOR MISDEMEANORS\nTHAT ARE ALL RELATED TO\nSUBSTANCE ABUSE AND\nHOMELESSNESS. THESE WARRANTS\nCROSSED FIVE DIFFERENT\nMUNICIPALITIES. THAT MEANS WHEN\nSUSAN WAS BOOKED ON ONE OF THOSE\nWARRANTS, SHE HAS TO GO TO FOUR\nDIFFERENT JAILS IN ORDER TO\nCLEAR UP ALL OF HER DIFFERENT\nHOLDS. THAT'S TALKING TO FIVE\nDIFFERENT DEFENSE ATTORNEYS,\nFIVE DISTINCT PROSECUTOR OFFICES\nTHAT ASK FOR EACH DIFFERENT\nTHINGS. ALL WHEN SUSAN WANTS TO\nGO TO TREATMENT AND GET WELL.\nTHE WORST PART IS NONE OF THE\nDIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS TALK TO\nEACH OTHER, SO SUSAN IS HIGHLY\nLIKELY TO GET A NEW WARRANT FOR\nTHE FIRST CASE SHE WAS BOOKED ON\nWHILE SHE'S IN ANOTHER JAIL,\nTRYING TO CLEAR UP HER FOURTH OR\nFIFTH MATTER. THIS IS WHERE LEAD\nLEGAL ASSISTANCE COORDINATION\nCOMES IN. WE BREAK DOWN THE\nSILOS ACROSS THE JURISDICTION,\nGET THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS\nTALKING TO EACH OTHER, AND HELP\nSUSAN, SO SHE CAN GET MUCH\nNEEDED PATH TO RECOVERY. I'M\nHAPPY TO SHARE SUSAN JUST\nCELEBRATED HER THREE YEAR SOBER\nDATE, AND RECENTLY BECAME HOUSE\nMANAGER AT CLEAN AND SOBER HOME.\nTHIS SYSTEM WORK IS ONLY ONE OF\nTHE MANY APPROACHES THAT WE TAKE\nAT LEAD TO ADDRESS PUBLIC\nSAFETY, BUT WE NEED TO BE FUNDED\nTO SCALE IN ORDER TO DO THIS\nWORK WELL. PLEASE FUND PROGRAMS\nLIKE OURS, SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO\nDO THIS EVIDENCE-BASED WORK THAT\nWE ARE KNOWN FOR DOING SO WELL.\nTHANK YOU.\nTHANK YOU, BRIDGET. NEXT,\nWE'LL HAVE CHAD. MY APOLOGIES.\nPLEASE PRESS STAR SIX TO UNMUTE\nYOURSELF.\nCHAD, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX.\nCHAD, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX TO\nUNMUTE YOURSELF.\nSORRY ABOUT THAT. GOOD\nAFTERNOON, COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY\nNAME IS CHAD. I'M HERE ON\nBEHALF OF EVERGREEN TREATMENT\nSERVICES. I'M THE ASSOCIATE\nDIRECTOR OF HOUSING. FOR OVER 50\nYEARS, WE PROVIDED SUBSTANCE\nABUSE TREATMENT AND OUTREACH\nSERVICES IN SEATTLE, HELPING\nPEOPLE FACING SEVERE BEHAVIORAL\nHEALTH NEEDS AND HOMELESSNESS\nFIND STABILITY HOUSING AND\nRECOVERY. IF THE PROPOSED PUBLIC\nSAFETY SALES TAX MOVES FORWARD,\nI STRONGLY URGE YOU TO DEDICATE\nA MEANINGFUL PORTION TO\nEVIDENCE-BASED PROGRAMS LIKE\nLEAD AND REACH. THESE PROGRAMS\nARE EMBEDDED IN A HOLISTIC\nPUBLIC SAFETY SYSTEM. WORKING\nWITH LAW ENFORCEMENT TO DIVERT\nPEOPLE FROM JAIL AND EMERGENCY\nROOMS INTO CARE HOUSING AND\nRECOVERY. AS A REAL-TIME\nEXAMPLE, LITERALLY RIGHT BEFORE\nCALLING IN TO THIS MEETING, I\nWAS IN ANOTHER MEETING WITH A\nLEAD CLIENT CARE TEAM HELPING TO\nNAVIGATE A COMPLEX SITUATION\nWITH MULTIPLE ENTITIES, TRYING\nTO FIGURE OUT HOW A CLIENT COULD\nKEEP THEIR HOUSING WHILE THEY\nWERE AWAY AT IN-PATIENT\nTREATMENT. WITHOUT THAT KIND OF\nSUPPORT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S\nLITTLE TO NO WAY THIS PERSON\nCOULD REALLY FOCUS ON THEIR\nRECOVERY AND STILL HAVE STABLE\nHOUSING TO RETURN TO UPON THEIR\nEXIT. SO THIS IS JUST ONE\nEXAMPLE OF THE KIND OF SUPPORT\nTHAT LEAD ROUTINELY PROVIDES TO\nOUR CLIENTS. ULTIMATELY THAT\nBENEFITS NOT ONLY THAT\nINDIVIDUAL, BUT OUR COMMUNITY AS\nA WHOLE. SO AS YOU KNOW, PUBLIC\nHEALTH AND PUBLIC SAFETY ARE\nDEEPLY CONNECTED. WHEN PEOPLE\nHAVE WHAT THEY NEED TO LIVE WITH\nDIGNITY, THEY HAVE HEALTHIER\nCOMMUNITIES. WHEN WE HAVE\nHEALTHIER COMMUNITIES, WE HAVE\nSAFER COMMUNITIES FOR EVERYONE.\nTHANK YOU.\nTHANK YOU. THE LAST VIRTUAL\nPUBLIC COMMENTER IS DAVID\nHAINES. DAVID, PLEASE PRESS STAR\nSIX TO UNMUTE YOURSELF. THANK\nYOU.\nHI. LEAD SHOULD BE\nINVESTIGATED FOR MEDICAID FRAUD\nAND VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION\nWITHIN PROPER POLICE REFORM.\nRESOLUTIONS ARE NON-BONDING LIKE\nA POLITICIAN'S PROMISE BROKEN.\nSPARE US ANOTHER PUBLIC SAFETY\nVIRTUE SIGNAL THAT DOESN'T HAVE\nTHE PROPER LEGISLATION TO FORCE\nPROPER POLICY. THE MAYOR'S\nGOING TO RAISE THE TAXES FOR THE\nGENERAL FUND AGAIN TO HIDE HIS\nMISMANAGEMENT OF THE BUDGET AND\nBAD SPENDING PRIORITIES THAT\nHAVE EXACERBATED THE PROBLEMS\nWITH PUBLIC SAFETY CRISIS, THE\nHOMELESS CRISIS, THE SMALL\nBUSINESS ECONOMIC CRISIS, AND\nTHE WORKERS CRISIS. YET YOU'RE\nSTILL APPEASING THE DEVIL'S\nADVOCATE THAT MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE\nTO STOP THE IMPLOSION. IN ORDER\nFOR THE NEW PUBLIC SAFETY TAX TO\nBE EFFECTIVE WITH THE 25%\nEARMARK FOR DRUG TREATMENT, YOU\nHAVE TO BUILD THE CAPACITY OF\nSHELTER. YOU CAN'T PUT THESE\nPEOPLE INTO THE HOUSING FIRST.\nTHEY HAVE TO GO INTO AN\nAUTHORIZED ENCAMPMENT THAT COULD\nBE BUILT WITHIN 72 HOURS BY THE\nNATIONAL GUARD. SAVING MONEY ON\nLABOR. AND THEN YOU FORCE THEM\nTO BREAK THEIR ADDICTION, BUT\nYOU CANNOT LET THEM OUT OF JAIL\nAND THEN ROAM AROUND. YOU HAVE\nTO SEND THEM TO THE LOW SECURITY\nENCAMPMENT AFTER THEY GET OUT OF\nJAIL. THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO\nVOLUNTARILY MAKE A HALF-HEARTED\nEFFORT. WHEN EVERGREEN CHECKS\nTHEM OUT, YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSE TO\nALLOW THEM TO CONTINUE ROAMING\nAROUND WITH SERIOUS MENTAL AND\nBEHAVIORAL CRISIS PROBLEMS,\nSTILL DEHYDRATED AND HUNGRY.\nTHEY HAVE TO GO TO AN AUTHORIZED\nENCAMPMENT. THE HOUSING NEEDS TO\nBE USED FOR THE INNOCENT\nHOUSELESS THAT HAVE BEEN\nDISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY THE\nPREVIOUS COUNCIL WHO DEFUNDED\nTHE POLICE AND CREATED ALL THESE\nSPENDING PRIORITIES, WHERE LISA\nDUGARD WANTS TO RUN INTERFERENCE\nFOR REPEAT OFFENDERS THAT ARE\nCONNECTED TO THE CRIMINAL\nUNDERWORLD, AND LITERALLY PUT\nTHEM IN HOUSING AND SERVICES\nFIRST, WHILE PURPOSELY\nDISCRIMINATING, DENYING, GOUGING\nTHE HOMELESS CRISIS FOR INNOCENT\nHOUSELESS.\nTHANK YOU, DAVID. COUNCIL\nPRESIDENT, THAT CONCLUDES PUBLIC\nCOMMENT.\nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. WOULD\nYOU PLEASE READ ITEM ONE INTO\nTHE RECORD? PUBLIC COMMENT IS\nNOW CLOSED. OH, I WANT TO\nRECOGNIZE COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA\nHAS NOW JOINED US. THANK YOU.\nOF COURSE. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER\n1, A RESOLUTION SETTING OUT\nPUBLIC-SAFETY RELATED FUNDING\nPRIORITIES IN ANTICIPATION OF A\nPROPOSAL THAT THE CITY IMPOSE\nTHE ADDITIONAL ONE-TENTH OF 1%\nLOCAL OPTION PUBLIC SAFETY SALES\nTAX AUTHORIZED BY THE 2025 STATE\nLEGISLATURE. FOR BRIEFING,\nDISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE VOTE.\nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO\nCOLLEAGUES, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU\nNOTICED, BUT THIS COUNCIL HAS\nGOTTEN A REPUTATION OF BEING\nFAIRLY STRONG ON PUBLIC SAFETY,\nAND LARGELY UNDER THE LEADERSHIP\nOF COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE. THIS\nRESOLUTION IS -- THE GOAL OF\nTHIS RESOLUTION IS TO TARGET ONE\nOF THE MAJOR DRIVERS OF OUR\nPUBLIC SAFETY PROBLEMS, WHICH IS\nSUBSTANCE ABUSE DISORDER.\nBECAUSE FOR TOO LONG, WE HAVE\nWATCHED PEOPLE SUFFERING FROM\nUNTREATED ADDICTION ON OUR\nSTREETS, IN OUR AFFORDABLE\nHOUSING, WHILE OUR NEIGHBORHOODS\nBECOME LESS SAFE FOR EVERYONE.\nAND SO THIS IS -- THIS IS AN\nEFFORT TO GET AT THAT A LITTLE\nBIT. I'VE BEEN FIGHTING SINCE\nWHEN I FIRST GOT ONTO COUNCIL.\nI'VE BEEN FIGHTING TO PUT\nTREATMENT AT THE CENTER OF THE\nCITY'S AGENDA. I'VE HAD SOME\nSUCCESSES. STARTING WITH THE\nPUBLIC, I MEAN WITH THE PILOT\nPROGRAM I GOT INTO THE 2025\nBUDGET, NO, IT WAS 2024'S\nBUDGET. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH\nYEAR IT WAS, WHICH OFFERED A\nDIFFERENT FUNDING MODEL FOR\nIN-PERSON TREATMENT. BUT THIS\nHAS BEEN SOMETHING I'VE BEEN\nFOCUSED ON FOR A LONG TIME, AND\nI KNOW YOU ALSO HAVE BEEN VERY,\nVERY SUPPORTIVE AND HAVE COME UP\nWITH YOUR OWN INITIATIVES AS\nWELL. BUT ANY WAY, WHAT I'M\nDOING WITH THIS RESOLUTION IS\nPREEMPTIVELY STAKING A CLAIM TO\nA PORTION OF THE REVENUE THAT\nWILL BE GENERATED BY THE .1%\nINCREASE IN THE SALES TAX THAT\nWAS AUTHORIZED BY THE STATE\nLEGISLATURE THIS PAST SESSION,\nWHAT IS CALLED THE PUBLIC SAFETY\nSALES TAX, THAT IT IS\nANTICIPATED MAYOR HARRELL WILL\nBRING FORWARD FOR IMPLEMENTATION\nUSING THAT AUTHORITY GRANTED BY\nTHE STATE LEGISLATURE. SO I'M\nBASICALLY COMING OUT AND SAYING\nIF THAT HAPPENS, A PORTION OF\nTHAT FUNDING SHOULD BE USED FOR\nTHESE PURPOSES. NOW A LITTLE BIT\nABOUT THE CONTEXT OF THAT\nLEGISLATION. HOUSE BILL 2015 WAS\nSPONSORED BY REPRESENTATIVE AND\nADVANCED BY THE LEGISLATIVE\nBLACK CAUCUS TO GET AT, TO\nBROADEN, WELL, TO ALLOW\nMUNICIPALITIES TO END COUNTIES\nTO INCREASE MEASURES FOR PUBLIC\nSAFETY. BUT IT WAS VERY CLEAR\nFROM THE GET GO THAT PUBLIC\nSAFETY WAS ENVISIONED AS MUCH\nBROADER THAN SIMPLY OFFICERS. I\nWANT TO READ A QUOTE THAT WAS\nPICKED UP BY THE SEATTLE MEDIUM.\nTHIS BILL MAKES IT CLEAR PUBLIC\nSAFETY IS NOT ABOUT MORE\nPOLICING, BUT ABOUT CREATING\nSTRONG, THRIVING COMMUNITIES.\nIT'S ABOUT SMART INVESTMENTS,\nBOLD POLICIES, AND ENSURING\nEVERY COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY\nTHOSE MOST IMPACTED BY SYSTEMIC\nINJUSTICE, HAS THE RESOURCES AND\nSUPPORT THEY DESERVE. SO PLEASE\nNOTE, I WANT EVERYONE TO\nRECOGNIZE I AM NOT CALLING --\nTHIS RESOLUTION DOES NOT CALL\nFOR AN INCREASE IN THE SALES\nTAX, BUT MAYOR HARRELL HAS\nEXPRESSED INTEREST IN\nIMPLEMENTING IT BECAUSE IT WOULD\nRAISE ABOUT APPROXIMATELY\nBETWEEN $35 AND $40 MILLION PER\nYEAR. SO IF WE'RE GOING THERE,\nI WANT TO ALLOCATE UP TO 25% OF\nTHOSE FUNDS TO CREATE TREATMENT\nPATHWAYS, WHICH TO ME IS AMONG\nONE OF OUR MOST CRITICAL NEEDS.\nTHE PEOPLE THAT HAVE JUST SPOKEN\nIN PUBLIC COMMENT HAVE ECHOED\nTHAT. I WANT TO FIRST THANK THE\nCOALITION OF PEOPLE, BUT\nESPECIALLY LISA DUGARD OF THE\nPDA FOR BEING MY PARTNER IN\nTHIS. I RECOGNIZE EXISTING\nSERVICES ARE ALSO VERY IMPORTANT\nTO MAINTAIN AS WELL. SO JUST TO\nBACK UP A LITTLE BIT. WHEN I\nPROPOSED THIS CONCEPT TO MANY OF\nTHESE SERVICE PROVIDERS THAT I\nWORKED WITH FOR A WHILE ON THIS.\nWE HAD NO IDEA THE LEVEL OF CUTS\nTHE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WOULD\nBE THROWING AT US. BUT NOW AFTER\nTHE BIG UGLY BILL HAS PASSED,\nWE'RE STARTING TO SEE A CLEARER\nPICTURE OF WHAT WE, AS A CITY,\nWILL HAVE TO DO, STEP BY STEP,\nTO INCREASE THE RESOURCES TO\nPROTECT OUR MOST VULNERABLE. SO\nAS WE HEAD -- AS WE HEARD IN OUR\nPREVIOUS COMMUNITY DISCUSSIONS\nON THIS TOPIC, THESE TREATMENT\nAND RECOVERY PROGRAMS ARE MORE\nIMPORTANT THAN EVER. SEATTLE HAS\nAN OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT OUR\nRESIDENTS, EVEN WHEN THEY'RE\nABANDONED BY THE FEDERAL\nGOVERNMENT, OF COURSE, AND\nADDING DEDICATED FUNDING FOR\nINNOVATIVE AND EVIDENCE-BASED\nTREATMENT AND RECOVERY PROGRAMS\nIS JUST ONE AREA WE CAN SHORE UP\nWHAT WE, WHAT WE STAND TO LOSE\nCOMING UP. SO, WE'LL GET INTO\nTHE DETAILS OF THIS LEGISLATION\nIN THE ITEMS IT WOULD FUND, THAT\nIT WOULD PROPOSE TO FUND, SHOULD\nWE IMPLEMENT A .1% PUBLIC SAFETY\nSALES TAX INCREASE. WE HAVE\nCENTRAL STAFF DIRECTOR, BEN\nNOBLE, HERE TO GIVE US A BRIEF\nOUTLINE, A REMINDER OF THIS\nLEGISLATION, AND ANSWER ANY\nQUESTIONS ABOUT IT.\nTHANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT.\nYOU'VE DONE A GREAT JOB OF\nSUMMARIZING THE RESOLUTION\nYOURSELF. I'LL TRY AGAIN, AND\nI'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY\nQUESTIONS. SO AS DESCRIBED, THE\nRESOLUTION MAKES TWO POLICY\nSTATEMENTS, AND AGAIN, IT'S\nDESCRIBED -- THE RESOLUTION IS\nIN ANTICIPATION OF THE\nPOTENTIAL, IF NOT, THE\nLIKELIHOOD THAT THE CITY\nAUTHORIZE THE NEW .1% SALES TAX\nFOR PUBLIC SAFETY THAT THE STATE\nHAS GIVEN THE CITY AUTHORITY\nFOR. BY WAY OF SOME CONTEXT\nTHAT'S OCCURRED SINCE YOU LAST\nDISCUSSED THIS YESTERDAY. THE\nCOUNTY COUNCIL VOTED TO SUPPORT\nTO AUTHORIZE THE SAME .1% COUNTY\nWIDE, THE STATE GAVE BOTH COUNTY\nAND THE CITY THAT AUTHORITY.\nWHAT THIS RESOLUTION DOES, IT\nDOESN'T SAY IT MOVES TO ADOPT\nTHAT TAX, BUT RATHER IT SAYS IF\nTHE MAYOR BRINGS IT FORWARD, THE\nCITY COUNCIL SHOULD CONSIDER IT,\nAGAIN, IN THE CONTEXT TO THE\nCITY'S CURRENT FINANCIAL\nBUDGETARY SITUATION. WOULD NOT\nBE A SURPRISE IF THE MAYOR WOULD\nOPPOSE IT. SO AGAIN, TWO THINGS.\nFIRST, YOU SHOULD AT LEAST\nCONSIDER IT. AND THE SECOND IS\nIF THE CITY WERE TO IMPLEMENT\nIT, THAT UP TO 25% OF THE TAX BE\nINVESTED, AND THIS IS A QUOTE\nFROM THE RESOLUTION. INVESTED IN\nTHE ADDICTION RECOVERY TREATMENT\nSERVICES, AND THE FACILITIES\nNEEDED TO PROVIDE SUCH SERVICES.\nRESOLUTION THEN DOES GO ON TO\nLIST, KEEP GOING, A COUPLE MORE\nSLIDES. KEEP GOING. RIGHT HERE.\nTHE RESOLUTION THEN GOES ON\nSPECIFICALLY TO LIST THE TYPES\nOF SERVICES THAT UP TO 25% COULD\nBE USED FOR, AND THAT'S THE\nLIST FROM THE RESOLUTION. SO\nTHAT'S REALLY WHAT IT DOES.\nBOTH NOT, MORE THAN THAT, BUT\nEXACTLY THAT, IF YOU WILL, AND\nI'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY\nQUESTIONS.\nLOOKING TO MY COLLEAGUES TO\nSEE IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS.\nWHILE THEY ARE THINKING, IF THEY\nHAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I DO WANT TO\nADMIT AND RECOGNIZE AND\nACKNOWLEDGE AND PUT IT ON THE\nRECORD THAT $10 MILLION IS A\nDROP IN THE BUCKET WHEN IT COMES\nTO FUNDING OUR NEEDS IN THIS\nSPACE. CLEARLY THIS LIST IS\nDESIGNED TO BE A FOR EXAMPLE\nKIND OF EXPOSITION OF THE RANGE\nOF OUR NEEDS. HOWEVER, WE DID\nSPEAK IN DETAIL ABOUT SOME OF\nTHE RELATIVE BENEFITS OF SOME OF\nTHE THINGS ON THIS LIST COMPARED\nTO OTHERS. BUT WHAT I WILL SAY,\nTHIS IS A START. WE HAVE TO\nSTART SOMEWHERE. THIS IS\nBASICALLY GETTING THE BODY OF\nNEEDS ON THE MAP. OKAY.\nCOUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?\nTHANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT.\nTHANK YOU, DIRECTOR NOBLE FOR\nTHE PRESENTATION. FOR COUNCIL\nPRESIDENT, YES, THANK YOU FOR\nBRINGING THIS RESOLUTION\nFORWARD. IT'S INTERESTING.\nYESTERDAY I HAD A CONVERSATION\nWITH SOMEBODY AS IT RELATES TO\nPERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING. WE\nWERE WALKING THROUGH A NUMBER OF\nDIFFERENT ISSUES. ONE OF THE\nTHINGS THAT I SAID, AND I'VE\nSAID BEFORE IS THE IDEA WE\nCANNOT SUCCEED IT IN PUBLIC\nSAFETY IF WE DON'T SUCCEED IT\nIN PUBLIC HEALTH. THE RESOLUTION\nAND THOUGHTS BEHIND THIS GO TO\nTHAT POINT. AND I REALLY CARE,\nI'M REALLY INTERESTED IN THAT\nSEAM, WHERE THEY COME TOGETHER.\nAND THIS IS WHERE THE PDA AND\nTHE LEAD PROGRAM ARE VERY\nIMPORTANT BECAUSE IT IS THAT\nINTERFACE BETWEEN LAW\nENFORCEMENT AND THE SERVICE\nPROVIDERS. I THINK IT'S\nIMPORTANT TO HAVE THAT LINK. AND\nSO I DO SUPPORT ENSURING THAT IS\nSET. CLEANING UP THE LINES, IF\nYOU WILL, BUDGET WISE, TO ENSURE\nTHE PDA AND THAT MISSION AREA IS\nSET BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT FOR\nTHAT PUBLIC SAFETY PIECE. WE\nHAVE A LOT OF DIFFERENT BILLS.\nIT'S IMPORTANT TO GET THE\nDIVERSION. FOR THOSE ELIGIBLE\nAND FOR THOSE IN NEED TO GET\nTHAT DIVERSION. SO THEN WE COULD\nFOCUS ON THOSE THAT ARE A TRUE\nPUBLIC SAFETY THREAT, FOR\nEXAMPLE. AND SO HAVING THIS\nPROCESS IS REALLY IMPORTANT.\nWHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TOO,\nAND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS\nNOT BEEN TALKED ABOUT UNTIL\nRECENTLY, AND I TALKED ABOUT IT\nHAD LAST COMMITTEE MEETING, AND\nI TALKED ABOUT IT AT A NUMBER.\nTHE PDA AND EFFORTS LIKE THAT\nARE GOING TO BE SO IMPORTANT\nBECAUSE IT'S THAT ENGAGEMENT,\nTHAT DOCUMENTATION OF WORKING\nWITH INDIVIDUALS IN NEED THAT\nYOU HAVE THAT RECORD. IT SHOWS\nTHIS PERSON IS IN NEED OF THE\nSERVICES. OH, BY THE WAY, AS IT\nRELATES TO MEDICAID, IS STILL\nELIGIBLE REGARDING THE DIFFERENT\nCHANGES THAT ARE COMING FROM THE\nFEDERAL LEVEL, LIKE WITH WORK\nREQUIREMENTS. AS EVERYBODY IN\nTHIS ROOM HERE KNOWS, EVERYBODY\nIN THIS ROOM KNOWS. ON THE\nSTREET, THERE'S INDIVIDUALS IN\nNEED. THE IDEA THEY'RE GOING TO\nBE WORKING IN A MEANINGFUL WAY\nIS NOT PRACTICAL. WHAT WE CAN'T\nHAVE IS THOSE INDIVIDUALS KICKED\nOFF MEDICAID BECAUSE THE SYSTEM\nIS SO DEPENDENT ON MEDICAID. SO\nGROUPS LIKE PDA AND OTHERS, I\nDON'T WANT TO JUST SINGLE OUT\nTHEM, BUT OTHERS ARE IMPORTANT\nIN THAT FACT, ENSURING THE\nSYSTEM DOESN'T COLLAPSE.\nBECAUSE IF THE MEDICAID PIECE\nGOES SIDEWAYS, I MEAN, IT COULD\nBE CATASTROPHIC FOR US, BUT ALSO\nOUR PUBLIC HEALTH POSTURE. AND\nSO THIS RESOLUTION GOES TO THAT.\nIT'S SHOWING SOME LEADERSHIP\nTOO. BY THE WAY, PARTLY BECAUSE\nSHOWING LEADERSHIP AT THE LOCAL\nLEVEL BECAUSE THE STATE NEEDS TO\nDO ITS JOB AS IT RELATES TO\nMENTAL HEALTH. THAT'S THE STATE\nRESPONSIBILITY. AS I'VE SAID\nBEFORE TOO, WHEN I MOVE HERE\nAFTER RETIRING FROM THE NAVY,\nOUT OF 50 STATES, WE ARE 46 IN\nMENTAL HEALTH SPENDING. I TALKED\nTO STATE REPRESENTATIVES, AND\nTHEY SAID YES, WE'VE INCREASED\nIT. I'M LIKE GOOD BECAUSE I SAW\nTHE NEXSUS, BACK WHEN I WAS IN\nQUEEN ANNE COUNCIL. I HAVEN'T\nLOOKED RECENT RECENTLY. WE'RE\nNOT EVEN IN THE TOP HALF OF THE\n50 STATES IN MENTAL HEALTH\nSPENDING. IMAGINE IF WE WERE IN\nTHE TOP TEN, NUMBER ONE. HOW\nMUCH CAPACITY WOULD THAT\nTRANSLATE TO? WHAT WOULD THAT DO\nIN TERMS OF MAKING A DIFFERENCE\nIN TERMS OF THE CHALLENGES THAT\nWE SEE ON OUR STREETS WITH\nINDIVIDUALS IN CRISIS? IT WOULD\nBE HUGE. AND THE COUNTY TOO. WE\nJUST HAD A COUNTY DAY, KING\nCOUNTY DAY WITH THE PUBLIC\nSAFETY COMMITTEE THIS WEEK. WE\nNEED TO BE ENGAGING WITH THEM.\nAS I MENTIONED TO MY\nCOUNTERPART, KING COUNTY COUNCIL\nBECAUSE THEY'RE DOING A SIMILAR\nPIECE. IN FACT, THEY'VE DONE\nIT, THE .1% PUBLIC SAFETY TAX.\nYOU KNOW, THEY HAVE THOSE PUBLIC\nHEALTH RESPONSIBILITIES AT THE\nCOUNTY LEVEL, SO WE SHOULD BE\nENGAGING WITH THEM, ENSURING\nWE'RE WORKING TOGETHER TO AVOID\nDUPLICATION, FOR ONE. BUT TO\nENSURE WE GET THE BEST ANSWER ON\nTHE STREET. AND I JUST WANTED TO\nCLOSE BY SAYING COUNCIL\nPRESIDENT, THAT I REALLY\nAPPRECIATE THE PUBLIC COMMENT.\nMAYBE SAVE ONE OR TWO, THAT WE\nGET EVERY DAY. RIGHT NOW I FEEL\nLIKE THAT TV SHOW, \"UNDERCOVER\nBOSS..\" WHEN I'M ON THE STREETS\nTHOUGH MEETING WITH COMMUNITY\nMEMBERS OR IMPORTANTLY SERVICE\nPROVIDERS AND GOING OUT WITH\nSERVICE PROVIDERS, I'M JUST\nBOB. SO I JUST WANT TO COMMEND\nBRANDY AND FOR YOUR EFFORTS IN\nSUPPORT OF JEFF BECAUSE WE'VE\nMET BEFORE. I'M VERY, VERY\nHAPPY THAT IT'S GOTTEN YOU TO\nTHE POINT WHERE YOU ARE. I KNOW\nMORE DETAILS, WHICH I WON'T SAY\nFROM HERE. BUT IT SHOWS THE\nEFFORTS YOU TOOK, BRANDY. A LOT\nOF TIMES THAT YOU TOOK IN\nSUPPORT OF JEFF, WHICH WAS A\nMAJOR DRIVER. THAT'S WHAT'S\nNEEDED. AND SO I JUST WANT TO\nTHANK YOU AND ENCOURAGE YOU TO\nCONTINUE YOUR WORK WITH COLEAD.\nYOU KNOW, ALL THOSE PIECES YOU\nWERE TALKING ABOUT, ALL THOSE\nPIECES IN TERMS OF GETTING\nDIFFERENT THINGS STRAIGHT LED TO\nMEDICAL CARE. YOU'VE DONE MORE\nIN TWO WEEKS THAN OTHERS HAVE\nDONE IN A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME.\nSO I WANT TO COMMEND YOU, AND\nALSO FOR COMING UP, BOTH OF YOU\nAND JEFF FOR COMING UP, GIVING\nPUBLIC COMMENT, GIVING TESTIMONY\nBECAUSE YOU'RE AN EXAMPLE OF\nPEOPLE WHO WERE IN THE JUNGLE\nAND HAD MEDICAL ISSUES, TO WHICH\nBRANDY, YOU STEPPED UP. THAT\nMADE A DIFFERENCE FOR THE BOTH\nOF YOU, YOU'RE DOWN HERE GIVING\nTESTIMONY, SO I WANT TO THANK\nYOU FOR DOING THAT. AGAIN, YOU\nMET ME BEFORE. YOU DIDN'T\nREALIZE I WAS A COUNCIL MEMBER,\nBUT I'M VERY HAPPY YOU'RE HERE\nTODAY. THANK YOU.\nCOUNCIL PRESIDENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT?\nTHANK YOU FOR THAT. I LIKE\nMAKING THE LINK BETWEEN ONES\nREAL LIFE AS BOB OR SARAH OUT IN\nTHE WORLD, AND IN THE WORLD WE\nPLAY HERE. LET'S SEE, LOOKING\nFOR THE COMMENTS. ONE THING I DO\nWANT TO NOTE.\nTHANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO\nTHANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT,\nFOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD. I\nTHINK MOST OF US AGREE ABOUT THE\nNEED FOR MORE SERVICES ADDICTION\nTREATMENT SERVICES IN THE CITY.\nTHERE ARE A LOT OF FOLKS\nPARTICULARLY WITH THIS FENTANYL\nCRISIS THAT WE HAVE. THERE'S SO\nMANY PEOPLE THAT NEED HELP\nFIGHTING THIS ADDICTION. WE'RE\nNOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE\nTHAT HELP IF WE DON'T HAVE\nTHOSE SERVICES TO DO SO, AND\nTHAT IMPACTS TO YOUR POINT AND\nMANY POINTS. MANY OF US HAVE\nSAID HERE, SINCE WE'VE BEEN\nHERE ON COUNCIL. YOU KNOW, IT\nIMPACTS ABILITY FOR PEOPLE TO\nSTAY HOUSED INTO WORK AND BE IN\nPOSITIVE SPACES WITH THEIR\nFAMILIES AND WITH COMMUNITY.\nTHAT IS A REALLY BIG DEAL. SO I\nREALLY APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING\nFORWARD. I'M SUPPORTING THIS\nRESOLUTION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR\nLEADERSHIP ON THAT.\nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. I HAVE A\nQUESTION, BEN. EXCUSE ME. I\nREMEMBER THERE WAS A TIMING\nLIMITATION ON WHEN THE PUBLIC\nSAFETY TAX HAS TO BE IMPLEMENTED\nBY CITIES. I THINK THERE WAS\nSOME NUANCE IN THE TIMING. IT\nCOULDN'T JUST BE THE END OF\nNOVEMBER, FOR EXAMPLE.\nIT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, THE\nWAY SALES TAX IS COLLECTED, THE\nSTATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE\nCOLLECTS ALL THE SALES TAXES, IF\nYOU WILL. THAT'S TO SAY THE\nONES IMPOSED BY THE CITY, BY\nOTHER TAXING JURISDICTIONS LIKE\nSOUND TRANSIT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE\nCOUNTIES, AND THE STATE. SO THE\nDEPARTMENT OF REVENUE COLLECTS\nALL THIS MONEY AND DISTRIBUTE IT\nF, SO THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE, THE\nADMINISTRATION, IF YOU WILL, THE\nSALES TAX. THEY ALLOW CHANGES TO\nSALES TAX RATES ON A QUARTERLY\nBASIS. AGAIN, YOU CAN IMAGINE\nTHEY NEED TO GO TELL ALL THE\nRETAILERS THIS IS THE SALES TAX.\nYOU NEED TO BE COLLECTING, SO WE\nCAN DISTRIBUTE IT BACK TO THE\nVARIOUS TAXING AUTHORITIES. SO\nAGAIN, THEY DO THAT ON A\nQUARTERLY BASIS. AS WE\nUNDERSTAND IT, I UNDERSTAND IT,\n60-DAY NOTICE AHEAD OF THAT. SO\nTHE TAX CAN GO INTO EFFECT ON\nJANUARY 1 OF 2026, BUT ONLY IF\nTHERE'S NOTICE BEEN GIVEN, 60\nDAYS IN ADVANCE, AND GIVEN THE\nLEGISLATIVE CALENDAR,\nIMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE FOR CITY\nAPPROVED ORDINANCES. THAT WOULD\nIMPLY THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE\nCONSIDERING THIS EARLY IN THE\nFALL, POTENTIALLY BEFORE THE\nBUDGET HAS BEEN PROPOSED.\nACTUALLY THE TIMING ON THIS IS\nSOMETHING I PERSONALLY WANT TO\nEXPLORE MORE WITH THE EXECUTIVE,\nBUT AGAIN IT'S THEIR\nPREROGATIVE TO DETERMINE WHEN\nAND IF THEY'RE GOING TO PROPOSE\nTHE LEGISLATION. BUT THE TIMING\nIS GROWING SHORT IF IT WERE TO\nCOME INTO EFFECT ON JANUARY 1.\nTHANK YOU FOR THAT\nINFORMATION. AND THAT IS WHY\nTHIS IS BEFORE US NOW INSTEAD OF\nIN ASSOCIATION WITH ANY OTHER\nBUDGET PROCESS OR DISCUSSION,\nSIMPLY BECAUSE IT'S PUTTING A\nSTAKE IN THE GROUND BEFORE AND\nUNTIL THAT LEGISLATION COMES\nDOWN FROM THE SEVENTH FLOOR. I\nDO WANT TO READ, FOR THE RECORD,\nIN CASE PEOPLE ARE WONDERING.\nWELL, WHAT ARE THESE SERVICES? I\nWON'T READ EACH ONE OF THEM\nTHAT'S LISTED IN THE\nRESOLUTION, BUT THEY ARE EXPAND\nACCESS ON RESIDENTIAL AND\nINTENSIVE OUTPATIENT SUBSTANCE\nABUSE DISORDER TREATMENT THAT'S\nFUNDED IN A COMPREHENSIVE\nTREATMENT PILOT PROJECT. THAT'S\nIN REFERENCE TO THE PROGRAM, THE\nPILOT PROJECT -- THE PILOT\nPROJECT THAT WAS LISTED, THAT\nWAS REPORTED IN THIS STORY\nABOUT, YOU KNOW, OUR CASEWORKERS\nCAN REFER SOMEONE TO AN\nIN-PATIENT REHAB, AND THEN THE\nCITY JUST PAYS THE BILL WHEN THE\nTREATMENT IS DONE. ALSO ENHANCE\nACCESS TO RECOVERY HOUSING AS\nCONSISTENT WITH THE CLINICALLY\nPROVEN MODEL, AND RECOVERY BASED\nSERVICES WITHIN OUR HOUSING\nFACILITIES HERE IN SEATTLE.\nENSURE CAPACITY FOR LOW BARRIER\nSHELTER, CASE MANAGEMENT AFTER\nCARE, AND LEGAL COORDINATION AS\nCONSISTENT WITH PROGRAMS SUCH AS\nLEAD AND COLEAD. COORDINATE WITH\nKING COUNTY TO INCREASE THE\nNUMBER OF DESIGNATED CRISIS\nRESPONDERS OPERATING WITHIN\nSEATTLE. FUND INNOVATIVE\nAPPROACHES TO ADDRESSING\nSTIMULANT ABUSE DISORDER AND\nEXPANDING THE PROVISION OF\nLONG-LASTING INJECTIONS, ENHANCE\nACCESS TO JOB TRAINING AND JOB\nPLACEMENT SERVICES, AND\nSTABILIZING DIVERGENCE SERVICES\nSUCH AS LEAD, ETC. CAPITAL\nINVESTMENTS TO SUPPORT THE\nFACILITIES WHERE THESE TREATMENT\nSERVICES ARE PROVIDED. AS YOU\nCAN SEE, THAT'S WHAT I MEANT\nWHEN I SAID $10 MILLION IS A\nDROP IN THE BUCKET. BUT IN ANY\nCASE, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT OUR\nMOVEMENT THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND\nTHE COURSE OF OUR DAYS, IT IS\nREALLY, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T\nEXPRESS HOW OFTEN I PASS SOMEONE\nWHO IS BENT OVER AND, YOU KNOW,\nFROM THE IMPACTS OF SUSTAINED\nDRUG USE AND THINK HOW CAN WE\nJUST NOT DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS\nPOISON THAT IS OUT THERE? YOU\nKNOW, IT'S A QUESTION OF IS IT\nTHE COUNTY'S RESPONSIBILITY? IS\nIT THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY?\nNO. IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS\nPUBLIC SERVANTS TO DO AS MUCH AS\nWE CAN. SO I DON'T SEE ANY\nOTHER HANDS UP HERE. I WILL JUST\nADD ONE MORE THING. WHEN WE'RE\nTALKING ABOUT MONEY, WE'RE\nTALKING ABOUT SCARCITY, AND\nTHEN, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE --\nTHERE ARE LINES SURROUNDING\nPEOPLE'S TURFS. I WOULD SAY\nWHEN WE INVEST IN GETTING PEOPLE\nOFF THE STREETS, WE ARE ACTUALLY\nMAKING A VERY SOUND AND\nRESPONSIBLE FISCAL INVESTMENT IN\nNOT JUST OTHER PEOPLE'S\nWELLNESS, BUT ALSO IN\nNEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY. THAT IS --\nIT'S NOT JUST THE FISCALLY\nRESPONSIBLE THING TO DO TO FUND\nADDITIONAL TREATMENT SERVICES\nAND SOBER HOUSING, AND THE\nTHINGS THAT ARE ON THIS LIST,\nBUT IT IS ALSO THE MORAL THING\nTO DO. SO WITH THAT, I WILL JUST\nSEE. OKAY, I'M NOT SEEING ANY\nOTHER COMMENTS, SO I MOVE THE\nCOMMITTEE RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF\nRESOLUTION 32174.\nSECOND.\nIT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED\nTO CONFIRM RESOLUTION 32174.\nWILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL --\nONE LAST TIME, I'LL ASK IF\nTHERE ARE ANY -- IT'S HARD FOR\nME TO SEE BOTH SCREEN AND\nSCRIPT. OKAY. SEEING NO OTHER\nCOMMENTS, WILL THE CLERK PLEASE\nCALL THE ROLL ON THE\nRECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT\nRESOLUTION 32174.\nCOUNCILMEMBER RIVERA: COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?\nAYE.\nCOUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON: COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON?\nAYE.\nCOUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH: COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH?\nHERE -- SORRY, YES.\nCOUNCILMEMBER KETTLE: COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?\nAYE.\nCHAIR NELSON: CHAIR NELSON?\nAYE.\nFIVE IN FAVOR.\nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE\nLEGISLATION PASSES, AND THE\nCHAIR WILL SIGN IT. COLLEAGUES,\nI WILL BE PROPOSING SENDING -- I\nPROPOSE SENDING THIS ITEM TO THE\n-- NEXT WEEK'S FULL COUNCIL\nMEETING. THE COUNCIL RULES STATE\nTHAT FOR -- FOR THE ITEMS THAT\nARE VOTED ON AFTER 1:00 THURSDAY\nON, THEY NEED TO GO TO THE\nFOLLOWING -- NOT THE NEXT\nTUESDAY, BUT THE FOLLOWING\nTUESDAY'S COUNCIL MEETING. SO I\nAM -- THERE ARE A LARGE NUMBER\nOF ITEMS ANTICIPATED ON THE\nAUGUST 5 AGENDA. IN AN EFFORT TO\nENSURE THAT MEETING CAN RUN ON\nTIME, I DON'T WANT TO ADD MORE\nTO THE AGENDA. I'LL BE ASKING\nFOR THE SAME THING FOR THE NEXT\nPIECE OF LEGISLATION ON TODAY'S\nAGENDA. SO I WILL BE -- BECAUSE\nTHIS MEETING IS TAKING PLACE ON\nTHURSDAY AFTER 1:00, THE RULES\nWILL NEED TO BE SUSPENDED TO\nALLOW IT TO BE CONSIDERED AT THE\nJULY 29 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. SO\nIF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, THE\nRULES WILL BE SUSPENDED TO SEND\nTHIS RESOLUTION TO THE JULY 29\nCOUNCIL MEETING. ALL RIGHT,\nHEARING NO OBJECTION, THE RULES\nARE SUSPENDED, AND THE\nRESOLUTION WILL BE SENT TO THE\nJULY 29 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR\nFINAL CONSIDERATION. ALL RIGHT,\nTHANK YOU, EVERYONE. WILL THE\nCLERK PLEASE READ ITEM 2 INTO\nTHE RECORD.\nAGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2, A\nRESOLUTION ADOPTING GENERAL\nRULES AND PROCEDURES OF THE\nSEATTLE CITY COUNCIL,\nSUPERSEDING RESOLUTION 32096,\nFOR BRIEFING, DISCUSSION, AND\nPOSSIBLE VOTE.\nALL RIGHT. SO, WE'LL WAIT\nFOR THOSE FOLKS.\nOH. PUBLIC COMMENT IS -- I\nUNDERSTAND, SIR. PUBLIC COMMENT\nIS CLOSED FOR NOW. SIR, THANK\nYOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. PLEASE\nHAVE A SEAT, SIR. YOU ARE NOW\nDISRUPTING OUR MEETING. [\nINAUDIBLE ]\nSIR --\nI WANT TO HELP, BUT --\nWE WILL HAVE TO -- THANK YOU.\nPOINT OF PRIVILEGE.\nGO AHEAD: GO AHEAD.\nSORRY FOR THIS INTERRUPTION,\nAND I'M GLAD WE REALLY\nSECURITY. THIS MAN HAS A HISTORY\nOF CONTINUING TO ATTACK ME AND\nMY FAMILY. HE HAS SHOWN UP HERE\nTODAY, AND I'M SORRY, BUT HE\nCONTINUES TO THREATEN MY SAFETY\nCONSTANTLY, SO THANK YOU. I\nREALLY APPRECIATE IT. I'M MORE\nTHAN HAPPY TO WORK WITH HIM, AS\nI HAVE, IN THE LAST TEN YEARS\nFOR CANNABIS EQUITY. THANK YOU.\nTHANK YOU FOR THAT CONTEXT.\nALL RIGHT. OKAY. IT'S STILL\nON. OKAY. THESE 15 RULES WERE\nGENERATED THROUGH MONTHS OF\nDISCUSSIONS STEMMING LARGELY\nFROM IDEAS DIRECTLY FROM CENTRAL\nSTAFF, OUR CITY CLERKS, AND THE\nLAW DEPARTMENT. EVERY TWO YEARS\nWE REVISE, REEVALUATE OUR\nCOUNCIL RULES, AND THAT'S WHAT\nWE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW. WE\nCONSIDERED A WHOLE HOST OF\nCONCEPTS, BUT NARROWED IT DOWN\nTO WHAT IS MOST NEEDED ACCORDING\nTO THE PEOPLE THAT INPUT INTO\nTHIS LEGISLATION, AND BOY, DID I\nLEAVE IT TO MOSTLY THE EXPERTS\nTO SUGGEST TO OUR RULES. SO WE\nWILL NOW PROCEED WITH AN\nEXPLANATION OF -- FIRST OF ALL\nI'LL MOVE IT, AND THEN YOU CAN\nGIVE A BRIEF DISCUSSION OF THE\nLEGISLATION. I MOVE THE\nCOMMITTEE RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF\nRESOLUTION 32173. IS THERE A\nSECOND?\nSECOND.\nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT'S\nBEEN MOVED AND SECONDED TO\nRECOMMEND THE ADOPTION OF THE\nRESOLUTION. WE'LL NOW PROCEED\nWITH CONSIDERATION OF THE\nAMENDMENTS, AND I WILL REQUEST\nTHE SPONSOR MOVE THEIR\nAMENDMENT. CENTRAL STAFF WILL\nPROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE\nAMENDMENT, AND THEN THE SPONSOR\nWILL ADDRESS IT. OKAY.\nYES, THANK YOU, COUNCIL\nPRESIDENT AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS.\nAS WE DISCUSSED IN THE LAST\nCOMMITTEE MEETING, YES, THE\nWORKING GROUP DID CONVENE, YES.\nBE A LITTLE CLOSER TO YOUR\nMIC.\nWONDERFUL. THANK YOU. THE\nWORKING GROUP DID CONVENE OVER\nSEVERAL MONTHS AND PROPOSED FOR\nTHE COUNCIL PRESIDENT'S REVIEW.\nCERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO EITHER\nCLARIFY THE LANGUAGE OF THE\nEXISTING RULES, PROPOSE\nTECHNICAL CHANGES, CONFORM THE\nRULES TO CURRENT PRACTICES, AND\nIN SOME CASES, PROPOSE\nAMENDMENTS. THE 15 PROPOSED\nAMENDMENTS THAT ARE IN\nATTACHMENT ONE OF RESOLUTION\n32173, WE REVIEWED AT LENGTH.\nI'M HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS ON\nTHEM. I CAN SAY A FEW WORDS\nABOUT THE GENERAL AREAS THAT\nTHEY COVER, IF THAT IS OF\nINTEREST TO THE COMMITTEE.\nDOES ANYBODY NEED A REFRESHER\nOF THE LEGISLATION OR THE --\nANYTHING IN PARTICULAR CONTAINED\nTHEREIN? NOT SEEING ANYBODY.\nOKAY. THEN LET'S GO AHEAD AND\nCONSIDER SOME AMENDMENTS,\nPLEASE. COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?\nCOUNCIL PRESIDENT, THANK YOU.\nI MOVE TO AMEND RESOLUTION 32173\nWITH AMENDMENT 1, VERSION 3.\nSECOND.\nIT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED\nTO AMEND THE RESOLUTION PER THE\nLANGUAGE IN AMENDMENT 1. GO\nAHEAD.\nTHANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT.\nTHIS AMENDMENT COMES FROM THE\nEXPERIENCE THAT PROBABLY ALL OF\nUS SHARED OVER THE LAST YEAR AND\nA HALF OR AT LEAST THE COHORT\nTHAT STARTED IN JANUARY 2024,\nLONGER IN YOUR CASE, COUNCIL\nPRESIDENT. THE CHALLENGES OF THE\nLAST SECOND AMENDMENTS, AND THE\nSTRAIN THIS PUTS ON THE OVERALL\nSYSTEM TO INCLUDE THE CITY\nCLERKS, TO INCLUDE THE CENTRAL\nSTAFF, BUT REALLY, AS WELL, US,\nOUR IMMEDIATE TEAMS, THE STAFF,\nAND OURSELVES IN ORDER TO MAKE\nPROPER DECISIONS. WE DO NEED\nTHAT TIME FOR AT LEAST SOME\nREFLECTION. OUT OF THAT\nEXPERIENCE WE'VE HAD, OR IN MY\nCASE, 18 PLUS MONTHS NOW IS THAT\nTHE WALK-UPS AND THE AMENDMENTS\nON THE AMENDMENTS ARE NOT\nPRODUCTIVE. I THINK THEY CREATE\nCONFUSION. I THINK THEY CREATE\nSOME CHALLENGES ACROSS THE\nBOARD. SO THIS AMENDMENT IS TO\n-- I DON'T THINK IS\nUNREASONABLE TO GO TO 24 HOURS\nPRIOR TO THE START OF THE\nMEETING AS OPPOSED TO TWO HOURS.\nI THINK THIS WOULD BE BETTER FOR\nTHE HEALTH OF THE SYSTEM, AND IT\nALSO GIVES A CHANCE FOR THE\nPUBLIC TO SEE IT TOO. WHEN IT\nCOMES TWO HOURS BEFORE, PEOPLE\nPLANNED THEIR DAY. IF YOU ONLY\nGET IT TWO HOURS BEFORE, THAT\nMIGHT NOT BE POSSIBLE. WHEREAS\n24 HOURS ADVANCED NOTICE, THEN\nTHAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING. THAT'S\nAN ADDITIONAL POINT I WOULD LIKE\nTO ADD IN TERMS OF WHAT'S\nDRIVING THIS AMENDMENT.\nCOLLEAGUES, I ASK FOR YOU TO\nSUPPORT IT.\nTHANK YOU FOR THAT. FOR\nPROVIDING THE RATIONAL BEHIND\nTHIS. WOULD CENTRAL STAFF LIKE\nTO GO THROUGH THE MECHANICS OF\nHOW IT HAD WOULD WORK?\nABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU,\nCOUNCIL PRESIDENT. SO\nMECHANICALLY THERE'S THREE\nDIFFERENT AREAS OF THE COUNCIL\nRULES THAT ARE ADDRESSED IN\nORDER TO PROVIDE A STANDARDIZED\n24-HOUR ADVANCED NOTICE SYSTEM\nAS COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE\nDESCRIBED. SO THE FIRST IS AN\nAMENDMENT TO EXISTING LANGUAGE\nFOUND IN RULE 3A8. THAT'S\nRELATED TO CITY COUNCIL\nBUSINESS, AND AFFORDS A TWO-HOUR\nWINDOW AS COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE\nELUDED TO FOR AMENDMENTS TO BE\nSUBMITTED TO YOURSELVES, COUNCIL\nMEMBERS, THE CENTRAL STAFF\nDIRECTOR, AND THE CITY CLERK. SO\nTHAT EXTENDS THE TWO-HOUR\nDEADLINE TO A 24-HOUR DEADLINE.\nSO THAT'S IN RULE THREE. AND\nTHEN AMENDMENT FURTHER AMENDS\nRULE 6H4. THAT'S CONCERNING\nSTANDING COMMITTEES\nACCOMPLISHING THE SAME GOAL AND\nUSING THE SAME LANGUAGE. AND\nTHEN FINALLY IN RULE 7G4, RULE 7\nIS SPECIFIC TO SELECT\nCOMMITTEES. THERE IT USES THE\nSAME LANGUAGE TO ESTABLISH A\n24-HOUR ADVANCED NOTICE RULE FOR\nAN AMENDMENT TO BE SUBMITTED TO\nCOUNCIL MEMBERS. SUBMITTED TO\nTHE CENTRAL STAFF DIRECTOR, AND\nSUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK.\nTHANK YOU. ANY OTHER CENTRAL\nSTAFF COMMENTARY? OKAY. ARE\nTHERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS\nAMENDMENT FROM COLLEAGUES?\nCOUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?\nTHANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT.\nTHANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE\nFOR YOUR THOUGHTFULNESS IN\nBRINGING THIS FORWARD. I DO HAVE\nCONCERNS. WHILE I THINK IT IS\nADVANTAGEOUS, AND OUR GOAL\nSHOULD BE PROVIDING 24 HOURS FOR\nAN AMENDMENT, THERE HAVE BEEN\nINSTANCES WHERE IT NECESSITATED\nAN AMENDMENT DAY OF FOR WHATEVER\nREASON, SOMEONE MAY HAVE MISSED\nTHE LEGISLATION OR\nMISUNDERSTOOD, AND I WORRY,\nSINCE THIS IS A MUST, AND AS\nWE'RE TRYING TO REPRESENT OUR\nCONSTITUENTS THAT IF WE HAVE\nTHIS REQUIREMENT AS A MUST,\nTHEN, YOU KNOW, WHAT HAPPENS\nWHEN, YOU KNOW, DAY OF, YOU\nREALIZE OH, I NEEDED TO PROFFER\nTHIS AMENDMENT, OR WILL YOU HEAR\nFROM A CONSTITUENCY IN YOUR\nDISTRICT THAT FLAGGED THAT FOR\nYOU THAT MORNING. I MEAN, I'M\nTRYING TO, YOU KNOW, I\nAPPRECIATE, AND YES, I AGREE WE\nSHOULD DO THE A LEAST 24 HOURS\nIN ADVANCE. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT\nINSTANCES WHERE IF THAT SHOULD\nNOT HAPPEN, THEN YOU ARE\nPREVENTED FROM BEING ABLE TO\nREPRESENT YOUR CONSTITUENTS. I\nMEAN, I LOVE TO HEAR FROM THE\nCITY CLERK AND LAUREN FROM OUR\nATTORNEY OR EVEN YOU, BEN, AS\nDIRECTOR, CENTRAL STAFF\nDIRECTOR, WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE\nON THIS.\nI'LL OPEN AND PERHAPS EMILIA\nCAN SUPPLEMENT. THIS IS A\nSELF-REGULATION OF YOUR\nLEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY. SO IT IS\nNOT THIS RULE PRECLUDES THE IDEA\nOF A WALK-ON AMENDMENT, BUT\nESTABLISHES A STANDARD PRACTICE.\nAND THEN VIA THE RULES, THIS\nMIGHT BE SUSPENDED OR WAIVING A\nCOUNCIL RULE, IN ORDER TO ALLOW\nFOR THAT INHERENT ABILITY.\nEMILIA, IF YOU WANTED TO SPEAK\nTO THE PROCESS FOR THAT.\nCORRECT, YES. IF THE COUNCIL,\nIF THE COUNCIL MEMBER DID HAVE\nAN AMENDMENT THAT WAS NOT\nCIRCULATED 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE,\nIT WOULD NEED TO, ONE, STILL BE\nCIRCULATED, BUT ALSO A REQUEST\nOF THE BODY TO SUSPEND THE\nRULES. IF TWO-THIRDS OF THE\nMEMBERS AGREE TO SUSPEND THE\nRULES, THEN YOU CAN PROCEED WITH\nTHE CONSIDERATION OF THE\nAMENDMENT.\nWOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND TO?\nWELL YES, THANKS, COUNCIL\nPRESIDENT. THANK YOU,\nCOUNCILMEMBER RIVERA, FOR YOUR\nPOINTS MADE. I UNDERSTAND THE\nPOINTS MADE. I APPRECIATE\nCENTRAL STAFF AND CITY CLERK FOR\nTHAT RESPONSE BECAUSE I THINK\nTHAT KIND OF ANSWERS THAT\nQUESTION. AND I WOULD ADD TOO AS\nTHINKING ABOUT THE POINT MADE.\nYES, I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT IF\nSOMETHING COMES UP TWO HOURS\nBEFORE, THERE MAY BE OTHER\nINDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE A DIFFERENT\nPOSITION OR WHO HAVE INSIGHT\nTHAT COULD BE GERMAINE. WITH THE\nTIGHT TURNAROUNDS, WE MIGHT NOT\nBE ABLE TO GET THAT. I RECOGNIZE\nTHE POINT, AND I THINK MAYBE THE\nWAY TOO, AS I SAY SQUARE TO\nCIRCLE, THE POINTS RAISED BY THE\nCITY CLERK, THAT WE USE THE\nPARLIAMENTARY PROCESS. GENERALLY\nTHIS IS BEING PROFFERED TO KIND\nOF INSTILL SOME GOOD GOVERNANCE\nPRINCIPLES TO GET IN EARLY. FOR\nTHE GENERAL, THE 90, WHATEVER\nPERCENT TIME, THAT WE HAVE THIS\nOPPORTUNITY FOR THE REASONS I\nSAID. BUT FOR THE POINT YOU\nMADE, FAIR POINT, BUT IT SOUNDS\nLIKE A WAY TO ADDRESS THAT POINT\nWOULD BE TO USE THE\nPARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES OPTIONS\nTHAT WE DO HAVE AS COUNCIL\nMEMBERS, AS NOTED, IT'S\nSELF-REGULATED, AND THERE'S\nDIFFERENT WAYS TO ADDRESS THAT\nPOINT.\nAFTER JUST CONSULTING WITH\nDEPUTY CITY CLERK. REMINDED A\nCOUNCIL MEMBER CAN ALSO MOVE TO\nHOLD A PIECE OF LEGISLATION, IF\nTHEY THOUGHT IT WAS NOT -- IF\nMORE TIME IS NEEDED TO CONSIDER\nAMENDMENTS, RECOGNIZING, AGAIN,\nA SITUATION THAT MIGHT NOT BE AS\nVIABLE OF AN OPTION BECAUSE\nTHERE MIGHT BE SOME TIME\nPRESSURE AROUND THE OVERALL\nLEGISLATION, BUT THAT IS ANOTHER\nPARLIAMENTARY OPTION YOU WOULD\nHAVE. IT'S ONE THAT ONLY\nREQUIRES A SIMPLE MAJORITY. BUT\nAGAIN, JUST TO SAY THOSE ARE AT\nLEAST TWO OPTIONS. BUT THE POINT\nIS ALSO WELL TAKEN THAT IT DOES\nSHORTEN THE PERIOD, NARROWS THE\nPERIOD. YEAH.\nYEAH. THANK YOU,\nCOUNCILMEMBER KETTLE. I HAVE\nIMMENSE RESPECT FOR YOU AND YOUR\nTHINGS YOU PROFFER. IN FULL\nDISCLOSURE, I'M JUST SEEING\nTHIS AMENDMENT RIGHT NOW,\nWHETHER THAT IS BECAUSE I'M A\nLITTLE SHORT STAFFED THIS WEEK,\nSO MAYBE NO ONE BROUGHT THAT TO\nMY ATTENTION, BUT IT HAPPENS. I\nHAVE AN AMAZING TEAM. SO FOR\nWHATEVER REASON, IT JUST\nEXEMPLIFIES LIKE AN INSTANCE\nWHERE YOU DON'T SEE SOMETHING\nWITH ENOUGH TIME BECAUSE I WOULD\nHAVE COME TO TALK TO YOU EARLIER\nAND NOT HAVE IT THIS\nCONVERSATION ON THE DAY BECAUSE\nWE HAVE A GREAT RELATIONSHIP.\nAND SO I STRUGGLE WITH THIS IN\nTHAT WAY, AND I APPRECIATE THE\nABILITY WITH TWO-THIRDS OF THE\nCOUNCIL, BE ABLE TO OR EVEN TO\nREQUEST DELAYING A VOTE TO BE\nABLE TO GET THOSE PIECES. SO I\nAPPRECIATE THAT. I WANT YOU TO\nUNDERSTAND WHERE THIS IS COMING\nFROM.\nI APPRECIATE IT. SEEING THIS\n24 HOURS IN ADVANCE WOULD HAVE\nHELPED. [ LAUGHTER ]\nYES. EXACTLY. BUT I DON'T,\nYEAH. IT ALLEVIATES THE\nAWKWARDNESS OF HAVING TO POINT\nOUT. COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE, I\nWOULD HAVE COME TO YOU. SO ANY\nWAY, THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER\nKETTLE, THANK YOU ALL FOR\nANSWERING THE QUESTION. I\nAPPRECIATE IT.\nSO I HAVE TO ADMIT WHEN THIS\nWAS PRESENTED AS AN OPTION WAS\nPRESENTED TO ME IN THE UNIVERSE\nOF CHANGES THAT THE PEOPLE WHO\nHAVE TO DEAL WITH US, DAY IF AND\nDAY OUT, WHICH IS CENTRAL STAFF,\nTHE CLERKS, AND OUR INTERNAL\nCOUNCIL. IN THAT UNIVERSE, THIS\nWAS ON THE LIST OF POTENTIALS. I\nDECLINED TO INCLUDE IT JUST\nBECAUSE I WAS THINKING THAT\nMIGHT BE TOO PRESCRIPTIVE IN\nANTICIPATING SOME PUSHBACK FROM\nTHAT. AT THE SAME TIME, THERE IS\nTHE RISK OF UNINTENDED\nCONSEQUENCES OF WALK ONS THAT\nHAVEN'T BEEN REVIEWED BY LAW.\nTHAT IS A BIG PROBLEM I THINK\nTHE PEOPLE THAT BROUGHT THIS TO\nME, AS PRESIDENT, TO PUT FORWARD\nWERE REALLY THINKING ABOUT, WHEN\nWALK ONS HAVE NOT BEEN REVIEWED\nBY LAW, THEN WE GET INTO, YOU\nKNOW, EVEN STICKIER SITUATION.\nSO WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING THIS,\nWHEN YOU PRESENTED IT AS A\nPOTENTIAL ADDITION, WERE THERE\nANY OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT\nCOULD GET AT THE SAME PURPOSE,\nBUT THAT WOULD NOT -- BESIDES\nTWO-THIRDS OF THE BODY AGREEING\nTO ACCEPT A WALK ON? WHAT WERE\nSOME OF THE OTHERS, IF ANY, THAT\nWERE CONTEMPLATED TO GET TO IT\nTHIS?\nI THINK YOUR POLICY LEVERS\nHERE ARE THE AMOUNT OF TIME,\nWHETHER IT'S AS WRITTEN IN THE\nCOUNCIL RULES RIGHT NOW FOR CITY\nCOUNCIL MEETINGS. TWO HOURS\nPRIOR TO A MEETING VERSES\nWHAT'S PROPOSED HERE, 24 HOURS.\nSO THAT'S CERTAINLY A POLICY\nMATTER. WHAT AMOUNT OF TIME IS\nSUITABLE HERE. AND THE OTHER IS\nTO YOUR POINT, THE LAW\nDEPARTMENT IS LISTED AS AN\nENTITY THAT MUST RECEIVE THIS,\nIN ORDER FOR THE RULE TO BE\nSATISFIED. SO THE OTHER LEVERS\nARE IS THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME\nTHAT'S NECESSARY FOR LEGAL\nREVIEW, THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT\nWOULD BE SUITABLE FOR\nDISTRIBUTION INTERNALLY. THAT'S\nA SEPARATE LEVER. AND SO THOSE\nARE AT LEAST A FEW OF THE POLICY\nCHOICES THAT I SEE KIND OF BAKED\nINTO THIS AMENDMENT HERE.\nOKAY. COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?\nTHANK YOU. I WONDER,\nCOUNCILMEMBER KETTLE AND OUR\nTEAM HERE, COULD IT BE END OF\nDAY BEFORE THE VOTE, FOR\nINSTANCE? THEN IT WOULD GIVE A\nBIT MORE TIME, BUT STILL ACHIEVE\nNOT DAY OF, BUT 24 HOURS IS, YOU\nKNOW, THE MEETING IS AT 9:30,\nYOU HAVE TO DO IT AT 9:30 A.M.\nTHE DAY BEFORE, SO YOU LOSE THAT\nWHOLE DAY.\nAS WE WERE DISCUSSING THIS\nAND DISCUSSING IT WITH THE\nCOUNCIL PRESIDENT, AS I RECALL.\nTHE MORNING MEETINGS ARE\nPARTICULARLY PROBLEMATIC FOR YOU\nALL, POTENTIALLY, IN TERMS OF\nTHE TURNAROUND. BUT WE GOT TO\nTHE PLACE AT 5:00 TODAY BEFORE A\n9:30 MEETING THE NEXT DAY IS\nREALLY NOT PARTICULAR NOTICE. IF\nYOU LOG OFF AND YOU DON'T LOG\nBACK ON, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE\nALMOST NO TIME. SO WHETHER IT'S\n24 HOURS OR PERHAPS, YOU KNOW,\nFOR THE EARLIER MEETINGS\nSOMETIMES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE\nAFTERNOON, NOON, AND ULTIMATELY\nIT WAS BOTH THE SIMPLICITY AND\nTHE DIRECTNESS OF 24 HOURS THAT\nJUST SEEMED THE BEST WAY TO SET\nTHIS OUT AND TO STANDARDIZE IT\nACROSS THE COMMITTEE MEETINGS\nBECAUSE SOMETIMES THERE ARE\nSPECIAL MEETING TIMES IN THE\nLIKES, BUT THERE WAS THOUGHT\nGIVEN TO THE DYNAMIC, IF YOU\nWILL, BETWEEN MORNINGS AND\nAFTERNOON MEETINGS. STILL CAME\nTO THE PLACE OF ULTIMATELY THE\nSIMPLEST AND CLEANEST WAY TO\nCLARIFY EXPECTATIONS. BUT JUST\nTO THAT POINT, THERE WAS SOME\nDIALOGUE ABOUT THAT.\nIS THERE ANY -- SO IS THERE\nANY MIDDLE GROUND HERE THAT\nWOULD BE WORKABLE?\nI WOULD SAY, I MEAN, DIRECTOR\nNOBLE JUST MADE A GOOD POINT. I\nUNDERSTAND THE POSSIBILITY AT\nTHE END OF THE DAY. BUT AS HE\nNOTED, PARTICULARLY AS SOMEBODY\nTHAT HAS A HARD TIME GETTING TO\nHIS E-MAIL. FOR THOSE EARLY\nMORNING STARTS, MY COMMITTEE IS\nA 9:30 START. THAT COULD BE\nCHALLENGING. I'D LIKE TO GO\nBACK TO THE POINT MADE EARLIER\nTHAT THERE ARE PARLIAMENTARY\nRULES. THERE ARE WAYS TO ADDRESS\nTHE SITUATION, EVEN TO HOLD THE\nBILL. BUT TO CREATE SOME\nEXCEPTIONS, ESSENTIALLY IN THOSE\nUNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES. BUT FINE\nTIMES OUT OF TEN, I THINK THIS\nWOULD BE ENFORCING SOME GOOD\nGOVERNANCE BEHAVIORS, AND\nGETTING INTO A RHYTHM WHERE WE\nARE DOING THIS IN AN EARLIER\nPROCESS. I COME BACK TO THE\nPOINT THAT, YOU KNOW, EARLIER IS\nBETTER, AND IT WOULD ALSO GIVE\nTIME FOR THE STAFF TO DO THEIR\nPIECE. THAT PUTS EXTRA STRESS ON\nTHEM WHEN IT IS COMING IN HOT\nAND LATE. I THINK FROM A\nLEADERSHIP PERSPECTIVE THAT WE\nCOULD, YOU KNOW, SHOW THAT IN\nSUPPORT OF THE TEAMS AND FOR\nEVERYBODY INVOLVED, ALL THE\nLEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT TEAMS TO\nDO THAT. SO AT THE END OF THE\nDAY, I APPRECIATE IT, BUT I DO\nTHINK WE HAVE AN ANSWER BASED ON\nTHOSE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OR TO\nUSE THE PROCESSES THAT OUR\nCLERKS ARE SO EXPERT ON, ALL OF\nTHEM. UNLIKE MY COLLEAGUE, I\nDON'T HAVE ANY FAVORITES. [\nLAUGHTER ] THANK YOU, COUNCIL\nPRESIDENT.\nGO AHEAD, COUNCILMEMBER\nRIVERA.\nI LOOKED BACK, I DIDN'T GET\nAN E-MAIL ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT.\nSO AGAIN, THAT'S WHY I'M\nSEEING IT NOW. IT MIGHT HAVE\nBEEN IN THE AGENDA. THIS IS\nREQUIRING AN E-MAIL SENT TO\nCOUNCIL MEMBERS. SO THIS IS LIKE\nAN EXAMPLE OF THE THING WE'RE\nTRYING TO AVOID. BUT I\nUNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING,\nCOUNCILMEMBER KETTLE. THINGS\nHAVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES,\nAND I DON'T WANT -- LIKE I HAVE\nCONCERNS ABOUT THE UNINTENDED\nCONSEQUENCES. SO ALL THAT TO\nSAY, I THINK WE KNOW WHERE WE\nARE WITH ALL OF THIS, AND I'M\nNOT GOING TO BE SUPPORTING THIS\nAMENDMENT TODAY. MAYBE IF I HAD\nMORE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE\nCONVERSATION ABOUT A MIDDLE -- A\nBETTER -- AND I UNDERSTAND AND\nRESPECT COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE\nTHAT OUR TEAM HAS SAID WITH\nTWO-THIRDS OF A VOTE, YOU MIGHT\nBE ABLE TO WAIVE THAT, ETC. BUT\nI ALSO JUST FEEL A LITTLE\nUNCOMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD\nWITH THIS TODAY. BUT I DON'T\nWANT TO DELAY THE VOTE FURTHER,\nSO JUST TO SAY I, AGAIN, SUPER\nRESPECT AND APPRECIATE YOU,\nCOUNCILMEMBER KETTLE, AND\nTHAT'S ALL I'LL SAY.\nTHANK YOU.\nPLEASE DON'T TAKE THIS AS A\nNEGATIVE AGAINST YOU, AGAIN. I\nVERY MUCH APPRECIATE OUR WORKING\nRELATIONSHIP.\nOF COURSE.\nAND I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT\nWHETHER OR NOT THIS -- HAS IT\nHAD KIND OF AMENDMENT EVER, TO\nOUR COUNCIL RULES, BEEN\nCONTEMPLATED OR DISCUSSED\nBEFORE?\nI DON'T KNOW, BUT I\nWOULDN'T KNOW. AGAIN, PRIOR TO\nDUTY, I DO NOT RECALL, AND I\nWASN'T HEAVILY INVOLVED IN\nCOUNCIL RULES PREVIOUSLY.\nI CAN'T SAY FOR CERTAIN WE\nDISCUSSED, IN GREAT DETAIL, THE\nADVANTAGES OF HAVING A COUNCIL\nRULE. BUT I DO KNOW THE CURRENT\nPRACTICE FOR SOME COMMITTEES,\nWHEN THERE IS LEGISLATION WITH A\nLOT OF AMENDMENTS, DO IMPLEMENT\nA RULE, A DEADLINE CURRENTLY. SO\nTHIS AMENDMENT HERE WOULD KIND\nOF HELP STREAMLINE WHENEVER\nTHERE ARE AMENDMENTS TO\nLEGISLATION, TO ENSURE NOT ONLY\nOUR DEADLINE SET IN ADVANCE WHEN\nCENTRAL STAFF SUBMITS IT, BUT AS\nWELL AS A STREAMLINE AS TO WHEN\nIS THE LAST NOTICE WHEN\nAMENDMENTS CAN BE PROVIDED TO\nMEMBERS TO BE CONSIDERED AT THE\nMEETING.\nAND WAS, JUST TO BE CLEAR,\nTHIS WOULD APPLY TO AMENDMENTS\nIN COMMITTEE, AS WELL AS AT FULL\nCOUNCIL? OKAY.\nIT DOESN'T AMEND THE CURRENT\nCITY COUNCIL RULES. RIGHT NOW\nIT'S TWO HOURS BEFORE THE\nMEETING, AND THIS WOULD BE 24\nHOURS IN ADVANCE.\nOF ANY MEETING, NOT JUST THE\nFULL COUNCIL MEETING? OKAY. ALL\nRIGHT. THAT MODIFIES MY THINKING\nA LITTLE BIT. I AGREE WITH THE\nSPIRIT OF THIS, AND I ALSO AM\nCONCERNED ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS\nWITH GETTING AGREEMENT WITH\nTWO-THIRDS OF THE BODY TO PUT\nFORWARD AN AMENDMENT.\nIF IT DOES NOT MEET THE\nACTUAL DEADLINE AND THE\nDEADLINE, AGAIN, TO MEET THAT\nDEADLINE WOULD MEAN IT IS ONE BY\nLAW, AND THEN AFTER REVIEWED BY\nLAW, THEN IT'S CIRCULATED TO\nALL COUNCIL MEMBERS, THE CITY\nCLERK, AS WELL AS THE CENTRAL\nSTAFF DIRECTOR AND COUNCIL\nMEMBERS.\nOKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY FURTHER\nCOMMENTS ON THIS?\nCOUNCIL PRESIDENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT.\nGO AHEAD: GO AHEAD.\nI WILL SAY I AGREE WITH THE\nSPIRIT OF THIS, AND I DEFINITELY\nAIM TO ALWAYS -- AND\nCOUNCILMEMBER KETTLE, YOU AND I\nHAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS. ALWAYS\nAIMING TO DO THINGS NOT LAST\nMINUTE, SO IT'S NOT THAT I\nDISAGREE, IT'S JUST FOR THE OFF\nONES THAT, YOU KNOW, IT HAPPENS.\nSO THANK YOU.\nWAS IT CONTEMPLATED THIS\nCOULD APPLY TO AMENDMENTS THAT\nARE OFFERED AT FULL COUNCIL, BUT\nNOT AT COMMITTEE MEETINGS?\nNO. I THINK THE LOGIC APPLIES\nIN BOTH CASES, AND IN SUPPORT.\nAS I'M SITTING HERE THINKING\nABOUT IT AND THE FACT WE HAVE\nTHREE SELECT COMMITTEES. ALL OF\nOUR CALENDARS ARE BLOWN UP. I\nHAVE TAX AMENDMENTS, I HAVE THIS\nAMENDMENT, AND YOU'RE TRYING TO\nWORK THE PIECES AND THE VOLUME\nTHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH RIGHT\nNOW IS SUCH THAT 24 HOURS, AS\nI'M THINKING THROUGH THIS, IT\nBECOMES EVEN MORE IMPORTANT.\nBOTH IN COMMITTEE AND IN FULL\nCOUNCIL. SO I RECOGNIZE, AND I\nAPPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S POSITION\nON THIS. I'D LIKE TO PRESS\nFORWARD WITH A VOTE, BUT I\nAPPRECIATE AND I RECOGNIZE THE\nPOINTS BASTER HAD VALID POINTS.\nI DON'T TAKE THEM ANY OTHER WAY\nTHAN VALID INPUT TO THE ISSUE.\nBUT THE AMENDMENT WAS SUBMITTED\nFOR THE REASONS THAT I STATED,\nWHICH GO FROM THE\nADMINISTRATIVE, THE OPERATIONAL\nPIECES, AND THEN JUST THE\nGENERAL POLICY POINTS THAT I\nMADE. AND SO, YES.\nOKAY.\nALL RIGHT. IF THERE ARE NO\nFURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS,\nI'M READY, IT IF EVERYBODY ELSE\nIS. WOULD YOU LIKE ANYMORE\nCOMMENTS? OKAY, TO PROCEED TO A\nVOTE. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL\nTHE ROLL ON AMENDMENT 1?\nCOUNCILMEMBER RIVERA: COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?\nABSTAIN.\nCOUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON: COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON?\nAYE.\nCOUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH: COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH?\nYES.\nCOUNCILMEMBER KETTLE: COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?\nAYE.\nCHAIR NELSON: CHAIR NELSON?\nABSTAIN.\nTHREE IN FAVOR, TWO ABSTAIN.\nOKAY.\nWE HAVE ANOTHER AMENDMENT.\nCOUNCILMEMBER KETTLE, WOULD YOU\nLIKE TO ADDRESS, MOVE YOUR\nAMENDMENT, THEN WE CAN HAVE\nCENTRAL STAFF GO THROUGH IT?\nTHANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT.\nCOLLEAGUES, I MOVE TO AMEND\nRESOLUTION 32173 WITH AMENDMENT\n2.\nSECOND.\nIT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED\nTO CONSIDER AMENDMENT 2.\nCAN WE START WITH CENTRAL\nSTAFF THIS TIME?\nSURE. I'LL TAKE IT AWAY.\nTHIS IS VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD\nAMENDMENT, A SINGLE SENTENCE\nADDED TO RULE 6B. THIS CONCERN\nIS ADDRESSING THE NON-COMMITTEE\nAMENDMENTS, AND STATES\nAMENDMENTS BY NON-COMMITTEE\nMEMBERS DO NOT REQUIRE\nSPONSORSHIP. SO IT DOESN'T\nCHANGE THE PROCEDURAL RULES IN\nANY WAY. IT IS STILL ONLY A\nCOMMITTEE MEMBER THAT MAY MOVE\nAN AMENDMENT AND VOTE ON AN\nAMENDMENT, BUT IT WOULD ALLOW\nFOR THE AUTHOR OF AN AMENDMENT,\nASSUMING THEY ARE NON-COMMITTEE\nMEMBER TO BRING THEIR AMENDMENT\nWITHOUT NEEDING A SPONSOR FROM A\nCOMMITTEE MEMBER. SO IN THAT\nWAY, IT PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY\nFOR NON-MEMBERS TO HEAR AND\nDISCUSS THEIR IDEAS WITHOUT\nSEEKING A SPONSOR. BRINGING MORE\nMATTERS INTO THE COMMITTEE LEVEL\nOF BUSINESS, RATHER THAN FULL\nCOUNCIL.\nON THE FLIP SIDE, IT ALLOWS\nMEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE TO\nCONSIDER THE AMENDMENT WITHOUT\nTHEMSELVES OWNING IT, IF YOU\nWILL, BY BECOMING A SPONSOR,\nWHICH WE KNOW IS A POINT. THAT\nOWNERSHIP IS OF PRIDE, AND/OR\nCONCERNS FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS\nDEPENDING ON WHAT SIDE YOU FIND\nYOURSELF ON. BUT THE IDEA IT IS\nA NEUTRAL INTRODUCTION OF THE\nAMENDMENT, BUT IT DOES REQUIRE\nTWO MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE TO\nBE WILLING TO PLAY, IF YOU WILL.\nCOUNCILMEMBER KETTLE, WOULD\nYOU LIKE TO ADDRESS YOUR\nAMENDMENT?\nTHANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT.\nLIKE I SAID BEFORE, THIS\nAMENDMENT IS BASED ON MY\nEXPERIENCE OVER THE LAST 18\nMONTHS. I WILL NOTE PARTLY\nBECAUSE COUNCIL PRESIDENT, WE\nHAVE PASSED 20 PIECES OF REGULAR\nPUBLIC SAFETY LEGISLATION, PLUS\nTHREE CONFIRMATIONS, PLUS THE\nRESOLUTION. SO FROM THAT, THOSE\n24 PIECES OF RESOLUTION COMING\nTHROUGH COMMITTEE. MANY OF\nWHICH, PARTICULARLY THOSE THAT\nWERE A LITTLE BIT MORE\nINTERESTING, CONTROVERSIAL\nMAYBE, WITH MANY AMENDMENTS. THE\nEXPERIENCE OF THAT WAS SUCH THAT\nTO INCLUDE AMENDMENTS COMING AT\nFULL COUNCIL. AND I'VE BEEN ONE\nTO, AGAIN, FROM A PERSONAL GOOD\nGOVERNANCE POINT OF VIEW, WE\nSHOULD BE WORKING ALL THESE\nPIECES IN COMMITTEE. FOR ONE\nTHING, IT GAINS GREATER TIME,\nGOING BACK TO AN EARLIER POINT,\nTO HAVE AN ISSUE BE RAISED AND\nWORKED BY THE COMMITTEE TO\nINCLUDE MAYBE HAVING MEMBERS OF\nTHE EXECUTIVE OR THE CITY\nATTORNEY'S OFFICE, IN THE CASE\nOF PUBLIC SAFETY, OR OTHER\nDEPARTMENTS AND COMMITTEES TO\nWORK THESE ISSUES AND TO WORK\nTHEM FULLY. THOSE OPPORTUNITIES\nDON'T REALLY HAPPEN WHEN\nAMENDMENTS COME TO FULL COUNCIL.\nTHE POINT HERE, TO GET TO THE\nBEST PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT\nWE CAN HAVE. I NOTED THIS, YOU\nKNOW, JUST RECENTLY WITH THE\nDEPARTURE OF COUNCILMEMBER\nMOORE. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE\nBROUGHT A LOT OF AMENDMENTS,\nVERY THOUGHTFUL, AND WAS GREAT\nTO WORK THEM THROUGH COMMITTEE.\nI KNOW OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS\nHAVE POSITIONS BASED ON THEIR\nPERSPECTIVE WHATEVER THE TOPIC\nIS THAT COULD BE WORK DURING THE\nCOURSE OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS.\nTHIS IS THE VENUE WHERE IT COULD\nBE DONE SO. AS CHAIR OF THE\nPUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE, I'M\nHAPPY TO WORK WITH NON-COMMITTEE\nMEMBERS, TO WORK THIS, YOU KNOW,\nIN TERMS OF SPONSORSHIPS. BUT I\nTHINK FROM POINT OF VIEW FOR THE\nCOUNCIL OVERALL, AND TO WORK THE\nPIECES MORE FULLY IS TO DO IT\nWITH THIS AMENDMENT THAT WE HAVE\nHERE IN AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO. SO\nCOUNCIL PRESIDENT WITH THAT AND\nFOR OUR COLLEAGUES HERE ON THE\nCOMMITTEE, I RECOMMEND, AND I\nASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT FOR THIS,\nTHIS AMENDMENT, SO THANK YOU.\nTHANK YOU FOR THAT. SO I WANT\nTO TALK ABOUT HOW OUR AMENDMENT\nPROCESS -- HOW OUR AMENDMENT\nPROCESS HELPS TO INFORM OR\nINHIBITS INFORMATION BEING\nPROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC. AND I\nHAVE TO SAY WHEN I WAS\nCONSIDERING THE PRIOR AMENDMENT\nWHEN IT WAS FIRST PRESENTED TO\nME, THERE WAS A BALANCE BETWEEN\nWANTING TO MAKE SURE AMENDMENTS\nWERE VETTED PROPERLY BY CENTRAL\nSTAFF AND LAW BEFORE THEY WERE\nOFFERED TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS OR\nTO FULL COUNCIL. AND THERE WAS\nALSO THE BENEFIT OF HAVING\nAMENDMENTS PRESENTED AND\nAVAILABLE FOR VIEW BY THE\nPUBLIC. THAT ADDS TO, SO WITH\nTHE PRIOR AMENDMENT, THE BENEFIT\nOF TRANSPARENCY DOES WEIGH IN\nFAVOR OF PROVIDING FOR A 24-HOUR\nRULE THAT AMENDMENTS HAVE TO BE\nPUT FORWARD, OR YOU HAVE TO DO\nTHE WORK AS A COUNCIL MEMBER TO\nCONVINCE OTHER PEOPLE THERE\nSHOULD BE AN EXCEPTION TO BE\nMADE. BUT THIS ONE, I HAVE A\nSTRONGER FEELING OF OPPOSITION\nTO BECAUSE WE HAVE A COMMITTEE\nSTRUCTURE FOR A REASON. MOST\nCOUNCIL MEMBERS REALLY COMMIT TO\nA TWO-COUNCIL MEETING PROCESS TO\nDISCUSS THE PIECES OF\nLEGISLATION. SO THERE IS USUALLY\nA DISCUSSION, A PRESENTATION, A\nDISCUSSION IN THE FIRST MEETING,\nTHEN THE SECOND COMMITTEE\nMEETING IS MORE DISCUSSION. AND\nTHEN A VOTE. WITH COMPLEX\nLEGISLATION, I JUST REMEMBER,\nFOR EXAMPLE, THE DEACTIVATION\nLEGISLATION IN 2023. SOME OF THE\nOTHER COMPLICATED PIECES OF\nLEGISLATION, MY FIRST COUPLE OF\nYEARS. THERE WERE SEVERAL\nMEETINGS OVER THE COURSE OF\nWEEKS AND A COUPLE OF MONTHS, IN\nFACT. ONE OF MY CONCERNS ABOUT\nTHIS IS THAT THERE IS -- THAT\nTHE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE\nHAVE BEEN AT THESE DISCUSSIONS,\nPRESUMABLY, PREVIOUS\nDISCUSSIONS. AND SO THEY WILL BE\n-- WHEN SOMEBODY, A COMMITTEE\nMEMBER IS NOT ON THE COMMITTEE,\nASKS FOR SOMEONE ON THE\nCOMMITTEE TO SPONSOR A PIECE OF\nLEGISLATION, THEN IT'S SORT OF\nON THAT COUNCIL MEMBER WHO IS\nSPONSORING AN AMENDMENT FROM\nSOMEONE WHO IS NOT ON THE\nCOMMITTEE TO WEIGH WHETHER OR\nNOT THE PERSON WHO IS ACTUALLY\nPUTTING FORWARD THE AMENDMENT\nUNDERSTANDS THE COMPLEXITY OF\nTHE LEGISLATION. AND SO THERE IS\nNO -- THERE IS MORE OF -- MORE\nSECURITY THAT THE COMMITTEE\nMEMBER HAS BEEN AT THE PREVIOUS\nDISCUSSION AND PRESENTATION, AND\nUNDERSTANDS THE NUANCES, AND CAN\nFORESEE THE POTENTIAL UNATTENDED\nCONSEQUENCE OF A PARTICULAR\nAMENDMENT THAT'S BEEN\nPROFFEREDDED BY A MEMBER THAT IS\nNOT ON THE COMMITTEE. SO THAT IS\nWHY I AM GOING TO -- THAT I AM,\nTHAT I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS JUST\nBECAUSE I FEEL IT'S -- IT IS\nTHE JUDGMENT OF A EXIT HAD TEE\nMEMBER TO SPONSOR, TO ACTUALLY,\nYOU KNOW, KIND OF PUT THEIR NAME\nON IT TO BE THE STEWART OF AN\nAMENDMENT OF SOMEONE NOT ON THE\nCOMMITTEE. THE EDUCATION TO THE\nNON-COMMITTEE MEMBER OF CERTAIN\nTHINGS THAT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN\nCONSIDERED WHEN DRAFTING THIS,\nTHE AMENDMENT AND PUTTING IT\nFORWARD. SO IT'S SIMPLY BECAUSE\nWE HAVE A COMMITTEE STRUCTURE\nFOR A REASON, THAT'S BECAUSE WE\nHAVE MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS\nABOUT LEGISLATION. I WOULD BE\nCONCERNED ABOUT, EVEN THOUGH\nTHIS AMENDMENT MIGHT HAVE GOTTEN\nTHE THUMBS UP, THE THUMBS UP\nFROM LAW AND CENTRAL STAFF,\nTHERE'S SOME OTHER INTRICACIES\nAND NUANCES WITH OTHER\nCOMPONENTS OF THE LEGISLATION,\nPERHAPS THAT WOULD MAKE IT\nPROBLEMATIC. BUT I DO GET, I DO\nCOMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WHERE\nYOU'RE COMING FROM IN OFFERING\nTHIS. COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?\nTHANK YOU. I'M WONDERING,\nEMILIA, DO YOU HAVE HISTORICAL\nCONTEXT ON WHY CURRENTLY IT IS,\nYOU HAVE TO HAVE SOMEONE SPONSOR\nIT? I MEAN, I CAN THINK OF GOOD\nREASONS WHY, BUT I'M WONDERING\nHISTORICALLY. YOU'VE BEEN HERE\nTHE LONGEST, EMILIA.\nTHE LONGEST, BUT NOT THE MOST\nKNOWLEDGEABLE. SO IN THE PAST,\nWE USED TO HAVE ALL MEMBERS WHO\nWERE WILLING TO ATTEND A MEETING\nAND THEN CAN ATTEST TO THIS\nPRACTICE, WHERE ALL COUNCIL\nMEMBERS ARE ABLE TO ATTEND ALL\nCOMMITTEE MEETINGS AND VOTE AT\nALL COMMITTEE MEETINGS. NOW\nMEMBERS THAT ARE OFFICIALLY A\nMEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE CAN\nPARTICIPATE AT THAT LEVEL.\nTHEY'RE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN\nMOVE A MOTION, SECOND A MOTION,\nAND VOTE ON MOTIONS. AND SO THIS\nPROPOSAL HERE IS STILL RETAINING\nTHAT. BUT WHAT IT'S ALLOWING IS\nTHE MEMBERS TO ASK A QUESTION,\nWOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MOVE THIS\nAMENDMENT. IF THERE IS NOT A\nCOUNCIL MEMBER'S NAME LISTED\nTHERE AS A SPONSOR.\nTHERE'S A REAL DISTINCTION\nHERE BETWEEN SPONSORSHIP.\nSPONSORSHIP IS SOLELY SOMETHING\nA MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE CAN\nDO. SO WHAT THIS ALLOWS THERE\nWOULDN'T HAVE TO BE -- SO A\nNON-MEMBER, THEY MIGHT WANT TO\nUSE THE VERB SPONSOR, BUT THEY\nCAN ONLY USE IT WITH A SMALL S.\nIT'S NOT A FORMAL LEGISLATIVE\nSPONSORSHIP. THEY WOULD BE THE\nAUTHOR OF THE AMENDMENT, AND\nWOULD BE INCUMBENT, INCUMBENT IS\nTHE WRONG WORD. IT WOULD TEN BE\nUP TO THE COMMITTEE, COMMITTEE\nMEMBERS, TO DETERMINE WHETHER\nTHERE WAS ONE OF THEM, AT LEAST\nWHO WAS WILLING TO MOVE IT, AND\nANOTHER WHO WAS WILLING TO\nSECOND IT. AS EMILIA HAS\nDESCRIBED, THOSE ARE ACTIONS\nTHAT ARE RESTRICTED TO COUNCIL\nMEMBERS THEMSELVES.\nTHANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY\nCOMMENTS?\nI DO. SO WHAT ARE WE SOLVING?\nYOU STILL NEED TO HAVE THEN IT\nSOUNDS LIKE A COMMITTEE MEMBER\nBE WILLING TO TAKE IT UP? YOU'RE\nJUST SAYING THEY DON'T WANT\nTHEIR NAME ON IT? AS A SPONSOR,\nYOU HAVE TO PUT YOUR NAME ON IT.\nIS THAT WHAT WE'RE SOLVING FOR?\nSORRY, BEN.\nJUST SO I'M CLEAR ABOUT\nTHIS. THIS WAS NOT BROUGHT\nFORWARD IN TERMS OF ADDRESSING A\nSTAFF CONCERN ABOUT PROCESSING\nAMENDMENTS, BUT RATHER I SENSE\nTHE COUNCIL ITSELF HAD CONCERNS\nABOUT THE NUMBER OF SUBSTANTIVE\nAMENDMENTS THAT WERE BEING\nCONSIDERED FOR THE FIRST TIME AT\nFULL COUNCIL, AND THAT GIVEN THE\nRULES OF FULL COUNCIL, THERE\nISN'T AN OPPORTUNITY\nNECESSARILY FOR FULL DIALOGUE.\nAND THE IDEA, AGAIN, THAT YOU\nWOULD BE ABLE TO BRING\nAMENDMENTS. SO A NON-MEMBER\nCURRENTLY ONLY WITHOUT A SPONSOR\nHAS THE OPTION OF BRINGING IT TO\nFULL COUNCIL. THE NOTION IS\nTHERE COULD BE MORE AMENDMENTS\nCONSIDERED IN THE COMMITTEE\nENVIRONMENT, SO THE FULL COUNCIL\nWOULD NOT BE BURDENED WITH --\nWITH THOSE DISCUSSIONS.\nDIRECTOR NOBLE: DIRECTOR NOBLE?\nTHAT'S REALLY ALL IT WAS.\nSORRY. CAN I?\nI JUST WANT TO MAKE CLEAR IT\nIS CLEAR THIS IS -- I BELIEVE\nTHIS IS AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD\nBENEFIT CENTRAL STAFF FOR THE\nREASONS IT WOULD PERHAPS -- IT\nDRIVES MORE OF THE WORK INTO THE\nCOMMITTEES INSTEAD OF HAVING\nAMENDMENTS COME UP AT FULL\nCOUNCIL. I FULLY SUPPORT THAT. I\nFULLY SUPPORT THAT EFFORT.\nBECAUSE LAST MINUTE AMENDMENTS,\nWHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH A FULL\nCOUNCIL VOTE, WHEN CENTRAL STAFF\nIS NOT, IS NOT AVAILABLE\nNECESSARILY TO GO THROUGH A BIG\nLONG EXPLANATION ABOUT THE\nIMPACTS OF A PARTICULAR\nAMENDMENT. THAT LEADS TO BAD\nPOLICY, AT THE SAME TIME, THERE\nARE ALSO, THEN I WOULD SAY ONE\nWOULD HOPE ALSO AMENDMENTS ARE\nPROFFERED WITH THE BENEFIT OF\nMANY MEETINGS OR MULTIPLE\nMEETINGS OF LEGISLATION. SO I\nSEE BOTH SIDES, AND I CAN SEE\nTHE BENEFIT OF THIS. I ALSO AM\nCONCERNED THAT THE -- YOU HAVE\nTO BE -- THE CONVERSATION THAT\nPROCEEDS THE MEETING WHERE THE\nACTUAL VOTE TAKES PLACE IS\nOFTENTIMES THE MOST IMPORTANT\nBECAUSE THAT'S WHEN WE GET THE\nFULL EXPLANATION FROM CENTRAL\nSTAFF, AND CAN HAVE THE MOST\nRICH MEETINGS AMONG COUNCIL\nMEMBERS. ANY -- OKAY. GO AHEAD.\nTHAT IS THE REASON.\nRIGHT.\nAGAIN, FOR ME, I'M DRIVEN BY\nMY EXPERIENCE. I DON'T HAVE THE\nLONG HISTORY OF ELECTED SERVICE.\nBUT BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE OF\nTHE LAST OF THE TERMS SO FAR,\nAND THE DESIRE TO WORK THESE\nISSUES. BECAUSE I WELCOME EVEN\nTHE HARD AMENDMENTS. I SAID THAT\nAT COMMITTEE WHEN COUNCILMEMBER\nMOORE LEFT. SHE WORKED\nAMENDMENTS HARD, AND SHE BROUGHT\nIN VERY THOUGHTFUL AMENDMENTS.\nYOU KNOW, SOME OF THEM I WAS IN\nAGREEMENT WITH AND SOME OF THEM\nI WEREN'T. BUT HAVING THEM\nENGAGED IN COMMITTEE, IN MY MIND\nIS SO MUCH BETTER THAN TRYING TO\nDO IT WITH A FULL COUNCIL. THE\nABILITY TO GO BACK AND FORTH\nENGAGE IS LIMITED. THAT IS THE\nREASON BEHIND THIS AMENDMENT\nSOLELY OR MAINLY. YOU KNOW, SO A\nPART OF ME, THIS FALLS UNDER THE\nGOOD GOVERNANCE PIECE, BUT I\nRECOGNIZE THE POINTS YOU'RE\nMAKING. JUST LIKE I SAID BEFORE,\nYOU KNOW, THE VALID POINTS, FAIR\nPOINTS, THIS IS JUST ME, AND\nTHIS IS THE REASON BEHIND THE\nTWO AMENDMENTS, IN THIS CASE,\nTHE SECOND AMENDMENT, AMENDMENT\nTWO.\nGOT IT. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS,\nQUESTIONS? GO AHEAD,\nCOUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.\nI'M GOING TO ABSTAIN FROM\nTHIS, COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE, ONLY\nBECAUSE I DID NOT RECEIVE THIS\nAHEAD OF TIME. SO I HAVE MORE\nQUESTIONS, BUT I WILL JUST\nABSTAIN, AND THAT WAY WE CAN\nPROCEED WITH THE VOTE. BUT\nAGAIN, LIKE THE LAST TIME, THIS\nIS IN NO WAY -- I HEAR WHERE\nYOU'RE COMING FROM, AND I\nAPPRECIATE YOUR THOUGHTFULNESS,\nALWAYS, TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE\nDOING THE GOOD GOVERNANCE\nPIECES, AND SOMETIMES WE MAY SEE\nTHINGS DIFFERENTLY. BUT THANK\nYOU.\nOKAY. I'M NOT SEEING ANY\nOTHER HANDS RAISED. WILL THE\nCLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? JUST\nA SECOND HERE. I'M THINKING.\nOKAY. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL\nTHE ROLL ON THE RECOMMENDATION,\nWELL, ON AMENDMENT B, PLEASE,\nAMENDMENT TWO, EXCUSE ME. DID\nYOU MOVE IT? WE ALREADY MOVED\nIT.\nMY APOLOGIES. COUNCILMEMBER\nRIVERA?\nABSTAIN.\nCOUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON: COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON?\nNO.\nCOUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH: COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH?\nABSTAIN.\nCOUNCILMEMBER KETTLE: COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?\nAYE.\nCHAIR NELSON: CHAIR NELSON?\nNO.\nONE IN FAVOR, TWO OPPOSED,\nTWO ABSTAIN.\nOKAY. THE AMENDMENT FAILS.\nARE THERE ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS\nOR COMMENTS ON THE RESOLUTION AS\nAMENDED? HEARING NONE, WILL THE\nCLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON\nTHE RECOMMENDATION THAT\nRESOLUTION 32173 BE ADOPTED AS\nAMENDED.\nCOUNCILMEMBER RIVERA: COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?\nAYE.\nCOUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON: COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON?\nAYE.\nCOUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH: COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH?\nYES.\nCOUNCILMEMBER KETTLE: COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?\nAYE.\nCHAIR NELSON: CHAIR NELSON?\nAYE.\nFIVE IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED.\nTHE MOTION CARRIES, AND THE\nCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION WILL BE\nSENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL. ALL\nRIGHT. THERE WE GO. AS I\nMENTIONED EARLIER, I'M PROPOSING\nSENDING THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT\nCITY COUNCIL MEETING ON THE\n29th. I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THIS\nWOULD DIFFER FROM PREVIOUS\nCOMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL RULES,\nINCLUDING THE SCHEDULED MEMO,\nWHICH WAS DISTRIBUTED IN MARCH\nAND HAD LISTED AUGUST 5 AS THE\nINTENDED DATE FOR FULL COUNCIL\nCONSIDERATION. A LOT, HOWEVER,\nHAS BEEN ADDED TO OUR PLATE\nSINCE THEN, SO I HOPE YOU CAN\nAGREE WITH MY EFFORTS TO SPREAD\nOUT THE AGENDA ITEMS, SO IT DOES\nNOT FALL HEAVILY ON ONE MEETING.\nTHIS REQUIRES THE SUSPENSION OF\nOUR RULES SINCE IT IS CURRENTLY\nAFTER 1:00 ON THURSDAY. SO IF\nTHERE'S NO OBJECTION, THE RULES\nWILL BE SUSPENDED TO SEND THIS\nRESOLUTION TO THE JULY 29 CITY\nCOUNCIL MEETING. HEARING NO\nOBJECTION, THE RULES ARE\nSUSPENDED AND THE RESOLUTION\nWILL BE SENT TO THE JULY 29 CITY\nCOUNCIL MEETING FOR FINAL\nCONSIDERATION. ALL RIGHT. YOU\nKNOW, I JUST HAVE TO NOTE EVERY\nTIME THAT RULES, THAT I'VE\nLISTENED TO CONVERSATIONS ABOUT\nTHE RULES AND AFTER MY SECOND\nYEAR HERE BEFORE, MAYBE IT WAS\nMY FIRST YEAR. WHEN REALLY IT\nSEEMS REALLY BUREAUCRATIC WHEN\nTHESE ARE DISCUSSED. THESE RULES\nARE THE END RESULTS OF MANY,\nMANY, MANY WEEKS AND MONTHS OF\nWORK ON BEHALF OF CENTRAL STAFF\nAND OUR CLERKS. I JUST WANT TO\nSAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU, OF\nALL PEOPLE, KNOW WHAT IS WORKING\nAND WHAT ISN'T ON COUNCIL\nBECAUSE YOU HAVE THE HISTORICAL\nPERSPECTIVE, AND YOU SEE HOW\nTHINGS GO DOWN BEHIND THE SCENES\nWHEN WE ARE TRYING TO JUST\nADVANCE OUR LEGISLATIVE AGENDAS.\nSO I JUST RECOGNIZE IT'S\nSOMETHING WE GO THROUGH EVERY\nCOUPLE OF YEARS. WHEN WE SIT UP\nHERE AND ACTUALLY VOTE ON THESE\nTHINGS, IT JUST SEEMS KIND OF\nBUREAUCRATIC. BUT HOW OFTEN HAVE\nWE, AS INDIVIDUALS, GONE TO THE\nBINDER OF OUR RULES TO SEE WHAT\nWE SHOULD DO NEXT AND WHETHER OR\nNOT SOMETHING IS LEGAL OR NOT,\nRIGHT? OKAY. SO I JUST WANTED TO\nNOTE THAT WAS IMPORTANT, AND WE\nWILL TAKE IT AT FULL COUNCIL\nNEXT WEEK. ALL RIGHT, THIS\nCONCLUDES THE AGENDA OF THE JULY\n24 MEETING OF THE GOVERNANCE,\nACCOUNTABILITY, AND ECONOMIC\nDEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. IT IS\n3:38 P.M., AND OUR NEXT\nCOMMITTEE MEETING IS SCHEDULED\nFOR THURSDAY, AUGUST 14. IF\nTHERE'S NO FURTHER BUSINESS,\nTHIS MEETING WILL ADJOURN. IT IS\n3:39 P.M. THANKS, EVERYONE."
},
"summary": null,
"hindsight": null,
"urls": {
"meeting": "/seattle/meeting/x178373",
"raw": "/seattle/api/meeting/x178373/raw.json",
"sourceMeeting": "/seattle/api/source/meeting/x178373.json"
}
}