>>> GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING
US AT THIS SPECIAL COMMITTEE.
IT IS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER
18th, 2019.
THIS IS OUR FINANCE AND
NEIGHBORHOODS COMMITTEE.
I'M SALLY BAGSHAW, CHAIR OF
THIS.
WE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE
COLLEAGUES JOINING US TODAY,
BUT WE ARE NOT VOTING ANYTHING
OUT OF THE COMMITTEE.
SO WE'LL HAVE PLENTY OF MORE
TIME TO MOVE FORWARD ON THE
CONVERSATIONS THAT I KNOW
YOU'RE HERE FOR.
WE ACTUALLY HAVE TWO ITEMS ON
THE AGENDA, AND I GUESS I GET
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA BY
MYSELF.
SO THE AGENDA IS ADOPTED.
WE HAVE TWO ITEMS AS I
MENTIONED: THE PREDATORY
VEHICULAR LANDLORD LEGISLATION,
AND AGAIN WE ARE NOT VOTING ON
ANYTHING OTHER THAN TO PUT A
BILL IN FRONT OF THIS
COMMITTEE.
THEN WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER
OPPORTUNITY NEXT WEEK TO
DISCUSS IT.
THEN I'M GOING TO MOVE FORWARD
WITH THE CONDEMNATION
RESOLUTION AND THE CONDEMNATION
ORDINANCE AS WELL.
I GUESS WE ARE VOTING THAT OUT
OF COMMITTEE TODAY.
BUT IT IS NOT GOING FORWARD TO
THE FULL COUNCIL COMMITTEE
UNTIL DECEMBER IF WE DECIDE TO
MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT.
WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO ASK
THAT THE FIRST ITEM, WHICH IS
THE ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE
USE OF EXTENSIVELY DAMAGED
MOTOR VEHICLES, AFTER PUBLIC
COMMENT.
WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE.
MAYBE YOU WANT TO COME UP TO
THE TABLE FOR THOSE WHO WILL BE
TALKING TO US ANYWAY.
WE HAVE DAVID HAYNES AND
REVEREND BILL CURLENHACKETT.
YOU EACH HAVE TWO MINUTES.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
WHEN COUNCIL TOOK OFFICE THERE
WAS BLIGHT AT 213 SOUTH MAIN
STREET.
WHEN COUNCIL LEAVES OFFICE, THE
SAME BLIGHT WILL STILL BE
THERE.
IN ORDER FOR CITY COUNCIL TO BE
MORE EFFECTIVE, WE NEED HARD-
HITTING ORDINANCES WITHOUT
CATERING TO LOW-CLASS
SPECKLATORS.
CITY COUNCIL HAS THE ACCEPT THE
REALITY THAT THE DEVELOPMENT
DEAL IS DEAD.
RYAN IS OVERWHELMED WITH THE
PROJECT IN UPPER QUEEN ANN
SAFEWAY.
STOP CATERING TO SHADY
SPECKLATORS AND PAY THE SAME
AMOUNT OF $600,000 TO THAT
OWNER OF A KNOWN FALLING DOWN
BUILDING.
WE NEED HOUSING.
THIS SEEMS PERFECT FAR NO
PARKING PROJECT.
PART OF THE PROBLEM WITH THAT
DEVELOPMENT IS THERE'S UNSAFE
WATER AND SOIL.
TAKE POSSESSION A 1% FEE AND
TEAR DOWN AND BUILD AFFORDABLE
HOUSING.
DON'T LET THE GOVERNMENT
INFLATE THE VALUE IN THE FOR-
PROFIT MARKET.
THE OWNER DOESN'T DESERVE A
REWARD FOR DOING NOTHING WITH
AN UNSAFE BUILDING AND CRAPPY
PIECE OF LAND.
HOUSE THE HOUSELESS NOW.
PLEASE, THE RV PEOPLE, SOME OF
THOSE ARE PAYING AND MOVING IN
AND SPREADING THINGS ON THE
GRASS AND THEIR DOGS ARE
GETTING IT ALL OVER THEM.
NOBODY HAS EVER DONE ANYTHING
ABOUT IT.
>> THANK YOU, DAVID.
REVEREND?
>> HI.
I JUST SAW THE CHANGES.
SOME OF THEM WERE COMMENTS I
WOULD HAVE MADE IN THE ORIGINAL
LEGISLATION SO I'LL TRY AND
NAVIGATE NOT MAKING THOSE
COMMENTS.
WE DO THIS LITIGATION TEAM THAT
PAIRS WITH PARKING ENFORCEMENT
IN THE COURT TO MAKE SURE NO
ONE WITH TICKETS GETTING THEIR
VEHICLES TOWED.
WE ARE WORKING WITH BUDGET
ITEMS TO FOSTER THE PROGRAM AND
MAKE IT MORE SYSTEMIC, AND
CREATING INTENTIONAL OUTREACH.
ONE OF THE THINGS I KEEP SAYING
IS IT'S NOT A MENU, IT'S A
RECIPE.
THE CITY WANTS TO ADDRESS
VEHICLE RESIDENCY.
WE SEE IT AS NEEDING TO BE MORE
COMPREHENSIVE, WHICH IS WHY I
LIKE SO MUCH RED ON THIS.
ONE COMPLAINT IS IT'S NOT ABOUT
THE VEHICLE BUT ABOUT THE
PEOPLE AND WHERE THEY GO.
THAT'S OUR FOCUS.
SOME THINGS I'M CURIOUS ABOUT,
WHO'S DETERMINING WHAT'S
EXTENSIVELY DAMAGED?
IS IT CONSISTENT OR ARBITRARY?
I WASN'T ABLE TO READ THIS WELL
ENOUGH YET TO FIND OUT.
ONE PERSON IS RENTING OUT GOOD
VEHICLES AND PROVIDING A SPACE.
WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR US AS
WE HAVE WITH TINY HOMES TO FIND
SPACE LIKE A KOA STALE LOT
WHERE THEY CAN BE HOUSED IN
SEATTLE?
I KNOW IN KENT WE HAVE
SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT
VACATES IN THE WINTER.
THOSE COULD BE LOTS THAT ARE
RENTED AND GIVEN TO PEOPLE WHO
WANT TO STAY IN A VEHICLE.
SOME PEOPLE IN THESE ARE IN
SHELTER, BETTER THAN TELEPHONE
24/7 SHELTERS WE PROVIDE.
IT MIGHT BE THAT WE CAN USE THE
PEOPLE THAT HAVE THE CAPACITY
TO ACQUIRE THESE TO DO IT ON A
WIDER RANGE AND USE THEIR
ENTREPRENEURSHIP TO GET PEOPLE
INTO HOUSING.
AND ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS I
WAS THINKING OF, IT ALWAYS HAS
TO COME BACK TO THE PEOPLE.
IS IT FURTHERING A PATHWAY TO
STABILITY?
THE VEHICLES ARE UNSIGHTLY.
I SEE THIS.
MANY ARE IN THE DESCRIPTION AND
PEOPLE ARE LIVING IN THESE
RIGHT NOW.
AND WE ARE NOT DOING ANY
INTENTIONAL OUTREACH.
WE NEED EVERY COMMITTEE TO
START SAYING THIS OUTLOUD.
THE NEW REGIONAL AUTHORITY AND
HUD WHO WAS HERE LAST WEEK,
THEY HAVE AGREED WE NEED
VEHICLE RESIDENCY, AND
ADDRESSING IT IN THE REGIONAL
ACTION PLAN.
THAT'S NOT BEEN THE CASE.
I'M ENCOURAGED TO SEE A LOT OF
RED AND I'LL READ IT BETTER AND
SEE IF THERE ARE MORE
RECOMMENDATIONS WE CAN MAKE.
INITIALLY I THOUGHT IT TARGETED
THE WRONG PROBLEM, WHICH WAS
NOT THE PEOPLE IN THE VEHICLES.
MANY ON THE COUNCIL HAVE THAT
HEART, TO HELP PEOPLE GET OUT
OF HOMELESSNESS.
WE WANT TO SEE MORE OF THAT.
>> REVEREND, I ENCOURAGE YOU
AND WELCOME YOU TO GIVE FURTHER
COMMENTS TO ME AND MY OFFICE.
I KNOW YOU AND MANY OTHERS HAVE
BEEN WORKING THIS PROBLEM FOR
THE ENTIRE DECADE I'VE BEEN ON
COUNCIL.
>> YES, THANK YOU.
MY COLLEAGUE DARCY ECHOES THE
SENTIMENTS AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU FOR COMING.
DO YOU WANT TO READ THIS?
>> THANK YOU.
ITEM ONE, ORDINANCE RELATED TO
THE USE OF EXTENSIVELY DAMAGED
MOTOR VEHICLES, PROHIBITING
PERSONS FROM OPERATING
EXTENSIVELY DAMAGED VEHICLES.
>> THAT YOU THINK FOR YOUR WORK
ON THIS.
ALLISON, THANK YOU FOR THE WORK
THAT YOU HAVE DONE ON THIS IN
WORKING WITH THE EXECUTIVE.
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THIS
LEGISLATION COMES TO US FROM
THE EXECUTIVE.
YOU TWO HAVE BEEN WORKING
REALLY HARD ON BEHALF OF THE
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF AND MY
OFFICE TO COME UP WITH A WHOLE
LOT OF RED LINES.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE WORK
CLOSELY WITH THOSE IN THE
MAYOR'S OFFICE AND THIS IS
CLOSE TO A DOCUMENT THAT I CAN
BRING FORWARD TO THE FULL
COUNCIL.
>> I HAVE A VARIETY OF RED
LINES BUT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN
INTRODUCED AS AMENDMENTS AT
THIS TIME.
SHOULD I MOVE THROUGH THAT AND
ASSUME YOU CAN TAKE ACTION?
>> I CAN MOVE THAT NOW TO A
BASE LEGISLATION.
IT'S JUST ME HERE AT THE TABLE.
IF I CAN MOVE IT THROUGH.
>> IT'S AN EXPLANATION OF WHAT
THE AMENDMENT WOULD ACCOMPLISH
AND IF YOU WANT TO DO IT
AFTERWARDS.
>> OKAY.
>> IT WOULD BE TREATED AS A
SUBSTITUTE DRAFT, I GUESS.
JUST A LOT OF AMENDING,
BASICALLY.
I'LL DISCUSS THE RED LINE ITEMS
WE HAVE PREPARED.
I BELIEVE THESE ARE AVAILABLE
TO THE PUBLIC.
THEY WERE ATTACHED TO THE
AGENDA RIGHT?
>> I KNOW ONE OF MY BUDDIES IN
THE AUDIENCE SAID WE HAVE MORE
PRESS THAN NORMAL HERE.
IF WE DON'T HAVE COPIES, COULD
YOU MAKE A FEW?
THERE ARE COPIES FOR YOU.
>> YOU'LL SEE THERE ARE A LOT
OF CLARIFICATIONS AND
ADDITIONS.
THAT WAS REALLY TO FOCUS THE
INTENT PER THE COMMENTS AND
REQUEST OF COUNCIL MEMBERS THE
LAST TIME WE DISCUSSED THIS
BILL, THAT WE FOCUSED THIS
ORDINANCE CLEARLY ON
INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE PREDATORY
LANDLORDS.
THE VEHICLES ARE OFTEN IN POOR
CONDITION AND INDIVIDUALS ARE
OFTEN -- I'LL USE THE TERM
RENTING.
I USUALLY TRY AND AVOID THAT
BECAUSE THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL
RENTING SITUATION, BUT THEY MAY
HAVE BEHAVIOR WHERE THE PERSON
THAT'S THE PERSON IN CONTROL OF
THE VEHICLE OR OWNER IS TAKING
ADVANTAGE OF A VULNERABLE
INDIVIDUAL.
THAT'S REFLECTED IN THE
CLAUSES.
>> GREAT.
I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO YOU
AND THE MAYOR'S OFFICE FOR
DIFFERENTIATING THAT WE'RE
FOCUSING ON THIS FROM A PUBLIC
HEALTH STANDPOINT TO TAKE CARRY
OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE
WITHIN WHATEVER WE'RE CALLING
THESE VEHICLES.
AND I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT
THE REVEREND SAID, WHICH IS
THAT ONE OF THE PRIMARY GOALS
IS TO HAVE RESOURCES AVAILABLE
SO THE INDIVIDUALS CAN MOVE
INTO SOMETHING BETTER THAN WHAT
WE BELIEVE TO BE IS A REAL
PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM.
>> NEXT YOU'LL SEE WE HAVE
REVISED -- THE AMENDMENT WOULD
REVISE SECTION 117-5010 TO BE A
DEFINITION SECTION.
WHAT HAD BEEN SUBMITTED AS A
DEFINITION OF EXTENSIVELY
DAMAGED HAD ONE MODIFICATION,
WHERE WASTE WATER SYSTEMS THAT
ARE INOPERATABLE ARE DISCUSSED.
THIS IS PER THE COUNCIL
MEMBERS' REQUESTS.
SO YOU WOULDN'T TALK ABOUT MY
CAR AND MY TOYOTA.
IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE THAT
AND WOULDN'T BE SUBJECT TO
THAT.
THERE WAS A DISCUSSION NOT
REFLECTED HERE AS YOU GET TO
SECTION 4, WHERE WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT A HEALTHY AND FIRE SAFETY
HAZARD.
THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT
CLARIFYING THINGS THAN
POSSESSIONS VERSUS WHAT WOULD
JUST BE BROADLY CONSIDERED JUNK
OR DEBRIS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
IT COULD BE DIFFICULT AND WE
HAVE STANDARDS LAID OUT FOR THE
NAVIGATION TEAM, FOR EXAMPLE,
AS THEY INTERACT WITH
ENCAMPMENTS AND THOSE
INDIVIDUALS RESIDING IN THOSE
ON HOW TO TREAT THE ITEMS.
LARGELY THE FOCUS IS ON THINGS
THAT COULD BE COMBUSTIBLE IN
THE ENVIRONMENT.
>> WHAT MIGHT BE USEFUL,
BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MUCH RED
LINE ON THIS VERSION, MAYBE YOU
COULD WORK THROUGH THE VERSION
OF EXTENSIVELY DAMAGED AND THE
ITEMS THAT ARE HERE SO WE CAN
DESCRIBE IT AS INADEQUATE
SANITATION.
THAT'S THE FOCUS HERE, IF THE
WE'RE TALKING JUST ABOUT THE
VANS OR RVs.
THEY REALLY PRESENT A PUBLIC
HEALTH HAZARD.
COULD YOU WALK US THROUGH THAT
AND WHAT EXTENSIVELY DAMAGED OR
UNHEALTHY LOOKS LIKE?
>> SURE.
I WANT TO START BY EMPHASIZING
THESE DEFINITIONS ARE FOR THIS
CHAPTER ONLY AND WOULD NOT BE
APPLIED ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE
CODE.
IT'S A MOTOR VEHICLE OR
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE, AND THIS
STILL COVERS ALL VEHICLES, NOT
JUST RVs, WHICH HAS BEEN THE
FOCUS.
YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE AT LEAST
TWO OF FIVE CONDITIONS TO
CONSIDER IT EXTENSIVELY
DAMAGED: BROKEN WINDOW OR
MISSING TIRES, BEING APPARENTLY
INOPERATABLE.
IT'S CLEARLY SOMETHING THAT
CANNOT BE MOVED OR SEE WHEELS
BROKEN, SOMETHING THAT IT WOULD
NOT BE POSSIBLE.
YOU CAN OBSERVE THAT EVEN IF
THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE KEYS IN
HAND.
INADEQUATE SANITATION, TO THE
EXTENT THE OCCUPANTS OR GENERAL
PUBLIC ARE EXPOSED TO RISK OF
ILLNESS OR INJURY.
THIS IS WHERE THE WASTE WATER
SYSTEM THAT'S INOPENNERRABLE,
INOPERABLE, A LOT OF
INDIVIDUALS ARE DUMPING INTO
WASTE WATER SYSTEMS, ON TO THE
STREET, THINGS LIKE THAT, THEIR
BODILY WASTE.
THAT'S ONE EXAMPLE.
INFESTATION BY VERMIN, RODENTS
OR OTHER PESTS.
LEAKING FLUIDS AND OTHER
DANGEROUS MATERIALS.
THEN INADEQUATE AIR QUALITY.
PREVIOUSLY WE SAW THE EXCESSIVE
EXPOSURE TO MOLD, TARPS OVER
VEHICLES INDICATING THEY WERE
NOT PROVIDING PROTECTION FROM
úRAIN, THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND HEALTH AND FIRE SAFETY
HAZARD, THAT RELATES TO
FLAMMABLE.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE HAVE HAD
VEHICLES CATCHING FIRE AND THE
CHANCE FOR COMBUSTION, THINGS
LIKE THAT.
>> I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT AS THE
REVEREND MENTIONED, IF SOMEONE
IS RENTING ONE OF THESE
VEHICLES OUT AND THEY ARE IN
GOOD CONDITION, MEANING THEY
DON'T MEET THESE STANDARDS,
THEN THIS ORDINANCE WOULD NOT
APPLY TO THEM.
>> THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING
THAT.
>> A MINIMUM OF TWO OF THESE.
I THINK IN MANY CASES VEHICLES
WOULD HAVE SEVERAL OF THESE
CONDITION, THAT'S THE CASE. AND
THERE'S PROTECTION FROM WEATHER
LIKE MISSING WALLS, MISSING
CEILINGS, BROKEN WINDOWS AND
DOORS, INADEQUATE
WATERPROOFING, THINGS LIKE THAT
THAT.
SO THAT'S OUR FIRST DEFINITION.
THE SECOND, WE KIND OF MOVED
WHAT WAS CONTAINED IN THE
ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES TO
BEING A DEFINITION.
THIS IS INTENDED TO APPLY TO
THIS CHAPTER AND LAID OUT IN
THAT WAY.
IT DEFINES A PREDATORY VEHICLE
LANDLORD, A PERSON ALLOWING
ANOTHER PERSON TO OCCUPY ANY
MOTOR VEHICLE, NOT JUST RVs.
THERE ARE DEFINITIONS AND
MUNICIPAL CODE OF THAT, LOCATED
ON A STREET OR ALLEY OPEN TO
OTHER PUBLIC PROPERTY THAT'S
EXTENSIVELY DAMAGED.
IT'S THE PERSON NOT BEING
CHARGED AS THEIR OWN LANDLORD.
IT'S ADDRESSED ELSEWHERE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THEN THE OTHER SECTIONS ARE
KIND OF TECHNICAL EDITS JUST TO
CLARIFY SOME THINGS, CONTINUING
TO SAY YOU'RE NOT PERMITTED TO
BE A PREDATORY VEHICLE LANDLORD
IN THE CITY.
THEN WE MOVE TO SECTION 113-
5030, SUBSECTION D, AND THIS
CLARIFIES THAT IT HAD
PREVIOUSLY READ THAT AN
INDIVIDUAL WOULD NOT ONLY BE
SUBJECT TO DAILY FINES FOR
ACTING IN A PREDATORY WAY, BUT
ALSO WOULD BE SUBJECT TO PAYING
RESTITUTION TO THE INDIVIDUAL,
ESPECIALLY IF THEY HAVE
PROVIDED RENT OR A SECURITY
DEPOSIT, SOMETHING LIKE THAT,
AND POTENTIALLY RELOCATION
ASSISTANCE.
AS WE ENGAGE WITH THE MAYOR'S
OFFICE, THE ABILITY FOR THAT TO
RESULT IN SUPPORT FOR THE
OCCUPANTS THAT WOULD BE
EFFECTIVE HERE, IT WAS CLEAR
THAT WOULD BE HIGHLY UNLIKELY.
SO THIS WILL CLARIFY THAT THE
PREDATORY VEHICLE LANDLORD CAN
SUBMIT LOCATION ASSISTANCE AND
REQUIRED TO ESSENTIALLY PAY
BACK RENT, SECURITY DEPOSITS,
FEES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, INTO
A FUND CREATED LATER FOR A
VICTIMS' ASSISTANCE FUND.
THAT WAY IT'S CLEAR THOSE
CONDITIONS ARE STILL REQUIRED
OF THE VEHICULAR LANDLORD.
WE ARE STRUCTURING IT SO THERE
WILL BE LATER THE OPTION TO
ADVANCE THESE PAYMENTS TO
INDIVIDUALS, AND STREAMLINING
THE PATHWAY.
>> AND WE'LL TALK MORE ABOUT
THAT AS YOU GET OVER TO PAGE
FIVE.
>> NEXT, NUMEROUS ITEMS ABOUT
THE WARNINGS AND TYPE OF
TRAINING RAISED BY COUNCIL
MEMBERS, AS WAS DISCUSSED
PREVIOUSLY.
SUBSECTION E IS REQUIRING THAT
RULES WOULD BE PROMULGATED
CLARIFYING A LOT OF THOSE
THINGS RATHER THAN GETTING INTO
THE DETAILED ORDINANCE THEY
WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW.
>> GREAT.
I WANT TO EMPHASIZE HERE
WORKING WITH THE HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT THAT THE GOAL IS TO
PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO THE
INDIVIDUAL THAT'S INSIDE THE
VAN OR VEHICLE, AND WE ARE
LOOKING FOR NOT ONLY SERVICES
BUT ALSO TO FIND ALTERNATIVE
HOUSING AND SHELTER OPTIONS.
THAT'S A PRIMARY GOAL OF THIS
AND SOMETHING I FEEL VERY
STRONGLY ABOUT.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
THAT WOULD ALL BE INCLUDED IN
WHAT WOULD EVENTUALLY BE
BROUGHT FORWARD.
SUBSECTION G, THIS AGAIN
REFLECTS WHAT HAD BEEN
PRESENTED AS THE ATTENTION HERE
AND RAISED AS AN AREA FOR
FURTHER CLARIFICATION, THAT
INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE OCCUPYING
THESE VEHICLES SHOULD BE
COOPERATING.
IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE AGAINST
THEIR WILL OR WITH THEM
OBJECTING TO IT.
THIS HAS BEEN CAREFULLY DRAFTED
TO BE SURE IT COULD BE
IMPLEMENTED GIVEN THE
COMPLEXITIES OF THE SITUATIONS.
IT CAN BE DIFFICULT TO LOCATE
THESE INDIVIDUALS AND OFTEN YOU
DON'T KNOW WHO THE PREDATORY
VEHICULAR LANDLORD IS.
AT THE TIME YOU'RE TOLD SUCH
AND SUCH SITUATION IS EXISTING,
INITIATING OR CONTINUING THE
INVESTIGATION IS HOW THIS IS
WRITTEN SO THAT THE INITIAL
INVESTIGATION WOULDN'T START OR
BE CONTINUED IF THERE IS AN
EXPLICIT OBJECTION FROM THE
OCCUPANT.
IN THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE
PERHAPS SOMEONE MOVED ON AND
DIDN'T HAVE EXCEPTION, THERE
WOULDN'T BE A NEED TO FIND THEM
AND RESOLVE THIS MONTHS LATER.
>> IF THERE'S CONCERN ABOUT
TRAFFICKING, AN INDIVIDUAL
WHO'S CURRENTLY LIVING IN THERE
PERHAPS WHO WILL, THEN WE CAN
INVESTIGATE THAT.
IF AN INDIVIDUAL JUST SAYS, I
WANT TO STAY HERE, I DON'T HAVE
A BETTER OPTION, IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT WE WON'T
CONTINUE OR PUSH THE PERSON
OUT.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
THERE'S A PROVISION FOR THAT
KIND OF THING WHERE THE EXACT
TERM IS REASONABLE SUSPICION.
THERE'S ALSO CONSIDERATION OF
LOOKING AT THE BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH OF THE INDIVIDUAL IN
THESE SITUATIONS AND LOOKING AT
THE ABILITY TO PROPERLY ASSESS
THAT.
WE DECIDED NOT TO INCLUDE THAT
AND NOT CREATE A PATHWAY WHERE
SOMEONE WHO MAY BE IN A MOMENT
OF ACUTE CRISIS WOULDN'T HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT TO
THIS BUT THEY COULD STILL
PARTICIPATE.
>> GREAT.
THANK YOU.
>> NOW WE MOVE TO SECTION 040,
WHERE THE VICTIMS' ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM OR VICTIMS' ASSISTANCE
FUND, IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT
THAT, PROBABLY THE FUND JUST
THE TO BE CAREFUL WITH
ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES.
>> I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU
JUST SAID.
>> USUALLY WE WOULD -- OFTEN IN
CONVERSATIONS WE CALL THIS THE
VICTIMS' ASSISTANCE FUND
BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE
ACCOUNTING NEEDS TO WORK.
I DIDN'T PUT FUND?
THERE TO SIMPLIFY IT.
>> I GOT YOU.
>> THIS WOULD CREATE AND
ADMINISTER SUCH A PROGRAM TO
SERVE OCCUPANTS WHO ARE VICTIMS
OF THE PREDATORY VEHICLE
LANDLORDS ENTITLED TO
REIMBURSEMENT OF THE MONEY THEY
BADE OR RELOCATION ASSISTANCE,
OR THEY WILL BE MORE VULNERABLE
OR LIKELY TO LIVE IN UNSAFE
CONDITIONS BECAUSE OF BRINGING
ACTION AGAINST THESE PREDATORY
LANDLORDS.
THOSE ARE THE INDIVIDUALS
SERVED.
THIS IS WHERE IT'S LAID OUT,
THE RELOCATION ASSISTANCE THAT
LANDLORDS ARE PAYING OR OTHER
PAYMENTS THEY ARE REQUIRE TODAY
PAY LIKE A DAILY FINE FOR
ENGAGING IN THESE ACTIVITIES,
IF IT'S A SEVERAL REACTION.
ALL ARE DEPOSITED INTO THIS ONE
PROGRAM.
IT WILL OUTLINE ACTIVITIES TO
BE FURTHER FLUSHED OUT BY THE
HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, AND
PARTICULARLY THEY COULD BE
ADVANCED TO THE RECIPIENT.
IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A
SITUATION AS WAS RAISED BY THE
COUNCIL WHERE THEY WILL LOSE
ACCESS GOING THROUGH A
RESTITUTION PROCESS THAT COULD
BE MONTHS LONG, THAT WOULD NOT
BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD HELP
THEM LOCK AT STABLE HOUSING.
THIS ALLOWS THEM TO RECEIVE THE
FUNDS MORE RAPIDLY.
>> HAS THERE BEEN AN ECONOMIC
ANALYSIS OF WHAT PEOPLE EXPECT,
HOW MUCH MONEY WE CAN EXPECT IN
THIS VICTIMS' ASSISTANT FUND?
HAVE WE GOTTEN THAT FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES?
>> THERE'S PROBABLY TWO LIKELY
ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTION.
THERE WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT TO
DEMONSTRATE THE AMOUNT PAID TO
RECOOP THAT ASSISTANCE.
THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE PROVIDED
BY AN INDIVIDUAL, WHICH IS WHY
ADVANCING THE PAYMENTS IS SO
IMPORTANT.
THE OTHER HALF, BECAUSE THE
COUNCIL ALREADY APPROPRIATED
FUND TO ASSIST THESE
INDIVIDUALS, FOR THOSE NOT
SEEKING THE RELOCATION
ASSISTANCE OR REPAYMENTS, THEY
CAN RECEIVE MORE FLEXIBLE
FUNDING THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM
TO MOVE INTO A MORE STABLE
LIVING SITUATION.
THAT'S SIMILAR TO PROGRAMS WE
ALREADY HAVE.
THAT DOESN'T ALWAYS MEAN PAYING
THE FIRST MONTH OF RENT.
SOMETIMES THAT IS.
BUT SOMETIMES IT'S WORKING WITH
FAMILY MEMBERS OR EVEN
IDENTIFYING OTHER MEANS THAT
WOULD ALLOW A PERSON TO RETURN
TO A PLACE WHERE THEY CAN
MAINTAIN THEIR OWN HOUSING.
>> GREAT.
THANK YOU.
>> I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE
MORE IMPORTANT ADDITIONS WE
HAVE MADE OVER THE LAST COUPLE
MONTHS, TRYING TO MAKE IT
EASIER FOR RESIDENTS IN THESE
SITUATIONS TO GET OUT OF THE
VULNERABLE SITUATION THEY ARE
IN AND THE PREDATORY SITUATION,
TO STREAMLINE HOW THEY CAN
ACCESS THESE FUNDS.
INSTEAD OF GOING THROUGH THE
MONTH LONG PROCESS AND HAVING
TO GET LEGAL SUPPORT AND GO TO
COURTED, THIS WILL ALLOW THEM
EASIER ACCESS TO THOSE FUNDS.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK TO
WHAT YOU WERE SAYING HERE, IT'S
NOT BUILDING NECESSARILY ON
SOMETHING.
IT'S NEW?
WE HAVE MANY OF THESE PROGRAMS
ALREADY IN PLACE, TRYING TO
KEEP PEOPLE IN GOOD PLACES TO
LIVE AND FIND ALTERNATIVES FOR
THEM WHERE THEY CAN GO?
THIS IS REALLY BUILDING ON SOME
OF THE EXISTING THINGS THAT ARE
ALREADY IN PLAY.
>> IT'S TAKING THE BEST
PRACTICES WE'RE ALREADY AWARE
OF AT RISK OR COMING INTO
HOMELESSNESS AND EXPANDING THAT
AND MAKING A FUND WHERE THERE'S
POTENTIALLY A STREAM COMING IN
FROM THE OWNERS OR LANDLORDS TO
REPLENISH THAT FUND.
>> WHAT I WAS ASKING INITIALLY,
DO WE HAVE AN IDEA OF THE
DOLLAR AMOUNT COMING IN?
I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO
USE THIS TO DETERMINE THAT BUT
DO WE HAVE AN ESTIMATE?
>> NOT AT THIS TIME.
WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT HAVING
TO GO THROUGH THE RESTITUTION
PROCESS, IT WAS UNLIKELY THAT
WE'D SEE MUCH RETURN THERE
BECAUSE OF THE TIME FRAME AND
HAVING TO INITIATE THOSE
PROCEEDINGS.
THE CITY WOULD BE PURSUING
THAT, SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DO
WITH TEN TENANT AND LANDLORD
EXPECTATIONS.
THERE'S ALSO DIFFICULTY IN A
LOT OF SITUATIONS WHERE THE
CONSIDERATION THAT'S BEING
PROVIDED BY THE OCCUPANT IN
ORDER TO BE ALLOWED TO STAY,
FOR EXAMPLE, IS NOT CASH.
IT COULD BE OTHER KIND OF
ACTIVITY.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.
PLEASE CONTINUE.
>> THERE'S ONE LAST SECTION
WHICH HANDLES POSSESSIONS OF
THE INDIVIDUAL.
THERE ARE OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS
WE HAVE WITH THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ON ONE PIECE
OF THIS.
I BELIEVE THIS IS LOOKING LIKE
IT COMES TOGETHER HERE.
IT OUTLINES PROCEDURES AND WHAT
TO DO TO MAKE SURE THE
OCCUPANTS HAVE ACCESS TO THEIR
POSSESSIONS.
WHEN THIS WAS FIRST PRESENTED
AND IN OTHER CONVERSATIONS IT'S
SHARED WITH US THAT MANY OF
THESE INDIVIDUALS OCCUPYING
RVs, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY ARE
WORRIED ABOUT LEAVING THE RV
FOR FEAR OF WHAT WOULD HAPPEN
TO THEIR POSSESSIONINGS.
MAKE IT CLEAR THEY ARE
PROTECTED IN THAT WAY.
THIS IS CURRENTLY A CITY
PRACTICE. AND THE LANDLORD
CANNOT TOW IT AWAY WITH ALL
THEIR THINGS INSIDE AND NOT BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR EITHER
PENALTIES FOR HAVING DONE THAT
AND NOT PREVENTING ACCESS AND
GETTING THE DAILY FINE FOR
THAT, OR HAVING TO RETURN THE
VALUE OF THOSE BELONGINGS.
>> GREAT.
THANK YOU. I THINK YOU
MENTIONED THIS WOULD BE A
CONCERNED IT WOULD BE A
DISTRACTION FROM THE OTHER GOOD
WORKS WE DO.
IT'S THE TWO-PRONG APPROACH.
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUES.
WE WANT PEOPLE TO HAVE A
HEALTHIER PLACE TO LIVE AND GET
THEM RESOURCES TO GET INTO
SOMETHING BETTER.
THESE ARE MY TWO OBJECTIVES,
AND THIS IS A THIRD POINT THAT
YOU HAVE RAISED: WE ALREADY
HAVE A PROCESS IN PLAY LIKE IF
IF WE WERE REBUILDING SOMEBODY
FROM A TENT.
THEY CAN GET THEIR BELONGINGS
AND WE'LL BRING THEM BACK ONCE
WE HAVE IDENTIFIED TO WHOM THEY
BELONG.
SO THE GOAL HERE IS NOT TO PUT
PEOPLE IN A WORSE OFF
SITUATION, BUT BOTH FROM A
PUBLIC STANDPOINT, NEIGHBORHOOD
STANDPOINT, AND THE INDIVIDUALS
WE FIND THEM A BETTER PLACE TO
BE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> GREAT.
ANYTHING ELSE OR ARE YOU AT THE
CONCLUSION?
>> THAT COVERS ALL THE CHANGES
WE MADE IN HIGHLIGHTED PLACES
THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED
THAT EITHER WERE ACCOUNTED FOR
AND CHANGES WE WERE ABLE TO
MAKE NOT NECESSARILY WITH THE
REVISING OF DEFINITIONS AND
THINGS LIKE THAT.
>> GREAT.
>> DO YOU WANT TO MENTION THE
COHABITATE THING?
>> YOU MENTIONED IT BRIEFLY.
>> IN THE DEFINITION OF
PREDATORY VEHICLE LANDLORD, WE
DID NOT KEEP A COMPONENT OF
THAT DEFINITION THAT APHICIDE A
PERSON ACTUALLY OCCUPYING THE
VEHICLE AND ALLOWING, SAY A
PARTNER, TO OCCUPY IT WITH
THEM, THAT THAT PERSON IS NOT A
PREDATORY VEHICULAR LANDLORD
BECAUSE THEY ARE RESIDING IN IT
THEMSELVES.
IT'S ALSO THE PLACE THEY HAS
BEEN AT A TIME.
THAT WAS NOT IN THE DEFINITION
BECAUSE WE ADDED THE SECTION
THAT REQUIRES EXPLICIT
OBJECTION, AND THERE DOESN'T
SEEM TO BE A CIRCUMSTANCE IN
WHICH IF I'M IN CONTROL OF AN
RV AND ALLOW MY PARTNER TO STAY
IN IT WITH ME, IT SEEMS LIKELY
THAT THAT PARTNER WOULD OBJECT
AND SAY, I'M HERE VOLUNTARILY,
AND THIS IS MY PARTNER.
SO IT MADE THE COHABITATION
PIECES UNNECESSARY.
BY NOT HAVING THAT, IT'S
SIMPLER TO LOOK AT OTHER
SITUATIONS.
>> SO I'VE ALSO ASKED WHETHER
OR NOT WE CAN PRESERVE, RESERVE
OR CREATE MORE SPACES,
PARTICULARLY FOR THESE
INDIVIDUALS.
WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT WAS,
COULD WE RESERVE A DOZEN TINY
HOMES OR A DOZEN BEDS
AND MAYBE THESE PEOPLE I DON'T
HAVE FOR THAT.
WE NEED MORE 24/7 PLACES FOR
PEOPLE TO BE.
WHETHER IT'S A TINY HOME, AND
MANY ARGUE THOSE TINY HOMES ARE
MAKING A BIG DIFFERENCE FOR
PEOPLE.
THEY HAVE A DOOR THAT LOCKS AND
THEIR PARTNER, THEIR
POSSESSIONS, AND THEIR PETS CAN
STAY INSIDE.
IT DOES GIVE THEM SOMETHING A
LITTLE BIT SAFER AND A PLACE TO
BE.
WE'RE NOT GOING THERE AT THIS
POINT BUT I WANT TO EMPHASIZE
THAT IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THIS,
WE'RE EITHER GOING TO HAVE TO
HAVE MORE MODULARS OR MORE
PLACES FOR PEOPLE TO GO AS IT'S
GETTING TO BE A PRETTY OBVIOUS
STATEMENT.
THE OBJECTIVE IS TO HAVE MORE
HOUSES, MORE PLACES, MORE HOMES
FOR PEOPLE TO GO.
THAT'S THE ANSWER AND WE HAVE
TO CONTINUE WORKING ON THAT
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND FRIENDS IN SUBURBAN CITIES
WHERE THEY MAY HAVE LAND AND
MAY BE ABLE TO HELP US.
ANYTHING ELSE?
I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE
ADOPT THE REDLINE IN HERE IN
THIS NEW VERSION, WHICH IS THAT
VERSION D 4, SO IT WILL BE THE
BASELINE.
WE ARE NOT PASSING THIS OUT
TODAY BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE
THIS AS THE VERSION THAT WE'LL
BE SHARING WITH OUR LEAGUES.
WE HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING NEXT
TUESDAY AT 4:00 P.M.
FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION.
I'M SURE WE'RE ALL TRYING TO
WEDGE IN SO MUCH MORE BEFORE
BUDGET.
I'M GOING TO MOVE AND SECOND
AND PASS THIS OF OUT.
SO THIS IS NOW THE VERSION THAT
WE'LL SHARE AND LOOK AT AND
VOTE ON NEXT WEEK.
ANYTHING ELSE?
OKAY.
I THINK THAT I AM ON MY OWN.
THE NEXT ITEM, I INTEND TO VOTE
THIS OUT TODAY.
>> ITEM NUMBER TWO, ORDINANCE
RELATING TO ELIMINATING
NEIGHBORHOOD BLIGHT AUTHORIZING
THE ACQUISITION OF REAL
PROPERTY 213 SOUTH MAIN STREET.
ITEM THREE, RESOLUTION
DECLARING THE PREMISES LOCATED
AT 213 SOUTH MAIN STREET,
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, TO BE A
NEIGHBORHOOD BLIGHT, REQUIRING
ACQUISITION BY THE CITY OF
SEATTLE.
>> THANK YOU.
I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO REVIEW
WHAT WE DID LAST WEEK.
THEN I HAVE AN UPDATE FOR
ANYBODY WHO'S WATCHING THIS.
>> SURE.
LAST WEEK THE COMMITTEE WAS
BRIEFED ON BOTH OF THESE PIECES
OF LEGISLATION AND THEY ARE
KIND OF OF A PIECE.
THEY ARE BOTH UNNECESSARY FOR
THE CITY TO CONSIDER CONDEMNING
A PROPERTY TO REM DIBLIGHT.
REMEDY THE BLIGHT.
LAST WEEK THE COMMITTEE
DISCUSSED THE HISTORY OF THE
OLD CANNERY BUILDING.
I DON'T THINK IT WAS ACTUALLY
EVER USED AS A CANNERY.
>> BECAUSE OF THE CANNERY
UNION.
>> RIGHT, AND THE SIGHT OF AN
INFAMOUS MURDER IN 1981.
THE BUILDING CANNOT BE SAFELY
OCCUPIED AND WAS THE SUBJECT OF
ACTIVITY IN 2017.
THERE'S A PERMIT FOR A SEVEN-
STORY BUILDING ON THE SITE BUT
THAT'S NOT TAKEN CONSTRUCTION.
THERE ARE TWO STEPS REQUIRED
HERE FOR THE CITY TO
CONTEMPLATE ACQUIRING THE
PROPERTY.
ONE IS A DECLARATION THAT 5:00
CIG IS NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE
BLIGHTED CONDITIONS.
WE WENT OVER THE STEPS LAST
WEEK THE FACTORS THAT THE CITY
NEEDS TO CONSIDER TO DETERMINE
WHETHER OR NOT IF THE BUILDING
MEETS THE DEFINITION OF
NEIGHBORHOOD BLIGHT.
IT MEETS AT LEAST TWO OF THREE
FACTORS AND ONLY TWO NEED TO BE
MET.
IT COULD POSSIBLY MEET ALL
THREE FACTORS.
FINALLY, THE COUNCIL BILL,
ESSENTIALLY PROVIDING THE
AUTHORIZATION TO THE DEPARTMENT
OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES TO PROCEED WITH THE
ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY AND
THAT COULD HAPPEN WITH A
NEGOTIATED PURCHASE BY THE
CITY, THEN A DISPOSITION
THROUGH THE NORMAL PROCEDURES,
AND THE OTHER WOULD BE THROUGH
CONDEMNATION IF A NEGOTIATED
PURCHASE IS NOT AGREED TO BY
THE PARTIES.
>> GREAT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT.
WE TALKED ABOUT IT LAST WEEK,
THAT I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON
THIS FOR THE BETTER PART OF A
YEAR.
THE SECOND AVENUE EXTENSION IS
BEING VERY MUCH IMPROVED BY A
NUMBER OF BUILDING OWNERS FROM
THE BUILDING THAT'S BEEN
PROCURED ACROSS THE STREET, AND
THE CHIEF SEATTLE CLUB WORKING
ON THE LAZARUS DAY CENTER.
IN THE NEXT COUPLE MONTHS, ALL
THE PERMITTING WILL HAVE LOW
INCOME UNITS THERE ASSOCIATED
WITH THE CHIEF SEATTLE CLUB.
AROUND THE CORNER, THERE'S TWO
PARCELS, ONE OF WHICH IS EMPTY
AND THE OTHER, THERE'S A
BUILDING ON IT.
THOSE BUILDINGS ARE COMING
DOWN.
WE ARE WORKING WITH DEVELOPERS
FOR A SITE AT 2nd AND
WASHINGTON.
THEN THERE'S ANOTHER GROUP
THAT'S WORKING ON THE HUB.
SO THE GOAL THERE IS TO REALLY
IMPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT
FROM A FEELING OF ADDING
ADDITIONAL UNITS AND
POTENTIALLY PUTTING A CHILD
CARE DOWN THERE.
SO A LOT IS HAPPENING THERE AND
THIS IS REALLY THE LAST ON THE
STREET THAT'S BEEN DERELICT FOR
SO LONG, OVER 30 YEARS NOW.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE MOVING FORWARD
TO SAY, IF AIL ELSE FAILS,
WE'LL MOVE FORWARD TOWARDS
CONDEMNATION.
I WANT AN UPDATE THAT YESTERDAY
THE PROPERTY OWNER CAME TO MY
OFFICE.
I MET WITH HIM AND HIS
ARCHITECT.
I BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE SERIOUS
ABOUT WHAT THE PROCESS WOULD
LOOK LIKE.
I'VE ASKED THEM TO REACH OUT TO
THE PHILIPPINO COMMUNITY
BECAUSE THE BUILDING WITHIN
THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, ESPECIALLY
WHERE THE MURDERS OCCURRED,
THAT THE PHILIPPINO COMMUNITY
WAS TRULY IMPACTED BY THAT.
THEY ARE WILLING TO DO IT.
I'VE OFFERED TO HELP MAKE
INTRODUCTIONS, CALL THE
COMMUNITY TOGETHER TO ASK WHAT
THE COMMUNITY WOULD LIKE TO
SEE, TO RESPECT THE CULTURE AND
THE HISTORY OF THIS.
THE PROPERTY OWNER SAID THAT HE
WAS WILLING TO DO THAT.
SO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS
PASS THIS OUT OF THE COMMITTEE
BUT NOT REFER IT ONTO FULL
COUNCIL, WHICH WILL GIVE THEM
AT LEAST 60 DAYS TO COME BACK
WITH A PLAN AND DO THE WORK
THEY PROMISED.
AT THAT POINT THE FULL COUNCIL
WILL MAKE A DECISION ABOUT WHAT
TO DO.
I HOPE WE HAVE THE PROPERTY
OWNER'S ATTENTION AND WORK WITH
THE PIONEER PRESERVATION BOARD
TO COME UP WHERE A PROJECT, A
PLAN AND A TIMELINE THAT WOULD
RESTORE THE BLOCK AND PROVIDE
US WITH HOUSING, BOTH
AFFORDABLE AND MARKET RATE.
SO I THINK WE ARE MAKING SOME
POSITIVE STRIDES AND I WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE PROPERTY
OWNER DID SAY THAT HE WAS
COMMITTED TO MAKING THIS RIGHT.
ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WOULD
LIKE TO ADD?
>> I'LL JUST NOTE THAT WHEN
THIS IS TAKEN UP BY THE FULL
COUNCIL, THERE ARE SOME
PROCEDURAL THINGS THAT NEED TO
HAPPEN FIRST, INCLUDING NOTICE
IN THE NEWSPAPER FOR TWO
CONSECUTIVE WEEKS, AND ALSO
NOTIFICATION TO THE PROPERTY
OWNER BY CERTIFIED MAIL OF SORT
OF THE POTENTIAL FOR THE FINAL
COUNCIL ACTION ON THIS.
THAT'S A PROCEDURAL STEP THAT
THERE'S PLENTY OF TIME TO
ACCOMPLISH, BUT IT'S SOMETHING
THAT HAS TO HAPPEN.
>> GREAT.
I WANT TO ALSO THANK OUR LAW
DEPARTMENT ON THIS, AND WE'LL
GIVE THE PROPERTY OWNER NOTICE
THAT THIS HAS COME OUT OF THIS
COMMITTEE AFTER I VOTE ON IT.
IF EVERYTHING IS PROCEEDING AS
PROMISED, THEN THE CITY MAY NOT
TAKE THAT FINAL ACTION.
OKAY.
I AM GOING TO, FIRST OF ALL,
MOVE TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION.
31906, THAT WILL DECLARE THE
PREMISES AS BLIGHTED AND
REQUIRING THE ACQUISITION BY
THE CITY.
I'M MOVING IT AND SECONDING IT
AND PASSING IT OUT.
THE SECOND ITEM IS THE
ORDINANCE THAT IS AGAIN
RELATING TO NEIGHBORHOOD BLIGHT
AND AUTHORIZES THE ACQUISITION
OF REAL PROPERTY.
I'M GOING TO MOVE AND SECOND
THAT, SO IT IS ALSO VOTED OUT
OF THIS COMMITTEE BUT NOT
REFERRED TO THE FULL COUNCIL
UNTIL I BELIEVE DECEMBER 9th,
WHICH WILL BE THE SECOND MONDAY
IN DECEMBER.
WE'LL TAKE IT UP IF NECESSARY
THEN.
>> I'M NOT SURE IF YOU MOVED.
>> OKAY.
119645, THIS ORDINANCE, I'LL
MOVE AND SECOND THAT, AND IT IS
MOVED BY ME, SECONDED AND VOTED
ON BY ME.
DO I NEED TO DO ANYTHING OTHER
THAN WHAT I'VE JUST STATED,
THAT IT WON'T GO TO FULL
COUNCIL UNTIL DECEMBER 9th?
>> I DON'T THINK SO.
>> VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU.
APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT
BOTH OF YOU HAVE DONE.
THANK YOU.
THE COMMITTEE MEETING IS
ADJOURNED.