>>> THE JULY MEETING WILL COME
TO ORDER.
I'M ALEX PEDERSEN CHAIR OF THE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON SEATTLE
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT
FUNDING.
WILL THE CLERK CALL ROLL.
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ.
>> HERE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
COULD BE MORALES.
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA,
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT,
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> CHAIR PEDERSEN.
>> 4 PRESENT.
>> 5 PRESENT, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT.
>> IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, THE
AGENDA WILL BE ADOPTED?
THERE IS AN AMENDMENT THAT
WOULD BE LOCKED ON FROM
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES.
HEARING NO OBJECTION, THE
AGENDA IS ADOPTED.
AT THIS TIME, WE'LL OPEN THE
REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
I ASK THAT EVERYONE PLEASE BE
PATIENT AS WE LEARN TO OPERATE
THIS SYSTEM AND NAVIGATE THE
GROWING PAINS.
WE ARE LOOKING FOR WAYS TO ADD
NEW FEATURES THAT ALLOW FOR
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN OUR
COUNCIL MEETINGS.
IT REMAINS THE STRONG INTENT TO
HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT REGULARLY
ON THE MEETING AGENDAS.
RESERVE THE RIGHT TO MODIFY THE
PERIODS IF IT'S NOT ALLOWING
THE MEETINGS TO BE CONDUCTED
EFFECTIVELY.
I'LL MODERATE IN THE FOLLOWING
MANNER.
WE HAVE 14 PEOPLE SIGNED UP
NOW.
THE PUBLIC COMMENT MEETING FOR
THIS MEETING WILL BE 20 MINUTES
AND EACH SPEAKER WILL HAVE 2
MINUTES TO SPEAK.
I WILL CALL ON 2 SPEAKERS AT A
TIME.
ONCE I CALL A SPEAKER'S NAME.
STAFF WILL UNMUTE THE
APPROPRIATE MICROPHONE AND THE
AUTOMATIC PROMPT THAT YOU HAVE
BEEN UNMUTED WILL BE THE
SPEAKER'S CUE.
PLEASE BEGIN BY STATING YOUR
NAME AND THE ITEM THAT YOU ARE
ADDRESSING.
PUBLIC COMMENT SHOULD RELATE TO
AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA.
SPEAKERS WILL HEAR A CHIME WHEN
10 SECONDS ARE LEFT.
WRAP UP YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT
ONCE YOU HEAR THE CHIME.
IF SPEAKERS DO NOT END AT THE
ALLOTTED TIME, THE SPEAKER'S
MICROPHONE WILL BE MUTED.
PLEASE DISCONNECT FROM THE LINE
AND IF YOU PLAN TO CONTINUE
FOLLOWING THE LINE DO SO VIA
THE SEATTLE CHANNEL OR THE
LISTENING OPTIONS ON THE
AGENDA.
THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS
NOW OPEN.
AND WE'LL BEGIN WITH THE FIRST
2 SPEAKERS ON THE LIST.
WE'D LIKE TO START WITH MEGAN
MURPHY FOLLOWED BY BRITTANY.
>> I'M DISAPPOINTED BECAUSE
MOSQUEDA SKIPPED OVER ME ON
WEDNESDAY, I WAS HANDING OUT
FLYERS FOR THE POLICE.
AS FAR AS TRANSPORTATION GOES,
AND SHE KNOWS, INSTEAD OF HER.
AND THE POLICE FORCE I'M SORRY,
THE TRANSPORTATION I HEARD THAT
THEY WERE CUTTING 300,000 TRIPS
A DAY TO 75,000.
AND WE NEED TO BE CLEANING THE
INFRASTRUCTURE AND INCREASING
PUBLIC TRANSIT GIVEN GLOBAL
WARMING AND AUSTERITY TOWARDS
PEOPLE WHO USE THAT.
IF I WOULD HAVE SPOKEN ON
WEDNESDAY I BELIEVE IN
INCREASING HOUSING CHOICE
VOUCHERS, PERMANENT FOR PEOPLE
WHO NEED IT AND INVEST IN THE
PROPERTY BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE
THE HOUSING.
>> WILL YOU KEEP YOUR COMMENTS
TO THE TRANSPORTATION MEASURE
PLEASE.
>> OH, YEAH, SO I COULDN'T FIND
YOUR AGENDA SO YOU NEED TO MAKE
IT EASIER TO FIND YOUR
TRANSPORTATION AGENDA.
AND I DID FEEL THE NEED BECAUSE
I THINK MOSQUEDA DELIBERATELY
CUT ME OFF.
FOLLOW NEW YORK CITY'S MEASURES
WHEN THEY'RE KEEPING THEIR
TRANSPORTATION EVEN MORE
SPARKLY CLEAN BECAUSE OF COVID.
I THINK INVEST MORE IN PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION.
AND SAWANT POINTED OUT THE
WHERE YOU ARE GOING TO CUT DOWN
THE TRIPS.
AND KEEP THE WORK FORCE AT
METRO HARASSMENT FREE.
I'LL BE PROTESTING ON MONDAY,
SOME OF THE WORKERS FOR KING
COUNTY METRO FEEL HARASSED
BECAUSE OF RACE OR GENDER AND
THAT NEEDS TO STOP NOW.
THANK YOU.
>> NEXT SPEAKER IS BRITTANY OLE
FOLLOWED BY ALICE LOCKHART.
GO AHEAD, BRITTANY.
>> GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
I'M THE CHAIR OF SIERRA CLUB
SEATTLE GROUP.
WE OBVIOUSLY FULLY, FULLY,
FULLY SUPPORT THE RENEWAL AND
JUST HAD A COUPLE OF COMMENTS.
THE CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC HAS
SHAKEN OUR CITY AND WE ARE IN A
MOMENT THAT CALLS FOR BOLD,
URGENT CHANGE.
WE CANNOT COME OUT OF THE
CRISIS WITH THE SAME PRIORITIES
WE ENTERED IT WITH.
THE RENEWAL IS.
PREPARED NOT ONLY TO RESUME OUR
RIDERSHIP GROWTH BUT TO BASE IT
ON TRANSIT.
WE FOCUS ON RESTORING AS MUCH
TRANSIT SERVICE AS POSSIBLE.
WE UNDERSTAND THE FINANCIAL
CONSTRAINTS FACED BY THE CITY.
BUT THERE'S SPECIFIC STEPS WE
CAN TAKE.
RAISING MORE REVENUE WITH A
LARGER TAX, AND INTO TRANSIT
OPERATIONS WHEREVER POSSIBLE.
WE URGE THE CITY TO CHOOSE A
.2% INCREASE IN SALES TAX. WE
ARE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH TAX ON
INFRASTRUCTURE, WE MUST UTILIZE
THE ONLY TOOL WE HAVE
AVAILABLE.
LOWER INCOME AND COMMUNITIES OF
COLORS IN A TARGETED MANNER.
AND RESTRUCTURE THE SPENDING
PLAN.
ROAD MAINTENANCE CAN BE FUNDED
OUT OF REVENUE SOURCES.
WE SUPPORT A 4 YEAR MEASURE.
EVEN AT A .2%, IT DELIVERS LESS
SERVICE THAN THE ORIGINAL.
IT'S PRUDENT TO SHORTEN THE
DURATION OF THE MEASURE AND
ALLOW VOTERS TO REVISIT THE
ISSUE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU, BRITTANY.
NEXT, WE'LL HAVE ALICE LOCKHART
FOLLOWED BY KATIE WILSON.
>> GOOD MORNING,
COUNCILMEMBERS.
I'M ALICE LOCKHART.
WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A
STOPGAP TO PREVENT HARM TO THE
TRANSIT SYSTEM.
WE NEED PROGRESSIVE REVENUE.
WE SUPPORT ALL THE AMENDMENTS
EXCEPT FOR NUMBER 2 WHICH WOULD
FUND PERSONAL TRIPS.
WE'D LIKE TO SEE A NEW
AMENDMENT THAT WOULD RESTRICT
SPENDING TO TRANSIT ONLY NOT
ROAD MAINTENANCE.
WE PARTICULARLY SUPPORT THE NEW
MORALES AMENDMENT TO TAX AT A
RATE MORE COMMENSURATE WITH THE
NEED.
SLIGHTLY LARGER PICTURE BUT
STILL TIGHTLY RELATED.
WE ARE DEEPLY DISMAYED BY THE
NUMBER OF CUTS TO TRANSIT,
BIKES, IN THE MAYOR'S PACKAGE.
AND IF COUNCILMEMBERS COULD
CHECK YOUR E-MAIL FOR A LETTER
FROM US, ADJUSTING SEVERAL
AMENDMENTS WHICH WOULD HELP FIX
THIS PRIORITIZATION AND THE
MOBILITY NEEDS OF THIS TIME.
IF WE DON'T FIX THE REBALANCING
PACKAGE, IT'S GOING TO BE HARD
TO SUGGEST THAT SEATTLEITES TAX
OURSELVES IN NOVEMBER.
>> NEXT KATIE WILSON FOLLOWED
BY ARTHUR BACAS.
>> HI, COUNCILMEMBERS.
KATIE SPEAKING FOR THE TRANSIT
RIDERS UNION.
WE SUPPORT SHORTENING THIS
MEASURE TO 4 YEARS.
WE SEE THIS MEASURE AS SAVING
OUR TRANSIT SYSTEM FROM CUTS
UNTIL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
FUNDED WITH PROGRESSIVE
REVENUE.
AND WE'LL BE FIGHTING TO MAKE
THAT HAPPEN.
WE'RE WORRIED THAT CUTS THIS
FALL AND NEXT YEAR WILL BE
HAPPENING AT A TIME WHEN PEOPLE
ARE TRYING TO RETURN TO PUBLIC
TRANSIT AS THE NEED FOR SOCIAL
DISTANCING LIMITS THE NUMBER OF
RIDERS PER COACH.
SERVICE IS GROSSLY INSUFFICIENT
TO THE NEEDS.
ANYONE WHO CAN DRIVE A CAR
INSTEAD WILL CHOOSE TO DO SO
AND PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE THAT
OPTION WILL BE STRANDED.
THIS WILL IMPACT BLACK AND
BROWN RIDERS THE MOST.
TO PREVENT SERVICE CUTS.
WE SUPPORT TO INCREASE THE
FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR TRANSIT
SERVICE.
WE SUPPORT SHIFTING FUNDS FROM
CAPITAL TO SERVICE.
WE SUPPORT THE COUNCIL TAKING
ACTION IN THE FUTURE TO
INCREASE THE VEHICLE LICENSE
FEE.
AND TO IMPLEMENT, FOR
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICE.
AFTER MUCH DISCUSSION WE
DECIDED THAT WE SUPPORT RAISING
THE SALES TAX TO .2%.
THAT IS PROBABLY THE HIGHEST
IMPACT ACTION YOU CAN TAKE
TODAY TO SAVE OUR TRANSIT
DECISION.
THIS WAS NOT AN EASY DECISION.
GOING TO BAT FOR PROGRESSIVE
SINCE WE BEGAN.
WE BELIEVE THIS IS THE RIGHT
DECISION TO MAKE AND WE SUPPORT
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES', TO MAKE
THAT CHANGE.
>> GO AHEAD, ARTHUR.
>> GOOD MORNING COUNCILMEMBERS.
MY NAME IS ARTHUR BACAS.
I AM A SEATTLE RESIDENT AND I
RELY 100% ON TRANSIT.
I DON'T HAVE A CAR AND I WORK A
NIGHT SHIFT JOB THAT PAYS MY
RENT AND MY BILLS.
SO EVEN WITH RECENT CUTS TO
SERVICE HOURS BECAUSE OF COVID,
MY COMMUTES HAVE BECOME LESS
RELIABLE AND ARE MORE
STRESSFUL.
I WOULD IMAGINE ANY FURTHER
CUTS TO TRANSIT SERVICE WOULD
GREATLY IMPACT BY MOBILITY.
I CAN ONLY IMAGINE, YOU KNOW,
WITH SUCH RECENT CHANGES, THE
DIFFICULTY THAT SEATTLEITES
WITH LOWER INCOMES MUST FACE.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST
THAT THE COUNCIL INCREASE
FUNDING AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE,
INCLUDING THE .2% SALES TAX AS
WELL AS DEDICATING SOME
EMERGENCY FUNDING FOR SERVICE
IN 2021.
I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT WE
FOCUS FUNDING ON IMPROVING
TRANSIT SERVICE.
AND THAT WE STRUCTURE TRANSIT
SERVICE TO BETTER SERVE THE
NEEDS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE TRANSIT
DEPENDENT, MYSELF INCLUDED.
SO WE MUST DO THE BEST WE CAN
AS A CITY TO MAINTAIN TRANSIT
SERVICE HOURS AND SERVICE
QUALITY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
NEXT WE'VE GOT, FOLLOWED BY JOE
RILEY.
GO AHEAD.
>> GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS, AND I'M THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF -- IN
SEATTLE.
I'M HERE AS THE EQUITY WORK
GROUP.
AND WE SUPPORT THE STDD
PROPOSAL FOR CONTINUING THE
SALES TASK.
BY A LOT OF OUR GROUP AS
PROGRESSIVE TAX GIVEN THE
CHANGES THAT ARE TAKING PLACE
POTENTIALLY WITH, NOT BEING
ABLE TO COLLECT ADDITIONAL
FUNDS, WE FEEL THIS IS BEFORE
THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT SHORTFALL
WHICH WE'LL NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE
UP IN A QUICK WAY.
WE FEEL THIS IS A GOOD BALANCE
GIVEN THE CURRENT SITUATION.
EVEN THOUGH THE TAX RATE IS OF
SALES TAX IS AGAINST EQUITY FOR
THE LARGER COMMUNITY AND OUR
COMMITTEE IS LARGELY
REPRESENTING MARGINALIZED
COMMUNITIES, SO WE FEEL THAT WE
CAN SUPPORT AN INCREASE EVEN
THOUGH THIS INITIATIVE WAS FOR
AN EXISTING CONTINUATION OF THE
RATE GIVEN THAT SEATTLE IS
BEHIND OTHER CITIES WHICH ARE
SURROUNDING ON THE TOTAL TAX
RATE.
>> THANK YOU.
NEXT WE'VE GOT JOE RILEY
FOLLOWED BY JOE KUNSLER.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
LETTING ME COME ON TODAY.
MY NAME IS JOE RILEY.
I'M THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AT
SEATTLE SUBWAY.
AND THERE ARE A FEW THINGS THAT
OUR ORGANIZATION FEELS ARE
PRUDENT AND IMPORTANT FOR THE
TRANSIT BENEFIT DISTRICT TO
REALLY DELIVER ON.
AND THESE THINGS ARE AS
FOLLOWS.
FIRSTLY, WE ARE HOPING THAT WE
CAN INCREASE THE FUNDING AS
MUCH AS POSSIBLE WITH BOTH A
.2% SALES TAX AND EMERGENCY
2021 FUNDING.
SECOND, WE'RE HOPING THAT THE
COUNCIL DOES FOCUS ON AND
PRIORITIZE SPENDING ON TRANSIT
SERVICE AS OPPOSED TO CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT WHICH MANY OF THE
THINGS COULD BE COVERED WITH
THE MOVE SEATTLE FUNDS.
AND THIRDLY, WE ARE HOPING THAT
THE COUNCIL DOES REMEMBER TO
PRIORITIZE TRANSIT SERVICE TO
BETTER SERVE THE NEEDS OF
PEOPLE WHO ARE TRANSIT
DEPENDENT.
THAT ACTUALLY DOES INCLUDE
MYSELF AS SOMEONE WHO RECENTLY
SOLD THEIR CAR.
AND THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT.
I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND HOPE
YOU CONSIDER THESE THINGS IN
MAKING YOUR DECISIONS TODAY.
THANKS VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU, JOE RILEY.
>> NEXT WE HAVE JOE KUNSLER.
>> WOW, THANK YOU.
THAT WAS A GREAT SPEECH TO
FOLLOW AND I'M SURE THE NEXT 1
WILL BE A HARDER ACT TO
PROCEED.
I WILL BE BRIEF.
I REALLY SUPPORT THE SEATTLE
TRANSIT BENEFIT DISTRICT THAT
WILL GET MORE BUSES ON THE
ROAD.
TRANSIT SHOULD BE THE FIRST
CHOICE OF EVERYONE TO GET
AROUND.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO WILLEN TO
GROUPS.
AND WE ALSO NEED BUS LANES
AROUND SEATTLE.
I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH.
WE NEED BUSES NOT TO BE STUCK
IN TRAFFIC.
AND YOU CAN ALSO USE BUS LANES
AS BIKE LANES.
MARYLAND DID THE SAME.
WE ALSO, HEIDI WELLS.
AND SOME OF OUR HEROES WHO
NORMALLY WOULD NOT BE
RECOGNIZED.
WE NEED TO BE ENTHUSIASTIC
ABOUT THIS CAMPAIGN.
BY ABSOLUTELY VITAL THAT WE
REMEMBER OUR HEROES LIKE HEIDI
WELLS AND GET THIS DONE.
OTHERWISE, I'M GOING TO GIVE 25
BUCKS TO THE CAMPAIGN AND CALL
IT GOOD.
WITH THAT, I REALLY HOPE THAT,
YOU KNOW, THIS IS A 4-YEAR
MEASURE.
AND IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE
A 4-YEAR MEASURE.
THIS WILL BE PRESSURE ON KING
COUNTY GOVERNMENT TO COME TO
THE TABLE AND BE SERIOUS.
THEY NEED TO UNDERSTAND.
>> OKAY.
SO THANK YOU.
NEXT UP IS ALEX HUDSON FOLLOWED
BY RYAN PACKER.
IF ALEX IS THERE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER, WE DON'T SEE
AN ALEX HUDSON IN THE CALLER
LIST.
>> OKAY.
WE'LL COME BACK TO ALEX HUDSON.
SO NEXT UP WE'VE GOT RYAN
PACKER FOLLOWED BY ANTHONY
DAMICO.
>> GO AHEAD, RYAN PACKER.
>> THANK YOU.
MY NAME IS RYAN PACKER.
I SUPPORT ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS
EXCEPT FOR THE AMENDMENT 2
WHICH WOULD INVEST IN
INEXPENSIVE ALTERNATIVES.
IT WOULD BE A GREAT IRONY FOR
DAYS AFTER THE CITY COUNCIL WHO
JUST VOTED TO INVEST HEAVILY IN
THE GREEN NEW DEAL TO THEN
DECIDE THAT THEY WERE NOT GOING
TO FULLY INVEST IN SEATTLE'S
TRANSIT NETWORK.
FROM 2008 TO 2016, THE GREATEST
REDUCTION PER CAPITA IN
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN
SEATTLE WAS NOT IMPROVED ENERGY
EFFICIENCY FOR VEHICLES OR
HEATING.
IT WAS REDUCED VEHICLE TRIPS.
25% OF THE REDUCTION WAS
FOCUSED ON THOSE.
WE NEED TO GO BIGGER.
.2% IS THE FLOOR WE NEED TO BE
ABLE TO BE IN FOR AND NOT THE
UNCONTAINABLE UNATTAINABLE
CEILING.
MASSIVE BUS CUTS ARE EVEN MORE
REGRESSVE.
AND SELLING OUT THE FUTURE IS
ALSO VERY REGRESSIVE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, RYAN.
NEXT IS ANTHONY DAMICO FOLLOWED
BY KAREN TAYLOR.
GO AHEAD, ANTHONY.
>> HI, ANTHONY DAMICO HERE.
SPEAKING AS A MEMBER OF TRANSIT
RIDERS UNION.
I'VE BEEN IMPRESSED BY THE
CALLS.
I'LL TRY TO MAKE THIS AS QUICK
AS POSSIBLE.
I SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL AND ALL
AMENDMENTS ASIDE FROM NUMBER 2
AND ESPECIALLY THE MORALES
AMENDMENT.
FOR THOSE WHO DECIDED TO GIVE
UP THEIR CARS IN ORDER TO
REDUCE THE CARBON FOOTPRINT.
I DESPISE SALES TAX INCREASES
AND THEY IMPACT LOW INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS.
THIS IS NECESSARY AND OUR ONLY
OPTION.
STUDENTS AND WORKERS IN THE
CITY.
AND LIKE I SAID BEFORE AFFECTS
OUR CARBON FOOTPRINT.
WE NEED PROGRESSIVE REVENUE TO
FUND THESE.
AND WE HAVE TO HAVE THE CHAIR
OF THE COMMITTEE WHO OPPOSES
DOING JUST THAT.
>> THANK YOU, ANTHONY.
NEXT UP KAREN TAYLOR FOLLOWED
BY KAYLA SERGEANT.
>> MY NAME IS KAREN TAYLOR.
I TESTIFIED FOR SOME ACTIVIST
STUFF IN FRONT OF Y'ALL FOR
RACIAL EQUITY BUT CONSIDERING
THIS STUFF IS A MATTER OF
SURVIVAL FOR ME.
I'M DISABLED AND DON'T HAVE A
DRIVER'S LICENSE AND I RIDE
EXCLUSIVELY TRANSIT TO DOCTOR'S
APPOINTMENTS AMONG OTHER
THINGS.
SO I JUST SPECIFICALLY WANTED
TO SAY THAT I SUPPORT MORALES
AMENDMENT TO DOUBLE THE SIZE OF
THE MEASURE BECAUSE I REALLY
HATE REGRESSIVE TAXES BUT AGAIN
I RIDE ONLY TRANSIT AND THE
NEED FOR TRANSIT IS SO
IMPORTANT.
LESSEN THE DAMAGE OF NOT HAVING
TRANSIT.
THAT'S IT.
>> THANK YOU.
NEXT WE'VE GOT KAYLA SERGEANT
FOLLOWED BY ALEX HUDSON.
GO AHEAD, KAYLA.
>> HI.
MY NAME IS KAYLA SAR
SERGEANT.
>>> PUBLIC TRANSIT IS SUCH AN
IMPORTANT PART OF THE
FOUNDATION OF THE CITY.
AND WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE OUR
INTERCONNECTED IT IS TO SO MANY
OTHER ISSUES AND WHEN IT FALLS
APART IT IMPACTS EVERYONE IN
THE CITY.
AND IT'S REALLY REGRETTABLE
THAT THE FUNDING IS FALLING ON
A REGRESSIVE SALES TAX.
IN GENERAL, ALSO PLEASE TRY AND
CHANGE SEATTLE'S REGRESSIVE TAX
CODE.
>> LAST SPEAKER IS ALEX HUDSON.
GO AHEAD, ALEX.
>> HELLO.
THANK YOU.
I'M ALEX HUDSON.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF [
INAUDIBLE ] WE ARE FULLY
SUPPORTIVE AND IT'S CLEAR AND
OBVIOUS THAT THERE'S A NEED FOR
TRANSIT SERVICE AND WILL BE IN
THE FUTURE.
WE THINK THAT THE RENEWAL CAN
BE IMPROVED BY ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENT 1 WHICH ASSURES MONEY
FOR SERVICE AND PATHWAY.
AMENDMENT 3 SHORTENS THE
DURATION AND GETS US TO A TIME
WHEN WE CAN HAVE MORE CLARITY
TO GET US TO A COUNTYWIDE
MEASURE WITH PROGRESSIVE
REVENUE.
AMENDMENT 5, THANK YOU TO CHAIR
PEDERSEN FOR GUARANTEEING THAT
MOST OF THE MONEY GOES TO
SERVICE.
AND AMENDMENT 7 ASSURES THAT
THE EVALUATION OF THE FUNDING
WITH A RACIAL EQUITY BOLSTERED
BY THE MOBILITY FRAMEWORK.
TO DRIVE SERVICE WHERE NEED IS
MOST.
AND ISSUE OF POINT 2. IT'S A
SAD REALITY THAT REGRESSIVE
SALES TAXES ARE A LIMITED
OPTION AVAILABLE TO US.
TRANSIT SERVICE IS VITAL.
AND INCREASING .2 WOULD PREVENT
100,000 HOURS OF TRANSIT
SERVICE CUTS AT A TIME WHEN
PEOPLE ARE IN NEED MOST.
WE ARE FOLLOWING THE LEAD OF
LEADERS AND ORGANIZATIONS IN
THE CONVERSATION AROUND
ADVANCING OUR REGRESSIVE TAX.
AND THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
IMPORTANT ISSUE TO THE PUBLIC'S
CONVERSATION.
>>S THAT THE CONCLUSION OF OUR
SPEAKER LIST.
AND I DO WANT TO ANNOUNCE THAT
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT, LEWIS,
AND MORALES HAVE JOINED US,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SO NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS OUR
ITEM OF BUSINESS.
AND THEN I'LL HAVE SOME
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS AFTER HE
INTO THIS.
WILL THE CLERK READ ITEM 1 INTO
THE RECORD.
>> RELATING TO A SELF-TAX AND
USE TAX PROVIDING FOR THE
QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY
AT AN ELECTION NOVEMBER 3,
2020.
A PROPOSITION TO COLLECT A
SALES AND USE TAX TO FUND
TRANSIT AND RELATED
TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS IN
SEATTLE FOR.
>> THANK YOU, CLERK.
AND COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD HAS
JOINED US AS WELL.
COUNCILMEMBER LISA HERBOLD.
THEY WERE HERE EARLIER.
I JUST MISSED HEARING THEM.
REAL QUICK FOR THE BENEFIT OF
THE GENERAL PUBLIC, AS WE KNOW.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GONZALEZ
ESTABLISHED THIS COMMITTEE SO
WE CAN PUT IN FRONT OF VOTERS
THE OPPORTUNITY TO RENEW THE
FUNDING THAT'S EXPIRING FOR OUR
SUCCESSFUL TRANSPORTATION
BENEFIT DISTRICT.
THE BENEFIT DISTRICT IS A KEY
TOOL WASHINGTON STATE LAW
PROVIDES TO RAISE MONEY FOR
TRANSPORTATION NEEDS.
FOCUSED ON SUPPLEMENTING BUS
SERVICE.
PROVIDING FREE TRANSIT PASSES
TO THOSE IN NEED.
AND PROVIDING OTHER TRANSIT
SOLUTIONS.
OUR MISSION IS TO AMEND THE
BILL AND VOTE IT OUT OF
COMMITTEE TO KEEP IT ON
SCHEDULE AND CONSIDER IT AT THE
FULL COUNCIL MEETING ON JULY
27th . THE DEADLINE IS AUGUST
4th TO PUT THIS FUNDING SOURCE
ON THE BALLOT FOR VOTERS TO
CONSIDER.
NOW THAT WE'VE HEARD PUBLIC
COMMENT.
WE'RE GOING TO GIVE THE
COCHAIRS OF OUR CITY'S OFFICIAL
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD
AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE BRIEF
INPUT.
THE CENTRAL STAFF
TRANSPORTATION EXPERT CALVIN
CHOW WILL EXPLAIN EACH 1
INDIVIDUALLY.
AND WE WILL VOTE IN THE ORDER
ON THE AGENDA.
AND ITEMS 6A AND 6 B RELATE TO
A SIMILAR TOPIC OF DEVELOPER
FEES AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THOSE
AS A GROUP.
AND WE DO HAVE AMENDMENT THAT
IS BEING LOCKED ON BY
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES ABOUT THE
LEVEL OF THE SALES TAX THAT'S
PROPOSED.
AND SO OUR COLLEAGUES FROM THE
EXECUTIVE ARE HERE TO ANSWER
QUESTIONS.
I IMAGINE COLLEAGUES, YOU'LL
PROBABLY DIRECT MOST OF YOUR
QUESTIONS TO CALVIN CHOW.
I WANT TO THANK THOSE WHO TOOK
THE TIME TO READ AND COMMENT ON
THIS.
AND I'D LIKE TO THANK THOSE WHO
HAVE BEEN ADVOCATING FOR
TRANSIT FOR YEARS, AND WHOSE
EXPERTISE IS VITAL IN MOVING
THIS MEASURE FORWARD.
THIS INCLUDES TRANSPORTATION
CHOICES, UNION, LABOR UNIONS,
MANY MORE.
THE BILL TRANSMITTED TO US BY
THE EXECUTIVE PROVIDED A SOLID
FOUNDATION.
AND WE AS COUNCILMEMBERS WOULD
HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC AND AMEND
THE LEGISLATION.
ONE OF THE KEY THEMES OF THE
AMENDMENTS IS THAT WE HEARD THE
CALL TO INCREASE THE EMPHASIS
ON TRANSIT SERVICE EVEN MORE.
FOR EXAMPLE, AMENDMENT NUMBER 1
WHICH WE'LL TALK ABOUT SOON
WILL REALLOCATE FROM CAPITAL
PROJECTS TO TRANSIT SERVICE.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 4 WOULD
PROTECT TRANSIT SERVICE
THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF THE
MEASURE.
AND OTHER AMENDMENTS SEEK TO
RESPOND TO THOSE ADVOCATING FOR
MORE TRANSIT SERVICE.
THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES, FOR
GETTING YOUR AMENDMENTS IN.
WE HAVE THE ITEM.
COUNCIL BILL 119833.
LET'S HAVE SOME INTRODUCTORY
REMARKS FROM AND THEN WE'LL
DIVE INTO EACH SEPARATELY.
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY
INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS.
IF WE CAN GO THROUGH THE AGENDA
WE CAN GET TO THE AMENDMENTS
QUICKLY.
>> OKAY, GREAT.
ELLIOT HELMBRECHT IS HERE.
AND WE HAVE 2 FOLKS FROM SDOT
HERE.
ELLIOT, DO YOU WANT TO
INTRODUCE THE ADVISORY BOARD
MEMBERS FOR US.
>> OF COURSE.
YEAH.
GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY.
I'M ESPECIALLY EXCITED TO BE
HERE THIS MORNING TO TALK TO
YOU AND INTRODUCE THESE FINE
FOLKS.
OUR COCHAIRS FROM THE TRANSIT
ADVISORY BOARD.
THEY CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M
WRONG.
I THINK BOTH OF THEM HAVE BEEN
THERE FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE 6
YEAR TERM.
AND IF NOT, A LONG TIME AND
INSTRUMENTAL IN THE STBD.
I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE
COCHAIRS OF OUR TRANSIT
ADVISORY BOARD FOR A FEW
COMMENTS THIS MORNING.
>> THANKS, ELLIOT.
GOOD MORNING HONORABLE MEMBERS
OF THE SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL.
MY NAME IS JAN CRAWFORD.
COCHAIR OF THE ADVISORY BOARD
AND RESIDENT OF DISTRICT 2.
AND I'M JOINED BY, A RESIDENT
OF DISTRICT 7. AND ANDREW
MARTIN WHO IS A RESIDENT OF
DISTRICT 4. THE 2 OF US ARE
REPRESENTING THE SEATTLE
TRANSIT ADVISORY BOARD.
A GROUP OF 12 RESIDENTS WHO
PROVIDE PUBLIC OVERSIGHT.
ADVISE THE CITY ON MATTERS
RELATED TO TRANSIT.
WE ARE DELIGHTED TO EXTEND OUR
SUPPORT TO THE SEATTLE
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT
6 YEAR RENEWAL MEASURE PUT FORD
BY MAYOR DURKAN.
FIRST LET ME PAUSE TO SAY THAT
THESE ARE UNPRECEDENTED TIMES.
PRIOR TO THE DEVASTATING IMPACT
OF COVID-19 ON OUR COMMUNITY
AND ON COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE
WORLD.
I PERSONALLY COULD NOT HAVE
IMAGINED ALL THE WAYS MY LIFE,
WORK, AND TRAVEL CHOICES HAVE
CHANGED.
I COULD NOT HAVE IMAGINED THE
IMPACT TO OUR ECONOMY OR
TRANSIT SYSTEM.
PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH
CRISIS.
I COULD NOT, IN THE FIRST FEW
MONTHS OF THE COVID PANDEMIC I
THOUGHT WE MIGHT NOT GET THE
CHANCE TO STAND BEFORE YOU.
THE ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS
BELIEVE THAT IT WILL PLAY A
CRITICAL ROLE IN OUR RECOVERY.
AND IT PROVIDES A LIFELINE FOR
LOW INCOME RESIDENTS.
SEATTLE NEEDS ADDITIONAL PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION TO RECOVER FROM
COVID AND TO MEET THE
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE GOALS.
WE SUPPORT THE INCLUSION OF LOW
INCOME ORCA PROGRAMS.
TO ENABLE THOSE RESIDENTS
HARDEST HIT BY THE PANDEMIC.
AND WE SUPPORT THE USE OF STBD
FUNDS.
AND WE THINK THIS PROGRAM
SHOULD CONTINUE FOCUSING ON
PROJECTS THAT MAKE TRANSIT FLOW
BETTER.
POLICIES THAT CONCENTRATE ON
TRANSIT DENSE CORRIDORS WILL
GIVE US THE BEST BANG FOR OUR
BUCK.
>> IN ADDITION TO THIS STRONG
SUPPORT, WE HAVE A FEW
IMPROVEMENTS WE WOULD LIKE TO
SUGGEST.
1 ITEM THAT WE THINK IS MISSING
FROM THE PROPOSAL RED UN-
AMAINTAINEDDED MEASURE.
WE BELIEVE THE CORE SHOULD BE
TRANSIT SERVICE ITSELF.
THE DISTRICT PURCHASE OF
TRANSIT HOURS FROM KING COUNTY
METRO.
WITHOUT A STRONG TRANSIT, A
FREE ORCA CARD IS NOT USEFUL.
WE SUPPORT TO ENSURE THE
ADDITIONAL SERVICE IS RELIABLE
AND EQUITABLE.
IN PRIOR YEARS WE NEEDED
ADDITIONAL SPENDING OPTIONS
BECAUSE METRO COULD NOT SELL US
THE AMOUNT WE WANTED TO BUY.
THIS WILL.
WE CANNOT LET FLEXIBILITY OF
THE MEASUREDETRACT FROM THE
CORE OF THE MEASURE.
HAVE A GUARANTEE ON THE AMOUNT
OF BUS SERVICE.
THE TRANSIT ADVISORY, 2/3 OF
THE YEARLY SALES TAX REVENUE GO
TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF TRANSIT
SERVICE.
COULD BE A PART OF THE EMERGING
NEEDS OF WEST SEATTLE OR OTHER
NEIGHBORHOODS.
WE NEED TO STAY FOCUSED ON THE
CORE OF STBD PROVIDING SERVICE
FOR SEATTLE RESIDENTS.
1 BACKBONE OF THE TRANSIT
SYSTEM IS LINK LIGHT RAIL.
IT CONNECTS MANY NEIGHBORHOODS
TOGETHER.
ANY MEASURE ON THE BALLOT NEEDS
TO BE ABLE TO FUND THIS.
AGAIN, WE JUST WANT TO
REITERATE THAT WE STRONGLY
SUPPORT A 6 YEAR STBD RENEWAL
MEASURE.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR, AND MY
STAFF WENT TO YOUR MEETING AND
THANK YOU FOR YOUR INPUT TODAY.
WE APPRECIATE IT.
AND I'D LIKE TO JUST MOVE THE
BILL AND THEN WE'LL GET INTO
THE AMENDMENTS AND CALVIN CHOW
WILL WALK THROUGH ETCH 1
INDIVIDUALLY.
SO I'M GOING TO MOVE THE BILL
TO HAVE IT BEFORE US.
AND I MOVE THAT COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDS PASSAGE OF 1198
APPROXIMATE 3. IS THERE A
SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU.
IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED
RECOMMENDED PASS AN OF THE
BILL.
NOW THAT THE BILL IS BEFORE US,
WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS EACH
AMENDMENT INDIVIDUALLY BASED ON
THE ORDER OF TODAY'S AGENDA
WITH STAFF PROVIDING A SUMMARY
OF THE AMENDMENT BEFORE WE VOTE
ON EACH 1. THE EXCEPTION IS
AMENDMENT 6A AND 6 B WHICH
ADDRESS THE REAL ESTATE
DEVELOPER FEES.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 1,
>> WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO BRIEFLY
SUMMARIZE?
>> LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE THAT
AMENDMENT.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO MOVE THAT
AMENDMENT?
OH, YOU'RE ON MUTE.
>> THANK YOU, I MOVE AMENDMENT
NUMBER 1.
>> SECOND.
GREAT, WE HAVE A SECOND, THANK
YOU.
SO IT'S BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED.
AS A COSPONSOR TO THIS
AMENDMENT, I'D LIKE TO, WELL,
LET'S HEAR FROM CALVIN AND THEN
COUNCILMEMBERS, WE CAN
PONTIFICATE AFTER WE GET THE
SUBSTANCE FROM CALVIN.
>> I WILL KEEP MY COMMENTS
SHORT.
COSPONSORED BY PEDERSEN AND HER
BOLD.
AND DESCRIBES THE LICENSE FEE
AUTHORITY IF, WERE TO BE
OVERTURNED.
úAND READVISES SECTION 2-D. IT
ALLOWS UP TO $9 MILLION OF
FUNDING FOR IN 2021 ONLY AND
THEN FOR EVERY YEAR THEREAFTER
IT REDUCES THAT TO $3 MILLION
PER YEAR.
>> THANK YOU, CALVIN.
SO THIS AMENDMENT IS VERY
IMPORTANT.
THERE WAS A CONCERN THAT THE
MEASURE THAT WAS TRANSMITTED
THAT THERE WASN'T, THAT PEOPLE
WANTED A BIGGER EMPHASIS ON
TRANSIT.
SO THIS MEASURE IS SAYING THAT
WE HEARD YOU.
WE ARE MOVING A SUBSTANTIAL
PORTION OF THOSE DOLLARS OUT OF
THE CAPITAL BUCKET WHICH IS
SUBSECTION 2-D AND WE'RE MOVING
IT OUT WHICH WOULD GO INTO
TRANSIT HOURS.
>> IT'S A $6 MILLION MOVEMENT.
A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE.
WE WANT TO THANK ALL THE
ADVOCATES WHO POINTED THAT OWL
AFTER THEY DIGESTED THE BILL.
AND EMPHASIZED TRANSIT IN THIS
MEASURE.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD?
>> I THINK YOU'VE COVERED IT
VERY WELL.
AND I APPRECIATE WORKING WITH
YOU TO BRING FORWARD THIS
AMENDMENT TO ENSURE THAT THIS
MEASURE IS FOCUSED ON TRANSIT
SERVICE.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBERS, QUESTIONS?
OKAY, SO WE CAN GO AHEAD AND
VOTE ON THIS.
LAST CALL FOR QUESTIONS ON THIS
1.
THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
YOU'RE ON MUTE STILL.
>> THANK YOU.
ON THE ONE HAND, I'M SORRY.
I WILL HOLD OFF.
I THINK I'M MIXING UP THE
AMENDMENTS.
>> THANK YOU.
AMENDMENT 1 HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED.
WE'VE SPOKEN TO IT.
WE TALKED ABOUT COMMENTS.
WILL THE CLERK CALL THE ROLL ON
ADOPTION OF NUMBER 1.
>> JUAREZ.
>> AYE.
>> LEWIS.
>> AYE.
>> MORALES.
>> AYE.
>> MOSQUEDA.
>> AYE.
>> SAWANT.
>> AYE.
>> STRAUSS.
>> AYE.
>> HER BOLD.
>> AYE.
>> PEDERSEN.
>> AYE.
8 IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED.
>> THE MOTION CARRIES AND THE
AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED.
LET'S CONTINUE WITH THE NEXT
AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 2.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE THE
AMENDMENT AND WE'LL GET A
SECOND AND THEN WE'LL HEAR,
ACTUALLY, GO AHEAD, CAL.
I'LL STICK TO THE SCRIPT AND
HAVE YOU GO FIRST.
>> AMENDMENT 2 IS SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
IT WOULD ADD A WHEREAS CLAUSE
IN THE FIRST MILE AND LAST MILE
PROGRAMS.
AND IT WOULD REVISE SECTION 2 E
TO INCLUDE, IN THE EMERGING
NEEDS CATEGORY OF SPENDING.
>> THANK YOU, CALVIN.
SO AMENDMENT NUMBER 2, AS WE
KNOW, ONE OF THE CHALLENGES IS
GETTING PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR
CARS AND GETTING THEM TO
TRANSIT AND TO LIGHT RAIL.
AND THERE ARE SOME PROGRAMS
THAT KING COUNTY AND SEATTLE
HAVE EXPERIMENTED WITH.
AND THE VIA PROGRAM IN SOUTH
SEATTLE THE RIDE TO IN WEST
SEATTLE.
THIS PUTS IN A WHEREAS CLAUSE.
WE'VE DONE THIS WORK, AND IT
PUTS IN SUBSECTION 2 E. IT
MENTIONS FIRST LAST MILE
TRANSIT CONNECTIONS TO WITHIN
THAT CATEGORY.
OF EMERGING MOBILITY NEEDS.
IT JUST PUT THAT IS IN THERE AS
AN AUTHORIZED USE OF FUNDS, IT
DOES NOT ASSIGN A DOLLAR
AMOUNT.
IT DOES NOT DETRACT FROM
ANYTHING ELSE.
IT PUTS THE NOTION OF FIRST,
LAST TRANSIT CONNECTIONS AS AN
OPTION FOR THE FUTURE.
SO WHY DON'T I MOVE THIS
AMENDMENT AND THEN WE'LL HEAR
FROM EVERYBODY IF THEY HAVE
QUESTIONS.
I MOVE TO AMEND AS PRESENTED ON
AMENDMENT 2. IS THERE A
SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU.
SO IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED
AND WE'VE HEARD FROM CENTRAL
STAFF AND ME AS THE SPONSOR,
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
ABOUT AMENDMENT 2.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> NOT SO MUCH A QUESTION BUT
MORE OF A STATEMENT.
I JUST WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT
IT IS TRUE THAT THERE HAS BEEN
LOW RIDERSHIP IN THE PAST.
BUT I THINK THAT WAS BECAUSE OF
SOME LIMITED ACCESSIBILITY
ISSUES IN SOME OF THE
NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE THE TYPE OF
SERVICES WERE OFFERED.
THERE WAS SOME LOW RIDERSHIP IN
SOUTHEAST, WEST SEATTLE.
AND THE APP DID NOT WORK AS
WELL AS IT COULD HAVE.
THE FACT THAT THIS DOES NOT
REQUIRE THE USE OF FUNDS, IT
MERELY INCLUDES IT AS A
POTENTIAL USE.
I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT
INCLUSION.
I DO BELIEVE THAT THESE LAST
MILE SERVICES ARE REALLY
IMPORTANT.
AND I THINK THAT SDOT AND METRO
CAN WORK TOGETHER TO ENSURE
THAT SOME OF THE GLITCHES THAT
PEOPLE EXPERIENCE IN THE PAST
CAN BE ADDRESSED AND SO I DO
SUPPORT THE FLEXIBILITY TO
ALLOW THIS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS
ABOUT AMENDMENT 2? OKAY.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON THE ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENT 2.
>> JUAREZ.
>> AYE.
>> LEWIS.
>> AYE.
>> MORALES.
>> AYE.
>> MOSQUEDA.
>> AYE.
>> SAWANT.
>> AYE.
>> STRAUSS.
>> AYE.
>> HERBOLD.
>> AYE.
>> CHAIR PEDERSEN.
>> AYE.
>> 8 IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU.
THE MOTION CARRIES AND THE
AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED.
CALVIN, IF YOU COULD PLEASE
CONTINUE WITH THE NEXT
AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 3.
AND THEN WE'LL HEAR FROM THE
SPONSORS.
>> NUMBER 3 IS SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER.
TO REDUCE THE TERM OF THE
MEASURE FROM 6 YEARS TO 4
YEARS.
>> OKAY.
SO COUNCILMEMBER MORALES.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS
AMENDMENT, PLEASE.
>> SURE.
THANK YOU, CHAIR SPEED CHAIR
PEDERSEN.
>> THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ADDRESS
SOME OF THE PROBLEM.
LET ME BACK UP.
WE KNOW THAT REDUCING SERVICE
HOURS FROM 300,000 TO 80,000
WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE BEING
ASKED TO DO WITH THIS PACKAGE
IS A DRACONIAN RESPONSE.
AND WE KNOW THAT COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR WILL BEAR THE BURDEN OF
THESE CUTS.
AND SO THIS AMENDMENT IS
INTENDED TO SHORTEN THE LENGTH
OF THE PROPOSAL MOSTLY BECAUSE
WE DON'T WANT TO BOX OURSELVES
IN TO A 6 YEAR SERVICE CUT WHEN
WE COULD BE COMING OUT OF THE
FINANCIAL CRISIS BEFORE THE END
OF THAT TERM HOPEFULLY, BEFORE
THE END OF THE 4 YEAR TERM
EVEN.
THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAVE A
PROPOSAL BEFORE US.
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
ARE ENSURING SOME DEGREE OF
SERVICE.
AND BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF
THE DRASTIC CUTS THAT WE'RE
MAKING, WE WANT TO SHORTEN THE
TIME AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
AND WE ARE MOVING THIS
AMENDMENT TO REDUCE THE TERM OF
THE INITIATIVE FROM 6 YEARS TO
4 YEARS.
AND I WANT TO THANK
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ FOR HER
COSPONSORSHIP OF THE AMENDMENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS, DID YOU
HAVE A COMMENT?
>> I AM PROUD TO SUPPORT THIS
AMENDMENT.
I THINK IT IS A GOOD REFLECTION
THAT EVEN THOUGH THE TRANSIT
BENEFIT DISTRICT IS AN
ESSENTIAL AND CRITICAL
INVESTMENT, JUST ACKNOWLEDGING
THAT OUR TOOLS ARE LIMITED, THE
ECONOMY IS SHAKY RIGHT NOW.
AND HOPEFULLY, THE PICTURE IN 4
YEARS WILL BE 1 OF RECOVERY AND
1 OF OPTIONS TO STAND UP TO THE
FUTURE OF THIS ESSENTIAL
SERVICE.
SO I COMPLETELY ENDORSE THE
DIFFERENT TIMELINE AND WILL BE
VOTING FOR THIS AMENDMENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
YOU'RE ON MUTE.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR CAL.
I'M WONDERING IF WE KEPT THE
LANGUAGE AS IS BUT INSTEAD
INCLUDED LANGUAGE THAT SAID
THAT WE DID NOT INTEND TO
COLLECT, IF THERE WAS A
REGIONAL MEASURE.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE COULD
DO.
AND THE REASON I ASK IS, WE
WENT THROUGH THIS SITUATION
LAST YEAR WHEN WE WERE, THERE
WERE SOME COUNCILMEMBERS THAT
WERE VERY, VERY INTERESTED IN
PUTTING FORWARD A REGIONAL
MEASURE AND SOME THAT WERE NOT.
AND LAST YEAR WE REALLY HAD TO
SCRAMBLE.
OR THIS YEAR WE'VE HAD TO
SCRAMBLE BECAUSE WE WERE
WAITING ON THE COUNTY.
I WAS ON THE REGIONAL COMMITTEE
LAST YEAR, AND IT WAS
CHALLENGING FOR THE KING COUNTY
COUNCILMEMBERS WHO WANTED TO
MOVE FORWARD.
KING COUNTY HAD A RELATED ISSUE
OF ROAD FUNDING WHICH WAS NOT
EASY TO SEPARATE AND WILL NOT
BE EASY TO SEPARATE IN THE
FUTURE.
AND SO I JUST DON'T WANT US
HERE IN SEATTLE TO BE LEFT IN
THE POSITION WE WERE IN IN 2014
WHEN WE HAD TO SETTLE ON A
QUICKLY MEASURE WHILE BEING
CLEAR THAT SEATTLE SUPPORTS A
COUNTY WIDE MEASURE.
AND I'M WONDERING IF WE COULD
HAVE A LITTLE FLEXIBILITY.
>> BALLOT MEASURE WOULD GIVE
THE CITY THE AUTHORIZATION TO
IMPOSE A SALES TAX BUT IT
DOESN'T REQUIRE IT.
IT'S NOT THE POSITION OF IT
ITSELF.
A FUTURE COUNCIL COULD NOT
COLLECT THE TAX IN THE FUTURE.
I COULD IMAGINE IF THE COUNTY
WERE TO PUT A BALLOT MEASURE,
PROPOSE A BALLOT MEASURE, I
THINK IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR
COUNCIL TO PASS AN ORDINANCE
THAT CONDITIONAL, THE CITY
WOULD NOT COLLECT IN THE
FUTURE.
IF YOU WERE INTENDING TO
INCLUDE LANGUAGE LIKE THAT IN
THIS LEGISLATION, I WOULD
SUGGEST A WHEREAS CLAUSE
BECAUSE THAT'S A FUTURE COUNCIL
ACTION THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED.
>> THANK YOU, CAL.
>> MR. CHAIR?
>> YES, COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ.
>> I MEANT TO TRY TO TEXT YOU
QUICKLY.
I AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD.
I AGREE THERE'S A WAY TO LOOK
AT THE FOURTH YEAR AND HOLD OUT
ON YEARS 5 AND 6. AND THIS IS
A QUESTION FOR CAL.
WE ARE LOOKING AT 20 TO $30
MILLION ANNUALLY AS YOU KNOW TO
PLUG A LOT OF TRANSPORTATION
BUDGET HOLES. MAYBE CALVIN CAN
ADDRESS IS ISSUE OF I 976 AND
WHAT THAT VARIABLE MEANS.
AND WE DISCUSSED THIS BEFORE
ABOUT HOW THIS WOULD CHANGE THE
PICTURE AS IT STANDS TODAY.
IS THERE SOME ANALYSIS ABOUT
THAT?
JUST MOVING FORWARD.
CALVIN, I KNOW YOU MENTIONED IT
IN YOUR MEMO, YOUR FISCAL NOTE
AND MEMO.
THAT'S WHY I BRING IT UP.
>> SURE.
THE VEHICLE LICENSE FEE IS
PROHIBITED BY INITIATIVE I 976.
AND THE CITY IS PART OF A
LAWSUIT THAT'S CHALLENGING
THAT.
WE DON'T HAVE A TIMETABLE FOR
WHEN THAT DECISION WILL BE
DECIDED.
BUT IF WE ARE SUCCESSFUL IN
OVERTURNING I 976 WE WOULD HAVE
THAT REVENUE SOURCE AVAILABLE
TO US.
THERE ARE 2 ELEMENTS IN STATE
LAW.
1 DOES NOT REQUIRE VOTER
APPROVAL.
AND WE CURRENTLY HAVE A $20
VEHICLE LICENSE FEE THAT THE
SEATTLE DISTRICT HAS IMPOSED.
THE COUNCIL COULD INCREASE THAT
IF I 976 IS OPPOSED.
AND AFTER 2 YEARS OF HAVING THE
$40 YEAR IN PLACE.
THE LAW ALLOWS THE COUNCIL TO
INCREASE THAT TO $50.
SEPARATELY, THERE IS ALSO A
VOTER APPROVED AUTHORITY OF
VEHICLE LICENSE FEES THAT COULD
GO UP TO $100 WHICH WOULD
REQUIRE A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE.
AND IS SUBJECT TO INITIATIVE I
976.
VEHICLE LICENSE FEE AUTHORITY
IS CHAIRED BY OTHER OVERLAPPING
BENEFIT DISTRICTS.
SO IF THE KING COUNTY BENEFIT
DISTRICT DECIDED TO PURSUE
VEHICLE LICENSE FEES, THOSE
LIMITS ARE JOINTLY SHARED.
I SHOULD ADD THAT THE VEHICLE
LICENSE FEE FOR THE CURRENT
SPENDING THAT WE'RE COLLECTING
NOW.
WE DID GET A TEMPORARY
INJUNCTION TO CONTINUE TO
COLLECT AND WE'RE HOLDING MONEY
IN RESERVE IN CASE WE HAVE TO
REFUND THOSE COLLECTIONS BACK
TO LAST YEAR'S ELECTION.
THE FUNDING LAST YEAR WAS A $60
VEHICLE THAT GENERATED HALF OF
THE MONEY WE WERE COLLECTING.
DEPENDING ON THE SIZE, YOU CAN
IMAGINE MORE OR LESS DOUBLING
THE AMOUNT OF SPENDING THAT'S
CONSIDERED HERE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I'D LIKE TO PUT OUT ON THE
TABLE SOME OF THE RATIONALE FOR
THE 6 YEAR PROPOSAL THAT WAS
TRANSMITTED TO US.
I KNOW THERE WAS A LOT OF
THOUGHT THAT WENT INTO IT.
AND 4 YEARS WAS CONSIDERED BY
THE EXECUTIVE AND THEY DECIDED
ON THE 6 YEARS, JUST TO SORT OF
LAY THAT OUT ON THE TABLE FOR
THE PUBLIC THAT MAY NOT BE
FOLLOWING IT AS CLOSELY.
THE REASON 6 YEARS WAS CHOSEN.
THEY BELIEVE IN THE MEASURE AND
WE BELIEVE IN IT AND WE WANT TO
HAVE IT FOR LONGER.
THE 4 YEARS IF WE HAVE IT FOR
JUST 4 YEARS AND THAT'S WHEN
KING COUNTY WANTS A REGIONAL
MEASURE IN 4 YEARS BECAUSE A
REGIONAL MEASURE WOULD PROBABLY
DO BETTER IN A PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION.
KING COUNTY IS TARGETING A
REGIONAL MEASURE AND OURS
EXPIRES IN 4 YEARS, IT CREATES
A CLIFF WHERE WE HAVE NO
LEVERAGE WITH KING COUNTY IN
TERMS OF THE CONTROL OF THE
EXTRA DOLLARS THAT WE WOULD BE
PAYING FOR.
AND SO IF, YOU CAN'T NEGOTIATE
WITH KING COUNTY, OUR MEASURE
EXPIRES AND THAT'S A PROBLEM.
I THINK THAT IF OURS IS 6
YEARS, THERE'S NOTHING THAT
PRECLUDES US FROM DOING A
REGIONAL MEASURE WITH KING
COUNTY 2 YEARS FROM NOW, 4
YEARS FROM NOW.
I THINK THAT'S A CONCERN IS
THAT WE WOULD HAVE LESS
CERTAINTY IN THESE DOLLARS TO
SEATTLE IF WE SHORTEN THE TIME.
AND ANOTHER ISSUE IS THAT THE
MOVE SEATTLE LEVY EXPIRES IN 4
YEARS.
CREATING A SITUATION WHERE IT'S
VERY HIGH STAKES IN TERMS OF
TRANSPORTATION DOLLARS,
EVERYTHING IS HAPPENING AT
ONCE.
AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE
ENVIRONMENT WILL BE AT THAT
TIME.
THE 6 YEARS PROVIDES A COUPLE
YEARS CUSHION WHERE AS
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD WAS
ALLUDING TO.
WE CAN CHOOSE NOT TO COLLECT
THE TAX.
WE CAN WIND DOWN THE MEASURE.
IT ALSO GIVES US LEVERAGE WITH
KING COUNTY.
I THINK THAT COVERS SORT OF THE
RATIONALE OF THE 6 YEARS JUST
TO PUT THAT OUT THERE FOR
EVERYBODY WHO MIGHT BE TRYING
TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO HERE.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR PETERSON.
THAT'S VERY HELPFUL.
I WAS GOING TO ASK
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES IF SHE
MIGHT BE ABLE TO REMIND US OF
THE RATIONALE FOR 4 SO I CAN
HEAR THEM BACK TO BACK.
>> WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS THE
DRASTIC NATURE OF THE CUTS
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
AND WHILE I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IF
WE DO A 4 YEAR, THE RENEWAL
WOULD COME AT THE SAME TIME AS
THE COUNTY MEASURE.
I THINK THAT'S KIND OF THE
POINT.
WE REALLY WANT TO BE MOVING
TOWARDS A REGIONAL SOLUTION
ANYWAY.
AND WE REALLY WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE'RE NOT LOCKING
OURSELVES IN TO A PROPOSAL AND
A PACKAGE THAT IS RISKING
POTENTIALLY, DEPENDING ON WHICH
OF THESE, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS
OF HOURS OF SERVICE FOR LONGER
PERIODS OF TIME, PARTICULARLY
FOR COMMUNITIES THAT ARE GOING
TO BE DISPROPORTIONATELY
IMPACTED BY THE CUTS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA, IS
THAT HELPFUL?
>> YES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> QUICK QUESTION FOR CALVIN.
IS THERE IN THIS MEASURE AS IT
STANDS, ARE THERE COMMITMENTS
TO REGIONALISM BAKED INTO THE
MEASURE ALREADY?
>> I BELIEVE THERE'S A NUMBER
OF STATEMENTS ABOUT
REGIONALISM.
DO YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC
COMMITMENT THAT YOU HAVE IN
MIND?
>> NO, NO.
I JUST BELIEVED THERE WAS
LANGUAGE IN THERE COMMITTING US
TO WORK WITH KING COUNTY TO DO
A REGIONAL MEASURE IN THE
FUTURE.
AND THE LEGISLATION DOES HAVE
SOME INTENT BEHIND THAT.
WE CAN GET BACK TO THAT IN A
MINUTE.
AND I THINK WE'VE GOT
COUNCILMEMBERS STRAUSS AND
HERBOLD.
GO AHEAD, COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR PEDERSEN.
>> WE ARE ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT
THE REGIONAL APPROACH IS THE
BEST WAY FORWARD.
AND WE'RE ALL TRYING TO FIND A
WAY WE CAN PUT OUR MEASURE
FORWARD AND A WAY THAT PROVIDES
THE MOST AMOUNT OF SERVICE
POSSIBLE AT THIS TIME.
AND WE ARE TRYING TO PROTECT
THE FUTURE IN INCREDIBLY
UNCERTAIN TIMES.
I AM TORN BETWEEN 4 YEARS AND 6
YEARS BECAUSE THERE ARE
BENEFITS TO BOTH.
AND THOSE BENEFITS ARE THE
WEIGHT OF EACH OF THOSE
BENEFITS IS UNKNOWN RIGHT NOW
BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW HOW LONG
THE RECESSION WILL TAKE.
WE DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND
VOTER
APPETITE.
AND ALSO THE AMOUNT OF REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION CHANGE THAT WILL
HAPPEN WHEN THE REDMOND LIGHT
RAIL OPENS.
ALL OF THESE UNCERTAINTIES MAKE
THIS DECISION DIFFICULT
ESPECIALLY IN THE TIGHT
TIMELINE.
AND IN ADDITION TO ALL OF THE
THINGS THAT COUNCIL IS PUTTING
FORWARD.
I AM HAVING A HARD TIME MAKING
THIS DECISION.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER.
OH, YES.
>> IF I MAY JUST THE SECOND TO
LAST CLAUSE DOES DESCRIBE THE
INTENT.
IT HIGHLIGHTS THE IMPORTANCE OF
THE REGIONAL PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK AND
SUPPORTS.
>> THE TRANSIT ADVISORY BOARD
MEMBERS MENTIONED THE RATIONALE
FOR 6 YEARS.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, DID YOU
HAVE COMMENTS?
>> THAT WAS MY QUESTION.
I KNOW THAT THE TRANSIT
ADVISORY BOARD EXPRESSED THE
RATIONALE FOR THE 6 YEAR
PATROLMEN 6 YEAR TERM.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'VE HAD
A CHANCE TO OPINE ON THIS
AMENDMENT OR IF THEIR
EXPLANATION WAS IN RESPONSE TO
THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF THIS
AMENDMENT BEING OUT THERE.
SO JUST INTERESTED TO KNOW
SPECIFICALLY WHAT THEIR
POSITION WOULD BE ON THIS
AMENDMENT AS OPPOSED TO JUST
HEARING WHY THEY PROPOSED A 6
YEAR TERM.
>> AND WE'LL GIVE COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES THE LAST WORD ON THIS
AS THE SPONSOR OF THE
AMENDMENT.
AND COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT,
PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU.
I WILL BE VOTING YES ON THIS
AMENDMENT.
TOO SMALL AND TOO REGRESSIVE.
IT'S BAD IN EVERY WAY.
IT'S A REGRESSIVE TAX.
IT'S A CONTINUATION OF A
REGRESSIVE TAX.
AND MIGHT I POINT OUT HOW
STRANGE AND STUNNING IT IS THAT
WE'RE PUTTING A BALLOT MEASURE
FOR A REGRESSIVE TAX AFTE
ABOUT A WEEK AND A HALF OF
HAVING VOTED ON A VERY
PROGRESSIVE TASK AND HISTORIC
MEASURE.
IT'S STRANGE TO BE TALKING
ABOUT THIS.
IT'S BOTH REGRESSIVE AND IT'S
AN AUSTERITY MEASURE.
THERE'S A CUT INVOLVED.
AND I AGREE WITH, A DRACONIAN
CUT.
THE SOONER WE CAN HAVE A CHANCE
TO CORRECT THESE THINGS, THE
BETTER.
AND ULTIMATELY, I WOULD SAY OF
COURSE, ULTIMATELY, IT'S NOT A
QUESTION OF 4 YEARS OR 6 YEARS,
IT'S A QUESTION OF WHETHER WE
HAVE A MOVEMENT TO GET
ORGANIZED AND WIN A FULL
FUNDING OF PUBLIC TRANSIT.
AND ACTUALLY GO, THE GOALS THAT
TRANSIT ADVOCATES AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISTS IN OUR
COMMUNITY HAVE BEEN TALKING
ABOUT.
AND ULTIMATELY IS A QUESTION OF
THE MOVEMENT.
BUT I DO THINK THAT HAVING THE
THIS AMENDMENT IN A POINT IN
THE, AND ALSO I WOULD SAY THAT
THE AMENDMENT FROM MY OFFICE IS
COMING AND IT'S POINTING
TOWARDS PROGRESSIVE REVENUES.
ULTIMATELY, THAT'S NOT ENOUGH.
AND FUTURE COUNCILS.
AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, I WOULD
SAY COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN SAID
WE BELIEVE IN THIS MEASURE.
AND I WANTED TO SAY THAT'S NOT
SPEAKING FOR MY POSITION.
AND ON TOP OF THAT A,
POTENTIALLY HAS AUSTERITY
WRITTEN INTO IT.
FULL FUNDING.
THANK YOU.
>> COUNCIL CHAIR, YOU'RE ON
MUTE ACTUALLY.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT.
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA, DO YOU
HAVE A COMMENT?
>> I WANTED TO PUT OUT THERE MY
OPINION ON THIS.
I THINK THAT IT'S NOT STRANGE
THAT WE'RE HAVING A
CONVERSATION ABOUT SENDING THIS
TO THE VOTERS.
THE BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS
AND WHAT WE VOTED ON LAST WEEK
WAS A LARGE PROGRESSIVE TAX ON
CORPORATIONS.
DOES NOT TAX INDIVIDUALS AND
DOES NOT TAX JOBS.
I THINK THIS COUNCIL HAS SAID
UNANIMOUSLY AND I APPRECIATE
THAT CLARIFICATION.
THE REASON THIS GOES TO THE
VOTERS IS BECAUSE THIS IS A TAX
ON INDIVIDUALS.
AND I THINK IT'S RIGHTLY ASKING
THEM IF THEY WANT TO BE TAXED
MORE.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS BE
SHORTENED TO THE AMENDMENT THAT
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES AND
GONZALEZ HAVE PUT OUT THERE.
WE RECOGNIZE THAT WE'RE DOING
THIS BECAUSE WE HAVE SO FEW
TOOLS IN OUR TOOL BOX.
AND THE 1 TOOL WE USED WAS OUR
ABILITY TO LEGALLY USE THE
PROGRESSIVE TAX.
INCLUDING PORTLAND AND OTHER
CITIES IN THE REGION.
I THINK THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE
HERE.
AND I THINK IT MAKES A LOT OF
SENSE TO THINK ABOUT HOW THIS
COULD DOVE TAIL TO OTHER
REGIONAL AND STATE ISSUES WHICH
WE'RE TRYING TO DO ON OTHER
STRATEGIES AS WELL.
I WANTED TO SUPPORT THIS
AMENDMENT AND ALSO I THINK
OFFER THAT CLARIFCATION AT
LEAST FROM MY POSITION ON WHY
WE ARE GOING DOWN THIS ROUTE
BUT ONLY BECAUSE IT'S ONE OF
THE FEW TOOLS IN OUR TOOL BOX
AS WE TRY TO CREATE ADDITIONAL
PROGRESSIVE TOOLS.
>> THANK YOU.
AND DO WE WANT TO GIVE -- I'M
THINKING THAT IF THE
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD
IS STILL HERE AND THEY WANT 30
SECONDS OR A MINUTE TO TALK
ABOUT THE RATIONALE.
WE HAVE COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
AND WE'LL LET COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES HAVE THE LAST WORD.
ERIN, IF YOU'RE STILL HERE, YOU
CAN SPEAK TO IT.
I THINK WE SUMMARIZED IT PRETTY
WELL.
BUT I WANT TO GIVE YOU 1 LAST
COMMENT.
AND I WANT TO TOSS OUT THIS
IDEA, THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX
ON THE FLY, WHAT COULD POSSIBLY
GO WRONG.
IF COUNCILMEMBER MORALES WOULD
VIEW A 5 YEAR.
IT WOULD GIVE US LEVERAGE WITH
KING COUNTY WHEN WE'RE
NEGOTIATING A NEW MEASURE IN 4
YEARS.
>> YOU CAN THINK ABOUT THAT.
AND WE CAN HEAR FROM
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DO IT.
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
AND WE CAN WRAP UP WITH
COUNCILMEMBER MORE REGARDLESS.
>> IF COUNCILMEMBER MORALES
WANTS TO SPEAK, I'M HAPPY TO
WAIT.
>> THANK YOU.
YEAH, I GUESS WHAT I WANT TO
SAY IS AS WE ALL KNOW THE
FUTURE IS A LITTLE UNCERTAIN.
WE ARE IN A FINANCIAL CRISIS.
AND AT THE SAME TIME, IN 4
YEARS, WE WILL HAVE SEVERAL
MORE LIGHT RAIL STATIONS.
WE WILL HAVE AN INTEREST.
PEOPLE WILL HAVE BEEN ABLE TO
TAKE ADVANTAGE AND SEE WHAT
GOOD TRANSIT LOOKS LIKE.
WE HAVE HAD INCREDIBLE
RIDERSHIP LATELY BECAUSE OF THE
INVESTMENT THAT WE'VE MADE.
AND SO, I AGREE WITH
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS THAT WE
HAVE NOD HAD NEARLY ENOUGH TIME
TO PROCESS THIS AND THINK
CAREFULLY TO DO THE OUTREACH TO
MAKE SURE WE ARE HEARING FROM
OUR CONSTITUENTS.
AND I THINK THAT KIND OF
UNCERTAINTY IS WHAT IS DRIVING
THIS INTEREST IN MAKING SURE
THAT BECAUSE THIS IS A HUGE CUT
AND BECAUSE WE WANT TO MOVE
TOWARDS MORE PROGRESSIVE
OPTIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, I
THINK I WANT TO STICK WITH THE
4 YEARS AND GIVE US THE
OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY SPEND
THAT TIME WORKING ON THE
STRATEGY FOR MAKING THE KIND OF
IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE WOULD
PREFER TO SEE AND THE KIND OF
INVESTMENTS THAT WE WOULD
PREFER TO SEE.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
AND THEN MAYBE COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS.
>> THANK YOU.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY IN
RESPONSE TO SOME OF THE
DISCUSSION EARLIER THAT I MEAN
LEGISLATIVELY SPEAKING YES, IT
IS DIFFERENT.
THE AMAZON BILL PASSED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL.
AND ABSOLUTELY AND I REALLY
APPRECIATE THE COMBINED EFFORT
OF THE COUNCIL HERE TO HAVE
MADE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THAT
IS NOT A TAX ON JOBS AND SMALL
BUSINESSES AND WORKERS.
IT'S VERY IMPORTANT AND
HISTORIC THAT WE PASSED THAT.
BUT AND THIS IS GOING TO THE
VOTERS SO IN THAT SENSE YES,
THE COUNCIL IS NOT MAKING THE
DECISION.
IT'S LEAVING IT TO THE VOTERS.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT'S NOT
TRUE THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHERE
THE VOTERS STAND ON REGRESSIVE
TAXATION.
ABSOLUTELY THERE'S NO MYSTERY
ABOUT THIS.
OUR POLLS, AND WE DON'T NEED
POLLS.
WORKING PEOPLE, THE POOR, THE
MIDDLE CLASS ARE COMPLETELY
EXHAUSTED.
THEY'RE FED UP AND ANGRY ABOUT
THE REGRESSIVE TAXATION.
BUT ALSO MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE IN
SEATTLE ARE FED UP WITH
PROPERTY TAXES AND CORRECTLY
SO.
IT'S NOT EXACTLY A PROGRESSIVE
TAX.
YOU CAN DEBATE.
BUT THE PROPERTY TAXES HIT
WORKING CLASS AND MIDDLE CLASS
HOMEOWNERS DISPROPORTIONATELY.
WE ARE SEEING THE BLACK HOME
OWNERSHIP BEING HIT HARD FROM
PROPERTY TAXES.
OVER THE YEARS, AND SO VOTERS
ARE COMPLETELY TIRED OF
REGRESSIVE TAXATION.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE MY POINT.
NOT SPEAKING FOR ANYONE ELSE ON
THE COUNCIL.
I DON'T THINK IT MAKES IT OKAY
JUST BECAUSE WE'RE SENDING IT
TO THE VOTERS.
AND IMMEDIATELY, RIGHT AT THIS
MOMENT, IT'S CLEAR WE DON'T
HAVE OPTIONS.
BUT THAT BEING SAID, NOT
EVERYBODY OF US WAS HERE ON THE
PREVIOUS COUNCILS AND BEFORE I
GOT ON THE COUNCIL THIS HAS
BEEN HAPPENING.
WHERE THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE
CITY ESTABLISHMENT REFUSED TO
PUSH FOR REGRESSIVE REVENUES.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR
THAT JUST BECAUSE THE VOTERS
WILL BE VOTING ON IT, IT WON'T
BE OKAY.
AND VOTERS CARE ABOUT THE
SERVICES.
AND WHEN THEY ARE LEFT WITH NO
OPTIONS BUT TO TAX THEMSELVES,
THEY WILL DO IT.
AND WHAT THAT SPEAKS TO IS
THEIR COMMITMENT.
IT'S A COMMITMENT OF ORDINARY
PEOPLE IN SEATTLE TO DO THE
RIGHT THING.
BUT THAT DOESN'T ABSOLVE THE
CITY ESTABLISHMENT OF DOING
WHAT WE HAVE THE POWER TO DO.
WE SHOULD DO MORE OF IT.
AND THAT'S WHY AMENDMENT 6A IS
IMPORTANT.
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER.
I THINK THE TRANSIT ADVISORY
BOARD COCHAIR IS AVAILABLE.
I'LL GIVE HER 30 SECONDS.
ERIN IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK
QUICKLY ABOUT THE 6 YEAR RATION
NATURAL RATIONAL.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY.
THE REASON WE SUPPORT A 6 YEAR
MEASURE IS BECAUSE 2024 IS
GOING TO BE CROWDED WITH
TRANSIT MEASURES.
A POSSIBLE KING COUNTY TRANSIT
MEASURE.
AND WITH TRYING TO DECIDE
BETWEEN A CITY VERSUS A COUNTY
MEASURE THIS YEAR WAS I THINK
REALLY TOOK UP A LOT OF OUR
TIME.
SO ESPECIALLY WITH THE
POSSIBILITY OF A SECOND TRANSIT
MEASURE, OR BY VOTERS FOR CAR
TABS, I THINK THAT IS WHAT
MAKES US COMFORTABLE WITH GOING
FOR A 6 YEAR MEASURE KNOWING
THAT THERE'S A POSSIBILITY OF A
SECOND REVENUE STREAM IN THE
FUTURE.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS, ANY
FINAL COMMENTS?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR PEDERSEN.
AS PER YOUR REQUEST FOR A 5
YEAR COMPROMISE, I WOULD BE
INCLINED NOT TO SUPPORT THAT
SIMPLY BECAUSE I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT TO KEEP THESE BALLOT
MEASURES ON YEARS WHERE WE HAVE
ACTIVE VOTER PARTICIPATION.
EITHER 4 YEARS OR 6 YEARS.
AGAIN, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO
MAKE THESE DECISIONS WITH SO
MANY UNKNOWNS BEFORE US.
EACH WEEK, ANOTHER LEVEL OF
CRISIS HAS UNFOLDED AND WE'RE
TALKING 4 TO 6 YEARS FROM NOW.
I THINK THAT THIS IS ALSO IN
THIS CONVERSATION, SHOULD BE
HELD NOT INSIDE OF A VACUUM BUT
IN TANDEM WITH COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES' OTHER AMENDMENTS TO
INCREASE THE SALES TAX BECAUSE
THESE ARE BOTH COMPLEMENTARY
CONVERSATIONS AND
INTERCONNECTED.
I AM STILL LEANS TOWARDS THE 6
YEARS BECAUSE OF THE ABOUT FOR
THE REGIONAL MEASURE TO BE
PASSED AT 4 YEARS.
AS PER THE COMMENTS.
I'M PRETTY TORN ON THIS.
I WANTED TO LET THAT FEELING BE
REFLECTED ON THE RECORD.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES, DO YOU
WANT TO BRING US HOME AND WE'LL
VOTE ON IT.
>> I GUESS I'M GOING TO CALL
THE QUESTION.
AND LET US SEE WHERE WE LAND
AND I'M GOING TO URGE MY
COLLEAGUES SUPPORT FOR THIS.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES, SPONSOR.
AND ERIN, WOULD YOU MUTE YOUR,
THANK YOU.
>> THANKS, EVERYBODY.
I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE AS
WE TALKED THROUGH IT.
IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THOSE NOT
FOLLOWING US CLOSELY TO HEAR
THE DEBATE AND THE RATIONALE.
>> WILL THE CLERK CALL THE ROLL
ON THE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT 3.
>> JUAREZ.
>> BEFORE I VOTE I JUST WANT TO
STATE THAT I WANT TO THANK THE
TRANSIT ADVISORY BOARD AND THE
HARD WORK THEY'VE DONE AND I
WILL BE NOT VOTING FOR THIS
BECAUSE IT'S 6 YEARS.
IT'S 0.1.
AND WE HAVE A SECOND ADDITIONAL
REVENUE STREAM IN 4 YEARS
HOPEFULLY.
AND I TRUST THE VOTERS WILL
HAVE THE VOTER PAMPHLET WITH
ALL THE INFORMATION.
I WILL BE VOTING NO.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL.
>> JUAREZ.
>> NO.
>> LEWIS.
>> YES.
>> MORALES.
>> YES.
>> MOSQUEDA.
>> YES.
>> SAWANT.
>> YES.
>> STRAUSS.
>> YES.
>> HERBOLD.
>> 98.
>> CHAIR PEDERSEN.
>> NO.
>> 5 IN FAVOR, 3 OPPOSED.
>> THE MOTION CARRIES AND
AMENDMENT 3 IS ADOPTED.
>> CALVIN, IF YOU COULD
CONTINUE WITH AMENDMENT NUMBER
4.
>> AMENDMENT NUMBER 4 IS
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN.
REQUIRE THAT A MAJORITY OF THE
YEARLY EXPENDITURES BE FOR
TRANSIT SERVICES.
>> THANK YOU, SO THIS IS A
SUPPLEMENT TO NUMBER 1 THAT WE
PASSED.
THE IDEA WITH AMENDMENT 4 IS
THAT AGAIN WE HEARD THE CALLS
FOR MORE TRANSIT TO HAVE AND TO
PROTECT TRANSIT AS PART OF
THIS.
SO WHAT THIS DOES IS IT SIMPLY
SAYS THAT A MAJORITY OF THE
YEARLY EXPENDITURES MUST BE FOR
TRANSIT.
AND THAT SECTIONS 2A AND 2 B OF
THE MEASURE ARE THE 2 BIG
TRANSIT PIECES.
HEARING THE CALL, WE NEED TO
HAVE A MAJORITY OF THE MONEY GO
TOWARDS TRANSIT BECAUSE THE
BUCKETS UP TO THIS AMOUNT, UP
TO THAT AMOUNT.
IF YOU ADD THEM ALL UP.
THERE WOULD BE NOTHING LEFT FOR
TRANSIT.
WE HAVE TO CREATE THIS
GUARDRAIL, THIS FLOOR OF AT
LEAST A MAJORITY OF THE MONEY
GOING TOWARDS TRANSIT.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
ABOUT AMENDMENT 4.
>> GREAT.
NOT SEEING ANY COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS ON AMENDMENT 4. WILL
THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
>> JUAREZ.
>> AYE.
>> LEWIS.
>> AYE.
>> MORALES.
>> AYE.
>> MOSQUEDA.
>> AYE.
>> SAWANT.
>> AYE.
>> STRAUSS.
>> AYE.
>> HERBOLD.
>> AYE.
>> CHAIR PEDERSEN.
>> AYE.
>> 8 IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED.
THE MOTION CARRIES AND THE
AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED.
LET'S GO TO AMENDMENT NUMBER 5.
>> I WANTED TO CHECK THAT
MOTION WAS MOVED AND SECONDED.
DID WE FOLLOW ALL THE
PROCEDURES FOR THAT?
>> THE CLERK CAN CALL ME OUT ON
THAT IF WE DIDN'T DO THAT
PROPERLY.
>> COUNCILMEMBERS, NO.
THAT MOTION WAS NOT MOVED AND
SECONDED.
AND THERE WAS NO OBJECTION
RAISED AT THE SAME TIME.
>> SO WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO MOVE
AND HAVE IT SECONDED AND REVOTE
OR ARE WE OKAY WITH.
>> BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT
THERE WAS NO OBJECTION, I
RECOMMEND THAT WE MOVE FORWARD
TO THE NEXT AMENDMENT.
THE NEXT AMENDMENT I RECOMMEND
THAT WE MOVE BEFORE DEBATE
BEGINS.
>> GREAT.
THANK YOU, CLERK.
SO I MOVE TO AMEND ON MAIMED 5.
IS THERE A SECOND.
>> SECOND.
>> AND GO AHEAD, CALVIN.
>> AMENDMENT NUMBER 5 IS
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD.
>> IT IDENTIFIES THE TRANSIT
USAGE GOALS THAT NECESSARY TO
MANAGE CONGESTION RELATED TO
THE WEST SEATTLE BRIDGE
CLOSURE.
AND REVISES TO INCLUDE METRO
ROUTES SERVING LOW INCOME IN
SEATTLE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> THANK YOU.
SO AS CAL DESCRIBED, THIS
AMENDMENT BOTH IDENTIFIES THE
TRANSIT GOAL SHIFT THAT SDOT
HAS FOR WEST SEATTLE.
THERE ARE NO NUMBER OF DETOUR
ROUTES THAT WILL BE ABLE TO
CARRY THE SAME VOLUME OF
VEHICLES THAT WE SAW BEFORE THE
WEST SEATTLE BRIDGE CLOSURE.
AND THAT MEANS IT IS VERY, VERY
IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE WHO CAN DO
SO TO MOVE OUT OF SINGLE
OCCUPANCY VEHICLES INTO
TRANSIT, AND FROM 17% CURRENTLY
OR PRE-COVID-19 RATE TO 30%.
THE OTHER PART OF THIS
AMENDMENT SECTION 2A I'VE HEARD
A LOT OF FRUSTRATION FROM
COMMUNITIES IN DISTRICT 1 THAT
HAVE THE LOWEST INCOME AND ARE
FRUSTRATED BECAUSE THEY ARE THE
FURTHEST TO THE SOUTH AND ON
THE BORDER OF THE CITY.
AND THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS INCLUDE
SOUTH PARK, HIGHLANDS PARK.
ROUTES CURRENTLY THAT SERVE
THESE NEIGHBORHOODS DON'T MEET
THE CRITERIA BECAUSE THEY ARE
CLOSE TO THE BORDER OF THE
CITY.
AND IN PART TO ROUTING
DECISIONS MADE BY KING COUNTY
METRO.
PEOPLE IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS
HAVE REGULARLY EXPRESSED
DISCONTENT THAT THEY ARE NOT
WELL SERVED.
THEY ARE AWARE OF IT EVERY TIME
A SERVICE MODIFICATION COMES
UP.
IT'S CLEAR THAT THEY ARE
UNLIKELY TO GET ADDITIONAL
SERVICE BECAUSE OF NOT MEETING
THIS THRESHOLD OF, IN SEATTLE.
AND I THINK IT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THIS
DISCONTENT WHEN WE'RE
DISCUSSING A BALLOT MEASURE
THAT HAS TO BE APPROVED BY
VOTERS.
AND I ASKED SDOT FOR
INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT ROUTES
DON'T MEET THE 65% CRITERIA.
AND IN ADDITION TO 3 ROUTES IN
HIGHLANDS PARK, 1 ROUTE IN
SOUTH PARK, THERE ARE ALSO TWO
ROUTES.
THE ROUTE 312 AND THE 330 IN
LAKE CITY THAT WOULD MEET THIS
CRITERIA.
JUST TO CLARIFY, IT WOULD NOT
REQUIRE THE CITY TO PROVIDE
FUNDING BUT IT WOULD CREATE AN
OPTION FOR THE CITY TO FUND
THESE ADDITIONAL ROUTES.
THANK YOU.
>>> ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS
ON AMENDMENT NUMBER 5? OKAY.
SEEING NO COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS.
IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
SO LET'S HAVE THE CLERK CALL
THE ROLL ON AMENDMENT NUMBER 5.
>> JUAREZ.
>> AYE.
>> LEWIS.
>> AYE.
>> MORALES.
>> AYE.
>> MOSQUEDA.
>> AYE.
>> SAWANT.
>> AYE.
>> STRAUSS.
>> AYE.
>> HERBOLD.
>> AYE.
>> CHAIR PEDERSEN.
>> AYE.
>> 8 IN FAVOR, NONE
OPPOSEMENTED.
>> CHAIR, THIS IS A QUESTION
FOR THE CLERK.
AS I STATED VERY CLEARLY ON
AMENDMENT 3, I WAS TORN.
DO I STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO
CALL FOR A REVOTE AT THE NEXT
MEETING.
I'M HAVING TROUBLE REMEMBERING
WHAT THE TECHNICAL TERM IS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
CAN YOU PLEASE CLARIFY YOUR
INTENT?
>> MY VOTE ON AMENDMENT 3 OR
THE PRESIDING SIDE.
>> IN THE COMMITTEES, DO NOT
PROVIDE FOR, THE SAME AMENDMENT
CAN BE CONSIDERED AT A CITY
COUNCIL MEETING IF IT FAILS.
>> THE SAME AMENDMENT AT THE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING WHERE THE
VOTE CAN BE A DIFFERENT
DIRECTION.
>> SO MY OPTION IF I WANTED TO
VOTE IN FAVOR OR AGAINST
AMENDMENT 3 TO MAKE THIS A 6
YEAR TERM, I WOULD NEED TO
BRING AT AMENDMENT AT FULL
COUNCIL ON THE 27th.
IS THAT CORRECT?
CORRECT.
>> LOTS GOING ON IN REALTIME.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS.
>> SO NEXT BRINGS US TO
AMENDMENT 6A AND 6 B. AND WHAT
WE'RE GOING TO DO IS, WHY DON'T
WE GO AHEAD AND WE'RE GOING TO
HAVE CALVIN SPEAK TO BOTH OF
THOSE.
AND THEN GO AHEAD AND DISCUSS
6A FIRST OR VOTE ON 6A FIRST.
IF YOU COULD TALK ABOUT BOTH OF
THEM.
I'D APPRECIATE IT.
FEES TO BE IMPLEMENTED AS A
POTENTIAL SOURCE OF REVENUE.
6A IS SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT AND WOULD
ADD 6 WHEREAS CLAUSES.
AND 6 B WOULD ADD 1 WHEREAS
CLAUSE TO DESCRIBE THIS INTENT.
>> I MOVE AMENDMENT 6A [
INAUDIBLE ]
>> THANK YOU.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> MADAM CLERK, IF THERE'S NO
SECOND, WHAT HAPPENS?
OR DID YOU HEAR A SECOND?
I HAVE NOT HEARD A SECOND.
WITHOUT A SECOND.
THE MOTION DOES NOT CONTINUE.
THEREFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE
NEXT AMENDMENT.
>> I'M SORRY.
I HAD TO STEP AWAY.
I INTENDED TO SECOND THE
MOTION.
>> OKAY, ALL RIGHT.
SO COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
PLEASE SPEAK TO YOUR AMENDMENT
AND THEN WE CAN HAVE QUESTIONS
AND VOTE ON IT.
AND BECAUSE CALVIN, 6 B IS
AVAILABLE TO YOU.
GO AHEAD, COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
>> AND I DON'T KNOW THAT I SEE
THEM AS MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
AS MANY HAVE SAID TODAY AND
ALSO IN THE PAST, IN PUBLIC
TESTIMONIALS AND OTHER FORUMS.
WE ARE FACED WITH A CHOICE OF
REGRESSIVE TAXES.
THERE'S NO REASON WHY ANY
COUNCIL AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT
CAN'T DO SOMETHING BETTER.
LAST YEAR.
THROUGH O'BRIEN'S
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE, WE
WORKED ON -- THIS IS WHAT THEY
WILL DO.
THEY WILL TRY TO JAM UP THE
PROCESS AT EVERY STEP OF THE
WAY AND THAT IS AN ANTICIPATED
OCCURRENCE.
AND SO THAT HAPPENED AND LAST
FALL, THE HEARING EXAMINER,
RULED THAT THE COUNCIL NEEDED
TO DO MORE WORK.
AND UNFORTUNATELY, THIS YEAR,
THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
UNDER COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN
HAS NOT CARRIED OUT THE WORK
ON.
AT THIS POINT, AND ALSO THIS
WAS RELAYED AT THE BUDGET
COMMITTEE LAST WEEK.
AT THIS POINT, THE EARLIEST WE
COULD, WOULD BE IN 2021.
TO MAKE THAT ACTUALLY HAPPEN,
THE CITY COUNCIL NEEDS TO MAKE
A VERY CLEAR STATEMENT TODAY IN
WHAT GETS VOTED ON THAT WE
INTEND TO DO THAT WORK AND
HAVE, AND MAKE IT CLEAR THAT A
FEE ON CORPORATE DEVELOPERS.
THIS AMENDMENT 6A ADDS TO MAKE
THAT COMMITMENT.
I JUST WANTED TO QUICKLY READ
OUT THE WHEREAS CLAUSES TO LET
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC KNOW WHAT
THIS STANDS FOR.
WHEREAS THAT MY OFFICE IS
PROPOSING TO ADD ARE WHEREAS
SALES TAX AND LEGAL LICENSE
FEES ARE REGRESSIVE FEES THAT
DISPROPORTION GNATLY BURDEN,
ESPECIALLY COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR.
FEES COULD BE ESTABLISHED AS
EARLY AS 2021 TO INCREASE
FUNDING TO BUY BUS SERVICE
HOURS AND DEVELOPER, PAID FOR
BY LARGE CORPORATE DEVELOPERS,
úAND WHEREAS THE SEATTLE CITY
COUNCIL INTENDS TO COMPLETE IN
2020 TO UNABLE DEVELOPER IMPACT
FEES TO BE ENACTED IN 2021.
AND THE SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL IS
COMMITTED TO, TO RACE NO LESS
THAN $44 MILLION WHICH WOULD
ALLOW SEATTLE TO INCREASE
FUNDING FOR METRO BUS HOURS.
SO AS I SAID, 6A AND B ARE
DRIVING TOWARDS SIMILAR THINGS
BUT NOT EXACTLY. 6A
ACKNOWLEDGES THAT, 6 B DOES
NOT.
6A SAYS THAT THE COUNCIL
COMMITS TO ENACT.
AND INTENDS TO CONSIDER IMPACT
FEES.
AND IMPORTANTLY, 6 B, 6A
COMMITS $44 MILLION AND 6 B
DOES NOT MAKE THAT COMMITMENT.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> I ACTUALLY HAVE A QUESTION
WITH COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT'S
VERSION OF THE AMENDMENT AS IT
RELATES TO THE LAST RECITAL.
IT SUGGESTS THAT THE FUNDING
ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPER
IMPACT FEES COULD BE USED TO
INCREASE FUNDING FOR SERVICES.
AND DEVELOPER IMPACT FEES
DEVELOPED UNDER THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT ACT THROUGH ARE
RESTRICTED TO CAPITAL COSTS.
NOT FOR OPERATIONAL COSTS.
AND I'M MOSTLY INTERESTED IN
THE $44 MILLION NUMBER.
I TOO WORKED WITH COUNCILMEMBER
O'BRIEN ON THE TRANSPORTATION
IMPACT FEE PROPOSAL THAT HE WAS
WORKING ON ALONG WITH A LOT OF
COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS SUCH AS
THE AIR CLUB ON DEVELOPING A
PROPOSAL THAT WAS APPEALED LAST
YEAR.
AND THERE'S A PROJECT LIST
DEVELOPED AND A FEE LEVEL
DEVELOPED.
AND WE'RE IN CONVERSATIONS WITH
COUNCILMEMBER, I'M SORRY,
CENTRAL STAFFER FREEMAN TO TALK
ABOUT HOW TO RESURRECT THAT
PROJECT LIST AND UPDATE IT SO
WE CAN BEGIN THE PROCESS AGAIN.
BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT $44
MILLION NUMBER CORES WITH THE
FEE RATE AND ESTIMATES ON WHAT
THOSE FEES COULD RAISE IN THAT
WORK THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN
DONE.
I DON'T WANT TO UNDO THAT WORK
BECAUSE AGAIN, IT'S GOT A
PROJECT LIST AND A FEE RATE
THAT CORRESPONDS TO THAT, THE
COST ASSOCIATED WITH THAT
PROJECT RATE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER, IF I MAY JUST
INTERJECT A LITTLE BIT.
THERE ARE 2 DIFFERENT
AUTHORITIES FOR IMPOSING
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES.
THERE'S THE AUTHORITY WHICH YOU
ARE DESCRIBING WHICH IS LIMITED
TO CAPITAL WHICH WOULD SUPPORT
CAPACITY NEEDS TO SUPPORT THAT
DEVELOPMENT.
THAT'S THE LINK TO THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT ACT.
UNDER THAT SCENARIO.
YOU COULDN'T SPEND
TRANSPORTATIONIMPACT FEES ON.
TO IMPOSE IMPACT FEES AND THOSE
APPEAR LESS RESTRICTIVE.
IT APPEARS IT COULD BE USED
MORE BROADLY FOR TRANSPORTATION
PURPOSES.
BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO TIE BACK
TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE
CHARGE OF THE FEE.
BUT THERE'S LESS PRECEDENT
ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS.
>> AND I WAS ASSUMING THAT THIS
AMENDMENT WAS FOCUSED ON THE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT FRAMEWORK
FOR PASSING DEVELOPER IMPACT
FEES.
SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL INTENDS TO
COMPLETE IN 2020 ANY FEE
ANALYSIS TO ENABLE DEVELOPER
IMPACT FEES.
>> I THINK IT MAY SPEAK TO
BOTH.
BECAUSE WE DON'T REALLY HAVE
PRECEDENT TO FOLLOW IN TERMS OF
WHAT THE TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT
AUTHORITY WOULD LOOK LIKE, I
THINK OUR CENTRAL STAFF'S
INTERPRETATION.
I THINK WE EXPECT THAT'S LIKELY
TO FOLLOW A LOT OF THE SAME
PROCEDURES, INCLUDING
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>> I JUST WANT TO ASK A FEW
MORE QUESTIONS, CALVIN.
AND I KNOW THERE WAS SOME
MATERIAL DISTRIBUTED
CONTRASTING THE 2 POTENTIAL
AUTHORITIES, THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT ACT VERSUS THE PATH
ON IMPACT FEES.
AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
PUBLIC.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE
GMA IMPACT FEES ARE FAIRLY
CONSTRAINED NOT ONLY ON CAPITAL
EXPENSES BUT IN ENHANCING
CAPACITY.
YOU COULDN'T USE IT TO KIND OF
DO A REPLACEMENT OF A STREET.
IT WOULD BE MORE ABOUT
EXPANDING A STREET FOR EXAMPLE.
SO I WONDER WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT
FLEXIBILITY.
IS THERE MORE FLEXIBILITY IN
THE TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT
VERSION WHERE IT COULD BE USED
FOR REPLACING INFRASTRUCTURE
RATHER THAN ENHANCING
INFRASTRUCTURE.
AND THE SECOND QUESTION WOULD
BE DO WE HAVE TO PURSUE THE
SAME SORT OF VOTER APPROVAL
PATH THAT WE'RE PURSUING NOW
FOR THE SALES TAX?
OR COULD WE APPROVE THE FEES?
OR WOULD IT REQUIRE A SUP FROM
TIME TO TIMAL VOTE FOR THE
IMPACT FEE.
THOSE ARE MY 2 QUESTIONS.
>> I'LL TAKE IT IN REVERSE
ORDER.
>> A UNDER EITHER AUTHORITY DO
NOT REQUIRE VOTER APPROVAL.
I THINK THE, WE HAVE CLEARED
CASE LAW AND CLARITY IN GROWTH
MANAGEMENT ACT THAT THOSE WOULD
HAVE TO BE CAPACITY
IMPROVEMENTS.
THEY HAVE TO, CAN'T BE USED TO
DEAL WITH PRE-EXISTING
MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS OR PRE-
EXISTING CONDITIONS.
>> IT HAS TO SERVE.
UNDER THE TRANSPORTATION
BENEFIT DISTRIBUTION YOU CAN
IT'S LESS CLEAR.
IT CAN BE USED FOR
TRANSPORTATION PURPOSES.
THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY
REQUIRES TO BE TIED TO
CAPACITY.
THE DISTRICTS HAVE BEEN USED TO
FUND ROADS, PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION, TRANSPORTATION
AND, OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE, SO WE THINK THAT
IT IS STILL USED FOR THOSE
RESOURCES.
[ CAPTIONERS TRANSITIONING ]
>> THERE'S A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF
CONNECTION WE WANT TO
UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE SPENDING.
BUT IT APPEARS TO BE MORE
EXPANSIVE.
IF THERE ARE SERVICES OR
FACILITIES THAT MORE BROADLY
SUPPORT THAT WORK, I THINK.
BUT THAT'S PART OF WHAT OUR
ENVIRONMENTAL WORK AND
>>> I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH HOW
THE BENEFIT IMPACT FEE CASE A
GHOST BUT THAT'S MY
INTERPRETATION.
IT IS INCLUDED AS ONE OF
SEVERAL ALLOWED FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT.
FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE
TRANSPORTATION BENEFITS SPENDING
THOSE ARE LAID OUT IN STATE
LAW.
I THINK OUR QUESTION IS MORE
TIED TO THE OTHER RESTRICTIONS
ON FEES AND HOW THEY HAVE TO BE
INTERPRETED.
AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE ANY
PRECEDENT TO EVALUATE WHAT THAT
MEANS.
BUT IN TERMS OF WHAT IS ON THE
BOOKS WE THINK WE COULD SPEND
IT ON THE SAME THINGS THAT THE
TRANSFORMATION TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT COULD IN GENERAL.
>>> LET'S GO TO MORE ALICE AND
THEN WE CAN IN WITH
COUNCILMEMBER MORE ALICE.
>> MAYBE IT WILL HELP IF IT
CLARIFIES SOMETHING AND THEN I
CAN CLOSE.
>> OKAY, I COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES NODDING.
I WANT TO INTRODUCE AND PUT
THIS IN BECAUSE BECAUSE
OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF
IMPACT FEES, TRANSPORTATION TO
RESTRICT TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 4 GROWTH MANAGEMENT
ACT.
IT IS NOT MEANT TO BE WHICH
LEGAL TYPE OF IMPACT FEES IS
CONSIDERED FOR ALL OF THE
REASONS THAT CALVIN SAID.
OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT A
SIMILAR PROCESS WILL HAVE TO BE
USED AND OF COURSE AS WAS
CLARIFIED WITH THE
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT
[INDISCERNIBLE]
BUT THE MANAGEMENT ACT NEED TO
BE USED AS WAS CLARIFIED BUT
THERE'S NOTHING STOPPING THE
COUNSEL FROM EQUAL AMOUNTS OF
OTHER FUNDS FOR TRANSIT.
THERE IS NO LEGAL ISSUE AT ALL
BUT IS JUST HOW WE ADJUST OUR
FUNDS WITH ADJUSTMENT HOURS.
THE CITY USES MANY TYPES OF
TRANSIT FUNDS FOR CAPACITY AND
THOSE FUNDS CAN BE USED FOR
TRANSIT.
AS FAR AS WHAT CONCERNS MAY BE,
THE PREVIOUS WORK DONE FOR THE
ANALYSIS WHICH HIT THE ROAD
BLOCK, THE ANALYSIS REQUIRES A
PLAN AND LAST YEAR THE PLAN WAS
FOR $30 MILLION AND IT WAS USED
BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT
THAT COULD BE ADJUSTED EASILY
WITHOUT UNDOING ANY OF THE WORK.
WHEN WE PUT THE AMENDMENT
FORWARD IN MY OFFICE WE
CLARIFIED THAT WOULD NOT BE
INCLUDED IN THE PREVIOUS WORK.
IT IS TO EXPLAIN WHY $34 MILLION
IS THE MINIMUM THAT NEEDS TO BE
RAISED, FOR THAT WHICH IS POSED
IN FRONT OF US.
>> THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING MY
QUESTION FROM BEFORE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER DO YOU HAVE A
COMMENT OR QUESTION?
>> MAYBE I AM BEING DENSE BUT I
AM TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT I
UNDERSTAND.
I NEED SOME CLARITY IN THE
LANGUAGE ITSELF.
IT SAYS IMPACT FEES OF 2021 TO
RAISE NOT LESS THAN 44 MILLION.
DOES THAT MEAN THE INTENT IS
ONLY TO RESET IN 2021 AS A
STOPGAP OR IS THE INTENT THAT
IT WOULD BE ONGOING?
I AM JUST NOT SURE I'M READING
THIS QUITE THE RIGHT WAY.
>> ONGOING IS THE INTENT.
IT'S LIKE THE FLOOR THAT NEEDS
TO BE RAISED.
THE INTENT IS ONGOING.
>> COUNCILMEMBER, IF I MAY ADD
THAT THESE ARE STATEMENTS OF
INTENT.
I THINK THE ACTUAL -- ONE OF
THE THINGS THAT DOES
DIFFERENTIATE THE TRANSMISSION
IMPACT FEES FROM THE SALES TAX
IS THAT IT FOLLOWS THE
DEVELOPMENT CYCLE AND A LOT OF
THOSE TYPES OF QUESTIONS ABOUT
HOW MUCH MONEY IS AVAILABLE
WILL CHANGE OVER THE COURSE OF
TIME.
THAT IS INHERENT IN THE TYPE OF
SOURCE BEING CONTEMPLATED.
>> I'M SORRY, ONE MORE THING.
I APPRECIATE THAT, AND IT IS A
LESS RELIABLE SOURCE BECAUSE OF
THAT. ALTHOUGH I DO SUPPORT IT,
BUT I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT
THAT
>> TO KNOW THAT YOU SUPPORT
THOSE, WE WILL TALK TO YOU
LATER ABOUT THAT.
THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>> I'M SORRY, I WAS MUTED.
I HAVE ONE LAST QUESTION, CALVIN
AND I AM REVIEWING YOUR MEMO
AGAIN WHILE I HAVE YOU HERE AND
SINCE WE ARE HAVING THIS
DISCUSSION, IF THERE IS ANY
LAST THING.
I NOTICED IN THE CHART
COMPARING AND CONTRASTING THE
TWO DIFFERENT, GMA AND
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT
DISTRICT.
THERE ARE LIMITS IN THE TYPES
OF DEVELOPMENT THAT CAN BE
LEVIED.
THERE AT THREE TYPES FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT, COMMERCIAL,
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL WITH
MORE THAN 19 UNITS BUT GMA HAS
NO LEGAL NUMBER OF UNITS.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO MIX AND MATCH
INTO GOING TO BOTH AUTHORITIES,
AND MAYBE HAVE SOME IMPACT FEE
AUTHORITY THAT COULD GO TOWARD
THE BROADER SCOPE OF THE GMA
FOR THOSE CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS
AND LEVIED THE TRANSPORTATION
BENEFIT DISTRICT IMPACT FEES TO
BE BROADER APPLIED BUT TO A
NARROWER GROUP TYPE OF
DEVELOPMENT? OR IS THAT A
QUESTION WE SHOULD ASK THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE LATER, BUT I
AM CURIOUS ABOUT YOUR TAKE.
WE DO A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT ON
EACH AUTHORITY DEPENDING ON THE
SCOPE FOR THE TAX FEE BASE, AND
ALSO THE SCOPE OF WHAT THEY CAN
BE USED FOR?
>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT
THERE COULD BE SEPARATE FEES
IMPOSED BUT THE DEVELOPER WOULD
HAVE TO BE CREDITED AGAINST
BOTH FEES OR CHARGES PAID.
SO THE DEVELOPER THAT HAD TO
PAY FOR THE GROWTH IMPACT FEE,
THAT SAME CHARGE WOULD BE
COUNTED AGAINST HIS PAYMENT FOR
THE TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT
DISTRICT THE.
IT IS SOMEWHAT SHARED AUTHORITY
IN TERMS OF OUR BOUNDARIES, BUT
I AM NOT REALLY THE EXPERT ON
THE TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT
THEY.
I THINK THAT THERE MAY BE
INFORMATION ABOUT THAT AND THE
CITY ATTORNEY WOULD PROBABLY BE
THE BEST SOURCE FOR THAT AS
WELL.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT
CLARIFICATION.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT, ESPECIALLY
GIVEN YOUR ANSWER JUST NOW TOO,
AND I KNOW THIS IS NOT
NECESSARILY THE ISSUE IN FRONT
OF US BUT I WANT TO GET THIS
OUT BECAUSE I KNOW
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON AND
CENTRAL STAFF ARE THINKING
ABOUT THIS.
IF WE WERE TO IMPOSE BOTH YOU
COULD CAST A BIGGER NET ON
MAKING SURE THAT YOU ARE NOT
JUST RELYING ON THAT NARROWER
TRANSIT BENEFIT DISTRICT
AUTHORITIES SO THAT SEEMS LIKE
A CONVERSATION WE WILL NEED TO
HAVE TOO.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
LEWIS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS, I
THINK WE CAN CALL THE QUESTION
BUT IF YOU WANT THE FIR TREE
WORD AND BEFORE THE
COUNCILMEMBER CLOSES OUT ON
THIS, DID YOU WANT TO TALK
ABOUT THE BE?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
I AM INDICATING MY INTENTION TO
VOTE FOR BOTH VERSIONS BUT I
DON'T SEE THESE AS MUTUALLY
EXCLUSIVE.
FOR THE COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT
MIGHT BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ONE
VERSION BETTER THAN THE OTHER,
I WANT TO VOTE FOR BOTH AND I
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ONE OF
THEM PASSES BUT I DO NOT
BELIEVE THEY ARE MUTUALLY
EXCLUSIVE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD.
AND WE WILL CLOSE IT OUT WITH
COUNCILMEMBER SEWANT.
>> I WILL BUT WITH THE
COUNCILMEMBER AS WELL.
>> COUNCILMEMBER, SEWANT, TAKE
US HOME.
>> THANK YOU.
IT IS THE VERY LAST CLAUSE BUT
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE AS A
COUNCIL STATE OUR INTENT FOR
WHAT WE WANTTO DO IN THE
FUTURE AND THAT IS IMPORTANT.
AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE AND I
AGREE WITH WHAT THE
COUNCILMEMBER JUST SAID IS THAT
I DON'T SEE THAT AS A MUTUALLY
EXCLUSIVE EITHER BUT BY THAT
MEASURE FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS
THAT SUPPORT THE VOTES, I HOPE
YOU BOTH YES ON 6 LETTER A AS
WELL.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
SEWANT.
>>> WILL THE CLERK CALLED THE
ROLL ON ADOPTION MEMBER 6A.
>> [ROLLCALL]
>> SEVEN IN FAVOR AND ONE
OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU, THE MOTION
CARRIES AND 6A IS ADOPTED.
>> LET'S MOVE THE AMENDMENT FOR
6B AND THEN WE CAN ADDRESS THAT.
FOR TWO APPROVED THE AMENDMENT.
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU.
6B,
>> THERE WERE MULTIPLE COUNCIL
MEMBERS INTERESTED IN EXPLORING
THIS SOURCE OF REVENUE.
THAT IS FOR THE REAL ESTATE
DEVELOPER IMPACT FEES.
THESE ARE JUST RECITALS IN THE
MEASURE.
THEY ARE SIGNALING ATTENT INTENT
AND INTEREST IN THIS.
THERE ARE OTHER FEES THAT REAL
ESTATE DEVELOPERS PAY LIKETHE
MANAGEMENT HOUSING DEVELOPER
FEES THEY PAY AND THERE IS AN
INTEREST IN LOOKING AT WHAT THE
LEVELS ARE CHARGED TO
DEVELOPERS FOR THE MHA FEES.
WE HAVE THIS AUTHORITY UNDER THE
STATE LAW, UNDER TWO DIFFERENT
SECTIONS OF THE RCW. ONE IS FOR
THE TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT
DISTRICT IMPACT FEES INTO THE
FOR THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT
IMPACT FEES WITH DIFFERENT PROS
AND CONS OF THE LIMITATIONS.
WE DEFINITELY WANT TO EXPLORE
THIS.
THE REASON WE DRAFTED 6B IS
THAT IN ITS SIGHTS SPECIFICALLY
TWO DIFFERENT AUTHORITIES.
IT SAYS WE INTEND ON
CONSIDERING IMPOSING
TRANSPORTATION BACK FEES WHICH
COULD FUND NECESSARY CAPITAL
AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION
INVESTMENT.
THAT SUPPORTS TRANSIT CAPACITY.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD DO YOU
WANT TO ADD TO THIS IN A MORE
ELOQUENT FASHION, HOPEFULLY.
>> NOT MORE ELOQUENT BUT AN
ADDITIONAL FINE POINT IS THAT
THIS AMENDMENT IS VERY EXPLICIT
ABOUT THE TWO DIFFERENT TYPES
OF DEVELOPER IMPACT FEES.
IT WOULD ADDRESS ANY LACK OF
CLARITY IN THE PREVIOUS
AMENDMENT ABOUT WHICH DEVELOPER
IMPACT FEES FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION PHASE WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT.
IF THIS ONE VERY CLEARLY
IDENTIFIES THE AUTHORIZING
STATUTES FOR BOTH.
I THINK THAT IS PROBABLY THE
BENEFIT OF INCLUDING THIS ALONG
WITH THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
ABOUT THE FINAL ON 6B.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SEWANT.
>> I WANT TO NOTE THAT WHILE I
WILL BE VOTING YES ON THIS BUT
I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE
OVERALL CONCEPT.
GIVEN THAT THIS IS AN ADVISORY,
AND THE WHEREAS CLAUSES ARE IN
THE RECITALS, I WILL BE VOTING
YESTERDAY BUT I WANTED TO
SIGNAL THAT.
AS THE CONVERSATION MOVES
FORWARD I WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE POLICY IN
IMPACT THAT WE WILL BE LOOKING
FOR.
>> THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
>> I JUST WANT TO ECHO THE
COMMENTS JUST MADE AND I THINK
THAT THE IMPACT FEES ARE
IMPORTANT AND NEED TO BE RIGHT
SIZED WITH THE NEIGHBORING
JURISDICTIONS AND WE ARE
LOOKING AT THE OVERALL AMOUNT
OF FEES AND GENERALLY I BELIEVE
THIS IS AN OPTION.
THESE ARE WHEREAS CLAUSES WHICH
IS WHY I VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE
AMENDMENTS, AND PUTTING ON THE
RECORD THAT I DO BELIEVE THEY
NEED TO BE RIGHT SIZED.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS.
>> IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON
AMENDMENT 6B, WILL THE CLERK
PLEASE CALL THE ROLE AND
ADOPTION ON AMENDMENT 6B.
[ROLLCALL]
>> EIGHT IN FAVOR AND
UNOPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU.
THE MOTION CARRIES AN AMENDMENT
6B IS ALSO ADOPTED.
>>> LET'S GO ON TO AMENDMENT 7.
I THINK WE WANT TO MOVE AND
SECOND THIS AND THEN WE WILL
HAVE CALVIN ADDRESS IT.
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES WOULD YOU
LIKE TO MOVE AMENDMENT 7 OF
COUNSEL BILL 11983?
>> I MOVED THE AMENDMENT.
>> GREAT.
AMENDMENT 7 TO AMEND 119833 HAS
BEEN MOVED AND IS THERE A
SECOND?
>> I WILL SECOND IT.
ALL RIGHT.
>>> CALVIN, DO YOU WANT TO GIVE
US A SUMMARY AND THE SPONSOR
CAN TALK ABOUT IT.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
AMENDMENT 7 AS THE WHEREAS
CLAUSE DESCRIBING THE CITY
INTENT FOR THE SOCIAL JUSTICE
ANALYSIS TO INFORM SPENDING
DECISIONS AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
BUT THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES .
>> AND MY UNMUTED.
I AM, OKAY.
THANK YOU, CALVIN.
I DON'T THINK THERE IS A LOT
MORE TO SAY ABOUT THIS EXCEPT
THAT WE ALWAYS WANT TO MAKE
SURE WE ARE CENTERING WITH
RACIAL EQUITY AND THIS
AMENDMENT WITH THE WHEREAS
CLAUSE DOES CLARIFY THAT SDOT
WOULD USE THE RACIAL SOCIAL
INJUSTICE ANALYSIS.
I WANT TO MENTION THIS IS IN
KEEPING WITH KING COUNTY
MOBILITY EQUITY FRAMEWORK SO
THAT WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT
THERE IS THAT KIND OF ANALYSIS
DONE WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT HOW
THE FUNDS GET SPENT.
WE MAKE SURE THAT THOSE,
SOMEBODY SAID EARLIER THE
INSTITUTIONAL GUARDRAILS ARE IN
PLACE THAT WE PROTECT AS MUCH
SERVICE AS POSSIBLE TO OUR
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES AND FOR ENABLING ME TO
COSPONSOR THIS WITH YOU.
ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ABOUT
AMENDMENT 7 ? OKAY.
SAY NO COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON
AMENDMENT 7, WILL THE CLERK
PLEASE CALL THE ROLE ROLL.
[ROLLCALL]
>> EIGHT IN FAVOR AND
UNOPPOSED.
>> GREAT.
IT CARRIES AND THE AMENDMENT IS
ADOPTED.
>>> THOSE ARE THE MEMBERS ON
THE AGENDA AND COUNCILMEMBER
ADDED AMENDMENT 8 AND THIS IS A
BIG ONE.
CALVIN, SHARING HIS SCREEN WITH
EVERYBODY AND THIS IS LOCKED ON
SO EVERYBODY CAN SEE WHAT IT
DOES.
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES WOULD YOU
LIKE TO MOVE TO AMEND COUNSEL
BILL AS PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT
8?
>> SO MOVED.
>> IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> OKAY.
HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
LET'S HEAR FROM CALVIN AND WE
CAN HEAR FROM THE SPONSOR.
IT IS 11:53.
I KNOW THIS IS A REALLY BIG
AMENDMENT.
I ASKED THE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO
BE PATIENT AS WE TALKED THROUGH
THIS AMENDMENT, AND THEN WE CAN
POTENTIALLY BOTH OUR MEASURE
OUT OF COMMITTEE TODAY.
>> MR. JUDGES, IF I COULD
BRIEFLY SAY WAS THIS AMENDMENT
SENT TO US AND I WANT TO SEE IF
I CAN ALSO FOLLOW ALONG IN OUR
COMPUTERS.
THAT QUESTION IS FOR THE CHAIR,
SPONSOR.
>> I DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO
THAT.
WE SENT IT TO THE CHAIR BUT I'M
HAPPY TO SEND IT RIGHT NOW TO
THE REST OF THE FOLKS, AND I
APOLOGIZE.
>> THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT.
>> I WILL SUMMARIZE THE
AMENDMENT.
IT IS PRETTY CONCISE AND IT
WOULD CHANGE THE SALES TAX RATE
FROM 1/10 OF 1% AND RAISE IT TO
2/10 OF 1% AND MAKES THE
CHANGES IN SECTION 1 THAT IS
SHOWN HERE AND MAKES THE
CHANGES IN THE BALLOT TITLE OF
SECTION V SHOWN HERE.
IT IS QUIET TO THE POINT.
>> OKAY.
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES WOULD YOU
LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS AMENDMENT
? I'M HAVING TROUBLE SEEING
EVERYBODY SPACE IS NOW.
>> YES, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU CHAIR, THANK YOU
CALVIN.
THE FIRST THING I NEED TO DO IS
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS WAS SENT
-- I ASKED CALVIN TO DROP THIS
AT 8:00 THIS MORNING.
I WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO EVERYONE
FOR THE VERY LATE NOTICE.
I THINK IT IS AN INDICATOR OF
HOW MUCH I THINK ALL OF US HAVE
PROBABLY BEEN STRUGGLING WITH
THIS MEASURE.
YOU KNOW, I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE
THE VERY STRONG PREFERENCE THAT
THIS COUNSEL HAS DEMONSTRATED
FOR PROGRESSIVE OPTIONS FOR HOW
WE PROVIDE SERVICE TO OUR
COMMUNITY.
I THINK WE HAVE ALL BEEN
STRUGGLING WITH HOW TO ADDRESS
THE SERVICE CUTS.
I REALLY ONLY ASKED FOR THIS
AMENDMENT AFTER MANY
DISCUSSIONS OVER THE LAST
COUPLE OF WEEKS WITH ADVOCATES,
WITH THE TRANSIT TRANSPORTATION
PLANNERS, TRANSIT PLANNERS, AND
WITH ADMITTEDLY A FEW OF OUR
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR
ORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTING
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR.
IT WAS NOT MANY AS I WOULD HAVE
LIKED.
PART OF THE CHALLENGE HERE IS
THAT OUR STATE OFFICIALS ADVISE
US TO LEAVE USE -- TO USE OUR
LOCAL OPTIONS FIRST ADDRESSING
TRANSPORTATION ISSUES.
BUT WE KNOW THE CROSS CITY --
CROSS CITY IS INTO THE
JURISDICTIONS WHICH IS PART OF
WHAT WE ARE STRUGGLING WITH
THERE.
I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE NEED
FOR RACIAL EQUITY AND WE ARE IN
A POSITION OF BALANCING THE
IMPACT OF HOUSEHOLD BUDGETS
WITH THE REAL THREAT OF
[INDISCERNIBLE]
THAT NEED IT MOST.
VERY CANDIDLY, THAT IS WHY THIS
AMENDMENT CAME IN SO LATE.
I COULDN'T -- I THINK WE ARE
ALL STRUGGLING WITH WHAT TO DO
WITH THIS.
I WANT TO SAY THAT THE VERY
SHORT TIMELINE FOR GETTING THIS
PASSED, AS COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS
HAS REFERENCED A COUPLE OF
TIMES, IT HAS REALLY CREATED A
BARRIER AND A CHALLENGE FOR US
AS A COUNSEL.
IT CREATED A BARRIER FOR THE
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR.
THE KIND OF RAPID POLICY
DECISION-MAKING LIKE THIS REALLY
REFLECTS STRUCTURAL RACISM
WITHIN OUR INSTITUTIONS.
THE ADVOCACY GROUPS THAT
REPRESENT COMMUNITIES OF COLOR
ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO THEIR
COMMUNITY MEMBERS.
THAT MEANS IT TAKES THEM TIME
TO REACH OUT AND DO HAVE
MEANINGFUL CONVERSATIONS WITH
THEM, AND TO REALLY UNDERSTAND
WHAT THE IMPACT ON COMMUNITIES
WILL BE.
AND BECAUSE WE GOT THIS SO
QUICKLY AND WERE ASKED TO MAKE
A DECISION SO QUICKLY WE DID
NOT HAVE THE KIND OF TIME TO DO
THE REAL EFFECTIVE OUTREACH
THAT WE WOULD'VE LIKED.
THAT SAID, AS I MENTIONED, I'VE
SPOKEN WITH SEVERAL
ORGANIZATIONS AND WE KNOW THAT
-- IN MY DISTRICT, CHINATOWN-
INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT, IT IS
THE MOST IMPACTED NEIGHBORHOOD
BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY
DIFFERENT TRANSIT PROJECTS THAT
COME THROUGH THE COMMUNITY.
AND GETTING SERVICE FOR THAT
COMMUNITY IS DEEPLY
PROBLEMATIC.
WITH THAT SAID THE AMENDMENT IS
ATTEMPTED TO BUY BACK AS MANY
HOURS AS POSSIBLE.
IF WE RAISED THE RATES WE CAN
BUY OVER 100,000 HOURS OF
TRANSIT TO PREVENT THAT KIND OF
ENORMOUS CUTS THAT WE ARE
LOOKING AT.
I WILL SAY THAT IT ALSO HELPS
SOME OF OUR CLIMATE GOALS BY
FACILITATING A MOVE AWAY FROM
THE CARS.
WE CAN REALLY MAKE SURE THAT WE
HAVE A LITTLE MORE ABILITY TO
SUPPORT COMMUNITIES OF COLOR
WHO MIGHT BE COMING IN FROM A
LITTLE BIT FURTHER SOUTH IN
SEATTLE.
BUT I REALLY FEEL WE NEED TO DO
THIS, AS HARD AS IT IS,
ESPECIALLY AS THE COUNCILMEMBER
SAID, GIVEN THE DETERMINATION
WE'VE HAD IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS
TO PASS AGGRESSIVE REVENUE WE
HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO
MAINTAIN THE ROUTES TO SUPPORT
LOW-WAGE WORKERS AND TO
PRESERVE AS MUCH TRANSIT AS
POSSIBLE, AND THAT IS WHY I'M
OFFERING THIS AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES.
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS .
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR AND
COUNCILMEMBER MARY ALICE --
MORALES FOR MOVING THIS
FORWARD.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY
BETTER EXAMPLE OF SHOWING LIKE
THE ROCK AND A HARD PLACE THAT
WE ARE BETWEEN IN THIS REALLY
PAINFUL DISCUSSION WHERE WE
HAVE THIS MASSIVE FALLOFF AND
CUTS TO THE SERVICES OF THE
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT
DISTRICT.
THAT IS COMPOUNDED BY
RESTRICTIONS ON OUR CAR TAG
AUTHORITY, FURTHER COMPOUNDED
BY A RECESSION THAT IS SEVERELY
LIMITING THE RETURN FROM SALES
TAXES THAT WE'VE SEEN FALL OFF
THE CLIFF BECAUSE CONSUMING IS
DOWN.
THE ECONOMY IS DOWN.
YOU KNOW I WOULD BE -- I WOULD
NOT BE OPEN WITH EVERYONE HERE
IF I SAID I WAS NOT CONFLICTED
ABOUT THIS.
THIS IS ONE OF THE FEW TOOLS
THAT WE HAVE.
THIS COULD RESTORE THE INEQUITY
OF THE MASSIVE CUTS THAT WE ARE
GOING TO SEE IN THE BENEFIT
DISTRICT.
I'M STILL GOING TO BOW NO ON
THIS TODAY BECAUSE IN BALANCING
THE INEQUITY OF THE TRANSIT
CUTS, AND BALANCING THE INEQUITY
OF INCREASING, YOU KNOW, WHAT
WOULD REPRESENT AN INCREASE IN
AN ALREADY AGGRESSIVE SALES
TAX, I AM AIRING ON THE SIDE OF
WANTING TO KEEP THE SALES TAX
WHERE IT IS AND MY PREFERENCE
HONESTLY WOULD BE TO BE IN A
POSITION AS A CITY TO HAVE MORE
POWER TO REDUCE THE SALES TAX,
AND HAVE A SYSTEM WHERE WE
COULD INCREASE THE PROGRESSIVE
TAX IS.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE CAPITAL
GAINS TAX, AND THE JUMPSTART
TAX THAT WE HAD EARLIER, TO USE
THOSE TAXES TO PAY DOWN
PROPERTY TAXES AND SALES TAXES.
I THINK IT SHOULD BE A LONG-
TERM GOAL OF THIS COUNSEL. I
JUST CANNOT GET IN THE MOMENT
THAT WE ARE IN TO INCREASE THE
SALES TAX.
I AM HOPEFUL AND THE REASON I
VOTED FOR THE FOUR YEAR LIMIT
EARLIER IS THAT WE WILL BE IN A
POSITION WHERE WHEN WE GET
THROUGH A DIFFICULT FOUR YEARS,
OR EVEN SOONER, WE WILL HAVE
PROGRESSIVE TOOLS. WE WILL HAVE
RESOLVED THE LITIGATION WITH
THE CAR TABS AND EVEN HAVE A
POSITION TO GET MORE REVENUE
FROM THE CAR TAB PORTION
ALTHOUGH I DO ACKNOWLEDGE AND
CAN SEE THAT THE CAR TABS ARE A
REGRESSIVE WAY TO RAISE
REVENUE.
I THINK GIVEN THE PRESSURE WE
ARE FACING AND GIVEN THE
MASSIVE REGRESS 70 OF OUR
SYSTEM, I CANNOT THE VOTE TO
INCREASE SALES TAXES AT THIS
TIME.
SHOULD THIS AMENDMENT PASSED I
WAS STILL VIGOROUSLY CAMPAIGNED
FOR THE TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT
DISTRICT.
I WILL PUT THOSE CONCERNS ASIDE
IF THAT IS THE DECISION THAT
THIS COUNSEL MAKES BUT MY
PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO KEEP IT
AT .1, FULL WELL KNOWING THAT
EITHER WAY ON THIS FOR THERE
ARE REGRESSIVE IMPLICATIONS.
IT IS VERY SOBERING.
IS BACK DOWN -- THANK YOU,
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> THANK YOU.
I TOO AM NOT GOING TO SUPPORT
THIS MAN BENT -- AMENDMENT.
I CANNOT IN GOOD CONSCIENCE
INCREASE OUR MOST AGGRESSIVE
TAX DURING A RECESSION. FOR A
LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND FROM
OUR PREVIOUS RECESSION, WE DID
HAVE A BALLOT MEASURE ON THE
BALLOT IN 2008, THE PARKS A
BALLOT MEASURE.
IN THE COUNCIL'S WISDOM AT THAT
POINT THEY ACTUALLY, WHEN YOU
FACTORED IN INFLATION, THE
BALLOT MEASURE WAS A LITTLE BIT
SMALLER THAN THE ONE THAT WAS
RENEWING IN 2000 OUT OF
RECOGNITION OF THE UNCERTAINTY
OF THE ECONOMIC CLIMATE HAT
THE CITY AND COUNTRY WAS IN AT
THE TIME.
THAT MEASURE PASSED.
I DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING AT
ALL THAT RISKS THE PASSAGE OF
THIS BILL.
WE ARE LUCKY THAT WE HAVE A LOT
OF TRANSIT USE HERE IN SEATTLE.
BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE
THAT DON'T USE METRO.
THOSE FOR THE VOTE AND I AM
REALLY CONCERNED THAT IF WE
DOUBLE THE SIZE OF THE SALES
TAX ON THIS MEASURE, WE COULD
END UP REGRETTING IT.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD.
>> I WANT TO ASSOCIATE MYSELF
WITH THE COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD
COMMENTS.
I SHARE THOSE CONCERNS ABOUT
DOUBLING THAT SALES TAX DURING
THE RECESSION. I AM CONCERNED
IT WOULD IMPAIR THE MEASURE
ULTIMATELY.
I WANT TO RESTATE MY COMMITMENT
THAT IF WE OVERTURN 9976 THAT
WE WILL GO RIGHT TO THOSE
VEHICLE LICENSE FEES, AND HAVE
A DISCUSSION AS A COUNSEL ABOUT
WHAT THE RIGHT SIZES FOR THOSE,
AND THAT WE CAN APPLY THOSE
DOLLARS TO TRANSIT AND OTHER
TRANSIT ASSOCIATED NEEDS. THIS
IS A BIG DEAL TO TRY TO DOUBLE
IT AT THIS TIME. I WILL BE
VOTING NO ON THE AMENDMENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.
I APPRECIATE ALL THE HARD WORK
YOU'VE DONE ON THIS AND I KNOW
THAT COUNCILMEMBER MORALES IS
STRUGGLING WITH THE TIMING OF
IT SO IT'S HARD TO POTENTIALLY
MAKE THE VOTE ON THIS TODAY.
I AM GOING TO BE ABSTAINING ON
THIS TODAY, MOSTLY BECAUSE I
WANT ADDITIONAL STAKEHOLDER
INPUT, OR GET ADDITIONAL
FEEDBACK IF I CAN,
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES BETWEEN
NOW AND MONDAY IF THIS IS
BEING VOTED ON, ON MONDAY, IS
THAT CORRECT QUESTION MARKS
BACK IT WILL BE VOTED ON,
MONDAY, JULY 27, THE CURRENT
SCHEDULE WITH THE AUGUST 4
DEADLINE.
>> GREAT.
I WILL DO ADDITIONAL WORK ON MY
END TO GET ADDITIONAL PAYBACK.
AS COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS SAID,
IT'S VERY HARD TO KNOW -- I
MEAN, IT'S HARD TO BE TORN ON
THIS BECAUSE OF THE REGRESSIVE
TOOLS IN OUR TOOLBELT.
WE KNOW IT IS ASKING A LOT OF
PEOPLE BUT AS STATED EARLIER
TODAY THIS IS EXACTLY THE TIME
WHEN WE NEED PEOPLE DID NOT
WANT HAVE TRANSIT SERVICE AND
REDUCTIONS IN TRANSIT SERVICES,
AND CREDIT MULTIMODAL OPTIONS
SO THAT PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO
TAKE THEIR CARS.
ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT TESTIFY
THIS MOANING -- THIS MORNING,
EXACTLY AT WHEN WE SHOULD BE
REDUCING DISTANCE WE WILL HAVE
POTENTIAL MORE CONGESTED ROUTES
IF WE CUT BACK ON TRANSIT
SERVICES.
I'M KEEPING THAT IN MIND AS
WELL, HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT
WE HAVE THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING
NEEDED, ESPECIALLY THIS TIME
WHEN WE ARE ASKING PEOPLE TO
SAFELY DISTANCE.
TODAY I WILL BE ABSTAINING AND
I WILL BE SEEKING ADDITIONAL
FEEDBACK IN THE MEANTIME.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS. >>
THANK YOU CHAIR PEDERSEN.
I WILL ASK THE BILL SPONSOR
BECAUSE I FEEL I WILL LIKELY BE
ABSTAINING FROM THIS FOR.
I WONDER IF YOU WANT TO HOLD
THIS CONVERSATION UNTIL THE --
UNTIL WE MEET WITH FULL . MY
REASON FOR ABSTAINING, AS YOU
SAID YOU DRAFTED IT JUST THIS
MORNING AND I ONLY HEARD ABOUT
IT VERBALLY UNTIL WE WERE ABLE
TO RECEIVE IT BY EMAIL A COUPLE
OF MINUTES AGO.
THIS IS A LARGE-SCALE CHANGE.
I JUST NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE
TIME.
AS PER MY COMMENTS ABOUT THE
FOUR YEAR OR SIX YEAR, AND I
WILL LET THE COMMITTEE KNOW I
HAVE BEEN ADVISED BY AMELIA
THAT I CAN RECONSIDER AMENDMENT
3 AND I WILL BE DISCUSSING THAT
IN JUST A MINUTE.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
SEWANT.
>> AS COUNCILMEMBER MORALES
MENTIONED AND AS WE SAID BEFORE
THE SALES TAXES ARE TERRIBLY
REGRESSIVE TAXES AND PUTS THE
BURDEN OF FUNDING TRANSIT ON
THE POOR AND WORKING-CLASS
PEOPLE LEAVING THE BIG BUSINESS
VIRTUALLY UNTAXED.
BUT THE BUSINESS COUNCIL TOOK A
MAJORITY POSITION ON THE TAXES
AND TAXES ON BIG BUSINESSES AND
WE KNOW IT CAN BE DONE AND WE
KNOW THERE IS TREMENDOUS
SUPPORT IN THE COMMUNITY FOR
AGGRESSIVE MEASURES AND PEOPLE
ARE TIRED OF REGRESSIVE
MEASURES.
WE ARE FACING A CHOICE BETWEEN
INCREASING REGRESSIVE TAX
AFFECTING THOSE PEOPLE OF COLOR
AND THE POOR COMMUNITIES.
THE MOST BETWEEN THAT AND HAVING
ACTUAL CUTS OR DEEP CUTS TO THE
BUS HOURS WHICH IS NOT A REAL
CHOICE BECAUSE WORKING-CLASS
PEOPLE LOSE EITHER WAY.
NOT TO MENTION IF WE ALLOW THE
CUTS TO HAPPENED WE WILL HIT
TRANSIT WORKERS AND MEMBERS OF
80 ADUYOU 587 -- 587 AND THEY
ARE AMONG THE MOST ESSENTIAL
WORKERS SOME OF WHOM HAVE GIVEN
UP THEIR LIVES BECAUSE THEY ARE
PROVIDING THIS SERVICE AND THEY
ARE SO DEDICATED IN THEIR WORK.
CLEARLY WHAT IS AT STAKE IS
REALLY BAD OUTCOMES FOR OUR
COMMUNITY AND WORKING ACROSS
OUR COMMUNITY WE DON'T WANT THE
DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE
WORKING CLASS TO BE PITTED
AGAINST EACH OTHER.
WE WANT THE TAXES TO BE
PROGRESSIVE IN ALL TRANSIT JOBS
TO BE PRESERVED, WE WANT PUBLIC
SERVICE TO BE EXPANDED AND
PUBLIC SECTOR JOBS TO BE
EXPANDED.
LEGALLY IT'S NOT THE ONLY
OPTION OF FUNDING TRANSIT AND
THE [INDISCERNIBLE]
ARE CONSTRUCT WITH CERTAIN
IDENTIFIABLE [INDISCERNIBLE]
BUT THERE'S NOTHING IN THE LAW
TO PREVENT THE COUNCIL TO USE
THOSE FUNDS PAYING FOR BUS
SERVICE.
FOR EXAMPLE THE CITY COULD PASS
AN ORDINANCE TO INCREASE THE
TAX RATE [INDISCERNIBLE]
AND INCREASING THOSE TAX RATES
BY ONE QUARTER OF A % WOULD BE
SUFFICIENT TO RAISE THE FUNDS
TO ELIMINATE THE TRANSIT BUDGET
CUTS WITHOUT ANY SALES TAX AT
ALL.
THE QUESTION IS BETWEEN NOW AND
MONDAY WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS IF
THEY ARE ABLE TO SUPPORT THAT.
IT IS A VIABLE AND LEGAL
OPTION.
THERE'S NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT
INCREASING TAX RATE WE JUST
PASSED.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE IS PUTTING ON
THE BALLOT THE 1.27 INCREASE
WITH NO TAXES AND WHILE THAT
DOES HIT SMALL BUSINESSES AS
WELL, AND UNFORTUNATELY WHAT WE
ALSO NEED REALLY IS A CHANGE IN
THE [INDISCERNIBLE]
IT IS PROGRESSIVE AND HITS BIG
BUSINESS AND NOT SMALL
BUSINESSES AND YET IT IS LESS
REGRESSIVE THAN THE SALES TAX.
IT IMPACTS MUCH MORE
PROGRESSIVE THAN THE SALES TAX.
OF COURSE MIKE PREFERENCE WOULD
BE TO INCREASE THE AMAZON TAX
RATE.
I DID BRING AN AMENDMENT
FORWARD WHICH DID NOT GO
THROUGH THAT THIS IS A REAL
SITUATION NOW THAT WE ARE
FACING.
IF COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE TO
SUPPORT ANY OF THOSE OR EITHER
PROGRESSIVE OPTION RATHER THAN
THE REGRESSIVE SALES TAXES,
THEN I WOULD BE HAPPY TO WORK
ON THAT AND BRING THAT FORWARD.
BUT FAILING THAT OF COURSE I
DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER OPTIONS
THAT WE HAVE.
I SEAR WITH COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES ON WHAT SHE STRESSED
ON THIS.
I WOULD BE ABSTAINING ON THIS I
WANT TO PUBLICLY STATE MY
SERIOUS WILLINGNESS TO WORK ON
THEM IF THERE WAS ANY SUPPORT
ON THE COUNCIL TO BRING THAT
FORWARD BY MONDAY.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER . I
WILL RECOGNIZE COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES.
ONE MOMENT I WANT TO ALERT THE
CLERK IS OBVIOUSLY PAYING CLOSE
ATTENTION.
WE WILL HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU
ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT, AS WELL
AS GETTING BACK TO
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS'
POTENTIAL MOTION TO RECONSIDER
A PREVIOUS AMENDMENT BUT
ANTICIPATING COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES, GO AHEAD COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES.
>> I WANT TO AGAIN THANK MY
COLLEAGUES FOR AN OPPORTUNITY
TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION.
I DO THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR
US TO CONSIDER HOW ELSE WE
MIGHT BE ABLE TO RAISE THE
REVENUE TO BUY ADDITIONAL
SERVICE HOURS FOR OUR
COMMUNITY.
WITH THAT IN MIND, GIVEN THE
NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT SAID THEY
WERE ABSTAINING, I DO THINK I
WANT TO WITHDRAW THE AMENDMENT
AND GIVE US ALL A LITTLE BIT
MORE TIME TO HAVE A
CONVERSATION, AND HE TRIED TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE BEST NEXT
STEP IS.
I WILL MOVE TO WITHDRAW THE
AMENDMENT.
OR WHATEVER THE MOTION.
THE CONVERSATION.
>> THAT IS A QUESTION FOR THE
CLERK.
DID YOU TELL US THE PROCEDURE?
I BELIEVE IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED.
WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE
PROCEDURE, AND IS IT POSSIBLE
ALSO TO VOTE ON IT TODAY, AND
TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THE
27th ABOUT THIS TOPIC?
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, THIS
IS AMELIA SANCHEZ.
I WOULD PAST AND FORWARD THE
MOTION TO WITHDRAW THAT MOTION
WHICH IS PROPER AND YOU CAN
TAKE IT BY A FORMAL VOTE OR
UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
IN ADDITION, IF YOU PREFER TO
VOTE ON IT AND IT WERE TO FAIL
IT COULD BE REDRESSED AGAIN AT
THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
>> OKAY, SO THE MOTION TO
WITHDRAW SUPERSEDES THE
ORIGINAL MOTION TO INTRODUCE?
>> AT THIS POINT THE MOTION
BEFORE US IS TO WITHDRAW THE
MOTION.
ONCE WE PHOTO THAT MOTION IF IT
SUCCEEDS AND WE RECEIVE A
MAJORITY IN FAVOR THEN AT THAT
POINT -- IF IT DOESN'T SUCCEED,
EXCUSE ME, IF YOU DO NOT
RECEIVE A MAJORITY IN FAVOR OF
THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW THAN THE
MOTION IS STILL BEFORE YOU.
>> OKAY.
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
>> IT IS A PROCESS QUESTION,
MR. CHAIR . THE SIMILAR
QUESTION CAME UP IN THE
COMMITTEE PREVIOUSLY AND IF
THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO THE
MOTION TO REMOVE, OR FOR THE
MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE
AMENDMENT, JUST BY SHEER FACT
THERE WAS NO OBJECTION, IS THAT
UNANIMOUS CONSENT?
>> AT THIS POINT THE MOTION HAS
BEEN MADE.
IT IS NOT -- WE HAVE NOT ASKED
FOR OBJECTION.
ONCE THE CHAIR MOVES TO SEEK
OBJECTIONS AND IF THERE IS NO
OBJECTION THEN YES, WE CAN MOVE
FORWARD.
>> THANK YOU.
THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA AND
THANK YOU CLERK, FOR
CLARIFYING.
FOR ME THE .2% HAS ALWAYS BEEN
AN OPTION AND IS WHAT THE LAW
ALLOWS.
I BELIEVE THAT WAS IN BRIEFINGS
FROM SDOT.
THE POTENTIAL TO GO UP TO .2%
FROM THE CENTRAL STAFF TO GO UP
2.2%.
I AM INTERESTED IN POTENTIALLY
VOTING ON IT NOW AND SEEING
WHAT HAPPENS IF COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES, IF THE CLERK CAN GUIDE
US HOW TO, COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES, TO HAVE THAT
DISCUSSION AGAIN.
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR US
TO STAY HERE, FEELINGS ON THIS
AMENDMENT THAT WAS BROUGHT TO
US, AND THEN SEE WHAT THE
OPTIONS ARE FOR CONTINUED
DISCUSSION.
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS, DO YOU
HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT
QUESTION MARK
>> I MEAN WE ARE DISCUSSING THE
MOTION, RIGHT?
COUNCILMEMBER, ARE YOU
OBJECTING TO THE MOTION TO
WITHDRAWAL?
>> THAT'S RIGHT, YES.
GO-AHEAD.
>> I'M SORRY.
I WOULD THEN SPEAK IN FAVOR OF
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES MOTION TO
WITHDRAWAL IN THE SENSE THAT I
DON'T KNOW, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN, AS YOU STATED
WHETHER WE ARE GOING TO GET A
GOOD REFLECTION ON WHERE WE
STAND ON THIS BECAUSE THREE
COUNCILMEMBERS ANNOUNCED THEY
WOULD ABSTAIN.
IF THREE OF THE EIGHT MEMBERS
HERE ARE GOING TO ABSTAIN ON
THIS FOR, I THINK IT WOULD BE
WORTH DEFERRING THE
CONVERSATION.
I GUESS I'M JUST SPEAKING IN
FAVOR OF -- I WILL SUPPORT
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES MOTION
TO WITHDRAWAL, JUST GIVEN THAT
I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS WILL
ACTUALLY, TRULY REFLECT THE
SENTIMENT OF THE COUNCIL, GIVEN
THAT A THIRD OF THE TOTAL
MEMBERSHIP HAS ANNOUNCED THEY
WOULD ABSTAIN AT THIS POINT.
THAT IS UNLESS THEY CHANGE
THEIR MIND.
THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MORALES AS A
PERSON THAT HAS CHAIRED THE
MOST OUT OF THE LAST -- IS
THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING, THAT
IT IS PRUDENT TO GO AHEAD AND
WITHDRAW THE MOTION AND TALK
ABOUT IT LATER AND TALK ABOUT
IT AT THE FULL COUNCIL MEETING?
SORT OF ARTICULATED THERE HAS
THREE PEOPLE ARE ABSTAINING.
IT DOES NOT PERHAPS THAT'S WHY
YOU ARE SUGGESTING MOVING IN
TODAY.
I THINK THE FIRST IS THE SAME.
WE WOULD STILL HAVE AN ENTIRE
WEEK TO HEAR BACK FROM
STAKEHOLDERS.
HAVE A CHANCE TO POTENTIALLY
HEAR MORE FROM CENTRAL STAFF
AND SO THE EFFECT IS THE SAME.
BECAUSE IT COULD STILL COME
BACK UP AS THE CLERK HAS NOTED
FOR THE MONDAY MEETING
FOLLOWING NEXT MONDAY.
>> I AM INCLINED TO AGREE.
I WANT TO NOTE THAT CATHERINE
MORALES WOULD LIKE TO WITHDRAW
HER NOTION.
A WORD TO THE WISE.
THIS IS WHY IT'S DIFFICULT WHEN
YOU WALK THINGS ON WHEN WE JUST
GOT A COPY OF THIS 15 MINUTES
AGO.
IS A MAJOR STILL SWITCH IN
LEGISLATION TO DOUBLE THE TAX.
I DON'T THINK YOU COULD HAVE IT
BOTH WAYS SOMETIMES.
YOU WANT IT FOR FOUR YEARS.
IT'S A SALES TAX AND
REGRESSIVE.
AND WE WANT TO DOUBLE IT.
NOW, WE JUST GOT IT.
I REALLY THINK THAT WE NEED TO
HONOR COUNCILMAN MORALES'S
POSITION TO PULL BACK HER
AMENDMENT.
HOWEVER, I SHOULD ADD AS WELL
THAT WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING
THE TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT
DISTRICT BEFORE OUR LAST
MEETING ON JUNE 10.
THIS IS PRETTY MAJOR, DOUBLING
THE TAX.
AND SO, I AGREE WITH
COUNCILMEMBER -- WHEN IN
SOMETHING, THIS IS NOT IN THE
-- THIS GOES RIGHT TO THE TEXT
OF THE MATTER.
THE MEAT OF THE MATTER, TO THE
SUBSTANTIVE PORTION THAT WE ARE
PUTTING OUT TO SEATTLE MOTORS.
SO I UNDERSTAND WHY IT WAS
WALKED ON SO LATE, BUT I JUST
WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT I WOULD
HAVE TO ABSTAIN AS WELL.
BECAUSE I THINK THIS DESERVES A
FULL CONVERSATION AND YOU CAN
SHARE AS WELL AND ANOTHER
COUPLE OF COLLEAGUES.
WE NEED TO GO BACK AND TALK TO
SOME FOLKS.
AND ALSO, I REALLY APPRECIATE
THAT YOU GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR THE ADVISORY BOARD TO KIND
OF WEIGH IN ON AMENDMENT THREE
WHEN WE REDUCE THE TAX FROM SIX
YEARS TO 4 YEARS.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT
THEIR THOUGHTS ARE ON THIS.
SO I AM GOING TO SAY THAT THIS
IS THE OLD LADY, THE GOLD AND
IN GROUP.
THERE'S A REASON WE HAVE RULES
AND DEADLINES FOR THIS VERY
REASON.
WE HAVE NOW SPENT 40 MINUTES ON
A MATTER THAT HAD WE HAD THIS
EVEN YESTERDAY, WE COULD HAVE
ACTUALLY VOTED ON IN.
SO WITH THAT, I WILL BE
ABSTAINING ON THIS AS WELL.
>> THINK YOU.
SO TO RESTART THE MOTION I'M
HEARING NO OBJECTION TO
WITHDRAW THE AMENDMENT.
THE AMENDMENT WITH WILL BE
WITHDRAWN.
>> THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES.
>> THINK YOU.
SO THOSE ARE THE END OF OUR
AMENDMENT AND I THINK
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS MAY BUT
WANT TO BE RECOGNIZED FOR.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR PETERSON.
I DO AS PER 1 MILLION FEMALE.
DEPUTY CLERK SANCHEZ.
HAS EMAILED ME LETTING ME KNOW
THAT I CAN RECONSIDER AMENDMENT
THREE OR BRING THAT FOR VOTE.
I'M GOING TO LET MY COLLEAGUES
KNOW THAT AT THIS TIME, I'M NOT
GOING TO BRING THAT FOR
RECONSIDERATION BECAUSE WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT RATES AND THE
RATES DISCUSSION IS STILL
ONGOING.
I THINK THAT THE DURATION AND
AMOUNT OF RATES, THOSE ARE TWO
CONVERSATIONS THAT ARE VERY
INTERCONNECTED AND I THINK THAT
THAT CONVERSATION NEEDS TO BE
HELD IN TANDEM AND NOT
SEPARATELY.
SO I MOVE FOR AMENDMENTS FROM
FULL COUNT TO BE IN TO ADDRESS
THE INTERSECTION OF RATES AND
DURATION.
BUT FOR BOTH ITEMS, I JUST NEED
A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO THINK
ON THESE MATTERS AS WE ARE
ADDRESSING SOME REALLY LARGE
ISSUES THAT HAVE LASTING IMPACT
AT A TIME OF IMMENSE
UNCERTAINTY.
THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
THOSE ARE THE AND OF ARMAMENTS.
WE ARE READY TO GO ON THE BILL
AS AMENDED.
ARE THERE ANY FINAL COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS?
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
>> THINK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
CHAIR.
I JUST WANTED TO CONGRATULATE
FOR YOU FOR YOUR WORK AND
SHEPHERDING US THROUGH.
THIS IS A REALLY CRITICAL
ENDEAVOR.
AND HAVING JUST BEEN ON COUNSEL
FOR ALMOST 6 OR SEVEN MONTHS
NOW, AND HAVING US BE FOR THE
MAJORITY OF THAT REMOTE, THIS
IS A CHALLENGING CONVERSATION
TO STEWARD THROUGH AND YOU HAVE
DONE IT WITH RELATIVELY QUICK
SPEED AND I THINK MADE SURE
THAT FOLKS HAD A CHANCE TO
REALLY PROVIDE TREMENDOUS INPUT
AND GET FEEDBACK FROM
STAKEHOLDERS PICS I JUST WANT
TO SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK
TO MOVE THIS EFFORT ALONG AND
PER OUR CONVERSATIONS THAT WE
WILL HAVE IN THE NEAR FUTURE AT
THE FULL COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON
ANY ADDITIONAL VOTES.
REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS, YOU
ARE MOVING FORWARD TO MAKE SURE
THAT MORE PEOPLE CAN ACCESS
TRANSIT THAT WILL BE RELIABLE
AND ACCESSIBLE.
THE OPTION TO NOT DO SOMETHING
IS JUST NOT AN OPTION FOR US.
AND YOU HAVE MADE SURE THAT WE
WERE MOVING FORWARD AND MAKING
SURE THAT TRANSIT IS AVAILABLE
FOR FOLKS.
I LOOK FORWARD TO THE MONDAY
CONVERSATION THAT WILL COME IN
A WEEK AND A HALF HERE, BUT I
REALLY JUST WANT TO THANK YOU
FOR YOUR WORK TO SHEPHERD US
THROUGH THIS IN SUCH TRYING
TIMES, DO IT WITH SUCH GRACE.
I APPRECIATE YOU AND THANKS FOR
DOING THIS.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER.
SO THERE ARE NO FURTHER
COMMENTS.
BUT WE ARE READY TO MOVE OUT OF
COMMITTEE.
I THINK WE NEED A MOTION FOR
THAT.
I MOVED TO MOVE THIS BILL OUT
OF COMMITTEE.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?
LAST CHANCE UNTIL THE 27th.
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
>> I WANT TO THANK YOU, CHAIR.
GREAT WORK.
>> THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
FOR THE CLERK PLEASE CALL ROLE
ON THE BILL.
>> JUAREZ.
>> AYE.
>> MARIAH ELLIS.
>> AYE.
>> MOSQUEDA.
>> AYE.
>> A IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED.
>> THE BILL HAS PASSED IN
COMMITTEE AND WE WILL BE
HEARING AT FULL COUNCIL MONDAY,
JULY 27.
PLEASE YOU GET ANY AMENDMENTS
OR PERHAPS NO AMENDMENTS TO
CALVIN AS SOON AS YOU CAN SO
THAT WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION
AND REACH OUT TO FOLKS.
I REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S
TIME AND PATIENCE, BECAUSE THIS
WAS YET ANOTHER COMMITTEE THAT
WE ADDED TO OUR PACKED AGENDAS
AND I WANT TO THANK COUNCIL
PRESIDENT GONZALES AS WELL FOR
SETTING THIS UP AND MAKING IT
POSSIBLE TO DO THIS.
THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR STRAUSS
AND EVERYBODY ELSE FOR YOUR
ENAGEMENT ON THIS ISSUE.
BECAUSE WE WANT TO GIVE VOTERS
AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE THIS
IMPORTANT TRANSIT MEASURE WITH
THE SEATTLE TRANSPORTATION
BENEFIT DISTRICT.
I THINK EVERYBODY.
IF THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS,
OUR MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
WELL DONE.
CONGRATULATIONS.
>> THANK YOU.