Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So. Thank you for ending the chat so we could continue with our spending plan. Please read it into the record.
Speaker 1: The report The.
Speaker 5: Full Council Agenda Item 21 Resolution 318 ten Establishing a spending plan for.
Speaker 1: The proceeds generated from a new business tax to address homelessness and housing affordability authorized by ordinance introduced as Council Bill 119 244.
Speaker 0: Okay, so my notes are. Little hard to follow here, but this is what I think we should do. I know Councilmember Swan has an amendment to the spending plan, but in the way it's drafted is to take her amendment first. But we don't think it's logical to take that.
Speaker 2: I think it.
Speaker 6: Should be the other.
Speaker 1: Way. There should be the substitute.
Speaker 0: The substitute we go first, which is basically the. And what and what are we we are calling that D 97.
Speaker 1: I have words that I can say.
Speaker 0: Okay, so why don't we turn to Councilmember Gonzales to present an amendment? Councilmember Gonzales.
Speaker 1: Thank you to the city clerk for providing me the language necessary to get this ball rolling. So I move to amend resolution 31810 by substituting version nine for version four of the resolution and substituting version six for version one be of Attachment one. A revised summary of fiscal note is prepared to reflect these changes.
Speaker 0: So again, we're calling this amendment to two. Okay. It's been moved in saying amendment number two, as described by Councilmember Gosar, has moved, seconded Councilmember Gonzalez. You'd like to elaborate?
Speaker 1: Yes. This amendment makes several substantive changes to the resolution to resolution 31810, as well as the attached spending plan. The changes to the language of the resolution and the revisions to the spending plan reflect many conversations over the last few weeks with council colleagues and others. And I'm going to ask that we suspend the rules to allow central staff to walk us through some of the proposed revisions.
Speaker 0: So you would like to rule suspend in for an explanation. I. Let me hear from some colleagues if we need that explanation, I suppose if you want to.
Speaker 1: I personally don't. I think I have their speaking points so I could go through them if I need to. But. But if people want me to dispense with that, I can.
Speaker 3: It from you.
Speaker 1: Okay. It sounds like people just want me to explain it. So it's a good thing that Tracey gave me these words.
Speaker 5: Councilmember Gonzalez I just wanted to support your motion to make sure that we all have a deep sense of what's in the spending plan. I think the entire council, especially the sponsors, worked really hard to make sure to respond to the desire for additional detail. And so I think it's important that we do spend a quick second on outlining those components, especially the heavy emphasis on housing, construction, capital projects that really are the solution to the housing and homelessness crisis that we have. So I think it's really good that you have suggested it. If you felt comfortable doing it, I'm all for that, if you prefer. Staff I can help. Seconded.
Speaker 1: So I'm going to go through the changes in the resolution and and then let's see how folks are feeling once we get to the spending plan. So bear with me here. Page one has a title change to rename the business tax to New Progressive Business Tax on Business and Change Council bill. The Change The Council's bill number for the new tax ordinance since a new, new bass piece of legislation was introduced. Page one Line 11 changes the amount generated from the tax from $75 million to an average of $47.4 million a year over five years for a total of $237 million over five years. Page one line 20 added A Whereas to call out the disproportionality for persons of color who are homeless and severely cost burden and the ability for the new tax for this new tax to generate resources to address that disproportionality. Page four Line 11 States the intent that the city will maximize leveraging of other state county resources, resources to increase housing units and provision of services funded by this new tax. Page five Section two Changes changes highlighted to the implementation plan, which includes a proposal for an oversight committee charged with overseeing expenditures and reviewing performance of programs and services funded by the tax. It also requests the executive to propose different models for oversight that could include a committee to oversee all of the Human Services Department's homeless investments. Page six Line three States Council's intent to adopt modifications to the city's housing funding policies to apply to new tax revenues. This will result in having existing labor and and workforce diversity policies applying to housing produce with with this new tax revenue and would also include priority for those who are disabled. Page six Line seven request that the executive conduct a racial equity analysis on implement on the implementation plan with the assistance of the Office for Civil Rights and States. Our expectation that the that the racial equity analysis should be completed in a manner that will not delay submittal of the implementation plan to the City Council, which is currently scheduled to occur in December of this year. Page six adds a new Section three IT States Council's intent that priority hire program and new apprenticeship utilization requirements will apply to housing produced with the new tax. This will require future ledger legislation to operationalize. It will provide time to get some additional information from the executive on the potential cost implications of imposing these requirements on housing projects that are being funded through this tax revenue. And I think we all got an email from from Steve Walker, our director of Office of Housing, that discusses the current pilot project that they are doing to employ priority hire. And so some of those potential costs and labor impacts of doing so are still currently under evaluation. This new section allows an opportunity for us to gather preliminary information on wage impacts, and that information will be available by September 1st of 2018. And then a comprehensive evaluation of the effects of that policy, including labor equity impacts, will be completed after that project completion was, which is expected to last about 24 months. Page seven Line four requests that the executive explore models for increasing the number of units serving persons who are homeless, who need housing with light services, or just housing without any services. It includes looking at the use of free land to accomplish those goals and also request that the executive explore how persons who are homeless will access these units within the current all home referral process and then request recommendations on these models to be submitted with the implementation plan for Council's approval and consideration. Page eight Section. Seven adds additional information to be included in the annual and semiannual reports on spending, including wage information will be an apprentice utilization. It also asks for information on leveraging of other resources used to fund housing and other services supported with this new tax revenue. Page eight adds a new Section eight that includes language directing the hiring of an independent economist to conduct an analysis of the impacts of the new tax. The executive will develop a scope of work for this analysis, cost of analysis and submit that to the City Council for approval by September 4th, 2018. And it states our expectation that the executive will seek funding for this work via the 2018 supplemental and 2019 budget instead of from this new tax revenue. Page nine. As a new Section nine, it adds a request to the state legislature to significantly increase the housing trust fund. It requests our Office of Intergovernmental Relations to include this request in the city's 2019 state legislative agenda. And then at the very last but not least, is Attachment E, which is the new proposed spending plan for $47.4 million per year, or $237 million over five years. And as Councilmember Mosqueda mentioned, the spending plan, which you all have copies of, I think it's version six on your ideas. It continues to emphasize the need to fund affordable housing inventory and services through rental housing production to assist homeless households, and also allocates operating and services support. Those are those are social service supports needed that would be attached to some of these rental housing units to allow those folks who are currently experiencing homelessness to access the services they need while also living in a permanent supportive housing unit. So a majority of the funds are allocated to those types of programs, which again are supported by the Bar Poppy Report and the King County Auditor's report that just came out last week. The remaining of the dollars, which represent about 40% of the total revenue generated here, will be allocated for immediate housing needs, including bringing down rents for those individuals who are unable to afford market rate or unable to afford our 32 to 60% workforce housing units that are coming coming online. It also provides funding for master leasing program that that we're hoping to be able to stand up here very soon. There's also additional dollars for shelter, temporary and emergency services. So making sure that we continue to provide funding for enhanced shelters, which include storage and hygiene services and showers, for example, is prioritized within the spending plan. There's also dollars for safety in place, including hand-washing stations, laundry trailers, portable toilets, and a significant increase in citywide sanitation and garbage services through our clients, through programs like our Clean Cities program. But we're also encouraging other innovative models to make this investment as efficient as possible. And then there are dollars allocated also for services for people living in their cars, including overnight parking case management and criminal justice diversion. And there are is also money allocated in this 40% for intersecting needs related to public health services and additional funds for outreach to fund our outreach teams such as REACH to be able to continue to do outreach to unsheltered homeless people. And last but certainly not least is a establishing a wage stabilization fund to make sure that the folks who are doing the direct services we request of them under a homeless contracts are able to earn a living wage.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Gosar, you city center staff couldn't touch that. That was exhaustive and comprehensive. So any other comments about what I'll describe as amendment number two that I believe was moved in second and I believe it was seconded? OC Councilmember actually has some comments and I think Councilman Johnson had some comments.
Speaker 3: Good. Let me just start by saying to my colleagues, thank you, Councilmember Gonzalez, but also I want to say thank you to the people in the front row here. When you brought up that you wanted to have a common respect approach and to put aside all of the wrangling that we've had over the last however many years on this. I couldn't agree with you more. And I want to specifically recognize labor to Dale Bright, M.D. Anderson left before I had an opportunity just to. Thank them personally. But we really have brought together a community that I think wants to have a full on system change. And that's my goal here. I have been working with the city and the county and the state as well on an action plan. And many people have brought up the McKinsey report today and also the Eco Northwest report that came out about six weeks ago. Our own community is telling us that we need 12,000 units of affordable housing. We need $400 million worth of investment to really make make a difference. And that's the common respect approach that I want to see, bringing us together with our county and with the state. We're already underway, underway. And some folks that have left talked about clarity and oversight and saying, well, why don't you have an external auditor? Well, the plan is we have, but we also will end this so that we can put down some goals, a stake in the ground to make make this difference of moving towards 1400 people immediately, to get them off the streets into safe, warm, dry places, and then at the same time be building up to 12, 12,000 units across our county, city and county. That's the only way that we're going to really make a difference here. And I want to acknowledge the fact that. Yes. To an external auditor. Yes. To mental and behavioral health investments. Yes to the public health and safe and dry places for people not just in tents, but in their cars and their RVs. We know that we need to do this while we're also picking up garbage and refuse that is out there left behind that I cannot tell you how many neighbors have said to me, don't even talk about raising more money unless you can show us that you can improve things within the resources you have. With that said, I'm really focused on a regional approach and somebody up here also today said, well, you got to slow this down. The answer is no way to that. We have to speed it up. As Alison Eisinger said to me when I asked her, will 75 million do the trick? And she said, Absolutely not. We got to be moving much closer to this 200, 400 million regional investment. So that's my goal. I'm concerned that we're really close with the spending plan, but I would still like to have the mayor weigh in on this with a Human Services Department. The numbers are there. I think we just need to make sure that we know precisely where we're going with our partners. So I'm going to be working with you closely on this. It's coming back to my committee, I believe, in two weeks. I'd like to make sure that we're committed to moving forward. I'm not going to be supporting this today, but I commit to completely working with you and make sure it happens in the next couple of weeks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Bagshaw, Councilmember Johnson or anyone else? Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 2: I just wanted to ask a.
Speaker 4: Couple of questions about this one, if you don't mind, Councilmember Gonzales sort of filling in for central staff.
Speaker 1: I will not purport to fill in for essential staff. If you have a question that I cannot answer, I will ask central staff to answer it for you.
Speaker 3: You know, for me.
Speaker 4: I'd be curious about whether or not there's the willingness to have the spending plan.
Speaker 2: Which is really the.
Speaker 4: Resolution in and of itself, referring to the spending plan. So they're both sort of inextricably linked together. If there's a willingness to have that, go back to the Finance Committee for another week or two of discussion. And the reason why I asked that question is because I think.
Speaker 3: Late breaking.
Speaker 2: Investment numbers about what is the grand total that we would raise.
Speaker 4: Kind of only came together yesterday. We got this proposed spending plan at midnight last night.
Speaker 2: And I think that there's a lot in here to like.
Speaker 4: But I struggle with a couple of elements of it. One, I don't really know how this plan in or relates to the.
Speaker 2: New funding that's coming to the city and the county from the state.
Speaker 4: I also want to make sure that we avoid another fight about the expenditure of these dollars as part of the budget process and feel like, you know, another now that we know that the threshold is at $275 per head, and we.
Speaker 2: Know that the number.
Speaker 4: Now is a little less than $50 million per year. I wonder if a little more time and space would allow for us to avoid that budget fight.
Speaker 3: In November.
Speaker 4: And get to a point where everybody can agree. I mean, again, I think that.
Speaker 2: There's a lot in both the resolution and the attached spending.
Speaker 4: Plan to like. But I think that there a couple more weeks of discussion would allow for us to really understand that in a relationship of all those things. And I wonder if there's an interest. Holding this item for a couple of weeks to discuss those. Or if there's not, I understand, but that would inform my opinion about how to vote today.
Speaker 1: So I think there's a couple. So just said clearly, answer your question. No, I'm not interested in holding the resolution over for another two weeks. And we have I'm we have made a motion. It has been seconded. And so my expectation is that we deal with that motion first before any other motion is introduced related to this resolution. So I will just say that this is a spending plan that in structure has not fundamentally changed from identified categories of investment from the base ordinance that we introduced in March. The only difference in these in this spending plan is the proportional level of investment in identified categories that have been ratcheted down because we are now at a 275 per FTE taxation rate. But the priorities represented here have not fundamentally shifted since we first introduced this bill. So I, you know, really from my perspective, the only thing has changed is how much we're funding in those buckets. But the buckets themselves have not changed significantly, if at all, since we introduced introduced the bill. And so I continue to be supportive of of advancing this through our process today. And and I think that the how we have allocated the dollars in terms of 60% for housing and 40% for immediate shelter, housing and services, strikes, strikes , the right balance in that has effectively been the models from the get go. And back then it was 75% in housing and 20% in in human health services. So we've we've allocated an additional 20% of the funding to the immediate shelter, housing and services in response to some of the concerns and requests that we've heard from councilmembers , including yourself, to have a more significant investment in those immediate shelter, housing services buckets. And we feel like I feel like we have been responsive to that request and that that is reflected in the spending plan that is attached to this resolution.
Speaker 0: Oak Cliff Councilmember Becky shows and. Q Thank.
Speaker 3: You. Thank you. The one thing I noticed, Councilmember Gonzales, is that we have not yet addressed the 184 permanent supportive housing and transition housing beds that will go offline. And this current model also does not address the 240 new shelter beds and the 454 shelter beds that will go offline for a net loss of 214 shelter beds . So I'm not arguing that your buckets aren't correct. I don't feel like we've just nailed the numbers, and that's all I'm asking for. Well, is for us to dove in and make sure that we all are in agreement on this. And I also really want to appreciate and acknowledge the fact that we we want to have more of the mental health behavioral health approach. And to be clear that we are investing in that so we can move people off the streets into healthy places. Those are my concerns. Not that I don't think that we've moved a long way. We have and like Councilmember Johnson says, there's a lot to like. And I want to make sure we're all in agreement on that.
Speaker 0: We finished. And that councilmember mascot, I believe.
Speaker 4: Is in your response.
Speaker 5: Thank you so much, Mr. President. And thank you, Councilmember Johnson, for your suggestion. I hear you that we want to make sure that our entire council has the chance to provide comments and feedback. And I think that what the opportunity that's been presented in this bill does is it asked for an implementation plan from the executive that allows us to then have another conversation in community and committee about whether or not that implementation plan is meeting the values of this Council. And while I hear you, I also think that the spending plan that's been put forth for us and has been available in this format for about a month or so, still reflects those values of wanting to see the majority of funding going into building the housing necessary for folks to be able to get out of shelter and thus create the ability for us to move more folks who are currently on the streets into shelter. I am going to support the spending plan because I think it does center our spending approach based on the experience of those who are experiencing homelessness. And based on the research and data that comes directly from those who are working with the homeless population and make sure that we're investing in permanent housing and programs such as master leasing, because that's how we can open new beds in our community and actually create housing and shelter options. I agree that there's going to be a longer conversation that's going to be necessary come budget time. Councilmember, back door to your term point and in your committee, I know we have a lot of work to do to address some of the shelters that are going to go offline. But these dollars, in my mind, are supposed to be in addition to the conversation that we're already having and we're trying to make sure that we're trying to make sure that we both hear from the social workers, those who are experiencing homelessness. The housing advocates and experts have all said what we need most is the creation of housing units. And right now we don't have the funding to do that. So the the the spending plan in front of you has approximately 65% of the funds really being prioritized into housing. And given that this is a resolution, I think it sets out a very clear statement about our priorities. In terms of process, I am hoping that through the implementation plan, through the committee committee discussion, we will be able to get into some some of those additional details. Mr. President, if I might also there's two other components on the spending plan that I think require some urgency and attention as well. We talked a little bit earlier about the vulnerable community members who are experiencing homelessness and on the verge of falling into homelessness, being served by individuals who they themselves may be homeless or about to fall into homelessness because of their wages and workforce instability. We have organizations right now that have about a 35% vacancy rate, somewhere up to 40, 45% overturn rates. We cannot create stability for a community if the workforce that provides those services doesn't have the stability that they need to stay in that job. So I appreciate the incredible work that's gone into making sure that we're beginning to address this. There is obviously a sly statement of legislative intent that the council worked on last year. There's the audit that Councilmember Gonzalez has championed with HRC to make sure that we can get a better understanding of how we can better stabilize the workforce. I think that the recognition that the spending plan puts into place is that we have to stop the bleeding and that we need to have a longer term solution. But this is a down payment in that attempt to create true workforce stability. We also know that there is our navigation team informs us that we need to be able to provide immediate shelter for those who are on the street right now, for people with pets and belongings and couples, people who want to feel safe. And we need to quickly open shelters, which I know, Councilmember Ragsdale, you and I share. We have got to create safe and warm places for folks to go. But the reason that I think we see 65% of the funding really going to capital projects is because the long term is to get folks out of shelter. And I think that's what that's what this spending plan reflects. And lastly, I just want to thank again the Council for your support earlier in conversations. I know we haven't voted on it yet, but I got some very positive feedback from many of you for the capital projects that I have been working on in Section three here . The amendment on page six really does provide an intent that our council will work to identify ways for this spending plan, to mirror our commitment to building housing with workforce agreements that include priority hire, prevailing wage, and making necessary adjustments so that we can have more apprenticeship utilization requirements on these incredible housing projects that were that we're building. This comes directly from feedback that we heard from workers themselves on the front line, from labor leaders. And I think it is it's about listening to folks putting pen to paper and crafting policies that we will stay true to. But. Will require a lot of work. So I understand this is a resolution, but I do believe that it sets forth our values. And I would love to be able to move this out today with your support.
Speaker 0: Thank you, guys, very much. Data. Councilman Herbold, were you in queue?
Speaker 1: I am in the queue. Thank you. I just want to speak to my.
Speaker 3: Support for.
Speaker 1: This resolution and the accompanying spending plan. I want to do so with reflecting on what specifically we are looking for from the executive in an implementation plan on or before December 14th. That implementation plan will include proposed outcomes for each funded program or service. How the programs or services will be implemented. Propose policies for implemented funding, funded programs or services, as well as a proposal for an oversight committee. The most important are some other requirements, but I think the most important part of this as it relates to this particular conversation is part of the implementation plan will be a specific spending proposal for years, one through five of the new business tax. And so I think that element is particularly important as it relates to the fact that this is a values document. It's not a to the penny how the money is going to be spent document. Those are the conversations that we're going to be having once we receive a proposed implementation plan from from the executive.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Herbold, Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I will also be supporting this amendment. I think that this is a great step in the right direction. I want to highlight that two thirds of the funding over the five years will be going towards additional affordable housing, which is a priority customer base. I appreciate you identifying that there are some gaps. Clearly, when we stepped down from 75 million to under $50 million, we leave a bunch of gaps. And you highlighted some I know there are a bunch others. And frankly, I'm going to be looking for the mayor to figure out how to fill those gaps as we go forward . But we need to build affordable housing, there's no question there. And so I think that needs to continue to be prioritized. I look forward to the work that we will all be doing in the coming months as we move towards implementation of this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Any further comments? I'll just sort of signal, folks. I think a lot of work and a lot of thought with behind this spending plan. And for that, I appreciate it. And I agree that it is somewhat high level and gives us some wiggle room as we think about what investments make sense now. So I would agree that it hasn't changed dramatically from the initial base legislation. My concerns is my concern is more of a process issue. And that is this is a new revenue stream, about 237 million over five years, as we all know, roughly about $50 million a year. And if there's one thing I don't think we've I personally don't think we've convinced the public is that our plan is a is the right plan or a strategic. And we are pulling on the resources of all around us. We might there might be real estate expertize or software developers who could lend us a hand and there might be other types of extra. For example, I think someone giggled. Someone talked about developing at their cost in a system by which on a second's notice we could look at all the available shelter, what needs a person has , and how that particular unit could match with that particular person on a real time basis. They would develop that at their time. And so that kind of thinking outside the box, given the fact that I think this revenue stream will not get implemented till next year, that I don't see why a few weeks or even a few months for that matter, why we wouldn't take advantage of it. It seems very apparent that a lot of my colleagues are very supportive and willing to move forward with this resolution. I get that. So I think it will pass. But if I had my druthers, we would be a little more strategic and take a little more time, given the fact that we just voted on what the revenue amounts were going to be a few minutes ago. But having said that, I think we are ready to vote. Okay. Let's see, we have a resolution follow of this. So this is just an amendment. So an amendment number two has been moved. And second, it all those and correct amendment number two. So I'm referring to okay, amendment number two has been moved to second. And all those in favor, please say I and raise your hand, I.
Speaker 1: Oh, I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: All those opposed. Say no one. Raise your hand. No. So what does that five do for the amendment passes and now. I think we have should we take councilmember from our resolution now? So I'll refer that as an amendment number three. And Councilmember Swansea, you like to introduce resolution amendment number three and please describe it.
Speaker 6: Do I have to move it?
Speaker 0: You can move it and get second and then we can go from there. We could formally move it.
Speaker 6: In Amendment three now.
Speaker 0: Amendment number three is.
Speaker 6: Like to move Amendment three for consideration.
Speaker 0: You know, it's been moved in Second Amendment. Everything's and moved in second. And please describe the amendment.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 6: Josh I just want to recognize that what we're discussing right now is a nonbinding resolution. And ultimately, the decisions that council will make during the budget season in the fall will be the more legally binding decision. But the direction provided by the resolution will be used by the council gone budget time. And I hope that the Council will vote to redirect funding away from the inhumane and ineffective policy of sweeps at that time and use those millions. And use those millions instead to build quality, affordable housing units and for services that actually work for homeless community members. When we discussed the sweep of the Ribbon Awards in my committee meeting a couple of weeks ago, I was really struck by how many times the same people had been swept. The residents of the Ramona encampment who presented at the table said they had been swept from that one location five times in the last year. A real change vendor who spoke that same day in public comments said he had been swept eight times. These millions of dollars are not getting people into any kind of better situation. They simply move them from one, accept unacceptable location to another. And every time a sweep happens. These human beings, let's remember, they are human beings. They lose their belongings. Every time there's a sweep, you lose everything you have. There are many residents who came. It was really poignant when they were talking about how their belongings, things that they used to make a living off of were just a pile, you know, a three foot pile of garbage by the time they but by the time the sweep was done and it actually said, are homeless community members worse to be worse off, not better off to get out of homelessness? Even the people who support the sweeps and I understand that some actually some genuine people might be supporting it because they don't know what else can be done. But even you have to recognize that they haven't been effective. We've had millions of dollars spent on sweeps every single year. Has that addressed homelessness? No. I mean, regardless of what side you're on ideologically, I think you you should recognize that data. It's not working. It hasn't worked. And so and the reason it's not working is because we're talking about human beings who cannot who cannot simply disappear and who should not have to simply disappear. They have to go somewhere. This amendment, to put it in very simple terms, says in there, as in the resolution, that none of the revenues that will be raised through the tax that we just voted on a few minutes ago could be used for sweeps. I think. I think any of the revenues from the tax were used for the sweeping of homeless people. It would be a real slap in the face to the homeless activists and advocates who have put so much time into building a movement to raise funds for affordable housing, to then turn around and use that money instead to harass and harm them with escalated sweeps.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilor Swan. This motion has been moved and this amendment has been moved. And second. And then any further comments about Councilmember Swans amendment? Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 1: Thank you to the issue of the city's practices regarding encampment removals. I do agree that the current practices aren't working. They're not working for people. They're not working for for communities living around encampments. But I want to speak to the fact that this council endorsed a work plan for monitoring and oversight of the city's encampment removal policies in in late November. Through the budget process and through that budget process, we voted to first move the work of the navigation team to the Human Services Department with an understanding that by having the Human Services Department oversee this work, we can be assured that these practices will be done with more of a person centered approach. Last month we received a report from the Human Services Department and FARC where they were. This work is currently how housed on how they intend to do that. We need to talk more about what the Human Services Department and FARC proposed to do, and we will. Secondly, we voted to receive weekly reports for the following weeks encampment removal. So we receive a report in advance of all of the activities of the navigation teams one week in advance. We receive them every week. We review them, discuss them in in council committee, share them with advocates who document the city's practices and share their critiques of those practices with us. Thirdly, we voted to reform the practices and desired outcomes of the navigation teams consistent with a theory of change that was prepared by the city auditor. We will also hear the recommendations consistent with this theory of change next month. So again, our efforts to reform the practices related to encampment removals is is much of what what city hall does is incremental and iterative. And I know that that's frustrating. And I know when we're talking about people's lives, it is particularly frustrating. But this is an approach that that we agreed to take. Finally, the Office of Civil Rights in their 2017 monitoring report has recommendations for changes in the encampment removal policies that I will be hearing in my committee later this month. And then finally, I just want to note that although the orders allow those are the encampment removal policies allow for immediate removal of encampments that are obstructions or in the right of way or in parks. The practices that the cities actually follows for those encampments is to also, despite what the policies allow them to do, is, is , is to also give prior notice, outreach and storage of personal property. In this way, the executive has voluntarily agreed to shift from their own practices that allow for immediate removal. This is the course that we agreed to to monitor these practices five months ago, and it's the course I.
Speaker 3: Support continuing to move forward.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Herbold, Councilwoman Mosquito.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. As you began the conversation about the spending plan, one of the things that I think you said that was so powerful is we are looking for unity and not creating division unnecessarily. And I think the unified message that just came from council a minute ago was that we all agree that we need additional progressive revenue to create housing and provide services to those who are homeless. But I, I want to make it very clear, I do not support sweeps. I cannot support sweeping people from corner to corner. It is not a way to treat folks humanely and with respect. And if we want to treat people with respect and dignity that they deserve, they themselves, their possessions, their pets, their loved ones. The best way to do that is by building housing. The best way to do that is by investing in shelter. And the best way to make sure that we create permanent supportive housing is to stay focused on the plan and really making sure that we provide input on it. But to to to underscore what we just did was we built the housing and shelter necessary. I think it's a distraction to think that well, I think it's a false dichotomy that when there is actually none, when we create the housing and shelter necessary, then we will ask folks in a respectful way to go inside. I can't support this amendment, though, because I think it goes slightly counter to what we just said. The best way to make sure that we're respecting folks is by creating the housing and shelter that we need. So I am hopeful that we will be able to get to a90 vote on an implementation plan. I am hopeful that will have unanimous, unanimous support. Or on this type of resolution when it comes forward. But I think that what we need to send a message out to the community is the best way to get folks off the street is not by sweetening them, but by putting them into shelters. I'm voting no on this amendment because I think that we need to stay focus on building those shelters and housing.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Casper Mosquito. Okay. I think we are soon going to close debate on the amendment.
Speaker 6: I appreciate all the details that were provided about how the rules should be followed and all the monitoring that the council and the mayor's office are, or at least the mayor's office is supposed to be doing. Unfortunately, the cases that all the monitoring was in effect when the Ravenna sweep happened recently, and I support all the work continuing to better monitor the work that is happening in the form of sweeps. However, I think it is important for the Council to state its intent that if you're against sweep in all these beaches I've indicated they're against sweep. Why then why don't you just vote an amendment that is against sweeps? I don't understand that.
Speaker 7: And and as.
Speaker 6: I said before, this is a non-binding resolution. Our work will not be done. I mean, I don't expect this amendment to pass, but even if it passed, our work would not have been done. The real work will have to come after ah, after this, you know, after you all take a breather, because we're all exhausted. But it will come during the people's budget movement. As you know, this the question of sweeps became a big issue because our movement, people's budget movement last year made this an issue. It put us on the map of Seattle politics. But here I think we're talking about something very specific. Specific. We now have a new revenue source, a progressive revenue source. Sweeps need to be stopped, not expanded with a now a new revenue source. And I do not agree at all that there's a false dichotomy between supporting affordable housing and stating your intent that sweeps are wrong . As a matter of fact, there's a false dichotomy between, say, between building affordable housing and saying that are not willing to take a stand against sweeps. If sweeps need to stop, then take a stand that sweeps need to stop.
Speaker 0: Yes. Okay. Okay. Amendments. Number three has been properly moved and second, as stated by Kasperowicz want all those in favor of amendment number three? Say I and raise your hand. All the polls say no and raise your hand. No. So the amendment fails. So now we have a resolution. Let me describe what we're going to do. We are going to vote on a resolution that has been amended at least the first time regarding the new spending plan. And that is ready for vote. The entire resolution is ready to vote. Okay. So. I will see you after. Tough to move it. Yeah.
Speaker 3: As amended.
Speaker 0: I will move. Resolution 31810 as amended.
Speaker 1: Second.
Speaker 0: All those in favor of it. Please say hi and raise your hand. And all those opposed to it. Say no and raise your hand. No. Two, five, four. So it passes. Five, four. Okay. And I was chair was. Sign it. Okay. We've come to the end of our June. Is there any further business going for the council to help us? Okay, thank you, everyone. Have a great day. And we stand adjourned.
Speaker 3: It's only 454. Well done.
A RESOLUTION establishing a spending plan for the proceeds generated from a new Progressive Tax on Business to address homelessness and housing affordability authorized by the ordinance introduced as Council Bill 119250.