Speaker 0: Okay. The Bill Parsons chair will sign it. We're going to move to adoption of other resolutions. And we amended our agenda for the day to adhere to resolution. So I'm going to ask to the clerk call the resolution 31781. Read that one into the record and we'll relinquish the for the council members want.
Speaker 10: Resolution 317 81 urging the President of the United States and United States Congress to enact legislation securing the citizenship of internationally adopted adult individuals.
Speaker 0: Council members one.
Speaker 2: Thank you. As I said this morning in the briefing, council members were contacted recently by Chris Larsen, who is an activist with the Urban League here in Seattle, and he was here earlier for public comment. I believe he had to leave because I don't see him anymore. But my office had the opportunity to meet with him last Friday. He and others, as he said in his public testimony, were adopted as children from other countries, but they do not have their citizenship rights. In 2001 Congress U.S. Congress passed a legislation that granted automatic citizenship to all adopted children from other countries, but they left in a loophole. It applies only for those who are born after 1983. So there are more than 35,000 adopted children who were born before 1983 who don't have that option of automatic citizenship. I've watched what experts have said. They've said that a lot of the adoptive parents know that they need to apply for adoption, I mean, for naturalization paperwork. But what they say is that the adoption process itself is so onerous and expensive that by the time they're finished that they really find it very hard to now start another onerous process of naturalization. So it really makes sense to close that loophole so that all the adoptees who are now grown ups and they are in their forties, they should be given naturalization. I mean, they should be granted citizenship right away. Obviously, the city of Seattle does not have jurisdiction on this. This is a federal matter, but this is National Adoption Month. And activists are requesting that we pass this resolution in many different cities. Already, Philadelphia and Houston have passed such a resolution. I think it's only appropriate that Seattle, having declared itself as a sanctuary city, we do this in order to help our adoptees, sisters and brothers. So I will I will end with that.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council members want any other members like to speak on this resolution? I just want to thank Councilman Swan for bringing this issue to our attention. I was not aware of this status and Mr. Larson certainly educated some of us on this issue. So I really appreciate you bringing this forward. And as I understood his testimony, we are trying to start a nationwide movement on this sort of problem that we're facing. So I'm very supportive of this. Councilman Sean.
Speaker 2: Oh, thank you, Brian. I just wanted to add a thank you to the city's law department, because we sent them this resolution last night and they had responded to us before 9 a.m. today. That's a really quick turnaround. And so I appreciate it.
Speaker 0: Good. Okay. So I will move to adopt resolution 31781. Is there a second second. It's been moved in second to the resolution be adopted. Any further comments? Those in favor of adopting the resolution please vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries and resolutions adopted and the chair will sign it. Next, please read resolution 31782 and to the record.
Speaker 10: Resolution 317 82. Establishing a process by which the City of Seattle will determine new progressive revenues, including employee hours tax, expressing the City Council's intent to oppose such potential revenues and expressing the City Council's intent to make investments with these revenues that would assist people who are homeless or at a high risk of becoming homeless and obtaining and retaining stable housing.
Speaker 0: So Councilmembers Gonzalez and O'Brien, which one would like to speak first? I'll outwait.
Speaker 3: You. Tired? I'm waiting for Councilmember O'Brien just to be like, Oh.
Speaker 1: Don't worry, I'll do it.
Speaker 3: I'm happy to just talk about the framework of the base resolution, and I know that there are three amendments to come before us. So I will just talk really quickly about the resolution, and I'm going to look to the clerk to I have to move for its adoption before we can consider the amendments.
Speaker 0: Um, we'll move at the. Yes. Okay. Yes. Why don't you do that?
Speaker 3: Okay. So I'm going to move for the for the for council to adopt and pass resolution 31782.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 3: So the framework of the resolution is to create a expedited process over the next several months to bring together a group of stakeholders to form what we're referring to as an ad hoc task force to help this Council formulate recommendations around what an employee hours tax should look like. In addition, we are asking the task force to come up with recommendations of progressive revenue sources that would be in addition to an employee hours tax. And so this the intent with this resolution is to be able to really allow as much room as possible to receive all recommendations from this task force that would provide the city council with a suite of recommendations to be able to take a serious look at to pass in short order. As a result of that task force work, there have been some modifications to the base ordinance since we first distributed it this morning. And and and those are to the base ordinance, not to the not with regard to the amendments. So the base ordinance has changed. And, Councilmember O'Brien, keep me honest if I leave something out here, but in section four, section four, on page four, lines 20 through 23, the language around subsection A originally said evaluating an IHT in determining appropriate tax rates and possible exemption levels that will yield a minimum of $25 million. We've changed that to levels that are expected to yield between $25,000,075 million in revenue per year. And I am forgetting the other section that we modified. So maybe Councilmember O'Brien can pitch it for me and help me find that area. Thank you.
Speaker 6: The the other is we added a new recital, the third whereas clause which says the you the U.S. Internal Revenue Service defines a progressive tax, takes a larger percentage of income from high income groups than from low income groups, and is based on the concept of ability to pay.
Speaker 3: Thank you. So that's that that's the base resolution. And I have obviously given given a description in broad strokes. It's a it's a five page, five and a half page resolution. And so I appreciate Councilmember O'Brien's willingness to work on this language in this framework and this concept. And I appreciate my colleagues who have continued to engage on the formulation of of this resolution. And and I also want to thank a lot of the community stakeholders who helped me think through this particular issue and the language that is now in the resolution. And I'm hopeful that this will put us on a clear path to, again, come back in March with a set of recommendations where we can look at a comprehensive suite of dedicated, sustainable, ongoing revenue sources to be able to truly get serious about the civil emergency that faces us as it relates to our homeless neighbors.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Gonzalez and Councilmember Bryant, did you want to speak any more on the base legislation?
Speaker 6: My strategy worked. Councilmember Gonzales said everything I was hoping to say. So it was passed.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 3: Again.
Speaker 0: We have some amendments we'd like to work through and we'll just take them take them one at a time. So I don't know which one is first because they were hot off the press. Councilmember Harris Talley.
Speaker 4: I'm yes, I moved to offer an amendment amendment number two. It's like, how do I read the amendment now?
Speaker 0: Yes. And it has been second. And why? Why don't we talk about it? So it's been moved in second. Please explain what this amendment does.
Speaker 4: Wonderful. So this amendment looks at the opening of the resolution and adds the following language on starting on line 14 for folks who are looking at the current copy. So the full reads. Whereas all sectors of our society must work together to address and resolve the civil emergency related to homelessness and to ensure there are sufficient resources to and this is the added added language realized Seattle and King County's commitment to making sure that no person experiences homelessness and that if one does, it is rare, brief and only a one time occurrence. We thought it was important to add that this is a Seattle and King County collaborative issue. Again, we think that we need to acknowledge this is a regional problem that we're addressing. And we wanted to clearly state both Seattle and King County's previous goals of working towards zero homelessness.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any further comments? We can vote on these one at a time and may be a little cleaner that way. So I'm going to call this amendment number two just because that's what it says on the document. I have to make further comments on amendment number two. Just Councilmember Becky Shaw.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council Member Harris Talley for bringing this forward. I believe bringing the council, this council, as well as the King County Council and their Human Services Department equivalent together, is really going to make a lot of difference that and then when we work with all home and United Way is going going to help us with that base and then reaching out to the community and bringing people who are experiencing experiencing homelessness now, make sure that they're on the committee as well.
Speaker 0: Very good. So all those in favor of what I'm calling amendment number two is describe Councilmember Harris tally, please. What I, I oppose the ayes have it. And then Councilmember Harris. Tally, just keep my paperwork clean. I think she's going to move to four and five, but I don't have a three. So am I missing a three anywhere?
Speaker 4: You are correct. Council President Harrell. Thank you. Councilmember Gonzales and O'Brien for actually integrating some of our other amendments into the base of the language so that they didn't have to be offered at this stage. So thank you.
Speaker 0: So we could just move to a minimum number four now. That's okay. Excellent.
Speaker 4: I move to offer an amendment. Amendment number four.
Speaker 3: Second.
Speaker 0: Okay, please explain what we're doing.
Speaker 4: This is added to section one and adds to the full statement at the bottom of the statement that we believe that there should be a co chair structure and that that should include 1 to 2 council members and 1 to 2 committee members. So the added language starting on line 13 at the end of this section is the co-chairs should include 1 to 2 council members and 1 to 2 community members.
Speaker 0: Very good. And thanks for explaining that this morning. Any further comments on this amendment? No. Okay. Let's vote on it. All those in favor of amendment number four as described by Council member Harris Talley. Please vote i. I opposed the ayes have it. That amendment passes and amendment number five is from council member back office.
Speaker 4: Thank you. And the second sentence of this amendment, I am proposing that we add the language imposing ADHD and or other progressive taxes and at the bottom that language. Thank you. Thank you at the end also and or other progressive taxes no later than March 2018. The goal is to support.
Speaker 2: The open door so all creative ideas can be.
Speaker 4: Identified. Progressive taxes have, as.
Speaker 2: We have noted.
Speaker 4: Are one solution that I want to have on the table for consideration. There may be others. I don't want to leave those out.
Speaker 0: Very good. So we have councilmember backchannels amendment number five is I'm going to scrap it. Any further comments on this? Any further comments, Councilmember Harris tally?
Speaker 4: Yes, I wanted to speak to this amendment and some other considerations. And and I'm saying this because I want to make sure that we're being responsive to what we heard from community in the comment period. And thank you again to all of those who spoke to us and and did the due diligence of keeping track of this Wiley resolution over the last few hours. So I wanted to note that the resolution starts with the statement that the city of Seattle will determine new progressive revenues, including an employee head's tax. So I just wanted to be clear that this statement at its heart is about IHT, but what we don't want to do is close the door to a combination of IHT and other progressive revenue sources that could possibly bring us up to that full threshold of what we have right now of a ceiling of $75 million. We know there are some limitations to IHT about how much we can raise, and that with a combination of that and other progressive taxes, it opens up the possibility of what we have for revenue. I also wanted to note that for those who have concerns about whether or not there would be enough representation from community and those who are actually experiencing homelessness, that that's actually within Section two of this resolution and does take note, the task force should include members such as subject matter experts on housing, health care and homelessness service providers, civic leaders, labor representatives, individuals who have experienced or are currently experiencing homelessness, business organizations, economic equity experts, community organizations, community coalitions, community leaders, and small and large business owners. And I know for a fact that several council members added groups that we wanted to make sure would be represented in this task force to this list. And our hope is that some of those community based folks by adding the 1 to 2 community member co-chairs that we've. Add it here will actually be able to shape both the facilitation and the structure of the task force itself. Furthermore, I plan to vote on this and or clause and I say this because at the base folks have added a definition of progressive tax. If that definition were not there, I would vote no on this because of the and or clause. And my concern that somehow we would be moving to a regressive tax structure by having an andor clause. I feel confident that with the IRS definition of a progressive tax we have and we know as a council, literally two or three progressive tax options that could fall outside of the IHT structure. And that's why I feel very confident with how this is structured, that we will find ourselves leaning quite heavily on IHT. But I do want to have the open possibility of having other progressive revenue options to get as much dollars as we can in the door . So I plan on voting yes on this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Council members also want.
Speaker 2: The whole purpose of this resolution is to put in writing the verbal commitment of all those council members who voted no on the home stacks, the FG. But they made a verbal amendment to pass it to you by next spring. So the whole purpose of this resolution is to hold these council members accountable, as you all saw in previous drafts. The original drafts failed to make that commitment, actually. And in fact, we had to redouble the movement's pressure from my office in order to make sure that the resulting resolution that is in front of us today is actually substantive. It actually says now, because of our redoubled efforts, that the council will look at, I mean, will have a deadline for itself of March 26th or another date to make sure that we can have revenues coming in from January 2019. So that is a huge step forward that we were able to achieve. But that commitment was added in one place. Council member back shows amendment attempting to remove that one commitment from that one place that it appears on this resolution. We're not fooled by this and or other progressive taxes. And I and I find disingenuous these these comments from the council members who voted no, who say that they don't want to close the door on progressive taxation seriously. We have brought forward a progressive tax for four years and you have always voted no on it. You have closed the door on it. Repeatedly. And contrary to the impression that's being given, it's not like we have a special bug in our heads about the of the employee our stacks. We are insisting on the employee tax because it is virtually the only real progressive option that can be passed council manically. And I know this because my office has spent four years researching this assiduously. Those it is law department can attest to it because we have really bugged them and taken a lot of their time asking them to write memo after memo, because we don't want to take no for an answer immediately, you know? So it is disingenuous to say that we are going to look for other progressive revenue options because there aren't and we don't need the IRS to tell us what's progressive. Taxing big business is regressive. Taxing the super rich is progressive. And I am afraid that if we allow this amendment to happen, what is to stop the future task force from saying that? We tried sincerely, but we talk to our business stakeholders and they said the employers tax will not be good for the economy and it will be voodoo economics. And I can say that as an economist that it has no basis in reality, but they could say there is nothing to stop them from saying it. The chamber is fighting hard against that. They ensured that the issue didn't pass this year to ensure that their council members voted no on it. So what's to stop the task force from saying, we looked into this, we talked to the business stakeholders. They don't think that the idea is a good idea. Let's look at other options and then it's all an abstraction in the abstract. Every politician agrees that we should have progressive taxation. What is actually going to be voted on is the question that so I will vote no on this amendment.
Speaker 0: So you can see what comes. We have a herbold.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Councilmember Sawant mentioned that there is in her belief that there's only one section where the commitment to employee hours tax is made, and that's in section six. The re the way I read the title. There is also a commitment I had requested that this title be tightened up to give a strong, strong to to basically model the the same approach that we use for deliberations around the income tax, which were to say that we were going to enact a city income tax. The question was the what's in the House? And so I read this title is actually being good but that that the amendment as written with the and or is inconsistent with the title I read the title is saying establishing a process by which the city of Seattle will determine new progressive revenues, including an employee hours tax. Now, the amendment offered by Councilmember Bagshaw did not say and or but said and other progressive taxes. That's something that I could definitely get behind.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry. Guns are horrible. Can you say that last part again?
Speaker 9: The last part I said is if the amendment offered by Council Member Bagshaw, instead of saying and or other progressive taxes said and other progressive taxes, that was something I could get behind.
Speaker 3: I, i, i still can't hear the part of what you're saying because the applause me mutes out. The mikes though may be good. I am sure they're hearing it and I'm not. So can you can you. Can you guys please give us the gist just so we can hear it?
Speaker 9: This sounds different up here than it is out there. Yeah, it's weird. I said I could support the amendment offered by Council member Bagshaw if it instead of saying and or other progressive taxes, it simply said and other progressive taxes.
Speaker 6: If you get it, so be nice.
Speaker 0: So we have an amendment that actually has not been moved in second it yet. And so we can. So what we have to do is vote on the amendment before we vote on the bass. So we have an amendment. And then what I'm hearing from Council Member Herbold is a request from the maker in this point to take out the conjunction or and the implication being the obvious meaning being that it it it suggests that there would definitely be an ESG and possibly another progressive tax without the concern that there not be any employment our employee hours tax. And so you don't have to accept that as a friendly amendment. You could explain why you believe and slash or make sense and that's why you draft it that way. But perhaps you want to respond. It comes from a Herbold suggestion.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 2: And I would like to vote.
Speaker 4: On this as is. If it goes down, I will consider a as an amendment. Okay.
Speaker 0: Any further comments? Councilman Harris, Charlie's grabbing the mic. Go ahead.
Speaker 4: I'm just asking a procedural question. Still wrap my mind around all the amendment rules. So if it were to go down, is it possible to walk on an alternative amendment?
Speaker 0: She is not a favorite practice, but we can I believe we can reintroduce it with a. Deletion of the word and we can reintroduce you on the spot here. Is that a is that.
Speaker 1: She's trying to.
Speaker 7: And it also.
Speaker 4: Once we.
Speaker 0: So once we there is a there is amendment, there's a rule that there be two hour advance notice up publishing of anything we consider. So I'd have to suspend that rule for us to consider. We can consider I have to suspend that rule. And if there is a, if there's a title change but there's not a title change.
Speaker 3: No title change.
Speaker 0: I don't have to worry about that. So what we'll have to do is waive the rule of the two hour notice to take out that one word or but to perk council members back shows request. She wants to see how this this amendment passes or not. And then let's cross that bridge if it if it fails.
Speaker 3: Now, can I just ask.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 3: You mentions of Councilmember Bagshaw was intent here so I'm I'm always sensitive to language in the legislation they may not be consistent with the bill title and I don't think that's what. Councilmember Herbold is saying is that this is or are you saying that this amendment is inconsistent?
Speaker 9: As I read the bill title, the bill title includes the employee hours tax. Because it says establishing a process by which the city of Seattle will determine new progressive revenues, including an employee hours tax. Mm hmm. And then. And so my concern is that an outcome that allows for something other than an employee hours tax is not consistent with the title is as drafted.
Speaker 0: So. Yes, go ahead. I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: Well, what I was going to say is that if in my mind, the bill title would would preempt such a vague interpretation of the language of the ordinance. So I'm so I'm I just I guess I'm trying to thread the needle on if the I mean, we worked really hard to create a improved bill title to make it really clear that that this was going to be happening in March. And I think what I have been trying to balance is, is, is is not precluding or I'm not I'm not you know, I'm I am definitely supportive of this bill coming before us in March, and I want that to occur. But I also don't want to preclude other things to come before us. So how do I read that? And. It. Does that mean that I can't bring if we only identified each tea? Does that mean I can't bring tea unless it's also attached with another progressive revenue source.
Speaker 9: As I read the offered amendment. It allows us to not considered tea at all in the future.
Speaker 1: Yes. Oh yeah.
Speaker 0: That's when I was saying, let's cut to the chase that I think that's the concern that after the process there's no.
Speaker 6: So no so.
Speaker 0: So councilmember back show you may want to explain your intent as wise and or.
Speaker 3: Not have that be your. Okay I'm just going to say this is a microphone. I just asked Councilmember Bagshaw if that was her intent and she said no. So now I'm asking, is there a modification of this language that you would accept as a friendly amendment to better communicate, indicate your intent as it relates to not creating a situation where the other progressive revenue source would supplant and replace movement on the employee hours.
Speaker 1: Tax, of course.
Speaker 2: So if we have an open.
Speaker 4: Door, so something else may come in as we are looking at both revenue and housing options. Councilmember Swan says that her team has looked at this for four years. That may well be true. There may be something else we don't know. I think it's very likely as we get into this.
Speaker 2: That that.
Speaker 4: The employee head tax I'm sorry, the employee hours tax is going to be and a critical part of this, but there may be something else and I want to allow that opportunity. Now, I have passed this through the law department. There was no opposition at the time. What I'm saying is let's trust the process and see what we can get across.
Speaker 0: Council Counsel I have two concerns and. Q Consumers want. Councilman Harris Talley.
Speaker 4: Yes, and I agree with you. Councilmember Bagshaw I appreciate that we've created, you know, a container now both on the high and low of what a revenue source could look like this size wise, and a really specific date about both how the task force will come together, who's going to be included there, and when the decisions will be made. But I can appreciate that. I think for all of us on the dais and the public who's here with us, that we want to just make sure we get all the other pieces right, too. I'm wondering if we keep an and or a clause, maybe if you. You seem really hesitant about removing the word or because I hear you saying you feel like it will somehow close a door. But what if we added the word business before progressive so that we know what's coming from the business community and not other sources? It's not my intention to limit this to the business community. I'm hoping all stakeholders that, you know, I'm really I'm really finding this offensive that.
Speaker 0: Please, I, I, I, we're trying to make a decision. Thank you very much.
Speaker 4: And I had made an assumption that that my hope is that stakeholders come.
Speaker 2: To.
Speaker 4: To the table with their eyes and ears open. And if we can get there and get past this one amendment, we move forward in the beginning of January. I think we've got everybody at the table that's willing that's willing to come. And I and I appreciate that. Councilmember Bagshaw And I apologize because I know we spoke and I shared with you all my considerations about why I was going to vote for this amendment. I want to be clear. My assumption by other progressive taxes was that we meant other progressive business taxes. So without that clarity, I would be hesitant to vote on this. So help me. Help me with that. What are you saying with. I'm sorry. I will not be able to vote on this if we're not clarifying that it's actually about the business community paying taxes, because I just feel like everyone else in the city has already paid so much into these solutions.
Speaker 7: So. So I apologize.
Speaker 4: I apologize that I have to change that.
Speaker 0: Consumers should want.
Speaker 2: Thank you. James Bagshaw I don't do this often, but I thank you for speaking the truth that you didn't want to keep this limited to the business.
Speaker 4: Now I'm trying to understand what council member Harris Talley was saying and what can I. Not quite yet.
Speaker 2: Because it's my turn.
Speaker 4: I'd just like to have clarification about what council member Harris Talley was saying.
Speaker 2: How would you President Harrell.
Speaker 0: You Councilman Swann does have the floor, Councilman. So I can you just relinquish for just for one moment, please? Councilmember Harris TALLEY Councilmember Baxter just didn't flinch down the point and then customers one has the floor. Thank you counts first one.
Speaker 4: And I apologize I think also with the clapping we're having trouble hearing each other as well. So I apologize. I was just saying that I had assumed that when this was added that it was speaking to other progressive business taxes being solutions offered along with. I apologize. I should have clarified that because you're right, the word business isn't in there. I should have clarified that before I agreed to move forward with this, and I feel uncomfortable moving forward with it, knowing that the intention could be beyond just business community paying in. Because my biggest concern right now is that I feel like everyone else has paid in tremendously. We voted for the levy, but we're not looking forward to our escrow with the doubling of the levy next year, even though we agree that it's for the public good. And the reason he is such a great solution, in my mind, is that it is coming from the business community. And so I just I have a real strong sense that any other progressive tax solutions also need to come from that same community. Okay.
Speaker 0: That's what has the floor.
Speaker 2: Thank you, President Harrell. I. I'm not clear what this whole mystical, magical world that some councilmembers live in where there are endless avenues for progressive taxation. And if there are such endless avenues, then why don't you vote on the one that was discussed last week? I really don't understand. And furthermore, Councilmember Gonzalez said, well, we don't want to we want to make sure we're not precluded from doing anything. GONZALES Maria Gonzales, you're an elected official of the highest legislative body in the city. Nobody is preventing you from passing progressive taxes when you want it. You don't need the permission of this task force that is not formed yet to pass any other progressive tax. So if magically, the city law department comes up with an idea, an alternate idea for a progressive tax on business, then we'll get on it. I promise you I will be right there with you burning the midnight oil doing that. We don't need the permission of a task force. We are elected officials. We have both the job and the power to do it. We should be exercising that power in the interests of working people. I'll stop there.
Speaker 0: So I'm going to say a few words about your amendment, and then I'm hoping we can vote because I don't have a clue as to where that's going to passionate. So here's my take on this, is that, you know, I'll say to the camera and you, we have to remember that we're creating a record as we speak is that I've been on record as this point as supporting an employee head tax. I did not like the process we used earlier. And as you may recall, this slide that we all pass that I drafted sort of crafted broadly this process and I see coming out of that process an employee hours tax. Now the thresholds to be determined, the amounts to be determined even what is called because sometimes school and all home stacks, all head tax and our checks all that to be worked out. So when I saw your amendment, I did not see this as a tactic to get out of it. I saw it as and you may recall in part of my slide, one of the things I said we need to to ask are some of these large employers for some one time money? It's not sustainable. But I'm not afraid to go to Amazon and say we need $50 million now for this urgently. You don't have to promise to do it in perpetuity. And so I also suggested that Sly, that we create a mechanism by which we can receive money because it's not as though we could just accept checks. So we have to work with the nonprofit, etc., that didn't get captured in this resolution. But that's okay because we did adopt that through the slide. Now, when I saw this, I was prepared to support it. I continue to be prepared to support it because quite candidly, integrity means everything to me. And when, you know, I have a wife and three kids, I have three kids that make everyone in here look conservative . So so they they know how passionate I am about trying to get this. And if the business community will not come to the table, we are still marching down to what we need to do. So I this this this this untrusting of our local politicians. Okay, that's fine. But I believe that this is what you're trying to do. This is not an escape to get out of any. That is ludicrous. That's nonsense. And you can believe that if you want. So so that's that's why I was prepared to support it. If it fails, we could tweak it and move down the road. But but I'm not going to sit here and be impugned. When when I looked at this language, I did not see it as a means to get out of our obligation. Okay, so let's vote, see where we stand and see what we do after that. Everybody go with that. Okay. So it's been it's been moved. Amendment number five advanced by Councilor Bagshaw has been moved. Is there a second? Second all those in favor of Amendment five advanced by Councilman Bagshaw. Please say I and raise your hand, I. One, two, three, four, five. All those opposed. Say no and raise your hand. No, no. So that passes. So before we base on the base legislation for those that support it, council members back shows would you like to say anything about. The to clarify your record as why you support it. You don't have to. I'm just want to make sure you get the opportunity before it gets around. Gonzales.
Speaker 3: I mean, I echo the remarks that you made, Council President Harrell is that I, I my my vote last week on the ti was a vote on the process that was chosen to advance what I think to be a very serious policy issue. And, you know, I, I fully stand by the remarks I made during Budget Committee last week and the remarks that I've made today that I my sole focus over the next several months will be to craft a clear, cogent policy around an employee hours tax. And I say that knowing that the people who I am proposing to be taxed are not pleased with the fact that that's the direction I want to I want to head. And so and that I intend to to find myself in in March of 2006. So that is that has been that was my commitment last week during that budget committee. It's my commitment today, and it will be my commitment in March of 2016. It's part of the reason why I wanted this process. I'm not going to impugn anybody's motivation up here, but I will say that for me, I am going to stay the course. On making sure that that is one of the minimum outcomes of this process. And that is why I was asking Councilmember Bagshaw as colleague to colleague, what is your intent? And if your intent is to not preclude an employee I respect, but in fact create an opportunity where that can be considered after this process, then that is why I ultimately am supporting supported your amendment. If I if I believe that you were lying to me, then I would have, of course, voted voted no. But I want to make really clear for the record that it is one of my clear expectations at the end of this process that we fulfill the bill title in this resolution, and that that will definitely include a form of an employee hours tax in March of 2016 for this for council to consider.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That's straight talk. Councilmember Suarez and the customer. Here's Charlie.
Speaker 1: I want to state first of all, i want to thank councilmember gonzalez and o'brian for all the hard work that they did. I want to add.
Speaker 4: That I.
Speaker 1: Co-Sponsored, along with President Harrell, the Sligh of us moving forward, which became, I believe, was the the standard in which Councilmember Gonzalez and O'Brien moved forward to obviously make it better by talking about what this bill would mean. I believe that the bill title is correct in its intent that we are marching forward with an employee head tax or homes or whatever we want to call it. I don't believe that any of my colleagues are being disingenuous, are not trying to escape or get out of what the intent of this is. We are moving forward. We can no longer look away at the glaring disparity of our city and about having to tax those that have more. So I am voting and I did vote yes on this because I believe and or other progressive taxes does not take away from the fact of the intent that we are moving forward with it. And I'll leave it at that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Whereas I was just reminding my colleagues, we have I think 20 items on the Parks Board agenda. So because.
Speaker 4: We only we have five.
Speaker 0: Resolutions, five resolution. Okay. Customers want you have the floor.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Brittain Harrell. I had prepared my comments not knowing. I didn't I don't have a crystal ball. So I didn't know exactly what was going to happen in the last several minutes. But what I'm going to say is so relevant, council members have made it more relevant. Whom do council members? The majority of the council, the corporate politicians represent. They would like to. They would like you to believe that they can represent all of Seattle, rich and poor workers and big business. But that is not reality. The reality is that the interests of regular people, low income people, people who are struggling to maintain a foothold in this city, are not the same as the interests of big business, and no politician can truly represent both. When council members accept campaign contributions from the Chamber of Commerce, that money comes with strings attached. That is why socialists refuse to take money from big business when we run our campaigns. As a socialist, I always assume that big business gets preferential treatment and special access to elected officials. But even I was surprised in these past few weeks, including just a few minutes ago, by the lengths that councilmembers will go to to do the dirty work of big business. After having voted no on the HD. Now we are still struggling to pass a meaningful resolution. There is no way to address Seattle's housing and homelessness crisis without serious and ongoing public resources. And the only way to fund that is to tax big business and the super rich, which is where all the wealth in society accumulates. There's a simple mathematical reason why we are talking about taxing big business, but for big business that is an acceptable idea. As I mentioned in the Budget Committee meeting last week, a representative of Dairy Gold talked to council members about her objection to the progressive business tax. This is a company with $2 billion in annual revenues that would pay, by our estimates, about $45,000 a year. When asked why such a big company should object to such a small tax, she said It is the principle. And to defeat that principle know sisters and brothers. She was being very honest because it was a private conversation. It is a matter of principle. And you know why? It's a matter of principle? Because every time big business allows working people and our social movements to win victories, we get emboldened, we get empowered, and we go on to the next struggle. They don't want us to be empowered because they know we won't stop with the employee hours tax, however. We also know that to defend that principle, the majority of the council voted to sacrifice the needs of regular people in order to stand with big business as principle that their property profits are sacred. Our movement is powerful, and council members not only want to do the bidding of the Chamber of Commerce, they also want you all to believe that isn't what they are doing. And lo and behold, you have the Seattle process. We have task forces. And if our movement remains vigilant, we can force council members to follow through on their commitments to pass an early next year. But we will have to remain vigilant because if we let up the pressure, the majority of the council will vote no again on a march and vote to create another task force . And if you think that's an outlandish prediction, then the last few minutes have proved me right. Look at the lengths to which corporate politicians will go to doggedly, doggedly defend the interests of big business. And it is doublespeak, apparently, as far as ESG goes. No means yes.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well for me, I'm fighting to tax big business. I will vote yes on this resolution today, but not because another Seattle process is needed, but because I'm confident that our movement will hold these council members accountable. And if you all keep up the pressure, I will be there with you. All right.
Speaker 0: Okay. I'm going to call for the vote. We are not. Would you like. Say one more thing? Commercial. Okay. Sound like she can be real quick here.
Speaker 4: I just wanted to, you know, echo what council member Solon just said and what Councilmember Gonzalez and Suarez said. You know, I feel like what we have put through in this resolution is going to create a diverse state stakeholder. I believe that those most impacted will be central to that table and you all will hold the line on what what kind of structures and taxes happen here. I'm not overly concerned about the Andorra clause because the right folks are going to be at the table to make sure that that nothing goes awry there. And I also know from the work and style, the reason Councilmember Bagshaw and I get along so well is because we both believe in working in collaboration across stakeholders to find the best solution. And I truly believe, I think you and I have different audiences who we've been talking to about considerations here. But I truly do believe that you needed, you know, for the folks who you're trying to bring to the table that openness. And so I look forward to what it looks like in the process. That's going to be a quick expedient process, and we're going to know a lot more at the end of March about how many dollars were raised and how many homes will be built. And I look forward to that day. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Harris tally. Okay. I think we have a resolution ready for adoption. Those in favor of adopting the resolution as amended. Please vote. I, i. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries the resolution. Adopted chair was sign it. All right. Okay. That concludes our business for today. Is there any further business coming for the Council? Council member? So one.
Speaker 2: Thank you. General, I move to be excused from the full council meeting on November 27, 2017.
Speaker 0: Their second second has been moved in, saying that the council members want to be excused for November 27th. All those in favor say I. I opposed. The ayes have it. Any further business council on.
Speaker 6: Johnson Council member was I'm wondering how long of a break we have in between 10 minutes.
Speaker 0: For the business to become before the council. No. So we will we will adjourn will be back in 10 minutes at 510 for the Parks Board meeting. Everyone, have a great day. We stand adjourned.
A RESOLUTION urging the President of the United States and the United States Congress to enact legislation securing the citizenship of internationally adopted adult individuals.