Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 0: So I'm going to stay for item six and seven and I'm going to relinquish share to Councilmember Pacheco. So can you read can you read six and seven in together, please?
Speaker 1: Action Item six and seven Council Bill 119 636 relating to the sale and use of tobacco and marijuana products to and by minors. Council Bill 119 637 really into crimes and offenses concerning animals. The committee recommends both bills pass.
Speaker 0: As I said a couple of weeks ago, these two ordinance or just a reconciliation of state law to our city code, or I should say our city code to state law one is for the sale and use of tobacco and marijuana products to minors. And the other one is for crimes and offenses relating to animals. In particular. As you may recall, the state legislature legislature approved a bill to change the legal age of buying tobacco and vaping products from 18 to 21. And this law will take place in January of 2020. And as recommended by the Attorney General's Office and the State Department of Health and Public Health Advocates in Washington State is the ninth state to set 21 as the minimum age. And so we certainly want to adopt that standard. Hopefully, many states will follow our lead the ordinance relating to animals and crimes and offenses. The ordinance changes the classification maximum penalty of certain animal control crimes and makes these classifications and maximum penalties again consistent with state law. So the crimes for which the maximum penalty were imposed formally from, it's from 180 day days in jail and a $500 fine to 364 days in jail and a $5,000 fine, some 500 to 5000, which includes keeping an exotic animal or using a guard dog without a guard guard dog license, owning a dangerous animal, selling a sick , dangerous or exotic animal. And so the state law goes in a much more depth. And again, we're revising our code to make sure we're consistent with state law. Any questions or comments on this legislation? Okay. Please call the roll on comes Bill 119636.
Speaker 1: Whereas Mosquera O'Brien. Pacheco. Sergeant Major Gonzalez. Herbold. President Harrell. I Aden favor not opposed.
Speaker 0: So it comes from check or you're off the hook. So I.
Speaker 5: Do I go there, say.
Speaker 0: Oh, I could I can continue. Cherry. Oh, God.
Speaker 4: And cancel.
Speaker 0: I was I missed a huge opportunity, according to my staff. So I my apologies. So the bill passes and Cheryl signed it. I just lost my rhythm here. Was that number seven or is that number six? Which that was number six. So please call the roll. Uncomfortable. 119637.
Speaker 1: Suarez Misgender. O'Brien. Pacheco Somewhat better. Gonzalez Herbold. Hi. President Harrell.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Adan favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed in show senate. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 1: Agenda Item 21 Council Bill 119607 relating to heating oil. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 7: Councilmember O'Brien Thank you, colleagues. It's going to take my surveillance hat on and put my climate change hat on or off and on. The this legislation was originally proposed by the mayor's office, and I am very supportive of it. This legislation essentially has a phase out of the use of underground oil tanks in the current condition by the end of 2028. The intent is to it would also have a tax placed on home heating oil of just under $0.25 a gallon through your reference. I'm told variously, I think the city's analysis shows that a typical homeowner would use about 500 gallons. I've heard from the oil or distribution companies that their number is closer to 400 gallons. So you can get that somewhere between 100 and $125 a year would be the the cost of the tax for someone that's using a petroleum based oil. I mean, committee, we amended the legislation to allow for an exemption for biofuels. It's specific that it's it's it would not the exemption would not apply to biofuels such as palm oil, which are produced in a way that actually is just as carbon intensive and damaging to the planet as petroleum. But other biofuels, such as recycled grease or or biofuels produced more sustainably, locally could be used. And to the extent they're used in the mix in the tank, the tax would be waived on the portion of biofuels that are in the tank. So if you have a mix of 5050 biofuels and petroleum oil, the tax would be half of what it would otherwise be. If you have a mix of 99% biofuels and 1% or less of petroleum, then largely the tax would almost completely be eliminated. The revenues from the tax would go to a number of things. Primarily, I want to highlight that folks that are currently on the I should say, let me back up for a second. Home heating oil is not a regulated utility, the same as folks that heat with gas or heat with electricity. We know that the city of Seattle has programs for low income homeowners that use electricity, whether it's for heating or for just other purposes, which I assume is just about everybody use it. And low income folks can apply to be on the utility discount program, which gives them a significant discount. There are similar programs that Peterson Energy runs for gas customers, but there's no such mechanism to do so for oil heat. And so what this would do is for people that currently with oil that are at the same income level as would qualify them for the utility discount program, they would be eligible for a significant investment from the tax proceeds to convert them completely to a dockless heat pump, which would provide heating at a much more cost effective rate. The analysis I've seen from the department shows that based on the kind of current cost of heating oil, it costs about twice as much to fuel the the heating furnace as a wood for an electric furnace. I think this really we know the electric heat pumps also provide cooling in the summers or any time we need it. And we're seeing more and more instances where high temperatures in Seattle have a health impact on folks. And so the estimated a little over a thousand people that currently qualify for the utility discount program would be eligible for these conversions. In committee, we also amended it to allow folks making up to 80% of area median income to be eligible for some form of discount without raising the additional revenues. Not everyone in that category will be eligible for the full conversion, as we mentioned. But there will be flexibility to continue to provide subsidies for folks who want to convert it at slightly higher income levels. And there's also future opportunities for us to raise additional revenues. I want to appreciate conversations we've had with a number of stakeholders, including folks from Teamsters 174, who represents some of the drivers that deliver oil, talking to the heating oil companies who, you know, I believe the conversations I've had with everyone recognize the climate impacts, but also want to figure out what a transition looks like. And so part of that transition was the amendment to allow biofuels not to be taxed, to allow that as a transition fuel for folks that choose to keep their oil furnace for a number of years, but also and work to to ensure that there are opportunities for workers that may lose their jobs to be retrained and have similar union family wage jobs. I want to if it's okay with you, can't the president turn to my colleague, Councilmember Mesquita, who's been part of a lot of those discussions and really helpful in those discussions and believe has an amendment that she would like to put forward. And I support that.
Speaker 0: Please do. Councilmember Machete, you have the floor.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to move that. We amend Council Bill 119607 by incorporating Amendment one. And then I'll speak to the contents of it.
Speaker 0: Second, to move to Second Amendment. Number one, Casper Mosquito.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank the prime sponsor of this legislation for working with us and really echo my appreciation for the Joint Council. Teamsters Joint Council and Teamsters 174, along with some of our colleagues from the labor movement. IBEW is in the House today. Building construction trades were here earlier, folks from U.A. 32, the Plumbers and Pipefitters, Northwest Carpenters and building construction trades as a whole. We have continued to say that folks within industries that will be impacted by a transition away from any industry need to have a just transition into a green new economy . And I think that some of the language that you see in the legislation in front of you incorporates that. And what we've tried to do with the amendment in Amendment One is to really underscore some key components that were brought to us from our partners and friends at the Teamsters and I think correspond and really emphasize the importance of looking at the impact of workers themselves, residents within the city of Seattle, and figuring out how we ensure that there's both a just transition for those who are working in various industries and also for our lowest wage workers and communities of color. So a huge amount of appreciation for the work that's included here. This was there's a few components that I'll underscore in this amendment really brought to us from the Teamsters through an equity perspective and by wanting to make sure that we underscored the risk assessment that's needed. Number one, there's an acknowledgment that we need to fix the underground heating oil tanks and analyze if there's any environmental risk as they when they leak, they pose a threat to soil, surface water, groundwater and property. Number two, there's language included in this amendment that really addresses the financial burden that some folks spoke to when they testified about the potential impact on middle income, low income and fixed income households, including renters and seniors, which I know there's an amendment on later and look forward to supporting that as well. And then as we convert to non oil options that we are looking at, addressing any financial burdens that come up. Number three, we recognize that there is a Washington State Pollution Liability Protection Act which helps those who use oil tanks transition and and provide assistance for any financial hardship that might be related to oil tanks as we move over to electric options and that as those financial incentives are provided to our community, we as a city want to make sure that we're looking to see if there's any additional resources that we may need to support to fulfill any claims that are coming up from this transition. Also, as I mentioned, there is language included that calls for a risk assessment of existing tanks and an equity analysis to be part of the implementation plan. That's critical, and it really came from our friends in the Labor communities who said we would love to see that incorporated in an implementation plan and that this information also be presented to the Green New Deal Oversight Board, which we just voted on recently. Last few items. It calls for an outreach plan to include the perspective and feedback and any concerns from folks within the resident community, from the labor unions and also industry. As we look at moving forward and doing the outreach and as we call for a just transition. It would not be addressed if we didn't include getting feedback on the number of individuals affected by any policy change. So what you see in here is a.
Speaker 3: Report back.
Speaker 6: To the city on. The outcomes on workforce development. Any feedback that we can get early on, the potential impact on jobs, job losses, gains and retention. Making sure that we're looking at jobs and heating, ventilation and air conditioning with a specific focus on workers represented by labor unions and good family wage jobs, and making sure that as we transition, we're looking at the necessary support to make sure that folks have good living wage jobs in that green new economy. So looking forward to working with you all as we get that feedback. And lastly, thanks to Scott Green, the Green New Deal Work Group, Councilmember O'Brien, again, Teamsters for your work on this policy. I think that this helps us move forward with a really robust environmental policy without unintentionally leaving any workers behind. So thanks again to the folks who worked with us and collaborated on this effort, and I'd love to see it incorporated in the legislation.
Speaker 0: So that's just Amendment One that I'll describe as an amendment number one to the Council bill. Any other questions on it? I'll make sure that it has a second.
Speaker 7: I will second it if it's been moved.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. So Amendment one has been made and segment by Councilmember Gonzalez, all those in favor of amendment number one. Please say I. I opposed the ayes have it. So we have a an amendment. This passed. Councilmember O'Brien, you want to talk anymore about the Bass legislation?
Speaker 7: I don't even more. Councilmember Herbold has a number of amendments that are before us. So why don't we put it to Councilmember Herbold and let her walk through her?
Speaker 0: And Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 4: Appreciate it very much.
Speaker 3: So I have.
Speaker 4: Three amendments here. Amendments to 304 amendments two, three and four and five. I just want to say for the record that the legislation requires the tax beginning on July 1st, 2020, as written, but it doesn't actually implement the requirements to decommission oil tanks. That's going to be done. Not only is it going to be done in the future, but there are a number of other code amendments that will have to be made in order to to implement that. So I just think it's really important to have some clarity about that for the record, because we've received a lot of questions about what exactly this piece of legislation does. And so, of course, the the requirement in the bill itself is that we're seeking O.C. SFD, that being the Office of Sustainability and Environment, Seattle Fire Department and the State Department of Construction Inspections to develop a plan and recommendation by July 21st, 2020, for purposes of the decommissioning goal that is contained in this legislation. So as far as setting the stage for the amendments that I have, the concern I've heard from seniors and low income residents about the impact of the legislation is really critically important, I think, to all of us. O.C. It estimates that 36% of oil heated households have residents that are seniors. And of the participants in the utility discount program for these homes, 60% are estimated to be seniors. And the funding for the conversion doesn't quite appear to add up yet. But, you know, we have we have time to get that right. The the sort of back of the envelope calculation at this point provides funding for 1100 conversions. And that is based on the number of residents with heating oil who participate in the City Light Utility Discount program. But citywide participation is about 30% of those eligible, so a lot fewer people participate than the number of people that are eligible, according to the report developed by the utilities that the council requested through last year's budget process. So there is, I think, good reason to think that participation in this program will be significantly higher than the this program being the program to fund decommission of oil tanks, that the number will be significantly higher than the number of people who participate in a program that is designed to help them pay their monthly utility bills. The cost associated with decommissioning is significantly higher. And so I think it's reasonable to to anticipate that participation in a in a program that would help pay for that is going to be greater. And so, you know, one of the things that. That that I think where we're looking at here is that the utility discount program is set at 70% of median income for the state, whereas this legislation that's before us now provides assistance for those at 80% of the median Seattle area income so that more people will become eligible based on income. This means if 3000 households participate in the conversion program, it would require potentially an additional $10 million for the for the rebate program. It would require a million or so I'm sorry, the conversion program would require an additional $10 million in the rebate program would potentially require an extra million dollars. And, you know, you may recall when we debated the tax on high incomes a couple of years ago, that's working its way through the courts. One of the items identified as a high priority for funding is the creation of green jobs and meeting a carbon reduction goal as a potential use of those funds. So we have been thinking about this not just in this legislation, but we've been thinking about how to to meet what are going to be costly expenses associated with meeting our our carbon reduction goals. So to address all of this, I have Amendment two that would amend Council Bill 11 9607 to clarify that low income households eligible for the rebate be at or below 80% area median income. This amount is intended to offset the anticipated average increase due to the heating oil tax for households using oil heat. The amendment in committee changed the threshold for conversion assistance to 80% area median income, and this amendment would do the same for the rebate program because currently this section only refers to low income households. It does not define it. So I'm seeking to have consistency for the definition of low income throughout the legislation, both for the rebate program as well as for the funding of the conversion program. O.C. had reached out just a little bit before we moved into full council about this particular amendment, and they have requested that we create some some flexibility around this proposed. This proposed definition so that it instead. Identify as a goal that we have an analysis of the viability to extend the heating oil tax reimbursement to households who in whose income is between 70% state median income and 80% area median income. Again, that would not create the type of consistency that that I'm seeking, and it is not consistent with the amendment in front of us right now. And I am hesitant to request a suspension of the rules in order to consider language that we that we don't have in front of us. But I would like to just sort of open up for what other folks here would like to see done with this amendment, number one. Amendment number two, version one.
Speaker 5: Vote.
Speaker 0: For it to be considered, I'll have to suspend. The rules will go ahead and you can speak to it if you like.
Speaker 7: Are they Councilmember Herbals amendments were in just before the deadline. So those are going to be.
Speaker 4: If I change it to reflect Ozzy's input, we would have to be deliberating language that we actually don't have before.
Speaker 7: And I and I'm going to oppose this this amendment as drafted, and I'll walk through that. I will just say, for the record, I was able to share these with OIC as soon as I got home, which is about noon. So they didn't have time to respond to us.
Speaker 4: It sent them over the weekend with it.
Speaker 7: So I didn't hear documentary that that. But thank you very much. The the concern the concern that they shared with me that I share with them is that we currently do not have any programs at the city where folks are qualified and in 80% of area income threshold. And so.
Speaker 0: The.
Speaker 3: Well, we will, though, right.
Speaker 7: So there's a distinction between the subsidy program for installing on a case by case basis as folks come forward. And so what I've heard from OAC is they're comfortable setting up a system to verify folks to the standards that they're comfortable with. The rebate program is run through Seattle City Light and it's an on bill rebate. And the requirements, I don't believe I'm not aware that anyone has discussed with City Light. I don't think they're just going to take his word for it because they have their own qualification programs. And I think it would be prudent to have a conversation with City like what would it take to set up a verification program that meets the standards that they want to do for everyone who's qualified in that area to get it on bill rebate? And I think I mean, the point you make, Councilmember Herbold, is we're starting into this already and I agree with that. But that's why I would support the language that see proposed, which is do some further analysis on this. Specifically, it says instead of a Councilmember Herbold put down, add to the reporting requirement that a third bullet item which says analysis of the viability to extend the heating oil tax reimbursement to households whose income is between 70% area state median income and 80% area median income. That assessment would include work with Seattle City Light to understand what a program would take. It would also allow them to better understand how much foregone tax revenue would be there. What that means, are there fewer people that would be eligible? You know, significant enough that we would say we actually cannot fully convert people the same way. We need to rethink that. I think that's all important information to have in front of us before we make this decision. And so something that allowed flexibility for future decision making, I could support, but I can't support this firm requirement without further weighing it. Her.
Speaker 4: Thank you. So I think Councilmember O'Brien's correct. I think this is going to qualify a significantly higher number of people because not only are we talking about 80% median income, but we're talking about the area median income and said the state median income. And that's that's actually my goal is to make sure that a significantly higher number of people are qualified for this rebate program. But all of that said, I don't have any objections to sort of putting a pin in the definition of low income as it is currently undefined in the legislation and getting some more information. And under that situation, I would say that that would be a circumstance Council President Herold that we would want to suspend the rules to consider that new text that has not been submitted by the deadline at noon today.
Speaker 7: What I would suggest, if we would go down the path with with others approval, is that I would be happy to email what we have and where it goes to the clerk. We can continue discussing these. And then, thankfully, we have dozens of other items to consider on today's agenda. And so hopefully someone will be able to clean that up and bring us back something for final consideration at the end that works for me.
Speaker 0: Okay, so it sounds like I'd be willing to suspend the rules just because it's almost 5:00. I'm getting a little dizzy. It's important for us to consider. It sounds like you will have some language for us. And so I could move to the next agenda item as at the OR. You had other amendments to those, right on this one. So on that particular amendment, we will table it.
Speaker 4: Would it be easier for the clerk if we waited for the whole bill or.
Speaker 3: To.
Speaker 4: Keep going through.
Speaker 7: The OR should we vote on the amendment as described and we'll send the paperwork for someone to bring it? Okay. I am emailing it to Yolanda right now. I'm not sure who's responsible to do that or should I say somebody else. To.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Okay. So the First Amendment described by Councilmember Herbold, I am referring that as amendment number two is correct.
Speaker 4: So it has not been moved and has not been second. So we don't need to vote on it. We have a replacement version that I guess we'll be working on in the next couple of minutes.
Speaker 0: So we'll call that amendment number two that's making sort of speak. So we'd like to move number three.
Speaker 4: Thank you. So amendment number three would amend Council Bill 11 9607 to add that the proposed implementation plan should consider exempting residents over the age of 65 from the proposed requirement that all heating oil storage tanks in Seattle be decommissioned or replaced with a modern tank by December 31st, 2028, and a plan to fully fund conversions from oil heating systems to electric systems for households at or below 80% AMI. So o-C has explained that he pumps can certainly provide for lower heating costs over the long run and the those reduced monthly costs can result in the conversion actually paying for itself over over a period of time. But eligible residents may not have the longevity in their homes in order to enjoy those future benefits and are more likely to be on fixed incomes. So I want to ensure that the programs are funded, but I think it's really important that that in participating in the in the programs that we we don't have folks who we are saying on one hand will benefit from the decommissioning over time that don't actually have the opportunity to do so. And so for that reason, the the amendment would again exempt residents over the age of 65.
Speaker 0: That's from Brian.
Speaker 7: So I have some concerns about this because the amendment actually just says we should consider a plan if it doesn't actually exempt them. I'm comfortable with moving forward. My concern is, one, certainly folks over the age of 65 who are high net worth individuals I think should continue to follow this. And I think kind of an income threshold is important. The other point that I want to add, which exists already, we have income thresholds for for pass the this legislation is closely tied to.
Speaker 5: The.
Speaker 7: State funding through something called the the what is it pollution liability insurance agency. What this agency does, it was created because in the case where all things had leaked were a conversion. A decommissioning of an oil tank typically costs, I believe, around 5 to $700. If folks find that the oil tankers leave, then there's required soil remediation. And I'm told that can cost tens of thousands of dollars. And so someone who budgeted to go in and convert from oil to something else and they get their tank commission and part way through it, they realize they have this massive bill. There were some problems. One for folks that went through with it was really expensive. I believe there were also concerns that people would kind of try to cover up the leak because they just had no way to afford it. And that meant the pollution stayed in the ground. So this agency was created to to insure folks against that. It's an insurance pool. It doesn't actually cost anything to join. You just simply have to register. So it's a unique type of insurance. That agency ends at the end of 12 or the beginning of 2030, and there's a finite number of dollars that are allocated in the state legislature each year. This program, with the deadline of 2028, is designed to get all Seattle residents in to be considering these retrofit or these decommissioning before that insurance pool ceases to exist. And my concern is my one of my concerns is this may have an unintended consequence of allowing some seniors to postpone a decision to decommission a tank until a later date, at which point there may no longer be the insurance fund to help them deal with what could potentially be tens of thousands of dollars of soil remediation if they can. So, again, the amendment because it is it says we should consider it. I am happy to support it just with clarity that I would want the department to look at the complexities around both continuing to have an income threshold for folks, even if they're seniors. Maybe it's a different one. I don't know. And also what that might mean to folks that pushed on beyond the limit of the timeline of the insurance agency.
Speaker 0: So did I hear a an amendment and a second through that discussion?
Speaker 4: I will move Amendment three to Council Bill 1190 6072.
Speaker 0: Moved in second and Caspar O'Brien had expressed his support, but with some Asterix behind it. Councilman, particularly you wanted to make some comments?
Speaker 5: Sure. So I will not be supporting the amendment. And I just wanted to just really quickly give some thoughts about just not just this amendment, but the other amendments in the discussion around the heating oil tax itself. I am very, very sensitive to the issues of job loss that has been discussed and brought forth by Labor. My dad, as I said to folks, my dad had lost his job twice over the last three years. And so I know those worries and those concerns are very much very real and intimate. And so as such, I treat them with the utmost regard. However, I am concerned with creating additional exemptions or with the legislation in itself, because fiscally, with the direction that the bill has gone in, it may have some unintended consequences as we move forward. I thought that and I said to some stakeholders that I think that the tax policy and this is very unfortunate because of the tax structure that by which we operate, I thought the tax might be need to be a little bit bigger to help subsidize the increase and the exemptions that we've created. In addition to recognizing and being cognizant of the fact that we need funds and we need to start establishing funds to retrain workers and those union jobs that may potentially be lost as a result. So that said, ISC also and essential staff stated in committee that no other home investments do we evaluate as needing to have an ROI except for environmental and weatherization upgrades. I heard the the the actions and the voices of the young people who were protesting on Friday and saying, demanding and calling on all of us as leaders to to do what we can to make action on climate change that much more real and move quicker. That said, I cannot support this amendment and nor can I support delaying implementation of this legislation, because I do think that we need to be moving faster and be doing more that we can to both help communities transfer in over their conversion to these new weatherization efforts, as well as electric heating efforts. And so I would like to support the underlying legislation as is.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Pacheco. So we have an amendment number three. Would anyone else like to make comments for call on the vote for amendment number three that's been moved in second. Okay. Because we were worse.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry. Could you just clarify Amendment three one more time? Sure. Between two and the 80%. Ami, that's one we're focusing on, not the actual Amendment three, which is the extent implementation from July to September 2020.
Speaker 4: We're on to Amendment three is the amendment that asks for the implementation plan to consider some things. As we've discussed, it doesn't actually create any exemptions. It asks, and if I was unclear about that, I apologize. It asks that O.C. consider exempting residents over the age of 65, and it asks. It includes that a reference to the implementation plan to come back to us with information on how to fully fund conversions for households at or below 80% area median income.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: And Councilmember O'Brien's asterix should do it.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. We're going to vote on amendment number three as described by Councilmember Herbold, all those in favor of amendment number three. Raise your hand and say I. I was opposed. Say no one. Raise your hand. No, I believe I could see that one passed. Okay. Because remember Herbold.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Amendment four would amend Council Bill 11 9607 to the delay the effective date of the tax for two months. The bill currently says July 1st, 2020. My amendment would have the effective date be on September 1st, that same year, 2020, just two months later. And the reason is that I'd really like the Council to have a couple months to ensure the numbers add up from the July 1st, 2020 receipt of the implementation report. That's the date we're supposed to be getting that report along with Councilmember Mosquitoes Amendment. This could help address labor concerns and I think it's good public policy to have a little bit of time with the the report that is linked to the need for this particular tax.
Speaker 0: Or get a delay. Councilmember Brian, I'd like to respond.
Speaker 7: I will be opposing this. I understand the concerns. I'm fairly confident we're not going to agree to report back. They were conflicting. Too much money to fund all the things that we would like to fund in here. And by delaying it for a couple of months, that's just less revenue that we will be able to collect. I would be open to an alternative accelerating the reporting date if we wanted to see that sooner. But I'm I believe from all the preliminary data I've seen, is that we will have enough funding to fund those lowest income, the little over 1000 folks that we believe would qualify for UDP. And we have some funding to do some things for that next tranche of folks. And it'd be great to have additional revenue whether it's from this or likely from some other sources to do that. But I don't think I don't think that report is going to do justice. And I think simply stalling, putting on a tax on, you know, on the petroleum products is that and I don't think that makes sense at this point.
Speaker 4: I just want to add that part of what we accomplished in Councilman Mosquitos Amendment is that the the plan would also include risk assessment, racial equity analysis, as well as making sure that our new Green New Deal Oversight Board gets a copy of the plan. And I think that's all about it. I don't think it's proforma information that we're that we're asking for and going to be receiving. And again, I think it's appropriate for us to have a couple of months to consider it.
Speaker 0: Okay. So we heard the lively debate on extending it from 71291. I'll take it in the form of a motion. Do we need to discuss that any more? Any questions of the maker? Catherine Gonzalez.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Just really quickly, I think I'd be interested in hearing from Councilmember Herbold her response to Councilmember O'Brien's point that it's right that that a two month delay has. A significant fiscal impact on the amount of the tax revenue collected. Do you have a sense, Councilmember Herbold, of what the fiscal analysis is here? I do not. Okay. Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. So, Councilmember, will you make a motion so it would be second, please?
Speaker 4: I move amendment for two counts. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Moved and seconded all those in favor of amendment number four. Say I and raise your hand. I. Although the polls say no. One, raise your hand now. It passes. So amendment. 622682. It passes amendment number four passes. Council member Herbold.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Amendment number five hopefully will be pretty easy. It's just a recital recognizing the potential global warming impacts of hydrofluorocarbons in refrigerants used in consumer appliances such as electric heat pumps, and the council's commitment to advocate for a statewide legislation to expedite the reduction of HFCS with high global warming potential. We know that the state legislature passed and the Governor Governor signed into law. Senate House bill I'm sorry. Substitute House Bill 1122, which adopted regulations to reduce the use of HFCS in refrigerants, particularly those that have the highest global warming potential. This bill did not include heat pumps which prohibit the use of HFCS and heat by January 1st, 2020. And so this amendment would state the council's support for statewide legislation to expedite the reduction of HFCS with high global warming potential, and specifically calling out the need to address the issue as it relates to heat pumps.
Speaker 0: Customer. Brian, is this a friendly one?
Speaker 7: It's a recital, so I'm fine with that. I think that a lot of this has been addressed in the state law. I don't know. I'm not an authority to speak to the points that Councilmember Herbold is, but I know she's always very thorough in the things she does, so I take her to work there.
Speaker 0: Okay. So is there a sec? Did you make the formal motion amendment?
Speaker 4: I move Amendment five related to hydrofluorocarbons.
Speaker 0: Because amendment number five is moved. And second, it all those in favor of amendment number five. Say I and raise your hand. I opposed the ayes have it. Yes, unanimous. Is. We looping back now to number two.
Speaker 3: Yeah. You just get there. Is. Does that work? Just do you? All right.
Speaker 4: Thank you. That does the trick for the public record. This amendment to version two Amends Council Bill 11 9607 to request that the Office of Sustainability and Environment assess the viability of increasing the number of low income households that use oil heat eligible for the $120 annual reimbursement to all households at or below 80% am I median income.
Speaker 0: Okay. But don't just keep it alive. I'm sorry. Okay. Okay. So unless there's objection, I'm going to suspend the rules to consider this. It has been reviewed by law and council member Herbert. Why don't you make that and form a motion? We'll get a second. And just so we could dispense of that part.
Speaker 4: Absolutely. I move amendment to version 2.
Speaker 3: Seconds.
Speaker 0: I guess. Minnesotan council member O'Brien.
Speaker 7: I already spoke to supporting this and appreciate your flexibility comes memorable.
Speaker 0: Okay. Any other comments? All those in favor of amendment number two, raise your hand and say I, I oppose the ayes have it. And I think we go through all the amendments. Okay. So I'm going to turn it back to Councilmember O'Brien to see if you'd like any closing remarks.
Speaker 7: A couple of comments I want to make. One of this is a important piece of legislation. Appreciate the mayor's leadership on this. I appreciate stakeholder engagement on this. Folks have stuck around here for over 3 hours now just to get to this point. When we talk about making a transition to a clean energy economy that provides opportunities for increase union and family wage jobs in that new clean energy economy. It's an amazing opportunity and it's hard work. And we went through a lot of work on this piece of legislation, which affects the fraction of folks that live in Seattle. And we have a lot more work to do. And I just it's it's work. And we're going to have to keep engaging this work. I really appreciate folks who've engaged in this to get to where we are. I also want to say thank you to Yolanda on central staff. Central staff in general has been doing amazing work for the past few weeks as a number of us have squeezed in a number of extra committee meetings and they haven't even started their budget work, which starts today. And so I'm just extremely grateful for folks, including Yolanda's work to get the amendment back in time for all of us to vote on it today. So, colleagues, appreciate your engagement on this and look forward to more future work in the few months I have left.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Castro and Brian. Councilmember Mosquito, you'd like to see some comments and I.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Again, I said this earlier, but given the sausage making we just went through on making amendments, I want to underscore my appreciation for Councilmember O'Brien's willingness to incorporate numerous stakeholder suggestions and feedback. My intent is to always make sure that we have a conversation directly with folks and make sure that we're getting that feedback. And you've been very, very open to including that feedback. So I want to say thank you and also recognize that this is one of many items on the to do list before the end of the year and a piece of a broader package that we know one item alone is not going to address the climate issues that we see. And so I think this is a great example of how you personally and professionally have been reaching out to try to get some feedback directly from those directly affected. So looking forward to working with you, I really do hope that even though we did some sausage making up here, that the takeaway from today is that when we include the folks at the table, which, you know, in all honesty, I think the mayor's office could have incorporated prior to sending down the legislation so that we had less of that to do on our end, that we do get a better product in the end. So really excited about some of the work that you've done. And my understanding is that with the amendments that we've included today that you and I had the chance to work on over the last week with the feedback and direction from the Teamsters. And there's not opposition, in fact, that I think this is a good model for how we continue to bring folks together. So thank you for those nods of affirmation and and for your ongoing work to make sure that we move forward and don't delay and incorporate that work. Workforce and union perspective in the language. Thanks again for your hard work on this.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Customer and misguided customer and Pacheco.
Speaker 5: I just want to they want to quickly highlight, you know, these conversations are not easy and they're just going to get harder. The decisions and the lack of an action on a federal level or even internationally makes every decision that we make moving forward that much harder. And I want to acknowledge that. I also want to acknowledge the the emails that I've been receiving all day with the headline. It was only three days ago, and all the young people that marched and protests and everyone that asked us to move forward and move as quickly and expeditiously as possible with regards to this issue. These choices will not be easy. And quite frankly, I want to acknowledge how difficult those choices are, because it means for us as a society to be moving forward. It means so many trade offs. It means, given the fact that we live in the regressive tax structure, those that would be most impacted by any increase in taxes are going to be low income communities of color. And these decisions by the Green New Deal Board will be difficult. It's why I try to make sure that it was as inclusive as possible so that we had as many voices at the table when we when we make these decisions and balance these trade offs so that the council can make the best informed decision and given the variety of perspectives. But I hope. My colleagues will take today's conversation and continue it and keep moving us forward in the direction, as I say to many folks. I not only have a responsibility to you, but I have a responsibility to your kids and your grandkids. And so it is with that responsibility that I take the decisions that I take and the actions that I make. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Katherine Pacheco. You know, the closing comments from many of our colleagues before we vote. Okay, please call the roll on the passage of the amended bill.
Speaker 1: Whereas I must get to O'Brien Pacheco Swine Bank. John Gonzalez Herbold, President Harrell.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed in show. Sign it. Okay. Let's go back to our agenda. Order! Please read the next agenda.
Speaker 1: Item three point of the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee. Agenda Item two Appointment 1428 Appointment of Emily Alvarado as Director of the Office of Housing. The committee recommends the appointment be confirmed.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Mesquita. And thank you for your patience.
Speaker 6: Thank you for your patience, Mr. President and council colleagues. And thanks to Emily Alvarado for her patience and her interest in serving as our next Office of Housing Director. Emily Alvarado's appointment came to our committee in the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee from the Mayor's office. And I have to tell you, the testimony that we heard today was just a snippet of the enthusiasm that we heard from community. People are very excited about the work that she has done as interim executive director and the past work that she did at the City of Seattle working on affordable housing and equitable development for over a decade. You can tell that she has a lot of respect in the community from folks who came to testify today. And again, as I mentioned in council briefing this morning, if you listen to her comments in our committee last week, you will hear a compassionate call for equitable investments, especially in the lowest wage workers housing, and to making sure that as we do development in the city, that it is driven and informed by the community most at risk for displacement. So I encourage folks to take a look at that because I was ready to.
Speaker 3: To.
Speaker 6: Stand up and give her a standing ovation. Honestly, the the process that we've incorporated has much of your fingerprints on it, colleagues. Last year we asked for a really robust process for including stakeholder feedback from the interview process to identifying, finalist and then inner and then getting those community partners to have a role in interviewing folks. And I think you can tell from those conversations the role in which community has in identifying a strong leader really resonated. And I really am thankful to the mayor for nominating Emily Alvarado to be our next Office of Housing Director. She is knowledgeable about Seattle housing needs. She possesses a strong appreciation for the role of permanent and affordable housing and social inclusion, using housing as a tool to reduce poverty and creating healthier and more resilient communities. And she has the expertize, the knowledge and the relationships, importantly to make sure that as we move forward in the city to address our crippling housing crisis, that we really include deeply affordable homes and center our conversations in policy by those experiencing displacement and the lack of affordable housing. So she is still here in the audience with us. And we I think that's a testament to her tenacity and interest in serving in this position. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Ms.. Alvarado, you learn a lot about surveillance technology and oil heat legislation. So you got a bang for the buck here. Councilmember Bagshaw.
Speaker 2: Great. Thank you, Emily. It's with great pleasure that I support you in this. And I know I spoke at the committee how much we appreciate you all the work that you have done and my council colleagues who weren't there, maybe you know this, maybe you don't. But Emily is as an attorney, and when she was at the UW Law School, she received one of the most highly competitive and full rides there from the Gates Foundation Public Service Award. So I want to just tell you how how much I appreciated learning about that, didn't know about that scholarship and reward award that you received . And it just speaks volumes. And during that committee meeting, the number of people in our community who stood up and said, you are absolutely the right choice. It's just stunning to know how much support you have. So congratulations. And I'm just excited to be voting for you.
Speaker 0: Cast member O'Brien.
Speaker 7: I similarly am thrilled. I am struggling with all sorts of things in my own head as my last few months wrap up here in the city. And I know there's a lot of amazing folks up here that will hopefully carry on the good work that this council has done. And but I won't. I would be lying if I said I didn't have some concerns about my role and where the city goes when I'm gone. And I know that Emily's appointment is going to make me sleep better at night because I know that the city is in good hands and not that your work isn't cut out for you. But I have the utmost faith that there's not anyone I know of that would do a better job stewarding the amazing work that the Office of Housing has done to date. And that's one of the departments of the city that I'm most impressed with. And I feel just so excited that I get a chance to vote on your apartment before my time runs out here. Thank you for serving.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Can spend with Brian. Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 4: Well, thank you. Council president only to commemorate the moment by giving a 20 minute speech. Just kidding. I'm definitely not going to do that really quickly. I've had the pleasure of knowing Emily for quite some time, having come up through the law school ranks kind of around the same time. And I first met Emily when I was working for the mayor's office in 2014 and was always and consistently blown away by her preparedness, her commitment, but more importantly, her vision and her principal and her willingness to give us tough, tough information or news when she knew we wanted to hear otherwise. And so I think that that is an important quality to have as a as a director in the role of Office of Housing Director is a tall and important task, and it's one that I think that Emily has all of the characteristics and skill sets to be able to rise to the occasion. So I'm looking forward to seeing how you grow in this role. And also, it should be noted that Emily Alvarado is a resident of District One and is my neighbor, so that if that's not enough, I don't know what is. So you have to congratulations.
Speaker 0: You have to recuse yourself. Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 4: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. Congratulations, Emily.
Speaker 0: Any other comments? Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I just want to real quickly say, among the many things I appreciate in value about Emily is where she comes from. And I think it's really important that we have people in decision making roles that come from a place of pushing City Hall to do more. I think that ensures that we have a steward of the Office of Housing that knows how to push us all together forward, but also knows how to work with organizations whose job and mission is to push us forward. And I think that's really incredibly important in trying to ensure that we're all collaborating. You know, really somebody who appreciates that role that folks on the outside have in their expectations for us to do more so rather than seeing it as a as a hassle or, you know, a thorn in our back. I think Emily knows how to. Knows that the voices that are outside of city hall expecting more of us actually help us all do our job. Better if we didn't have done so. I really appreciate that history and that value for those that that's sort of.
Speaker 3: The.
Speaker 4: Value of that position that Emily holds.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Okay, great comments. I think I counted five, so I think you're looking pretty good here. Any other comments from the dais? Okay. If not. I'm going to call for a vote. Those in favor of confirming the appointment. Please vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. Motion carries. The appointment is confirmed and you can hear the self roro is not required. But if you'd love to share a few remarks with us at 530 on a monday, I might add. Please do. And it's absolutely my pleasure in supporting you as well.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I'll be brief. Good afternoon or evening, everybody. Thanks again for your confidence in me and thank you to Mayor Durkin for appointing me. As you've heard from other people I am passionate about housing. Housing is a human right. And when we invest in affordable housing, we improve the lives of so many individuals and families, but we also improve the life of the city as a whole. Because housing is our health care, it is our education. Housing is our economic resilience, and it's our climate resilience. And housing is also essential urban infrastructure. And if we leave it to the market alone, it will be infrastructure for only a few. And I believe together we can build an infrastructure of equity and inclusion for generations to come, for people on a fixed income, for people exiting homelessness, for low wage workers and for middle income households and across the city. And as director, I am really excited and honored to work with the fabulous staff at the Office of Housing, the community partners who we have and with all of you to advance racial equity, to scale up our investments in low income housing, to promote middle income housing, and to address displacement. And again, I thank you for your confidence in.
Speaker 0: The confirmation speeches I've ever heard. Thank you very much. Okay. Please read the next agenda item. I will remind our colleagues that if you do feel the need to take a short break, I could have called for a recess. That's what I was contemplating. But we're going to keep trying to plow through it. But if you have personal needs you have to attend to, we'll work around it. Long as we have a quorum here, we should be. Okay. So please read the next Jan item.
Speaker 1: Agenda item three accountable 119 654 Relating to Hotel Employees Health and Safety Repealing Chapter 14.25 would settle on a spa code. The committee recommends the bill pass customary.
Speaker 6: Mesquita Thank you very much, Mr. President. This will be short. Thanks for all of your past support on the four pieces of legislation that we just passed related to the hotel worker protections. As we celebrate, we also have one technical item we still have to address, which is the fact that the legislation from Initiative 124 is still on the books. And while those protections are not in place pending the ongoing court ruling, we do have to in some places, conflicting sets of policies on the books. And we want to make sure that we strike the original provisions of Initiative 124 so that when the four pieces of the legislation on hotel worker legislation is signed into law, there is no conflict with that. We'd recommend passage of Council Bill 119654 as suggested from my Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Mesquita. Any questions or comments on this legislation?
Speaker 2: Okay. Okay, great. Thank you. Councilmember Mosquito. You've done a great job.
Speaker 0: All right, there you go. Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Suarez, Macheda O'Brien Pacheco. Sergeant Major Gonzalez Herbold, President Harrell. I seven and they ran unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed and chair of Senate. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 1: Agenda item forward council bill 119 615 relating to the multifamily housing property tax exemption program. The committee requirements of El Paso as amended.
Speaker 0: Customer Mosquito.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. We're really excited about this piece of legislation. This is the NFT or multifamily tax incentive program that we have the opportunity of updating every four years. We've had three conversations in our committee about this and engage with stakeholders over the last two months. As folks know, the MFT program is a fixture of Seattle's affordable housing portfolio. It's aimed at incentivizing or creating more middle income housing through tax exemptions for new development. However, I want to underscore this is a voluntary program that the city is authorized to administer under the state's provisions. And it's important to note that in exchange for a tax tax exemption, new residential development projects are required to set aside a portion of units at rents affordable to families making between 60 to 80% of the area median income. So as we have the opportunity to look at the legislation in light of the changing demographics and increasing population size in Washington, Seattle, we took the opportunity to ask questions about what we could do to improve the incentives to make it more affordable for folks and to make it truly worth the public benefit of forgoing those tax dollars. Here's something that we did in this legislation based on data, based on feedback from stakeholders. We said we knew that the region had an increase in population, especially in folks who are making high wage incomes. And we know that those high wage incomes have skewed the area median income in the area, meaning that somebody who used to be at, let's say, 65% of the area, median income last year was actually making the exact same amount, but was making 60% of the area median income now. This is a really important element to consider when we think about who we're trying to incentivize the creation of these affordable units for. And we want to make sure that this tool is generating more affordable units for middle income households. And we did go through the robust process of talking with private development and talking with nonprofit developers in the community, working with labor and working with housing advocates to identify a few possible ways to better calibrate the incentive that we are offering in the MFT program with our goals of creating more affordable housing units and different sized units in the market. So there's a few things that we incorporated based on those conversations with labor, housing and nonprofit and market rate developers. Number one is we worked with central staff and found that there is an opportunity to slightly lower the affordable affordability threshold for some unit sizes so that one bedrooms and studios have more incentive to be affordable for our community. Our analysis and thanks again to central staff are working on this over the last few months. A few months indicates that this change that we've proposed in the legislation would not have a significant impact on participation in the MFT program. Number two, we worked with our labor partners on ways to advance labor standards. In this legislation, though, we want to do more. There is some limitations on what we can do at the city level. And so we've included a nod to potential future labor standard changes that may happen at the state level. Here in this legislation, we've directed the Office of Housing to include in their annual reporting any changes, including labor standards at the state level impacting MFT and recommended policy structures, and have directed the executive to collect data related to labor equity goals from participating projects so we can better understand the labor dynamics of the program. How many folks are getting good living wage jobs on these programs and advance labor equity efforts through the MFT program? So we wish our friends look at that in their conversations at the state level, for example, on including prevailing wage in the MFT program. But that is not something that's incorporated in this legislation at this point. And finally, we have updated our annual the annual reporting requirements to make sure that we at City Council get a better understanding and a more frequent information about changes in the market so that we can do a better job of responding not just every four years, but ongoing, actually twice a year. We're going to get an analysis and analysis of the housing market conditions, recommended policy changes, especially if there's a significant downturn or upturn in the market state level. Well changes as we talked about and demographic data of who is living in our MFT units to better understand are we serving our goals of creating more equitable, affordable and inclusive housing throughout the city with this program? If we're going to forego again those tax dollars, we want to make sure it's going to the public good. And that will help us with that. And that concludes my remarks, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Esqueda. Any questions or comments? If. If not, please call the role. On the passage.
Speaker 5: Of the bill.
Speaker 1: Whereas I. O'Brien. Pacheco. So on Bagshaw Gonzalez. Purple president hero seven in favor not oppose.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and Sheryll Simon.
AN ORDINANCE relating to crimes and offenses concerning animals; amending Section 9.25.100 of the Seattle Municipal Code.